Why do I have a feeling the focus will be listening for the words “Union”, “Organize”, and “Benefits”?

So rich centrist who’ll be fine no matter who wins the elections can be happily married to an establishment conservative.  That’s not news.

Yeah his fucking bros just all decided to pay him back at once. That’s totally believable. 

I think I can live with that trade off.

Well, we will lose half the Travel Channel line up, a shit load of Youtube and Instagram content...and pretty much all of the winter olympics. ...but we would gain so much more!

Conservative marries arch-conservative. What do they disagree about? Using experimental lethal injection drugs vs drawing and quartering prisoners?

“Gormless” is a fun insult and we should use it more.

The day the Oxford Dictionary starts removing words and replacing them with “doubleplus” counterparts, I’ll join your rally. Until then, pick up a thesaurus. 

I would add that it’s difficult to make a case for the transformation of language when all you’re really doing is going from “You’re terrible because you’re gay” to “you’re just terrible, generally.” That’s not a real transformation of language or terminology— you still intend to use the word the way it’s been used…

What was your point then? You’re afraid we will run out of words? Or that since you can’t stop people from inventing new hateful words, it’s useless to attempt to stop people from using currently hateful words because it impinges on people who want to use those words in a non-discriminatory-but-still-insulting way? I…

Nah, brah. It started right here:

But then, in the UK, we also eat these

Assuming that I find it onerous is silly. I do not.

Randal’s also not a character anyone is supposed to aspire to be or look up to. I mean, sure, he did a couple of solids in Clerks, but if we look at where his life is by the time Clerks II rolls around, it’s pretty clear this dude and his understanding of the world at large have gotten him no further than a couple of…

Eh.

I think use within certain in-groups (such as a close circle of friends that all understand one another’s intent) is one thing—use in larger, broader arenas (such as a Twitch broadcast), wherein a direct connection between the speaker and each member of the audience absolutely cannot be assumed, is entirely…

Plus some people see racism/sexism/homophobia as a zero-sum condition; you’re either a total monster or you’re not. It’s a “homophobia is bad, but I’m good, therefore what I said was not homophobic” line of thinking. In reality it’s a process of always failing, accepting when you are wrong, and trying to do/be better.

I wouldn’t call the guy defending mOE with etymology a prescriptivist, though; he’s using prescriptivism in a particularly personally convenient fashion, certainly, but I imagine he doesn’t subscribe to purely prescriptive grammars in his everyday language.

I mean, hell, his later arguments are for descriptive…

First off, “my” goals are not a thing I’ve divulged here. Kindly take that strawman and put it back in its field before you attract crows.

Secondly, your assertion here monumentally oversimplifies the problem in service of driving a poorly-supported point (it is, in other words, sophistry).

Hate speech only becomes hate…

He says he doesn’t use the word as a homophobic slur, then puts everyone on blast for only accepting the definition of words they’ve decide on.

So, not only is he an asshole, he’s a hypocritical asshole to boot!

So, here’s the thing about using etymological evolution as a defense for present use of an offensive term:

Yes, all of the profane words in the English language at one point or another had a polite, socially acceptable use. Many of the offensive terms (though not all of them, obviously) did as well.

These terms came to…