The Humour Club discussion

The first rule of Debate Club...well, I can't talk about that.

The second rule of Debate Club - BE POLITE! (Don't make me pull this car over and get my cattle prod!)

Have something you want to argue about? Create a new topic and get ready to rumble!

The first rule of Debate Club is never, ever do a Chris Naylor and delete your contributions to the debate. It's not cool and it hurts other people. Right, Melki?

Hmm. All I can think of right now belongs in the Ranting thread. Though we could debate if the death penalty or a life sentence of picking up dog poop is more appropriate for those who leave little plastic bags of dog**** on the sides of trails.

Chris wrote: "The first rule of Debate Club is never, ever do a Chris Naylor and delete your contributions to the debate. It's not cool and it hurts other people. Right, Melki?"

Agreed, such behaviour is deplorable...

I take full responsibility for what I did. Whether others forgive me, I don't know, but I do know that I will never forgive myself.

Which leads me to ask a serious question: should it be even possible for someone to do what I did, and delete all their contributions to discussions simply by ticking or unticking a box? I now think it shouldn't. What does anyone else think?

Chris wrote: "I take full responsibility for what I did. Whether others forgive me, I don't know, but I do know that I will never forgive myself.

Which leads me to ask a serious question: should it be even poss..."

It does seem a little extreme an option and I was surprised that it could be done but I suppose it might be useful on occasion...can't think when though.

Well, I suppose it might be needful if someone was stalking you or you were on the dodge. But maybe it should require a waiting period, so no one can pack up and go home angry?

Chris, you're forgiven. I've left a few groups myself and never once thought about whether or not my comments were deleted. I'm pretty sure they managed to continue without me.

I had one Goodreads member contact me about another group where there was a discussion going on, and the moderator didn't like what was being said, so he deleted others' comments. I think that was pretty weasely.

I think a distinction could be drawn between the stuff that wouldn't affect other people very much if it was deleted, such as one's book reviews, and the stuff that would, such as contributions to discussions, and I think it should be either impossible to delete the second kind of stuff in one fell swoop or at least much harder than the first. At least that's my idea.

I didn't know moderators could delete other people's comments.

I don't see the point of deleting, isn't the internet a modern day free-for-all, wildwest, caveat emptor (alright, that does't really relate, but, it sounds intelligent)...please don't delete this Melki.

I suppose we could all try some risky posts, and see how far Melki would let us go before she deleted them... Or maybe not, since presumably Melki doesn't want to be cast in the role of Mom to us badly behaved kids. (Especially not me, since I'm ten years her senior.)

Can moderators delete other moderators' posts? (Internecine warfare beckons...)

Debate topic: how far should we try our moderators' patience, and how far should they let us go before slapping us upside the head and sending us to our rooms?

Topic started. Blast away! I promise no one will be deleted for expressing an opinion.

You may be sent to bed without pudding, however.

Melki, you may not, but I certainly will delete someone if they step over the line.

Warning: insults about William Shatner will not be tolerated.

Hey! You can delete me, but don't send me to bed without my pudding!

Okay. I think you should get to delete those who make ad hominum attacks and anyone who doesn't think banana slugs are fascinating.

I'm all for some ground rules here: No insults against William Shatner OR banana slugs. But, it really goes without saying, these rules sound like common sense things to me?

I never even knew there were such things as banana slugs. Are there also raspberry slugs, ugli slugs, passion fruit slugs and prune slugs? And if not, why not?

I don't care about insults against William Shatner, but please, no insults against Leonard Nimoy.

Jeeze, Chris, where are you from, anyway? :D

Banana slugs look like. . . bananas. Yellow, often with black spots. It's a west coast (USA) thing. Someone tell me how to post a picture and I'll show you.

I'm from the UK, where we don't have banana slugs. Haven't you heard our famous song?

Yes, we have no banana slugs,
We have no banana slugs today.

I knew that. Here's photo of a banana slug, albeit one without the black spots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ban...

Univ. of California at Santa Cruz uses the banana slug as a mascot. Yes, the Fighting Banana Slugs! (UCSC is kind of an alternative place, and not a real big sports school).

They also make tasty suckers - http://www.mcphee.com/shop/products/B...

Eeeeeeewwwwww!

On a side note, when my kids went to their Outdoor Ed camp in fifth grade, one of the "clubs" was for those who had kissed a banana slug.

Whose English is really English? I mean, the Brits can claim naming rights; the Americans are somewhat more intelligible, if less interesting; and folks everywhere else use words that look like English, are spelled like English, but who the heck knows what they're trying to say?

We Brits look on the English language in the same way that a Grandfather dotes on his grandchildren.

A good Gramps doesn't mind if the kids are noisy. If they make a mess. If they get things wrong. It's all good. Kids will be kids.

And by the same token, we don't mind that you can't spell humour/ honour/ colour or pronounce lieutenant. Or that you put on a comedy French accent to say herbal. It's quite cute, really.

We might roll our eyes when you add "ization" to everything. But deep down, we do love you. We are very proud of what you have achieved in such a short time.

As to the rest of the world ... heck, why not? The British borrow and mangle any new word they fancy. So we don't mind if the rest of the world wants to appropriate an English word and do something unspeakable to it.

Many years ago I cooked a prawn curry for my ex mother in law. This might sound like a strange thing to do, but she wasn't my ex-mother in law at the time. If I recall correctly, it was a khorma.

After initially deciding that she wasn't going to like it, she tried some ... and said "this isn't bad." And finished the plateful.

Then she asked me: "What is it called?"

"It's a khorma."

"Yes, but what is its English name?"

That stumped me. I thought about it for a while and then said: "I don't think it has an English name. Just as there isn't an Indian word for Yorkshire pudding."

It was her turn to bite her lip in concentration. Eventually, she said: "I bet they do have an Indian word for Yorkshire pudding. You just don't know what it is."

Fair point. So I said: "It's a curry made from a coconut sauce."

She looked at me with a smile of intense smug satisfaction. "A coconut curry! See, I told you it had an English name."

I didn't have the heart to tell her that the word 'curry' comes from Kari - the Tamil word for a dish with a sauce.

Whose language is it? Everyone. Because we are kindly grandparents.

I have a bootleg Rolling Stones CD that has Mick speaking French. It sounds a lot like Yorkshire pudding.

His English isn't much better!

And I'd forgotten about the Aussies! Everything after "G'day" is more or less Babel.

I’ve done a bit of traveling, and I know of a few U.S. states in the North East and the South that make an Aussie sound like Shakespeare. I’ve been told that they speak English there. (Not by the people in the state, because I didn’t understand them when I visited)
I got lost once in Massachusetts and pulled over to ask directions. After the fifth person that tried to communicate with me, I drove to a gas station, grabbed a map, and plopped some money down on the counter without saying a word. I successfully escaped.

Escaping is one of the top ten things you can do in Massachusetts. Maine is a little stranger, but they're so friendly you hardly notice.

I've got Rex Harrison in my head, sing-talking in his own unique way:

Oh, why can't the English learn to
set a good example to people whose
English is painful to your ears?
The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears.
There even are places where English completely
disappears.
In America, they haven't used it for years!

Melki, you never fail to inspire!

Maybe Will can explain to me the British predilection for using abbreviations that are actually no shorter than the words they're replacing...like saying "pressies" instead of "presents." This makes no sense to me.

You mean like www. nine syllables to replace three? Oh, hang on, we invented that one.

Or George Dubya Bush - that's three syllables to replace two (Walker). He's definitely one of yours.

Or Whitney Houston singing the theme song to the Bodyguard ... "And I-uh-I-uh-I will always love you-u-oo-u-ooo"

You see "pressies" for "presents" isn't an abbreviation. We're not trying to make things shorter. It's a more nuanced meaning. A pressie is a cuddly form of present. It might be something small or affectionate.

When a man buys a woman a present it could be anything - chocolates, flowers, a new Ferrari. But if he buys her a prezzie, it's usually either a kitten or something made of out black and/or red lace that almost certainly won't be in her size or be in the least bit comfortable.

There is something similar happening when we replace biscuit with bickies. Bickies are cheeky little friendly things that you either give to children ... or that you munch yourself whilst telling yourself that they don't have any calories.

And, of course, there's the world famous Cockney rhyming slang. Unless I'm telling porkies.

Cockernees? They are there mainly for the tourists. The ones who remark that it was really smart to build Windsor castle so close to the airport.

We Brits seem to have been given the job of making the English language interesting. So we adopt new words from other cultures, we make words up, we invent hidden words for different sub-cultures. It's all about making the language richer, more textured, 3 dimensional.

So when a cockney refers to his trouble, meaning his trouble and strife = wife, he is giving a nuanced meaning - a woman he loves in a lively relationship. They might have a bull and a cow (row) every now and again, but then they'll head on up the apples (apples and pairs, stairs) for a bit of hows-your-father.

Which is a damn sight more expressive than plain "wife".

Or we could insert the word "like" twenty times into every sentence which may or may not end in a yeehah.

Does listening to an audio book count as reading?

Joel wrote: "Does listening to an audio book count as reading?"

Does closed caption count as reading?

Brena wrote: "Joel wrote: "Does listening to an audio book count as reading?"

Does closed caption count as reading?"

I'm listening to the audio book of Born a Crime: Stories From a South African Childhood by Trevor Noah, and he mentions that if you add up all the emails, and facebook posts you read every day, it would be the equivalent of several books . . . but it doesn't as reading a book.

I say, as long as it's an unabridged audio book, it counts the same as reading the book.

Melki wrote: "...I say, as long as it's an unabridged audio book, it counts the same as reading the book."

That depends. The unabridged version might still have a reader who ad libs substitutes for all the unpronounceable big words...

I've been giving this a lot of thought recently, thanks to a friend who "reads" all her books while driving. Referring, of course, to audio, though in the old days I've seen people with books and newspapers resting on the steering wheel like cell phones do now. You do get the content of the book, regardless of the medium. I'm just not sure it counts, according to Hoyle, as reading.

While not a fan or regular user of audio books, I imagine it robs one of the opportunity to give characters their own unique voice in your imagination. Settings would be somewhat duller for the same reason -- the narrator is no longer your voice, your inflection. For some, I imagine that ruins the experience. For others, content is king. So, I'd have to say it's a subjective call.

Joel wrote: "Does listening to an audio book count as reading?"

Studies have shown that reading is definitely better for retention and comprehension, but whether you want a to pick up a book or listen to a recording is simply a matter of personal preference. Technically you cannot call listening to a book reading. Is watching a movie based on a book equal to reading the book? You can draw lines anywhere you want.

I don't suppose when asked if they've seen the movie, anybody ever said, "No, I'm waiting for the paperback."

Joel wrote: "I don't suppose when asked if they've seen the movie, anybody ever said, "No, I'm waiting for the paperback.""

If they're waiting till the movie is 'Edited for television,' does that count as the 'abridged version'????

Joel wrote: "I don't suppose when asked if they've seen the movie, anybody ever said, "No, I'm waiting for the paperback.""

Books based on movies is a new genre. I see them in bookstores and even the grocery store. I may just buy one to see how the author does it.

Movies have become so sophisticated, I sometimes hear people say the movie is better than the book. I thought that about The Color Purple long ago. Many movies are based on short stories, and I love the way they take the premise and expand it. I love movies...all movies.

OK, so this is debate club and we are presumably all interested in words. I would be interested in a debate about what makes some words unacceptable.

Yesterday I read a slightly iconoclastic article by Max Hastings, a British military historian and journalist. The article is a preamble to his new book about the legendary Dambusters: RAF 617 Squadron who broached the Möhne and Eder dams in 1943. The article (in The Times weekend magazine) begins: "There were dams; a dog with an offensive name; a march that everybody over 40 can hum." Throughout the article Hastings avoids naming Wing Commander Guy Gibson's famous black Labrador dog, repeatedly falling back on the now conventional "N***er".

Out of curiosity I checked Wikipedia etc for lists of offensive words and was surprised to find that this word, used in the vernacular to describe someone of sub-Saharan African origin, is now regarded as one of the most offensive words in English, rivalled only by the vernacular noun for the vulva. I suppose that I never really realised this because most of my life has been rather sheltered socially and intellectually, and mostly in Britain. I have been aware for two or three decades that the word was disapproved of, but it was in common use in my youth, much as 'scouse', 'yank' or 'geordie' would be used without ill-will to describe a person from Liverpool, the USA or Tyneside. During my two years of military service I was normally addressed as: 'Taff' because of my surname and having been born in Wales. I felt no offense; indeed I rather like it as a nickname and use it as my screen name in some online groups. However, I know that some Welsh people do find it offensive, as it derives from the ancient rhyme: "Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief".

Can someone explain, to this rather innocent and slightly autistic Brit, how it has come about that a word freely used in my youth (my father used it without malice) has become totally taboo. At the same time, the vernacular word for copulation, which was taboo in polite society then, is now used quite freely in everyday speech and even in radio and TV broadcasts by otherwise respectable men AND women.

Taff.

Martin wrote: "OK, so this is debate club and we are presumably all interested in words. I would be interested in a debate about what makes some words unacceptable.

Yesterday I read a slightly iconoclastic artic..."

Probably coincided with society's losing the ability to say "No" and 'Piss off".

Martin wrote: "Can someone explain, to this rather innocent and slightly autistic Brit, how it has come about that a word freely used in my youth (my father used it without malice) has become totally taboo. At the same time, the vernacular word for copulation, which was taboo in polite society then, is now used quite freely in everyday speech and even in radio and TV broadcasts by otherwise respectable men AND women."

Interesting question, Martin: When does a word become offensive????

BEST GUESSES

1. When your big brother can pronounce it, and you can't.

2. When it offers an opposing view in today's pansy-infested, trigger-happy college campus safe spaces.

3. When the US President's speech writer alters the list of politically correct words...simply because he can.

4. When your wife is looking for an excuse to yell at you, and a word...any word...comes out of your mouth.

5. When the intent is to do harm.

Okay, that last one has more truth than humor.

Every generation has had common terms that have become offensive with time. Consider, the word "frog" simply refers to:

1. a tailless amphibian with a short squat body, moist smooth skin, and very long hind legs for leaping.

However, if you used the term to refer to a Frenchman during the Napoleonic Era, you might have ended up fighting a duel to the death.

The word 'nigger' is one of the most offensive words in the English language because it is an intentionally derogatory pejorative intended to denigrate and segregate people of color. While the common usage during the era of legal slavery may have also had the use of 'identifying property' for slave owners, clearly such use also had a blatantly dehumanizing intent.

The fact that today (for the most part) the word is no longer in common usage except by people of color and bigots poses a bit of a dual quandary which sociologist still argue in some circles. One theory: the common usage of the word 'nigger' among Africa Americans, rap musicians, etc. is an attempt to lessen the derogatory nature of the word. One can't feel the sting of denigration if you hear the word repeatedly used in every conversation.

On the other hand, the use by often proud bigots remains intentionally hateful, and it's yet another perplexing question for both sociologists and psychologists: How do we bring social-Neanderthals into the 21st century?

Note, the word has also been adapted to apply to other ethnic groups, such as the use of the term 'sand nigger' to refer to the Arab peoples. However, the hateful intent remains the same.

Interestingly, there's a raw irony that white supremacists, skinheads and other bigots never seem to face: Modern geneticists have proven beyond doubt that every human on the planet is of African descent.

So, to answer your question: "...how [has it] come about that a word freely used in my youth (my father used it without malice) has become totally taboo..."

Personally, I think the answer is simple: Attitudes change, particularly among highly-educated, highly-mobile, highly-communicative populations.

Note also, that society is more integrated than at any time in human history. It's generally much easier to empathize with someone you know personally.

As to your second question, why: "...the vernacular word for copulation, which was taboo in polite society then, is now used quite freely in everyday speech..."

Well, perhaps people no longer give a fuck. :-)

I'd say Jay nailed it pretty well. Basically, that word (and the other you reference) became unacceptable when we recognized the baggage they carry and the dehumanizing meaning of them. I think you can figure out that the N-word was always hateful and unacceptable to the African-American community. That they are trying to, in a sense, "claim" it for themselves and thus disempower it, doesn't change the fact that you or I had better not use it.

And all those derogatory national names that were used "without malice"... I suspect if you look a little deeper, there was plenty of malice. Certainly every time we go to war, the enemy ends up with some name that proves they are inferior and therefore it's okay to kill them. Many of the so-called innocent names come from those periods.