QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 05:51 PM)
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 20 2009, 05:33 PM)
If someone wants to read a sexual meaning into it, that is more the reader than the writer.
... except that some members indicate they INTEND the sexual meaning, as a form of mockery.
Who is that on? The reader, or the writer?
Well, that's not me. I'm all for the evolution of language. The argument that using the term will somehow reduce the credibility of the site was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. "Don't use it for the sake of the site?" I think
will be fine.
So... just know I'm using the term from now on. The fact that some members may use it mockingly doesn't change the fact that the tea party activists adopted the idea as their own first
. That was pretty silly and definitely worthy of mocking... I'm sure in hindsight they wouldn't have done so. So, now, in addition to the sexual act, it refers to individuals in the tea party activist movement. Welcome to the glory of language.
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 20 2009, 05:55 PM)
I don't think a majority of the members of this movement would proudly call themselves teabaggers. I can find no use of the word teabaggers from supporters of the movement.
No, those in the movement just proudly claimed that they would teabag
the fools in DC. A teabagger is one who teabags, which is what those in the movement proudly
claim they are doing and there was no non-sexual definition for the verb "teabag" prior to this. If it is alright for the movement to redefine the term to describe the intentions of the movement, why is it not okay to take their redefinition and use it as a reference to the movement? It is a reference. I see no reason not
to make use of it.