Hey, I’m not saying it’d be nice to use these terms. “Bad” is meant from the perspective of the person using the term. I guess you could even include “gay” in that category if the intent is to deride someone for being a homosexual? The problem there isn’t transmuting the identity into a separate bad thing, but being a homophobe.
So there are two related things you can do with such insults that we have identified so far—one is indicating that you disapprove of a particular trait that may be shared by others, the other is using a particular trait or group as though it meant (some particular kind of) bad, which might be because of an actual bias, insensitivity, or whatever. (This is of course leaving off the more proximate effect of hurting the feelings of the person you’re calling “not groovy”.)
So I still think there is an important distinction you’re missing—you can insult a single person without using an unrelated trait to stand in for ‘badness’. D’you see what I mean?
you can insult a single person without using an unrelated trait to stand in for ‘badness’. D’you see what I mean?
You can also insult a person without using the letter “e”. You came up with an ad hoc rule which the original complaint happens to fit but which, I argued, does not really divide the allowed from the disallowed put-downs. You are trying to argue that the original complaint makes sense by trying to inject a neutral and fair-seeming criterion into it.
As I have pointed out, there are plenty of disallowed put-downs which do not fit your criterion. Conversely, as was shown with the example of “anemic”, there are allowed put-downs which fit your criterion. So your criterion does not fit the facts about what is and is not allowable. It does not explain or justify the complaint.
you can insult a single person without using an unrelated trait to stand in for ‘badness’. D’you see what I mean?
You can also insult a person without using the letter “e”.
The distinction being that the former is relevant to a societal norm which often constitutes a useful distinction: if you insult someone by saying they have a particular trait, you are probably not too concerned that this will hurt the feelings of people with that trait—you think it’s bad! But if you use this other sort of insult, you might be unaware that you are additionally insulting some other group, and might change your behavior if someone indicates that people could take offense to it.
My key point is: you said “So you’re looking for an offensive term that’s not offensive.” This was an inaccurate description of the desire expressed! There are plenty of ways to offend someone that are more targeted.
The distinction being that the former is relevant to a societal norm which often constitutes a useful distinction: if you insult someone by saying they have a particular trait, you are probably not too concerned that this will hurt the feelings of people with that trait—you think it’s bad!
You think it’s bad for that person specifically to have the trait. You can convey that someone does not have traits suitable for their desired identity while not necessarily deprecating the traits in general. You could, for example, mock a guy for having boobs while wholeheartedly approving of boobs. Something similar applies to mustaches—even though there may well be racist connotations when that one is used.
The distinction being that the former is relevant to a societal norm which often constitutes a useful distinction: if you insult someone by saying they have a particular trait, you are probably not too concerned that this will hurt the feelings of people with that trait—you think it’s bad!
You think it’s bad for that person specifically to have the trait. You can convey that someone does not have traits suitable for their desired identity while not necessarily deprecating the traits in general. You could, for example, mock a guy for having boobs while wholeheartedly approving of boobs. Something similar applies to mustaches—even though there may well be racist connotations when that one is used.
True enough. Though I’d probably treat that context (“guy with boobs”, “bad mustache”) as part of the “trait”—at least in the sense that you’re not likely to offend someone who doesn’t fit in the precise group you’re mocking your target due to their membership in (er… that sentence was sorta cumbersome, but you get what I’m saying, right?).
I was going for “woman with mustache” or “guy whose mother has a mustache”.
Ah! I haven’t really encountered this one in the wild much (vastly more familiar with “that guy has a bad hipster mustache”, luckily), but I see what you’re saying.
Ah! I haven’t really encountered this one in the wild much (vastly more familiar with “that guy has a bad hipster mustache”, luckily), but I see what you’re saying.
It becomes a bit more common if you are in an environment with certain kinds of ethnic makeups. It becomes an interesting case in as much as it is offensive at the expense of people who do not even have the trait. Ofttimes part of the conveyed insult is not just ‘you/your mother have a mustache’ but ‘you are of X racial background’. This means that people of race X who (or whose mothers) do not have mustaches are being insulted (as well as those who do).
The same principle, just with an extra layer of indirection.
Hey, I’m not saying it’d be nice to use these terms. “Bad” is meant from the perspective of the person using the term. I guess you could even include “gay” in that category if the intent is to deride someone for being a homosexual? The problem there isn’t transmuting the identity into a separate bad thing, but being a homophobe.
So there are two related things you can do with such insults that we have identified so far—one is indicating that you disapprove of a particular trait that may be shared by others, the other is using a particular trait or group as though it meant (some particular kind of) bad, which might be because of an actual bias, insensitivity, or whatever. (This is of course leaving off the more proximate effect of hurting the feelings of the person you’re calling “not groovy”.)
So I still think there is an important distinction you’re missing—you can insult a single person without using an unrelated trait to stand in for ‘badness’. D’you see what I mean?
You can also insult a person without using the letter “e”. You came up with an ad hoc rule which the original complaint happens to fit but which, I argued, does not really divide the allowed from the disallowed put-downs. You are trying to argue that the original complaint makes sense by trying to inject a neutral and fair-seeming criterion into it.
As I have pointed out, there are plenty of disallowed put-downs which do not fit your criterion. Conversely, as was shown with the example of “anemic”, there are allowed put-downs which fit your criterion. So your criterion does not fit the facts about what is and is not allowable. It does not explain or justify the complaint.
The distinction being that the former is relevant to a societal norm which often constitutes a useful distinction: if you insult someone by saying they have a particular trait, you are probably not too concerned that this will hurt the feelings of people with that trait—you think it’s bad! But if you use this other sort of insult, you might be unaware that you are additionally insulting some other group, and might change your behavior if someone indicates that people could take offense to it.
My key point is: you said “So you’re looking for an offensive term that’s not offensive.” This was an inaccurate description of the desire expressed! There are plenty of ways to offend someone that are more targeted.
You think it’s bad for that person specifically to have the trait. You can convey that someone does not have traits suitable for their desired identity while not necessarily deprecating the traits in general. You could, for example, mock a guy for having boobs while wholeheartedly approving of boobs. Something similar applies to mustaches—even though there may well be racist connotations when that one is used.
True enough. Though I’d probably treat that context (“guy with boobs”, “bad mustache”) as part of the “trait”—at least in the sense that you’re not likely to offend someone who doesn’t fit in the precise group you’re mocking your target due to their membership in (er… that sentence was sorta cumbersome, but you get what I’m saying, right?).
I was going for “woman with mustache” or “guy whose mother has a mustache”.
Yes.
Ah! I haven’t really encountered this one in the wild much (vastly more familiar with “that guy has a bad hipster mustache”, luckily), but I see what you’re saying.
It becomes a bit more common if you are in an environment with certain kinds of ethnic makeups. It becomes an interesting case in as much as it is offensive at the expense of people who do not even have the trait. Ofttimes part of the conveyed insult is not just ‘you/your mother have a mustache’ but ‘you are of X racial background’. This means that people of race X who (or whose mothers) do not have mustaches are being insulted (as well as those who do).
The same principle, just with an extra layer of indirection.
Huh. Our cladistics of insults could get pretty elaborate!