My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not* relevant.
I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make it a double entendre. Etc. And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is up to that group. On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body > parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not > for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly > acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to > your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others > that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant. > We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent > meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend > everyone. > Martha > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargo...@gmail.com wrote: > > I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance > of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb > "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word > despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly). > That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't > belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an > identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when > used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly > abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant. > > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Martha, > > Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago, > would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+ > of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering > people? > > Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant. > > Ron > On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered >> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for >> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really >> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without >> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the >> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for >> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started >> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no >> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason >> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the >> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries. >> Martha >> >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers < >> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion. I still have several >> unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have >> claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in >> any context, in any language. More about why she herself uses the word >> later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a >> capital G. To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the >> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning. >> >> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909 >> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down. Two of the three dances in the 1909 book >> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland. We do >> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we >> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic >> language) - gaze or glance. >> >> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved. But if you >> feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there >> are a lot of other words you should stop using as well. >> >> Janet >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers < >> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing. >>> >>> Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen," >>> because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told >>> we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear. >>> >>> But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and >>> "Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and "Women" really did >>> refer to what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to >>> switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the >>> words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any more. >>> >>> Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use >>> "Ravens" and "Larks" now. >>> >>> This is all to say, those who come to the dance have many differing >>> associations with words. And sometimes it is important that we listen. >>> >>> Take "He" and "She." We all know that "He" has been the generic pronoun >>> where "She" refers only to women. Since we live in a society dominated by >>> the patriarchal Christian religion, it's clear that using "He" and "Him" >>> generically supports this concept. Many of us, in the sixties and seventies >>> counteracted this male dominance by using "She" and "Her" as the generic >>> pronoun. It was startling how different it feels to switch to those. There >>> are now corners pushing to just use "They" and "Them" for everyone, like we >>> use "you" for both plural and singular. Maybe it will take hold... >>> >>> But all this is to say, these little words do have an affect on how we >>> think about things. >>> >>> So now we are thinking about "gypsy." Or, better with capitalization, >>> "Gypsy." Is it derogatory? To some, not all. Is that reason enough to >>> change? Perhaps for some. I've started using "Right Shoulder Turn," and >>> "Left Shoulder Turn." It doesn't slide off the tongue, an isn't as >>> colorful, but it is more descriptive. At Contra Carnivale, Susan Michaels >>> said someone had come up with "Roma-around," or "Romaround.." >>> >>> So we're all dealing with it, and considering this as: >>> >>> Some of us are attached to our words, and don't want to loose it. Some >>> of us are vociferous about keeping it. And some of us are searching for a >>> substitute that might work better. Seems about right. >>> >>> Mostly, I want to suggest, as we struggle with this, consider how our >>> language and word choice does affect others, whether we mean it to or not. >>> As callers, we are in the public eye--granted a small pond of the >>> public--but our words do go out there and cause others to think, too. >>> >>> What's in a word? A lot. >>> >>> ~erik hoffman >>> oakland, ca >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >