18 Jul 2012, 2:03 am
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
So are you polite to seem polite or are you polite because you care about others? (when i say you i dont mean you personally). Anyhow in all cases i think our foreign policy should go back to reagan style. You know back when people were afraid of f***ing with americans. We need to start doing more of this
and that ^^^ is somehow different from my supposed "gloating"?
its different because im not saying im better than you. Im just letting you know not to mess with me.
so... your way of countering the idea of Canadian politeness (not universal, of course), is to threaten me?
nonetheless, you made a generalisation about americans, and you seem to take pride in it. thank you for confirming my point.
(p.s. thank you, meems
)Ive not threatened anybody. Im simply saying that two can play at the better than thou game.
umm what generalization? The only persons that have made any here has been you, and blue
i bolded the generalisation.
you said you were letting me know not to mess with you. how is that not a threat?
how is that a generalization? This was a time when two countries had enough power to kill everything on the slip of a finger. Im quite certain nobody wanted to mess with either of them
You weren't talking about countries. You said "people" were afraid of "americans" (also people). We call this a generalization.
Even if it were countries you were talking about, all sorts of countries messed with the US at that time. Example: Iran. They forced the sale of arms in return for hostages, secretly and against an arms embargo. When they got the weapons, they then embarrassed the US (and Reagan) by leaking the details (Iran-Contra Scandal). Reagan had denied selling arms and "negotiating with terrorists" but was later forced to go on-air and admit that he had done just that.
This would've been a generalization too, if you actually had been talking about countries, which you weren't.
Last edited by edgewaters on 18 Jul 2012, 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
18 Jul 2012, 2:03 am
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
18 Jul 2012, 2:06 am
18 Jul 2012, 2:07 am
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
18 Jul 2012, 2:11 am
edgewaters wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
So are you polite to seem polite or are you polite because you care about others? (when i say you i dont mean you personally). Anyhow in all cases i think our foreign policy should go back to reagan style. You know back when people were afraid of f***ing with americans. We need to start doing more of this
and that ^^^ is somehow different from my supposed "gloating"?
its different because im not saying im better than you. Im just letting you know not to mess with me.
so... your way of countering the idea of Canadian politeness (not universal, of course), is to threaten me?
nonetheless, you made a generalisation about americans, and you seem to take pride in it. thank you for confirming my point.
(p.s. thank you, meems
)Ive not threatened anybody. Im simply saying that two can play at the better than thou game.
umm what generalization? The only persons that have made any here has been you, and blue
i bolded the generalisation.
you said you were letting me know not to mess with you. how is that not a threat?
how is that a generalization? This was a time when two countries had enough power to kill everything on the slip of a finger. Im quite certain nobody wanted to mess with either of them
You weren't talking about countries. You said "people" were afraid of "americans" (also people). We call this a generalization.
Even if it were countries you were talking about, all sorts of countries messed with the US at that time. Example: Iran. They forced the sale of arms in return for hostages, secretly and against an arms embargo. When they got the weapons, they then embarrassed the US (and Reagan) by leaking the details (Iran-Contra Scandal). Reagan had denied selling arms and "negotiating with terrorists" but was later forced to go on-air and admit that he had done just that.
This would've been a generalization too, if you actually had been talking about countries, which you weren't.
because a list of countries would be too long and time consuming. People rounds it out quickly and also promotes a sense of equality amongst them. But as ive said a billion times now, if you're simply focused on the words so f*****g hard that you get stuck over one single word then everything will be a generalization for you.
Im sure gaddafi has something to say about that
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
18 Jul 2012, 2:11 am
18 Jul 2012, 2:13 am
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
18 Jul 2012, 2:14 am
18 Jul 2012, 2:15 am
18 Jul 2012, 2:15 am
18 Jul 2012, 2:15 am
18 Jul 2012, 2:16 am
18 Jul 2012, 2:16 am
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
18 Jul 2012, 2:18 am
18 Jul 2012, 10:25 am
minotaurheadcheese wrote:
meems wrote:
I love Wrong Planet so much.
Sarcasm, or for real?
I've lost track of who said what (didn't expect this to grow so fast!) but here's my take: "lady" comes from OE "hlaefdige," literally "loaf maid," but idiomatically meaning the wife of the hlaford = the manorial lord. In my opinion it's continued to carry those upper-class connotations up to the present day. To me it connotes a specific code of conduct involving correct etiquette and "gender-appropriate" behavior. (Someone mentioned sitting with legs together and wearing knee-length skirts-- this is exactly the mental picture I get!) I also think it carries a vague notion of sexual propriety; something like "he won't buy the cow if he gets the milk for free." For those reasons, I associate the term (and "classy" in much the same ways) with sexual and emotional repression and a lack of authenticity.
I respect all of the other connotations that people have listed though. It's interesting to think about how terms that get bantered about so lightly are actually very loaded with drastically differing meanings to different people
For real, mon petit chou.
I love how threads progress on Wrong Planet and turn into entirely different conversations within a page or two, I never know what people are going to be talking about based on the title of the thread. I fee restricted at most other forums when they're like "STAY ON MOTHEREFFING TOPIC" haha.
I agree with you though, "lady" seems to connote gender appropriate behavior. But I think people should let go of their notions of gender appropriate behavior.
It's take as a sign of hostility if I try to hold the door open for a man here, I've never been allowed to hold the door for a man, they stop and refuse to go in and it's all done under a thin veneer of civility, but it's demeaning, at best.
18 Jul 2012, 10:51 am
