HD: 1981 Words
Posted: 08 June 2012 04:30 AM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4656
Joined  2007-01-03

Chill pills, Pac-Man, and hosers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2012 05:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3448
Joined  2007-01-29

ableism, n. (also ableist, n.) The political correctness movement was fueled by objections to terms like this.

I can’t make head nor tail of this.  What is the “political correctness movement”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2012 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  332
Joined  2007-02-13

To me, “ableism” sounds like a politcally correct word that would be objected to by the anti-political correctness movement.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2012 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  332
Joined  2007-02-13

rug muncher, n. This derogatory term for a lesbian appears in the pages of National Lampoon in 1981.

Do guys who read National Lampoon really have “derogatory” terms for lesbians?  Just sayin’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2012 12:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3448
Joined  2007-01-29

Huh?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2012 01:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  332
Joined  2007-02-13

Huh?

Edit: For “rug muncher”, never mind.  Just a stupid off-the-cuff comment.

[ Edited: 08 June 2012 02:01 PM by jtab4994 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2012 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3026
Joined  2007-02-26

I’m also confused by the ableism dealie. What would be the politically correct version? What was the politically correct objection to the term ableism?

I always assumed Def Leppard was named using this meaning of def, but given that they formed some years before 1981, I guess not.

Is there a known etymology for dongle?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2012 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2007-10-20

rug muncher, n. This derogatory term for a lesbian appears in the pages of National Lampoon in 1981.

Do guys who read National Lampoon really have “derogatory” terms for lesbians?  Just sayin’.

I’m pretty sure National Lampoon had a shtick on Billie Jean King and “munching carpet” around 1975.

And jtab, it’s not such an off-the-wall question. Times were different back then, but that’s another story. I wasn’t a reader of National Lampoon but my impression was that by 1981 the publication was dying out and they were stretching a bit for readership (i.e. using sensationalism) wherever they could.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 June 2012 03:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4656
Joined  2007-01-03

Dongle.

I probably should have said “anti-political correctness movement.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 June 2012 05:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3448
Joined  2007-01-29

And jtab, it’s not such an off-the-wall question. Times were different back then, but that’s another story. I wasn’t a reader of National Lampoon but my impression was that by 1981 the publication was dying out and they were stretching a bit for readership (i.e. using sensationalism) wherever they could.

I don’t understand any of this.  It was such an off-the-wall question that I still have no idea what it means, and if you think “sensationalism” was something introduced in the Lampoon‘s dying days, clearly you were indeed not a reader.  I was, and over-the-top offensive sensationalism was always one of their best features, as it is of The eXile today.  Perhaps you never saw the famous ”If You Don’t Buy This Magazine, We’ll Kill This Dog” cover?  Or read Trots and Bonnie or Son O’ God Comics?  Trust me, the glory days of the magazine were far more sensational than a (frankly pretty tame) reference to “rug-munchers.” And I still don’t understand what jtab was asking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 June 2012 05:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1258
Joined  2007-03-21
languagehat - 09 June 2012 05:07 AM

And jtab, it’s not such an off-the-wall question. Times were different back then, but that’s another story. I wasn’t a reader of National Lampoon but my impression was that by 1981 the publication was dying out and they were stretching a bit for readership (i.e. using sensationalism) wherever they could.

I don’t understand any of this.  It was such an off-the-wall question that I still have no idea what it means, and if you think “sensationalism” was something introduced in the Lampoon‘s dying days, clearly you were indeed not a reader.  I was, and over-the-top offensive sensationalism was always one of their best features, as it is of The eXile today.  Perhaps you never saw the famous ”If You Don’t Buy This Magazine, We’ll Kill This Dog” cover?  Or read Trots and Bonnie or Son O’ God Comics?  Trust me, the glory days of the magazine were far more sensational than a (frankly pretty tame) reference to “rug-munchers.” And I still don’t understand what jtab was asking.

I don’t think that was what jtab was getting at. I read it as “Why would a liberal, pro-feminist group like the National Lampoon use such a word? Then he thought better of his remark/question and tried to pull back. At least that’s my take.

One of the funniest bits on NL Radio was the “Advertisement” for H and R Block around tax season. “Reason number 42 why you should use H&R Block for all your tax needs: most of our staff are Jewish (if you know what I mean).” You’re right, LH, outrage is one of their staples without regard for anything they might regard as holy.

[ Edited: 09 June 2012 06:00 AM by Oecolampadius ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 June 2012 06:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2007-10-20

I confess a lot of ignorance about National Lampoon. In ‘75 I was living in SoCal and the guys I knew (as in the guys rooming in the house where I read the magazine) didn’t exactly seem like they were offended by jokes about lesbians. Six years later I was living in the Bay Area and a lot had changed. Gay rights were the most important and central movement of the time. It didn’t look to me as if the Castro or Berkeley was interested in jokes about lesbians. Then, the preppies were coming on in full force with what I saw as an odd mix of retro-conservatism during the day and extreme behavior at night (The Bermuda Triangle in SF). They had no interest in edgy, discordant humor. They wanted to advance their careers and get money.

Also, when I read the mag the first time I seriously couldn’t figure out if was supposed to be funny or offensive. If it was both I couldn’t figure out who the audience was. That’s probably why I didn’t read it much.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 June 2012 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3448
Joined  2007-01-29

I read it as “Why would a liberal, pro-feminist group like the National Lampoon use such a word?

Ah, that makes sense.  Then it was simply a misunderstanding of the National Lampoon, which took no political positions and had equal fun skewering the pieties of left and right.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 June 2012 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3026
Joined  2007-02-26

I’d need a ruling on whether it was truly derogatory, rather than just inappropriate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2012 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  332
Joined  2007-02-13

I’d need a ruling on whether it was truly derogatory, rather than just inappropriate.

This is approximately what I was trying to say.  Maybe “crude”, as it focuses on a physical sex act and isn’t overtly judgemental.

Profile