rayemoon wrote...
ipgd wrote...
I think the word "lame" is pretty innocuous considering it hasn't be used regularly in a medical context in decades, unless you're worried about offending horses. Language soldiers on 
True enough. Still, the dictionary definition of "lame" is "unable to walk normally," and I'm troubled by the conflation of that with "weak," "feeble," "ineffectual," "uncool," "bad," etc. But YMMV.
Dictionaries are often far behind the natural progression of language itself, which is practically a living, breathing memetic process. 'Tyrant' also originally meant someone who came into power illegally, regardless of their cruelty or lack thereof, a '****got' was a bundle of sticks, and 'tell' meant 'count'. All of these definitions are still in the dictionary even though they are rarely ever used that way in common speech anymore. Dig into etymologies and you'll find words that make no sense at all considering their parts ("awful"'s meaning should be closer to 'awesome' than what it actually is; 'nice' came from Latin 'nescius' which meant ignorant, unknowing, etc.).
Regardless, words are only offensive if a) there's an offensive sentiment behind them, and/or

the reader wants to give them that power, and in that respect,
any word can be offensive. Cruising around playing Word Police because some words can be offensive to some people when used in a different context with a different connotation would be a daunting effort. And also a counterproductive one, as words like 'lame' evidence, with its old "offensive" definition on the cusp of obscurity where it would offend no one ever again, were it not for the people who insist on resuscitating it and empowering it and
making it offensive when
it doesn't have to be. I'd worry more about people who are actually trying to be offensive than people who use words with multiple meanings.
hey what's a topic idk
Modifié par ipgd, 31 mai 2011 - 09:50 .