Connotations of various words

It's just a word. A word that means a girl who has sex with a lot of guys. It is not always an insult in and of itself; it is often used in a complimenting sense, such as, well, the sense in which I used it in that post. o.o (EDIT:And in case you do not believe me about using it as a compliment, see also the second definition on this from Urban Dictionary.)

So on and so forth. Personally, I think that the connotations of words should be respected to some extent and misunderstandings to be immediately apologized for. That being said, it's quite possible to also go far too far with political correctness in this manner, sometimes the word itself is necessary for the discussion and ignoring its existence or trying to give it a second definition does nothing but avoid the problem.

Thoughts?

Until people can read minds (translation: Know exactly what the other person means by completely understanding their feelings), such arguments will happen, and there will be little chance of resolution.

I think that political correctness can indeed go too far when decrying connotations that are mostly dead (e.g. denigrate having a racial connotation); I also think that if words are commonly used as pejoratives when their meaning is not inherently offensive (e.g. queer, lame, retarded), it is pedantic and obnoxious to act as if people using these words hate gays and crippled people.

Ugh, it gets worse when you use the word "retardation". It actually has some useful meanings with certain areas of engineering that needs a more exact definition than slowing down gives, yet when you try to talk to about it in laymen terms, you not only run into jargon, but offensive jargon.

edited 12th Jun '11 10:09:34 AM by Usht

Of course. The question is who to focus more of the blame on.

Personally, I would focus it on the presumptuous ones to begin with. They SHOULD learn to be more rational than to jump to conclusions like that, and bending over backwards to avoid offending them is not going to solve the problem in the long run.

The question of whether the ones using these words SHOULD not have is more disputable. Even if it was intentional, (which it often is not) what if it was a Secret Test of Character designed to distinguish between the more rational and less rational ones?

edited 12th Jun '11 10:08:59 AM by neoYTPism

"They SHOULD learn to be more rational than to jump to conclusions like that, and bending over backwards to avoid offending them is not going to solve the problem in the long run."

Bending over backwards would be to ignore a widespread and nigh-universal connotation because the speaker has an odd fondness for pedantry and archaisms. For example, it would be patently ridiculous of me to deride you for failing to read "fondness" as "foolishness," even though the word did mean this not so very long ago.

Why does anybody have to blame anyone?

That said, anybody behaving in the way you suggest would be somebody I would blame, because their conduct would be non-genuine.

"Why does anybody have to blame anyone?" - blueharp

Because blame ultimately belongs somewhere, even if we do not know where?

"That said, anybody behaving in the way you suggest would be somebody I would blame, because their conduct would be non-genuine." - blueharp

Non-genuine for a good purpose, though. See also the thread about "do the ends justify the means."

Now I am wondering if there should be another thread, about tests of character. o.o

...

As for kashchei's post, it has a good point, but one problem with it is that it implies that universality of connotation should be the basis for things like this. The problem with that is that it opens the door to hypocrisy; if someone jumps to conclusions about something because of a less universal connotation of a word, there is nothing to stop popular opinion from ridiculing them. If popular opinion then gets offended at ridicule towards those who are offended because of a more universal connotation then, well, isn't there something hypocritical about that?

When I hear "slut" I generally assume the person speaking either disapproves of that behavior, or is herself a slut and wants to reclaim the word; otherwise they would have just used "promiscuous woman" or something like that.

That being said, if someone disapproves of sluts I don't think they should go out of their way to hide that (I mildly disapprove of promiscuity i.e. I consider it a slighly negative character trait, along with laziness, lack of intellectual curiosity, dishonesty etc.)

Nope, you don't have to blame anybody, you're presupposing there IS blame, that there has to be somebody who has deliberately faulted.

That is not a given.

For the rest, no thanks, I don't see a need to bring a dead thread to life.

I don't see the point in blaming anybody. Generally, a speaker wishes to communicate and a listener wishes to understand. If a misunderstanding arises, that is to nobody's benefit.

I think of connotations as additional shades of meaning which words convey. When different people perceive words to have different connotations, they are essentially defining the word subtly differently. These distinctions in connotations can actually be very useful; it's very helpful to be able to distinguish between house and home, or between Samhain and Hallowe'en, or between resurrection and zombification, or between shagging and making love. When used deliberately, the specific choice of a word with particular connotations can convey more precise meanings than we otherwise could.

So yeah, it is a pain when somebody assumes a connotation other than that which was intended, but that's not necessarily anybody's fault.

slut:

c.1400, "a dirty, slovenly, or untidy woman," probably cognate with dialectal German Schlutt "slovenly woman"; dialectal Swedish slata "idle woman, slut"; and Dutch slodder "slut"; but the ultimate origin is doubtful.

Chaucer uses sluttish (late 14c.) in reference to the appearance of an untidy man.

Also "a kitchen maid, a drudge" (mid-15c.; hard pieces in a bread loaf from imperfect kneading were called slut's pennies, 18c.).

Meaning "woman of loose character, bold hussy" is attested from mid-15c.; playful use of the word, without implication of loose morals, is attested from 1660s.

Our little girl Susan is a most admirable slut, and pleases us mightily. [Pepys, diary, Feb. 21, 1664]

Sometimes used 19c. as a euphemism for bitch to describe a female dog.

There is a group of North Sea Germanic words in sl- that mean "sloppy," and also "slovenly woman," and that tend to evolve toward "woman of loose morals" (cf. slattern; also English dial. slummock "a dirty, untidy, or slovenly person", 1861; Middle Dutch slore "a sluttish woman").

Words have connotations, positive or negative. So what? Are we going to remove any words with negative connotations from our language? 'Bad' words are natural for the language - sometimes played straight, sometimes subeverted, sometimes even deconstructed, but they are always there.

edited 12th Jun '11 2:12:59 PM by nzm1536

Why would you remove words with negative connotations when sometimes that is exactly what you want to express??

I don't think anybody here is expressing the idea of removal of any words, are they? I thought this was about disagreement over meanings and interpretations instead.

edited 12th Jun '11 2:15:00 PM by blueharp

Yeah, words with bad connotations are fine. Using them in a positive or neutral context is risky, however.

In our language, there are sequences of sounds that, when put in succession, have meanings that are considered derogatory, vulgar, or obscene. This is a part of our culture and language.

Is it silly that some of these sounds are considered inappropriate? Yes.

But do these cultural norms exist? Definitely yes. If you violate a cultural norm, and then are surprised that people are getting angry at you, you are obviously either unaware of the norm or are attempting to piss someone off. So when you use words like this, Neo:

slut:

noun

- A slovenly or promiscuous woman

where slovenly means this:

adjective

- (esp. of a person or their appearance) messy and dirty

- (esp. of a person or action) careless; excessively casual

and promiscuous means this:

adjective

- (derogatory, of a person) having many sexual relationships, esp. transient ones

- (of sexual behavior or a society) characterized by such relationships

where the meaning, when applied to people or their behavior, is obviously insulting and in some cases downright derogatory, to act like I, a woman, am just a overly-sensitive and whiny prude for taking offense demonstrates that you either do not care I am offended by the connotations and you are trying to be misogynistic, or that you really have no idea what you're typing.