Most Notable Quotations of 2010 (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Victor Steinbok]

Ben Zimmer has addressed the historical part of this, but I wanted to
add a brief comment on continued use.

It is true that many people associated with the Tea Party (only later to
be changed, occasionally, to TEA Party with the bacronym "Taxed Enough
Already") turned away from "teabaggers" and "teabagging" when its
alternative (but pre-dating) meaning was made public. (Note, in
particular, that the slang term was not widely known at the time.) The
rest, who continued to use it even after the "revelation", eventually
abandoned the term because it became untenable within the group. But the
term certainly continued to be used--mostly derisively, no doubt, but
continuously and consistently--among liberals. And I've heard the usage
also among conservatives who opposed the "movement" as "ruderless" and
counterproductive.

A couple of points are important here. First, I have never heard a
single "tea-partier" verbally object to the use of "teabagger" even if
they do prefer "tea-partier"--or, even worse, "tea party patriot".
Second, there is a certain statement to be made here by liberals
/refusing/ to accept renominization within the target group simply
because the original terminology had become untenable or unpopular.
Consider what happened in the past, particularly when Republican
pollsters decided that "privatization" of Social Security was unpopular
and changed the terminology in midstream. Democrats and liberals
continued to use "privatization" and repeatedly pointed out that the
attempt to change the terms of the debate had no impact on the concepts
under discussion. However, a number of Democrats amenable to
privatization and, more importantly, many (but not all) reporters did
succumb to the ploy and started using alternative language. In the end,
the idea proved unpopular despite attempts to redefine the terminology,
in no small part due to the fact that critics were successful in showing
the continuity from "privatization". But the issue keeps creeping up and
largely with the new, invented terminology (and with opposition
rebuffing it by repeatedly referring to it as a "privatization scheme").
The issue had crept up in several Senate campaigns this year (most
notably in Nevada). It would be ridiculous to suggest--as many
Republicans tried in 2004-5--to suggest that it is /wrong/ to use
"privatization" to describe the proposed reforms.

So the point of maintaining original terminology is not merely
political. There is a more important statement here--particularly,
considering the irony that it is usually /conservatives/ who want to
change the language. I, for one, have been using "teabagger" and
"teabagging" as a term of reference to the Tea Party from its earliest
days--even before the wide revelation of its sexual content. So, to me,
it is merely a point of continuity, despite the inconvenience to the
target group. Despite Jon's objection, I also maintain that these are
divergent glosses that happened to have, coincidentally, the same verbal
representation (and sharing the underlying metaphorical object). On the
other hand, given the nature of the coincidence--and my attitude toward
the group--I do see it as a major bonus that only adds to the irony. I
am not going to pretend that I don't derive a certain degree of
satisfaction from the coincidence.

     VS-)

On 11/22/2010 5:52 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> My impression, which may be mistaken, is that "Teabagger" was introduced
> quite deliberately as a mocking designation.  The TEA party waved teabags at
> rallies. IIRC.
>
> I suspect that if TEA party people began to use it, many did so without
> knowledge of the then somewhat obscure sexual allusion.
>
> The fact is that knowingly calling TEA party people "teabaggers," unless
> that designation has been generally accepted within the TEA party itself, is
> even more crudely obnoxious than talking about "the Democrat Party."
>
> If I constantly refer to someone as a "bastard" or a "bitch," I can't weasel
> out of it by saying, "Well, we all know they're not literally these
> things."
>
> And it makes no difference if some people enjoy calling themselves
> "bastards" or "bitches" (as we know they do). That's their business.
>
> JL

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