Talk:epithet

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

This Author has repeatedly ignored complaints that using faggots as an example is offensive, inappropriate and entirely unnecessary, as there are thousands upon thousands of examples of defamatory epithets that would not call for using such hostile and disgusting language. Without fail, the author of this entry deletes the objection and tacitly insists on using a word for which s/he seems to have a particular affinity: FAGGOTS

I invite this author (probably a homophobe, given his/her insistence?) to consider a decision made by the editors of the Wikipedia entry on Epithet:

"Though wikipedia is not supposed to be censored for minors, the content the author inserted here is very unnecessary.

Quote: "In contemporary usage, an epithet often is an abusive or defamatory phrase. "Jew-lover", "pinko commie", "Bible-thumper", "cock-sucker", "wank-merchant", "tit-man" mother fucker and "nigger"..."

The inclusion of such language is completely unnecessary, and instead of being informative, leads one to believe such terms could possibly reflect the opinion of the author. --Greenday121 17:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)"

The fact that this author won't pick another epithet (one not racially, ethnically, or sexually-charged, and one that does not denigrate the aged, the disabled, or any other protected minority class--i.e., a class that requires protection because of long-standing, widespread hatred, abuse and oppression) is very, very suspicious for the concern that is expressed above. WHY NOT just pick another example, ASSHOLE?!?! Why--there's one:Asshole Anybody can be an asshole. It's an equal opportunity epithet.

The fact that "anyone" can be an asshole does not make it a good example - I have replaced your example to a word that has a specific derogatory meaning. I can see why you complain about "faggot" being used to describe "homosexual", BUT please remember that Wiktionary exists to describe how language is actually used, NOT how you think language should be used. Conrad.Irwin 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that defines an epithet as "specific," and certainly nothing that demands that it specifically attack a protected class. I am thinking of other readers who don't need to be hurt and offended and reminded that they are hated by strangers out in the world, as I was. It's no better to attack Chinese people than it is to attack gay people (no worse, either). There are even gay Chinese people out there. If you can use an example that won't offend anybody, why not do it? Be responsible.

What you fail to understand is that saying "this word is used thusly" is not offensive. It would be offensive to actually use the word. I have replace the example with an actual quote - I couldn't see a quote calling words like asshole epithets, though there was another one about "racial epithets". If you find such a quote (in durably archived media) please add it to the entry and amend the definition. Conrad.Irwin 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)