Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[AckZel]

Well... nowadays there is cellular phones... and they still are telephones! So technical devices can get more modern but kilts cant? Why is the development so bad? Why cant kilt be modern too, UKs, AKs and so on wont make traditional kilts any worse... You can still use the normal telephone with the dialing plate if you dont like cellulars

[jkdesq]

Good grief, if people cannot understand sensitivities around the word "******" then .... Just hope we have the good sense to stay away from words that have been used as pejoratives for other minorities.

Words are funny things. They don't follow logic and they are not free of emotional responses. You have to be careful how you use them.

[Kiltedmusiclover]

Ok folks lets get back on target.
Many have tried to bring this thread back, yet we cannot seem to stay on topic.
No bickering over why words take on certain meanings.

This is the last warning.

For future reference find other words to describe cigarettes or peas.
If these words are used anymore the posts will be yanked.
If it is used anymore on this thread, it will be gone.

[James]

Without using this or that word-they were made b y a traditional butcher in the West Country-to an old recipe complete with caul.

James

[Kid Cossack]

I flee screaming! My head is exploding! KILTS, LADDIES, KILTS! If I want drama I will watch television. What were we talking about again? Weren't we talking about OUR SKIRTS? Hey? Bueller? Bueller?

[Rob]

Ok folks lets get back on target.
Many have tried to bring this thread back, yet we cannot seem to stay on topic.
No bickering over why words take on certain meanings.

This is the last warning.

For future reference find other words to describe cigarettes or peas.
If these words are used anymore the posts will be yanked.
If it is used anymore on this thread, it will be gone.

Nelson,

Is Xmarks purely a forum for citizens of the United States? Does it only take into account the sensitivities of Americans? The words, which you are declaring as 'banned', have no derogatory connotations in countries outside of North America, so why should non-Americans have to refrain from using perfectly normal (non-abusive) English words, just because some Americans have been stupid enough to assign dubious (non-original) meanings to them? You don't find us Brits complaining every time that Americans mention the term 'fanny pack', despite the fact that the word 'fanny' has acquired an alternative (slang) connotation in the UK. If we were to take this absurd self-imposed sensitivity to its logical conclusion, we would probably find that many words in the English language mean something impolite in other countries. Would we therefore feel obliged to ban their use, or would this only be the case if they are considered as being 'impolite' words in the USA? It should be perfectly obvious, from the context in which a particular word is being used, as to its intended meaning. If someone writes that they have just enjoyed a meal of 'f*****s and peas', only a fool would construe that the writer was making any sort of reference to anything other than food. Of course, to keep the post on-topic, the writer should refer to being kilted while eating such a restaurant meal. Don't give in to those who are intent on redefining words in whatever country.

[Freedomlover]

Nelson,.... so why should non-Americans have to refrain from using perfectly normal (non-abusive) English words, just because some Americans have been stupid enough to assign dubious (non-original) meanings to them?

Be careful. Making sense is not always a good idea. ;D

... absurd self-imposed sensitivity....

Thank you. That is just what it is. Over here in the U.S. (and more so in Canada) we seem to care way more about feelings than we do about facts.

A large part of this thread has been devoted to some folks desire to redefine what a skirt is simply because they don't like it. And I don't mean just choosing another term (such as KILT) for a male skirt, I mean denying that it is one in the first place. To me that is irrational. I think it stems, at least in part, from the foolish notion that no one should ever even [feel insulted.
That is a fairly recent idea, and hopefully we will return to our senses some day.

[jkdesq]

I think it stems, at least in part, from the foolish notion that no one should ever even feel insulted.
That is a fairly recent idea, and hopefully we will return to our senses some day.

Now I can understand the statement that, if someone unintentionally insults us, that we should be man or woman enough to deal with it. But the idea that in the past, people felt free to around intentionally insulting each other (without just cause) is not historically valid. I think to look at Victorian and Edwardian times, at least those people who considered themselves part of "polite soceity" made every effort to avoid insulting an acquiantance. Certainly in those times and times prior there was a general rule that one did not insult a social better. You will have to explain why you think people were so completely free to cast insults until "fairly recent" times.

Why is it such a bad idea to avoid offending someone or making them feel bad? You will have to explain why you think the freedom to do so is such a noble goal.

[Freedomlover]

Now I can understand the statement that, if someone unintentionally insults us, that we should be man or woman enough to deal with it.

Certainly.

But the idea that in the past, people felt free to around intentionally insulting each other (without just cause) is not historically valid. I think to look at Victorian and Edwardian times, at least those people who considered themselves part of "polite soceity" made every effort to avoid insulting an acquiantance.

Of course, but that was not my context, nor is it what I said. What I am, and have been, talking about is the ultra sensitivity of certain individuals and groups which leads to vociferous protest against any language he/she/they do not personally approve. It is called (for the benifit of our brethren from other countries political correctness). It amounts to political thought control and ought to rejected out of hand.

Certainly in those times and times prior there was a general rule that one did not insult a social better. You will have to explain why you think people were so completely free to cast insults until "fairly recent" times.

Obviously that is not what I think at all. The political banning of certain perfectly good words only because someone might fancy himself insulted is my focus.

Why is it such a bad idea to avoid offending someone or making them feel bad? You will have to explain why you think the freedom to do so is such a noble goal.

You have twice used the phrase "you will have to". Please explain, if you feel like it, why you feel I have to justify myself to you.

I have demonstrated that I do not see the freedom to insult at will as a noble goal. Neither do I accept that anyone else has the right to dictate my choice of words based on whether or not they will "feel bad" because of them. How a person reacts to language is an individual choice. The great majority of the members understand that. To expect to be insulated from dissenting opinion based soley on not liking the words chosen is ridiculous. If one does not want to be called a thief then one ought not to steal.

I consider this to be on topic because you, for reasons of your own, have chosen to define something that absolutely is a skirt as not a skirt based on the commonplace perception that skirts are female attire despite the contrary testimony of history.

[bubba]

Since I live in the US there are some words I don't use because in THIS culture they're derogatory and insulting. However, the US is not the only legitimate culture and those same words have an entirely different cultural context. Getting on the high horse and getting all upset over that is simply trying to force one cultural context on another and is more insulting and discriminatory than the word itself.