N/S--Flacco says Superbowl in cold weather is "********" (1 Viewer)

[JimmyB1775]

I instantly saw his comment and thought, "here comes a forced apology". I can't believe society has created such a list of things we can't say anymore. I understand the concept, I do. But as people fight for their first amendment rights and win, "The Unwritten Rule" is beginning to be what governs most of us. It's a little annoying if you ask me. Once kids became a part of my life, the word "silly" became a replacement for @#*$ and *$@((#$-@#$$ and *!@%$#. Now I sound like a silly person because where everyone else has a variety of curse words and ones like the term in question, I say silly. My filler-word vocabulary has been crippled.

 

[billinms]

So you think it's a stretch that he used the word to call into question the mental capabilities of those who decided to put the Super Bowl there?

He said it's a "********" idea. I think most people - whether you agree or not (and you seem not to agree) - assume that he's saying people who thought this was a good idea are "********"

if you want to split that hair, differently - then explain. I still don't know what you mean or what you think he means. You're calling into question other people's impressions, why not explain yours?



But why not? You're the one who is saying other people are "misrepresenting" what he said. How can you say that unless you're pretty clear what he intended?

I don't get how you want to offload the semantics work to someone else, when that seems to me to be the basis of your argument in the first place.

And I didn't say that it's always used in a demeaning manner. But I think it's often (if not mostly) used in a demeaning manner. YOu don't think he meant to be insulting of the people holding the idea or the idea? It seemed that way to me.

But I'm well aware of the different meanings - and I mentioned that in the first response. That it can mean different things - literally, figuratively, and cognitively.


this seems to be the real issue with you - not over this word but the RIP Free Speech that this somehow connotes.

and spare me the sanctimony

"brain cells dying" and then you used the word "crucify" and now you're using the argument that his "rights" are being infringed upon and that he's being called a "prejudiced bigot".

NOne of that is happening. Who called him a prejudiced bigot? Who crucified him? How has his "right" been taken away? I don't see any of that true.

What I see is a valid point with a poorly chosen word by a public figure being held accountable.

In this thread, it's interesting to note that the people most offended aren't the people offended by the word's usage or by Flacco. And, instead, are the people resorting to hyperbolic statements to make this out to be more than it actually has been

You take these things waaaay too seriously.

 

[RazorOye]

You take these things waaaay too seriously.

I didn't say anyone was crucified.

I didn't say anyone had been stripped of their First Amendment rights.

I didn't say that Flacco had been marked as a "prejudiced bigot"

I didn't claim my brain cells were dying.

So, I don't think I'm taking it nearly as seriously as some others. But ymmv

 

[bigcobra]

For the record, I think its bs for Flacco to apologize. But, I think it's funny that the guy on here who thinks it was derogatory used the term "handicapped" multiple times. For quite a few years now, it is well known the proper term/phrase to describe such an individual is a "person with a disability". The fact that you used the word handicapped leads me to call into question exactly how many "scientific conversations you had with professors about down syndrome." Unless it was in the 1980's or something. lol. I could care less what anybody says. Just thought i would point that out. In your attack on Flacco, you committed an equally immoral act in the eyes of most libs.

 

[V Chip]

How did I know which people would make which comments in this thread? Too easy...

You take these things waaaay too seriously.

Some people have common courtesy and think about the effects of their words and actions.

Others don't.

 

[Darth Deuce]

George Carlin had a pretty good opinion on the "pussification" of the English language.

With regards to the OP, I agree that the Super Bowl should be a neutral environment that is not conducive to the advantage of either team.

 

[Superfuzz]

billinms you were on fire in this thread...I was cracking up. Thank you for that.

 

[billinms]

How did I know which people would make which comments in this thread? Too easy...



Some people have common courtesy and think about the effects of their words and actions.

Others don't.

I'm glad I made it easy for you. To be honest, I thought it was an unfortunate choice of words, and he quickly said that he shouldn't have used it. I only said Oye was taking it too seriously because he seemed to be getting pretty worked up, I could have just as well have said it to the "OMG free speech" crowd. I look at most things through humor, and I found most of the reactions to be funny.

edit: And for the record, I didn't give you the red thumb.

 

[Euphonetiks]

Please let me clarify so that you or anyone else doesn't get the wrong idea, because we agree on several points.

Not once in my post did I advocate the use of the word in order to describe an mentally handicapped individual. I said to think about the use of the word in general and whether you should say it.

I agree that it is a disgusting thing to call a mentally handicapped person. I will not dispute that, and have NEVER disputed that.

I'm not "misusing" any words. I will not use the word to describe a mentally handicapped individual, nor should anybody. But to completely ban the word as if it has no merit in society is frivolous and ignorant in and of itself. It is a word, people. Unless someone uses it with malicious intent, get over it.

The word has become a derogatory term just like several other words. When you say it, you are trying to put down an idea or another person by comparing them to a person with a disability. You are essentially saying that someone or some idea is as bad/worthless as a mentally handicapped person. You really do not see where that is still offensive to a person with a disability even if it is not directed towards them???

If you are using it to describe something in a negative light or as a proxy for stupid, then you are "misusing" the word. If you are using the term to describe the slowing of a thing or process, such as "The phase of the light ray is ******** by a quarter wavelength to maximize the microscope's contrast."

The word is so closely associated with the mentally impaired that even if you are using it to describe an idea or a person without developmental issues in a negative light, it is still insulting to those with disabilities.

I would never want to use the word to describe someone or an idea in front of this girl and so I do not use it in that manner:
Lit Up Like a Parade « NOLAFemmes

 

[V Chip]

I'm glad I made it easy for you. To be honest, I thought it was an unfortunate choice of words, and he quickly said that he shouldn't have used it. I only said Oye was taking it too seriously because he seemed to be getting pretty worked up, I could have just as well have said it to the "OMG free speech" crowd. I look at most things through humor, and I found most of the reactions to be funny.

edit: And for the record, I didn't give you the red thumb.

I didn't mean you made it too easy for me -- that was a general comment about the thread and not your statement. I meant it is too easy to know who was going to post what based on other factors and posts people make. Again, the first comment had nothing to do with the your quote (which is why I put that above your quote to hopefully show that was not in response to you; apparently I didn't do a clear enough job of it ).

I don't think Oye was getting worked up -- that's just how long it takes Oye to explain himself well. He has a rep as being long-winded, but hey I'm starting to get up there too so... /out

 

[IceHot]

Gay used to mean happy. I miss being gay.

You can still be gay...just watch an episode of the Flintstones.

A good Danny Kaye film can work as well but those are harder to come by...If you go that route I might recommend "The Court Jester" with (Glynis Johns, Basil Rathbone, and Angela Lansbury, and even Billy Curtis)

 

[RazorOye]

I don't think Oye was getting worked up -- that's just how long it takes Oye to explain himself well.

pretty much this

if tl;dr posts were some true indicator of "getting worked up" then my body of work on here would've meant cardiac arrest a loooooong time ago :17:

 

[IceHot]

The word has become a derogatory term just like several other words. When you say it, you are trying to put down an idea or another person by comparing them to a person with a disability.

I think you have this backwards. The word was used to describe mentally handicapped people, insensitively ascribing the slow thinking process to them.

Thus it is inappropriately derogatory when used to describe someone like my nephew who has Downs.

However, when used to describe some one who is slow of thinking with no mental handicap or who has said something without thinking then it is properly derogatory and apropos.

Sometimes Jack isnt just a donkey.

 

[TheDeparted]

What if I want to ask someone here about tuning an old car, and they try to tell me to ****** the timing a bit?

 

[IceHot]

No it is politically incorrrect. What if a funtional ****** is a sports fan and was reading
Flacco's quotes they would be insulted.

Or they might not be....nobody gets enraged when we "handicap" games. I dont think you give people enough credit to see who was being insulted and who wasnt.