List your favorite put-down names!

[greentea]

1. punk *****
2. ***

 

[denimdestroyedmylife]

^ Provocateur!

Hmmm... tone can change any term into an insult. Or any insult into a term of endearment. Thank mod for emoticons.

 

[LabelKing]

Oversized dinosaur.

 

[greentea]

1.watari face
2.selvedge ears
3. slubby legs

 

[ATM]

Originally Posted by Stu

Rocket Scientist -- spoken ironically, another classic
I like using "professor" in this context. Thank you Han Solo!

 

[JBZ]

Originally Posted by ATM

Thank you Han Solo!

Ahh...the Nerf Herder.

 

[cheapmutha]

i think asshole is one of the words i use the most.

 

[rdawson808]

When I am really really mad, I have to admit, I call people ****. I have no excuse, I know. But I feel better afterwards.

b

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

You have a point, but it's a matter of interpretation.

In terms of sheer insult potential, male sexuality makes an excellent target because it's highly insulting regardless of orientation. It's equivalent to insulting penis size, which is relatively juvenile and harmless and can be amusing as well.

There's little harm in trotting such insults out for display in a spirit of humor.

As an expression of genuine hatred it is indeed objectionable.
I beg to differ. There's a difference between insults relating to "sexuality" generally, such as penis size insults, and insults that are considered to be insults because of an implication about the subject's sexual orientation. Saying that such terms insulting "regardless of orientation" makes sense only if one believes - and I understand you do not - that it is equally bad to be actually gay and to be mistakenly "accused" of being gay. For example, insults that question someone's intelligence may well have "sheer insult potential" regardless of the subject's actual intelligence. But that's only because being stupid is generally considered to be a bad thing.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I beg to differ. There's a difference between insults relating to "sexuality" generally, such as penis size insults, and insults that are considered to be insults because of an implication about the subject's sexual orientation. Saying that such terms insulting "regardless of orientation" makes sense only if one believes - and I understand you do not - that it is equally bad to be actually gay and to be mistakenly "accused" of being gay. For example, insults that question someone's intelligence may well have "sheer insult potential" regardless of the subject's actual intelligence. But that's only because being stupid is generally considered to be a bad thing.

Party pooper.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Party pooper.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I beg to differ. There's a difference between insults relating to "sexuality" generally, such as penis size insults, and insults that are considered to be insults because of an implication about the subject's sexual orientation. Saying that such terms insulting "regardless of orientation" makes sense only if one believes - and I understand you do not - that it is equally bad to be actually gay and to be mistakenly "accused" of being gay. For example, insults that question someone's intelligence may well have "sheer insult potential" regardless of the subject's actual intelligence. But that's only because being stupid is generally considered to be a bad thing.

I think the intention to insult and the mere implication that being gay is, not necessarily bad, per se, but somehow wrong or abnormal, makes insults about sexuality insulting regardless of orientation. What you actually think or feel about the matter is beside the point. Unless, of course, it crosses the line into hatred.

As is often pointed out here, tone often fails to come across well over the internet, so it's hard to gauge the actual sentiment behind the insult posted. Without context, isolated insults may appear truly intended to insult rather than for their humorous potential.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

I think the intention to insult and the mere implication that being gay is, not necessarily bad, per se, but somehow wrong or abnormal, makes insults about sexuality insulting regardless of orientation. What you actually think or feel about the matter is beside the point. Unless, of course, it crosses the line into hatred.

As is often pointed out here, tone often fails to come across well over the internet, so it's hard to gauge the actual sentiment behind the insult posted. Without context, isolated insults may appear truly intended to insult rather than for their humorous potential.
I don't think I understand what you're saying in the first paragraph. (I agree with the second.) One can certainly intend to insult without necessarily agreeing with the underlying rationale implied by the "insult". Certainly one who harbors no actual prejudices can make an intellectual decision to insult someone using a racist or homophobic name simply because the words will be perceived to be an insult. But necessarily, there is not "insult" to be perceived unless one is on some level buying into (or at least taking advantage of) the notion that the "accusation" is of something "insulting". For a term that implies homosexuality to be "insulting", one must be referencing a context in which homosexuality is a negative trait.
I also agree that whether certain terms of opprobrium are funny simply because of their sheer inventiveness in choice of words may be a wholly separate issue from their underlying meaning.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I don't think I understand what you're saying in the first paragraph. (I agree with the second.) One can certainly intend to insult without necessarily agreeing with the underlying rationale implied by the "insult". Certainly one who harbors no actual prejudices can make an intellectual decision to insult someone using a racist or homophobic name simply because the words will be perceived to be an insult. But necessarily, there is not "insult" to be perceived unless one is on some level buying into (or at least taking advantage of) the notion that the "accusation" is of something "insulting". For a term that implies homosexuality to be "insulting", one must be referencing a context in which homosexuality is a negative trait.
I also agree that whether certain terms of opprobrium are funny simply because of their sheer inventiveness in choice of words may be a wholly separate issue from their underlying meaning.

You just recapitulated my first point, but less concisely.

I think the inventiveness factor is the reason I appreciate any insult. Those that target sexuality are often particularly rich. Some movie references are illustrative:

"Surprise, ********!" (a pie-in-the-face moment in Team America)


And Full Metal Jacket:

HARTMAN

Where in hell are you from anyway, Private?

COWBOY

Sir, Texas, sir!

HARTMAN
Holy dogshit! Texas! Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Cowboy! And you don't look much like a steer to me, so that kinda narrows it down!
Do you suck dicks!

COWBOY
Sir, no, sir!

HARTMAN
Are you a peter-puffer?

COWBOY
Sir, no,
sir!

HARTMAN
I'll bet you're the kind of guy that would **** a person ********** and not even have the goddam common courtesy to give him a reach-around! I'll be watching you!

(The humor of Hartman's insults ends with the scene that follows this one.)

 

[redcaimen]

I bet the early puritans had their own version of political correctness and were just as humorless about it. Sheesh.

I heard one on the radio today: Sausage Gargler. This is funny wether or not your best friend, priest or brother is in fact a sausage gargler. The thought police be damned.