Welcome...

Welcome...

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

When did that become as theological question? I have no idea! It's just the question I would ask God if given the opportunity. Yes I think God can only answer that. Excuse me Allmighty, but why did you program us humans to chuckle and find humor in base bodily functions. Is it the cost of a soul? Dogs and cats (although I believe they have souls) seem not to take any joy and/or humor in their flatulence. And I know not if the other "senient" lifeforms such as whales and dolphin enjoy/find humor in their olfactory emminations as much as humans do. Do Chimps? They love to jerk off and play. They might find farting funny too.
I know why farts are funny. I make jokes. I make farts. Therefore farts are funny. ^_^ I want to know why that seems to bind all independent cultures that farts are funny. I mean farting is pretty much universally funny/gross. Smiling and crying are also. Just very human things.

I also guess that these aliens should understand us when we ask these questions, right? No mucky-muckying around with languages, semantics, etc. They're asking us to ask us anything (or using their human "contact").

Would asking show proof of quantuum gravity be the same as your question Preacher Matt?

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Out of curiosity though, when did that become a theological question? You sound as if only God could answer it.

I still think I'd go with "Please explain either a workable unified field theory, or why such a theory cannot work."

Monday, November 25, 2002

Oh, c'mon... you know why farts are funny.
Enuff. This sucks. ^_~

Back to MADNESS!!!

I'm reading a Carl Sagan book. The Demon Haunted World: Science As Candle In The Dark. And where to get it. It's basically a Skeptic's Bible. I'd advertise it as so. Non-Fiction, critical thinking on scientific ideas and topics and most importantly psedo-science and it's damages. Also science as American Culture.
About alien abduction stories and their eerie counterparts in history as demons, incubi, succubi, etc.
And how he used to get letters from alien abduction "survivors". They would say they were in contact with the extraterrestrials and for Carl to ask them any question.
Sagan asked for a short answer to Fermat's Last Theorum.
Sagan would even mail the problem itself. He never heard back. But in the footnote of this page, Carl Sagan muses that it would be a wonderful idea if someone or group came up with a book "10 Things To Ask An Alien."

So smarty panteseses:
What would you ask an alien? No not How To Serve Man. That's not funny.
I'm working on one. Don't answer right away (unless you have a dooozie! already) and please don't immediately put in your default "One Question To Ask GOD".
Mine would be "Why are farts so universally funny?". Aliens are not God and I doubt they could answer that anyhoo.



Since you weren't aware you were/could insulting someone with rude and vulgar language I guess then it's alright huh?

I don't think anyone saying "you suck" is unaware they're using insulting language, but it is possible to intend insult without intending to call someone a fellator (is that a word?).

Just because its usage is frequent doesn't mean its original context has magically dropped away.

Thanks for the example the other night, dude. I hope you don't take offense that I called you that... I mean, it used to mean a foppish city boy, but it's been frequently used without that intent enough that now it's just a throwaway mode of address, like "man" or "pal". Why can words like that change over time, but not "suck"? After all, you CAN still use dude in it's original context, or we wouldn't have folks vacationing at "dude ranches", just as you CAN still use suck to mean provide suction or give head. It just isn't NECESSARILY so.
[11/22/2002 9:48:01 AM | Preacher Matt]
Why would sucking be negative?
Here are some unpleasant things that are famous for sucking: leeches, mosquitos, black flies, assorted other parasites, toilet plungers, and chest wounds. It's also an undesirable/childlike behavior as with thumbs. Get your mind out of the gutter, pervert. :)


I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut the mustard well enough. I could see if someone is being childish and you say to them "you suck" inferring they're sucking their thumb but that's not the case in its general usage and you could wind up getting in a fist fight. It's not set up like that. What is needed to understand "suck" in it's vulgar usage (that is what we are talking about here, not it's practical usage or intended or literal usage but its vulgar usage) is a sense of cultural literacy. And even popular cultural literacy.
"Suck" by nature is not a negative word. It is an action, a verb. It desribes motion, vaccuum, usually properties of fluids.
It is the culture and the assumption that makes it a dirtier word and phrase. Why is "suck" a questionable thing to say in its vulgar context? Just because its usage is frequent doesn't mean its original context has magically dropped away. Also you bring up the point that people might not even know they're meaning fellatio or do not have it in mind when they use the vulgar "suck". That is part of the problem here. Or should I say the problem with declining speech. Since you weren't aware you were/could insulting someone with rude and vulgar language I guess then it's alright huh?

Calling me a pervert can only help if I was a Democratic President and you're the Republican lobby.
^_~

Friday, November 22, 2002

I already conceeded that "this sucks" was *possibly* originally a specific reference to fellatio, and had negative connotations for all of the reasons you describe. As it's usage became more frequent however, I think that the meaning dropped by the wayside, and only the negative connotations remained. I don't think the typical person saying something sucks has fellatio in mind any more than the average kid knows "ring around the rosy" is a song about the plague. If you can say the word and only mean the negative implications (which again, is now a dictionary-accepted slang usage) without it ever occurring to you what it might mean if taken literally, I don't think you can really say it "means" what it's literal meaning is.

Why would sucking be negative?
Here are some unpleasant things that are famous for sucking: leeches, mosquitos, black flies, assorted other parasites, toilet plungers, and chest wounds. It's also an undesirable/childlike behavior as with thumbs. Get your mind out of the gutter, pervert. :)

Aside from fellatio/sexual sucking (and even that can be percieved as a negative, as you've pointed out) or nursing (which is actually suckling), when is sucking GOOD? Okay... maybe crazy straws, but I'll submit that most things that suck have negative connotations.

Thursday, November 21, 2002

[11/21/2002 8:57:45 AM | Preacher Matt]
Sucks is definately vulgar English, all I'm contesting is the idea that "This sucks" necessarily means "This gives fellatio". That it has origins there and that it is vulgar doesn't mean that that must be either it's intent or interpreted meaning. As the dictionary said, it can simply mean that something ain't good or desireable.


And I will simply agree to disagree with you. We cannot change each other's minds nor will I be able to produce anything beyond my speculation, opinion and observances of the usage of this particular piece of vulgarity.
I just wonder how something can be considered not good or not desirable by applying the action of "sucking" to it. The first thing is fellatio. It is considered sodomy to the Judeo-Christian ethic. There can be something not good or not desirable when juxtaposed to this paradigm. Then comes the homophobic angle when introduced into my idea of the sport arena. When men are taunting other men with this vulgarity, it is even more sinister than before because unless you are progressive thinking, chances are that homophobic inculcation is part of your life. It was part of mine. I had to unlearn it.
So from the Judeo-Christian angle of sodomy, fellatio is wrong (or sinful). We can include homosexual behavior as part of that. Things that are "wrong" to a social "norm". Things that are "undesirable" to a social "norm". What makes a word "vulgar" is the intention and assumptive. "Vulgar" meaning more than simply "common" as its Latin counterpart. The kind of "vulgar" that people get often confused with "profanity". For "sucks" to be truly American vulgarity, the assumptive must mean fellatio for it to have a negative connotation.
What other reasons would sucking have that would be negative in this realm (besides Dr. Hooey's observation of sharing the F* gerund's plosive)?

Why would sucking be negative?
Again I ask:
Sucks what?
"Most of the vulgar language and images used in today's media would not be acceptable 40 years ago in the same visual and audio media. The common culture has changed (for the better?) and language follows suit but still does it completely rationalize usage of questionable phrases and words?"

Sucks is definately vulgar English, all I'm contesting is the idea that "This sucks" necessarily means "This gives fellatio". That it has origins there and that it is vulgar doesn't mean that that must be either it's intent or interpreted meaning. As the dictionary said, it can simply mean that something ain't good or desireable.

Oh, and welcome back to the world of the living. :)
I hear there will be a Star Wars: The Clone Wars cartoon coming soon to the American Cartoon Network. I hear that the production company that gave us the Powerpuff Girls and Samurai Jack will be doing it.
I haven't seen anything on Star Wars dot com as of yet.

Wednesday, November 20, 2002

Just found this on theforce.net...

Typewriter: $50
Paper: $6
Monkey: $1,000
Shackles used to chain monkey to typewriter: $15
Seeing the look on your fans' faces when you announce the title of the new Star Wars movie: Priceless.
"Most of the vulgar language and images used in today's media would not be acceptable 40 years ago in the same visual and audio media. The common culture has changed (for the better?) and language follows suit but still does it completely rationalize usage of questionable phrases and words?"

I concur.

I know I'm coming in late on the discussion here but I've been a little busy.

- K1W1 -

Friday, November 15, 2002

Like one of the development managers here is fond of telling me, "That's not a bug... it's a feature."
What? No Millie's not fixed. Millie's broken! There was nothing wrong with him. How can they call it 'fixed'?

Thursday, November 14, 2002

Wednesday, November 13, 2002

.
.
Winner of the Quickest No-Prize is Dan Lyon:
"The US. But that does not mean that we can just go around and attack other countries just because they have natural resources that we crave. And if we feel it is absolutely necessary to do so for other reasons, we need to be eloquent in our reasoning and make sure at least reasonable allies understand why we are doing it."
Original question of Who Won the Cold War?

Who won the Cold War? Or better put, did the US beat the USSR in the Cold War? Hmmm.

Wednesday, November 06, 2002

oui
Semantics in an argument about semantic. Somewhat fitting, n'est pas?
; ^ )

Tuesday, November 05, 2002

>Assumed in the context, run on foot in an athletic matter.

Oh, please. Not run how... run what. Even if it's to run a race, there's a world of difference between running the race (participating by running on ffot in an athletic manner) and running the race (organizing, promoting, and officiating). It is about context, and in the sucking context in question, "This race sucks" only means that the race is objectionable. If you want suck to have fellatio assumed in context, try "Suck me."

Monday, November 04, 2002

Preacher Matt wrote:
Basicly, I don't think there is, or needs be "an assumed thing to suck upon". It sucks... it doesn't suck on something. As they have different meanings, those are essentially different words, like run (jog) and run (operate). If someone says they like to run, there isn't a necessary assumption about what they like to run... it's simply a different usage.


Run what? Assumed in the context, run on foot in an athletic matter. Context, it's all about context. Although when someone says something/one sucks, one doesn't assume any variety of North American Chiefly nor to siphon.


>It's just as dirty as it ever has been.
Preacher Matt wrote:
Then why does the average person find it more offensive to say that something "sucks dick" than to say it "sucks"?


Because the one
a.) looses the assumptive which takes all the joke and fun out of it. And
2.) because it's not said in the media that way. Basically by saying "sucks", the one can swear without swearing*.

I do not agree that "sucks" is victim of lingual evolution. I believe that "sucks" is a result of declining standards. A$$hole can now be said on NYPD Blue. Will it be long until it matriculates (or trickles-down, I guess it's the one's P.O.V. of lingual standards) into the "acceptable" vernacular? Where 8 year olders say it (I might have already but I knew *if I said "that sucks" in front of my mom I would have gotten cuffed)?

Most of the vulgar language and images used in today's media would not be acceptable 40 years ago in the same visual and audio media. The common culture has changed (for the better?) and language follows suit but still does it completely rationalize usage of questionable phrases and words?


>The Sports Arena argument cements the existing underlying homophobic feeling that puts the "negative" in the phrase.
Preacher Matt wrote:
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm just saying the making sense doesn't make it true. It's good conjecture, but it's only conjecture.


I believe "conjecture" does not convey the spirit of it; conjecture has very negative hues to it. More in the vein of "postulate". I say postulate because the fellatio is taken for granted in "sucks". That is established. The homophobic overtones are merely observation; not guesswork.


Preacher Matt wrote:
I don't think it's proper to assume that when someone says "sucks" meaning "is objectionable or inadequate" that they mean "fellates".


Again, the negative quality of "sucking" stems from the unfortunate happenstance of having to be forced to perform fellatio on the person/idea. The objectionable and/or inadequate can also be shared with it's identical cousin "that blows". No one is fellating but it is the assumed part that the fellation is the negative part. Fellatio is only negative to the prude or when it is man-on-man**.

**not saying it is negative or bad but merely illuminating obvious attitudes.


>The Sports Arena argument cements the existing underlying homophobic feeling that puts the "negative" in the phrase.

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm just saying the making sense doesn't make it true. It's good conjecture, but it's only conjecture.

>It's just as dirty as it ever has been.

Then why does the average person find it more offensive to say that something "sucks dick" than to say it "sucks"?

>you are wrong to say I was " calling something objectionable or inadequate is belittling to gays". I never said it, you cannot quote me nor is it right of you to be that assumptive about my opinion about this.

You'll kindly note I didn't use quotes. My intent was simply to show that there is an accepted meaning of suck that is distinctly different from fellatio, neither to make assumptions about your intent nor put words in your mouth. Perhaps I should have enclosed "objectionable or inadequate" in parenthesis. There is no mention of fellation in the "objectionable or inadequate" definition, and so I don't think it's proper to assume that when someone says "sucks" meaning "is objectionable or inadequate" that they mean "fellates".

Basicly, I don't think there is, or needs be "an assumed thing to suck upon". It sucks... it doesn't suck on something. As they have different meanings, those are essentially different words, like run (jog) and run (operate). If someone says they like to run, there isn't a necessary assumption about what they like to run... it's simply a different usage. If the origin of sucks is as you suggest, and I'll accept that it's a strong possibility, I believe it no longer necessarily holds that meaning, and I think that persisting in holding it true to it's literal origins serves only to revitalize such homophobic connotations as it may once have had. The history of our language is not the same as it's present, and sucks now has an accepted (albiet slang) usage that has nothing to do with the act of sucking on anything.

It might once very well have literally meant sucks, but that was then. I don't believe that meaning is still valid without specifying the object that is sucked. I think the ship of my evolving opinion on the matter may have found harbor here. I await the storm of your rebuttal. :)
Preacher Matt wrote:
I'm not sold on your "arena chant" origin assertion, and I'll persist in not emphasizing the alleged homoerotic nature of things that suck.


Then does the negativity that stems from "sucking" come from a puritanistical attitude? That fellatio is sodomy and therefore against God's words or that fellatio is morally wrong? Why the negativity over fellatio? The Sports Arena idea hits it on the head. The Sports Arena argument cements the existing underlying homophobic feeling that puts the "negative" in the phrase.

Preacher Matt wrote:
Frankly, I think doing so is more damaging than using a phrase that has been linguistically white washed, and that really sucks ass (which is honestly, now that I think of it, the first "dirty" meaning of the phrase I was familiar with... shit eating, not cock sucking).


It has not been linguistically white washed. It's just as dirty as it ever has been. It's our perceptions of what is acceptably vulgar versus what is obscene that have changed.

Preacher Matt wrote:
Furthermore, I checked the unabridged Webster's Dictionary, and found separate and distinct suck entries for "slang : to be objectionable or inadequate" and for "slang : to fellate". Does this not imply separate and distinct meanings? There were over 15 definitions of suck... why do you insist that calling something objectionable or inadequate is belittling to gays?


http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Suck

I never included "objectionable or inadequate" into my argument therefore you are wrong to say I was " calling something objectionable or inadequate is belittling to gays". I never said it, you cannot quote me nor is it right of you to be that assumptive about my opinion about this.
I say it's not right to be assumptive over my opinion because even including "objectionable or inadequate", how does that distract from my argument. It only supports it seeing that the negativity behind "sucks" stems from fellatio. You agreed that "sucks" and "blows" are interchangeable. I believe you think the assumed thing to "suck" upon in the negativity of the phrase is penis.
Again…if something sucks and is "objectionable and inadequate", sucks what in particular. And why does sucking whatever you answer make it negative?
What act of fellatio is negative then?

Cheers!
^_^


Friday, November 01, 2002

I'm not sold on your "arena chant" origin assertion, and I'll persist in not emphasizing the alleged homoerotic nature of things that suck. Frankly, I think doing so is more damaging than using a phrase that has been linguisticly white washed, and that really sucks ass (which is honestly, now that I think of it, the first "dirty" meaning of the phrase I was familiar with... shit eating, not cock sucking).

Furthermore, I checked the unabridged Webster's Dictionary, and found seperate and distinct suck entries for "slang : to be objectionable or inadequate" and for "slang : to fellate". Does this not imply seperate and distinct meanings? There were over 15 definitions of suck... why do you insist that calling something objectionable or inadequate is belittling to gays?
Preacher,
I'm so sorry but that is such a cop out. You are excusing inappropiate language because "everyone else is doing it". The word hasn't lost its original meaning and evolved, our cultural attitudes of what is shocking has devolved. I do agree it no longer has the emotive value as before but that does not negate that it is a foul thing to say still but it is still culturally acceptable.
This is the circumlocution I mentioned before that makes anything justified. The word has not evolved. It has many meanings in individual context and in the context that we are discussing, it comes from a real and unoutrageous homophobic arena chant that has matriculated into the mainstream. I will not concede the word has evolved past its original meaning. It has become a generic insult yes. So has this example.
Tangent time: an episode of the New Twilight Zone, an Elvis impersonator ends up in the past and meets Elvis before he becomes famous. Elvis mistakes the timelost stranger as his long dead twin brother Arron. The two bond and the timelost man has an argument with Elvis wherein he calls Elvis a "dumb son-of-a-bitch". Elvis charges him and says "what did you say about my Momma!!!"
Elvis dies in the conflict leaving the impersonator to become Elvis.
SOB is still a horrible thing to say but is culturally acceptable. But this about calling someone an SOB for a second...

My point of this is: watch what you say to people. They might not get the joke. Suck what???