Most Notable Quotations of 2010 (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Victor Steinbok]

Although I disagree with your premise and the generalization that flows
from it, I agree--or rather, resemble--your conclusion. I use the same
term (teabaggers--I missed the post that you're quoting so I don't know
whose wording that was) and I am dismissive of their
"arguments"--largely because I haven't heard any of any value (including
truth value other than 0) emanating from the entire group. In principle,
Barney Frank blazed the trail on this one when he suggested that he
could have more productive discussions with a dining room table.

A more important question is why this thread has devolved into
essentially a political discussion, not even a philosophical one? I'd
like to retrieve at least some linguistic content from what's left.
You're perfectly well aware that no one is using an "offensive sexual
term" when they say "teabaggers"--the allusion to that term certainly
gives a certain pleasure to the speakers, but these are separate
glosses. When people refer to "teabaggers" in this context, no one is
under illusion that they are referring to practitioners of a particular
sexual act. They are using terminology that arose from initial use by
the self-described "movement". This is quite different from calling
someone an "asshole" (or "arsehole", or just "ass" or "arse") since the
description is meant to represent the offensive graphic as much as it is
meant to tag a particular sort of behavior (at least, in the speaker's
opinion--and that's a part of the difference since being  a "teabagger"
is not a matter of opinion, while being an "asshole" certainly is). The
bottom line is, these are very different things. And I certainly can't
bring myself to refer to something that is not a political party--or a
bunch of celebratory, happy folks--as a "Party". That does not leave a
whole lot of lexical wiggle room.

     VS-)

On 11/22/2010 12:23 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC wrote:
>> Teabaggers insist on the constitution when it comes to guns, and want to throw it all out when comes to religion, civil rights and anything else they disagree with. And so it goes.
>>
> Anyone who refers to those who believe differently than they do in a
> political debate by offensive sexual terms is announcing up front that
> they don't want to have discourse, but would rather immediately dismiss
> the opponent (and their arguments).

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org