LMCane said:

---

today's gift to mankind:

"A minor attracted person"

i.e. what society for 300 years called a pedophile.

Normalizing insanity

---

John McWhorter is a great follow in regards to this.

Assault Rifle.

aggiepanic95 said:

---

You're all white supremist racists!

---

I really can only think of two classes of people who would find the parsing of the clinical definition between ephebophilia vs pedophilia useful--1.) people who are doing some sort of counseling or treatment of such people, court-mandated or otherwise; and 2.) people who are attracted to minors.

For the other 99.98 percent of us, it sounds an awful lot like justification of some real sick sh*t.

Somebody beat me to "fascist".

Are you insinuating something? There are more than two categories here: third: someone who is Intelligent and broadly well informed trying to be factually and technically precise, because distinction and precision are important in language, which is the case against critical theories of language. Not everything is a contest to demonstrate who can virtue signal the most hard core about hating evildoers. We can hate the evil while also being precise about its nature.

Actually, I wasn't lol. But congrats on your precision and intelligence. I'm VERY impressed.

"Politically correct" and "hate speech" were the twin crowbars that they used decades ago (!) to pry open this Pandora's box of bull****tery!

Quote:

---

LMCane said:
today's gift to mankind:

"A minor attracted person"

i.e. what society for 300 years called a pedophile.

---

Lol, nobody is trying to "normalize" pedophilia besides pedophiles. Yes, you'll find a handful of crazy individuals trying to push pedo propaganda in 2022, but I'll bet that in every century there's a Guy McKidlover publishing their master thesis about why abusing kids is great. It doesn't mean that it's actually being normalized to any real extent.

"safe spaces"

"violence"

"undocumented status"

No problem. It's fine to disagree about when simplification is effective. It's just a general peve of mine when a language is generalized and the boundaries of words expanded, even when it is pragmatic, if there are more precise options available. My view is when you broaden and generalize word usage, the definitions themselves become too unfocused and subject to too many interpretations outside of what was meant, and that opens up room for manipulation.

For example, see above, the terminology "minor attracted person" which attempts to conflate the Romeo and Juliet attraction of perhaps a 19 and 17 year old on one boundary with the utterly abhorrent sexualization of very young children, all under one broad word, in a vile attempt to soften the idea with the language. To me, the words can matter a great deal, as this is how the law is manipulated.

cecil77 said:

---

cecil77 said:
Gay
Partner
Rainbows

All now communicate something they don't really mean.

---

Everybody knows that gay also means happy. You can still say you're having a gay day if you want to, but let me guess, you're afraid of people thinking you're gay. The horror!

TexasRebel said:

---

Assault Rifle.

---

Weapon of war

"They" is the term for third person PLURAL. The proper gender neutral term for third person singular is "it".

A bum, drifter, hobo who was always looked on as lazy or an alcoholic is now "homeless" to be pitied.

"Electrocution" sure has lost its potency.

TexasTango900 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

cecil77 said:
Gay
Partner
Rainbows

All now communicate something they don't really mean.

---

Everybody knows that gay also means happy. You can still say you're having a gay day if you want to, but let me guess, you're afraid of people thinking you're gay. The horror!

---

Smh! That leap ended up in the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

"Idiot" became "******ed" because people used idiot as a derogatory name. Then they did the same with "******ed" (which is now censored on texags) and now they use "mentally challenged."

Midget has become "little person".

Yes, the implication being death by electricity versus electric shock.

"I was electrocuted the other day."
"You were?! It's a miracle!"

I've thought about it a little bit more past the emotional reaction I had to the word "ephebophile" and I think I have to mostly agree with you. I think that in that all-to-common scenario of a fully grown adult grooming a teenager, using the word pedophile is the most sensible choice because in this case the age of the child matters little to the morality of the situation--toddler or teenager, it's still a fully grown adult abusing someone too young to consent.

But I am also imaginative to consider other ways that the age of the minor matters, things like methods a predator uses to target the minor, how a predator might justify it to themselves, how to properly support a child that's been abused, etc.

There's no need to jump to conclusions about people because of a single word choice. If someone is trying to justify pedophilia by using this word, there will obviously be other aspects of their speech or writing that makes it clear.

Homeless person

Everyone uses this word now - but most of these people's main problem is NOT the lack of a home. Most are drug addicts, mentally insane, criminals or bums. Give 99% of these people a home and they'll either trash it or burn it down.

This term was invented by the left in 1980 to burn Reagan on his economic policies. "Homes are so expensive under Reagan that people are living on the streets..."

RGLAG85 said:

---

TexasTango900 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

cecil77 said:
Gay
Partner
Rainbows

All now communicate something they don't really mean.

---

Everybody knows that gay also means happy. You can still say you're having a gay day if you want to, but let me guess, you're afraid of people thinking you're gay. The horror!

---

Smh! That leap ended up in the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

---

Why else would someone be so angry about those words? Words often have multiple definitions, and they naturally gain or lose their definitions over time. If you think that's just woke propaganda, then all of human language must be a deep state machination.

Can you back up that claim?

"Alternative facts" instead of straight BS.

I understand why people like to broader the term. Exploitation of a minor of any age is terrible, but it would be viewed that it is most horrific for the youngest of children, so if the language is intended to have the most social and political impact, using the word that clearly encompasses that horror as broadly and often as is arguably possible makes sense. It is a political and social choice choice to have the most emotional impact for an argument (or insult). It gets the most effect to broaden it and use it that way, and that must the juxtaposed against the potential to dilute the impact over time if it is overused imprecisely. It's a balancing that must be done with some care.

For example, when so many things are called racist all the time, the word loses some of its intended impact, when there are some cases it really should have a serious impact. You don't want to take the edge off of a term like pedophile by throwing it around extremely loosely so that some people become more numb to it, without considering the potential consequences.

YZ250 said:

---

illegal alien -> undocumented worker->migrant

---

FIFY

"Climate Change"

Using bad weather to increase taxes

Newspeak...

noun
ambiguous euphemistic language used chiefly in political propaganda

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It's a large part of how critical theories emerged: from language analysis and critiques. They idea became that there were virtually infinite possible linguistic interpretations so you were free to select the one most useful to your purpose. That is taken down to the level of the meaning of words themselves, where no two individuals might agree. They then layered this on top of the real world where they pretend it applies even though it is clear all interpretations don't result in similar outcomes and many result in destruction, but the roots of language manipulation and selective interpretation remain, especially in the legal and philosophical domains.

---

"Your truth"

Once you convince people that the truth is not objective, but subjective, what word or meaning could possibly be off limits?

DTP02 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It's a large part of how critical theories emerged: from language analysis and critiques. They idea became that there were virtually infinite possible linguistic interpretations so you were free to select the one most useful to your purpose. That is taken down to the level of the meaning of words themselves, where no two individuals might agree. They then layered this on top of the real world where they pretend it applies even though it is clear all interpretations don't result in similar outcomes and many result in destruction, but the roots of language manipulation and selective interpretation remain, especially in the legal and philosophical domains.

---

"Your truth"

Once you convince people that the truth is not objective, but subjective, what word or meaning could possibly be off limits?

---

Yep.

Blatant Lies = My Truth

But please keep in mind that only certain folks can employ these alternative terms.

TexasTango900 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

cecil77 said:
Gay
Partner
Rainbows

All now communicate something they don't really mean.

---

Everybody knows that gay also means happy. You can still say you're having a gay day if you want to, but let me guess, you're afraid of people thinking you're gay. The horror!

---

Fear has nothing to do with it. Communication does. The word "gay" now means male homosexual. Sure I could use the (now) archaic meaning, but communication wouldn't occur. The same with "partner", it now needs a precursor, e.g. "business partner" or it is assumed to mean "homosexual partner". Any rainbow display is now assumed to be in "support" of LGBTQ.

The meaning of words change over time. These for words have been subjugated to new meanings.

LMCane said:

---

I use the Facebook dating app sometimes as a single guy.

about every 5th profile says "pans#xual" or "sapio"

whatever the @#$#@ that means

---

had to look up sapio because wtf is sapio. Apparently they are attracted to doing something well, generally intellectual. Like watching Neil deGrasse Tyson lecture revs their motor, but watching CR7 or Alex Morgan does nothing for them.

X number of jobs "saved or created"

Transphobic.

Apperently, if you are a man attracted to women, but not attracted to a man pretending to be a woman, you are considered transphobic. Who knew