Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Teabaggers, really?
America's Debate > Forum Information > Comments and Suggestions
Google
ZeeSaga
I've noticed at least 2 people use the term "teabagger" on this website and I find it childish and offensive. P*ss is not allowed on this website so I figure teabagger would also be banned. People using it are just using it to make people mad and are disrespecting people whom are only protesting big government. I'm sure some of them are putting up racist sign but the whole Tea Party movement is based on fighting big government. You can paint some of them as bad people but to paint all of them with this derogatory term is not fair. I ask all to refrain from using this term and would like to see it banned as this site has rules and that type of immaturity is not welcome, thank you.
Google
Raptavio
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 19 2009, 03:05 PM) *
I've noticed at least 2 people use the term "teabagger" on this website and I find it childish and offensive. P*ss is not allowed on this website so I figure teabagger would also be banned. People using it are just using it to make people mad and are disrespecting people whom are only protesting big government. I'm sure some of them are putting up racist sign but the whole Tea Party movement is based on fighting big government. You can paint some of them as bad people but to paint all of them with this derogatory term is not fair. I ask all to refrain from using this term and would like to see it banned as this site has rules and that type of immaturity is not welcome, thank you.


The term, though used derogatorily, is used by the Tea Party movement itself.

http://www.reteaparty.com/2009/02/27/rick-...cago-tea-party/ is one of the first uses, actually.

Wikipedia notes FOX newsmodel Griff Jenkins, on the network that has given the tea bag movement millions of dollars in free advertising, was an early adapter.

The truth is, "tea bagging" and "tea bagger" were terms originally chosen by the leaders of the astroturf movement itself, with ignorance of the sexual meaning of the term. (Much like, 2 Million 4 Marriage, shortened to 2M4M, which also means "2 Men For More", some right-wingers seem to just choose unfortunate names for themselves.)

And by the way, they're not based on fighting big government, they're based on fighting Obama. If they were based on fighting big government they'd have existed before Jan 20, 2009.
Dontreadonme
Raptavio is correct. Although it does have a sexual connotation in some instances, it has become a generally accepted label. A label that is used by the movement itself.

For that reason, we have let it remain.

And on a personal note:

QUOTE
And by the way, they're not based on fighting big government, they're based on fighting Obama. If they were based on fighting big government they'd have existed before Jan 20, 2009.


You took the words right out of my mouth.
BoF
The movement sort of named itself, when people started showing up at rallies carrying tea bags. Taking tea bags to rallies evolved from the desire to recreate the spirit of the Boston Tea Party.

http://taxdayteaparty.com/

The term “teabaggers “can be interpreted several ways. Here is the Urban Dictionary’s take.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger

BTW: We had a rather popular thread started by scubatim in mid-April on this subject. I am sorry you were not yet here to participate, ZeeSaga.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...c=18475&hl=
Raptavio
By the way:
http://teabagparty.org/

ok? We didn't start this fire, Blackstone. It was always burning since Santelli and Armey were turning out propaganda.

Do we use it derisively and with full knowledge of the double entendre? Absolutely. We mock the movement. We mock the fact that multiple right-wing sources, including Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck, overstated participation in last weekend's rally by a factor of fifteen. We mock the alliance of far-right conservatives and LaRouchites. We mock the lack of cultural awareness and due diligence that caused these fools to name themselves "tea baggers." And I, for one, make no apologies for this group that deeply deserves to be laughed right out of the realm of legitimate political discourse.
ZeeSaga
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 19 2009, 01:22 PM) *
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 19 2009, 03:05 PM) *
I've noticed at least 2 people use the term "teabagger" on this website and I find it childish and offensive. P*ss is not allowed on this website so I figure teabagger would also be banned. People using it are just using it to make people mad and are disrespecting people whom are only protesting big government. I'm sure some of them are putting up racist sign but the whole Tea Party movement is based on fighting big government. You can paint some of them as bad people but to paint all of them with this derogatory term is not fair. I ask all to refrain from using this term and would like to see it banned as this site has rules and that type of immaturity is not welcome, thank you.


The term, though used derogatorily, is used by the Tea Party movement itself.

http://www.reteaparty.com/2009/02/27/rick-...cago-tea-party/ is one of the first uses, actually.

Wikipedia notes FOX newsmodel Griff Jenkins, on the network that has given the tea bag movement millions of dollars in free advertising, was an early adapter.

The truth is, "tea bagging" and "tea bagger" were terms originally chosen by the leaders of the astroturf movement itself, with ignorance of the sexual meaning of the term. (Much like, 2 Million 4 Marriage, shortened to 2M4M, which also means "2 Men For More", some right-wingers seem to just choose unfortunate names for themselves.)

And by the way, they're not based on fighting big government, they're based on fighting Obama. If they were based on fighting big government they'd have existed before Jan 20, 2009.


The first source you mentioned never uses the term teabagger at all, let alone to describe themselves. The Wikipedia article states that the term is mainly used in a derogatory way. Neither source says that the movement uses this term to describe themselves. Good try but they don't cut it plus I believe the term is against ad.gif rules:
QUOTE
III. The use of profanity at any time. This includes profanity look-alikes and intentionally using the banned words filter. If it would not be said on the evening news, it should not be posted on the forum. If a candidate in a presidential debate would not say it, it should not be posted on the forum.

QUOTE
IV. Inappropriate sexual references or terminology. Sexual acts/body parts are to be referred to by their scientific/medical names.


I don't think a person would say it on the new comfortably and I don't think a candidate would say it comfortably. It's also an inappropriate sexual reference.
BoF
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 19 2009, 03:37 PM) *
QUOTE
III. The use of profanity at any time. This includes profanity look-alikes and intentionally using the banned words filter. If it would not be said on the evening news, it should not be posted on the forum. If a candidate in a presidential debate would not say it, it should not be posted on the forum.

QUOTE
IV. Inappropriate sexual references or terminology. Sexual acts/body parts are to be referred to by their scientific/medical names.


I don't think a person would say it on the new comfortably and I don't think a candidate would say it comfortably. It's also an inappropriate sexual reference.

Language evolves ZeeSaga.

When West Side Story was released in 1957, one of the songs contained these lyrics.

QUOTE
I feel pretty
Oh so pretty
I feel pretty and witty and gay.

http://www.smartlyrics.com/Song39424-Wests...tty-lyrics.aspx

In those days “gay” meant light-hearted, carefree, etc. Today it means "homosexual."
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 19 2009, 04:37 PM) *
I don't think a person would say it on the new comfortably and I don't think a candidate would say it comfortably. It's also an inappropriate sexual reference.


Context matters. If the term is used as a sexual reference, or even an intentional double entendre pejorative, it doesn't belong here. If it's used as a purely political description it's fine. Which is the case for the examples you're referencing? We have deleted such entries in the past but some might have escaped if they weren't reported.
entspeak
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 19 2009, 03:37 PM) *
I don't think a person would say it on the new comfortably and I don't think a candidate would say it comfortably. It's also an inappropriate sexual reference.


But the Tea Party Protesters themselves have made reference to teabagging the fools in DC, teabagging the White House. You're saying that it's inappropriate to describe people who claim to be teabagging as teabaggers. Okay, fair enough. However, teabagger has come to refer to these people... and it is not something that solely opponents of this group have adopted. Me, I call them Tea Party Protesters, myself. But, unless it is clear that someone is making a sexual reference when using the word, describing a Tea Party Protester as a teabagger is not a sexual reference. If the movement hadn't adopted teabagging as a verb, then, sure, calling them teabaggers would be unfair... but they did, so it's not.
Paladin Elspeth
I didn't know the vulgar meaning of "teabagger" until I heard it laughed at on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Then I Googled it and found out. I was disgusted. That being said, it was the organizers of the demonstrators who identifed them this way, of course, without knowing the vulgar meaning.

Yes, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the censorship at this site. Why can I type "goddamn" and not type "p*ss"? All I can say is ask the mods to delete "teabagger" if you find it so offensive. If enough of you feel strongly about it and indicate your displeasure, it might be changed.
Google
Lesly
::raises hand:: Yeah I'm one of the people using the term. A Fox News anchor used the phrase tea bag without realizing the sexual connotation. Didn't surprise me when I read about it. The station's been mocked for twice identifying a Republican caught in a sex scandal as a Democrat in the chyron (Marks Foley and Sanford), and recently put Egypt where Iraq is. They should get better interns.

Anyway, I think it's amusing the movement started owning the term, apparently unaware of its origin. If the mods decide its off limits I'll drop it. I certainly can't imagine most people who consider themselves part of the movement are into erotic humiliation, but we may want to check with Dave Vitter just to make sure. w00t.gif
moif
I didn't know what the sexual conotation was either... huh.gif

But now I do, I have to laugh when I consider what a mine field English is becoming.

I'm sorry but do Americans have a name for every single possible sexual act? laugh.gif
Looms
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 19 2009, 04:53 PM) *
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 19 2009, 04:37 PM) *
I don't think a person would say it on the new comfortably and I don't think a candidate would say it comfortably. It's also an inappropriate sexual reference.


Context matters. If the term is used as a sexual reference, or even an intentional double entendre pejorative, it doesn't belong here. If it's used as a purely political description it's fine. Which is the case for the examples you're referencing? We have deleted such entries in the past but some might have escaped if they weren't reported.


Yes, exactly. Context does matter. By the logic that I am seeing here, nobody on AD should be allowed to mention this guy, EVER, under any circumstances. Oh, and if people don't like being made fun of, a good first step is to stop doing absurd things.
azwhitewolf
Moif:
QUOTE
But now I do, I have to laugh when I consider what a mine field English is becoming.

I hope you're not suggesting that anyone could be accused of mine laying.

But to answer your question, yes, I agree with you.

Teabaggers. (snicker)
Sleeper
As long as I can call an Obama lover a Dirty Sanchez it should be able to stand.

Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Sep 20 2009, 12:49 AM) *
As long as I can call an Obama lover a Dirty Sanchez it should be able to stand.

Now that is definitely vulgar and offensive, and it does not belong on this forum. No "Obama lover" I know would identify himself or herself in such a way! Do remember that this group of demonstrators took on the "teabagger" nickname on their own.
entspeak
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Sep 20 2009, 12:00 AM) *
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Sep 20 2009, 12:49 AM) *
As long as I can call an Obama lover a Dirty Sanchez it should be able to stand.

Now that is definitely vulgar and offensive, and it does not belong on this forum. No "Obama lover" I know would identify himself or herself in such a way! Do remember that this group of demonstrators took on the "teabagger" nickname on their own.


Well, they adopted the verb "to teabag" as their own. I don't know that they refer to themselves as "teabaggers." Since they adopted the verb, it is certainly reasonable to call "one who teabags" a "teabagger." In that sense, they brought it upon themselves.
Maybe Maybe Not
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 19 2009, 03:27 PM) *
Raptavio is correct. Although it does have a sexual connotation in some instances, it has become a generally accepted label. A label that is used by the movement itself.
Is Raptavio using it in that sense? Does he intend it in a designative sense? Or in a pejorative one?


Raptavio freely admits he's using the phrase to mock the movement - which is only possible if he intends the pejorative sense which IS a sexual reference. It doesn't matter if they "brought it on themselves" through ignorance of the other meaning - Raptavio knows. It's inappropriate.
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 10:42 AM) *
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 19 2009, 03:27 PM) *
Raptavio is correct. Although it does have a sexual connotation in some instances, it has become a generally accepted label. A label that is used by the movement itself.
Is Raptavio using it in that sense? Does he intend it in a designative sense? Or in a pejorative one?


Raptavio freely admits he's using the phrase to mock the movement - which is only possible if he intends the pejorative sense which IS a sexual reference. It doesn't matter if they "brought it on themselves" through ignorance of the other meaning - Raptavio knows. It's inappropriate.

"Teabagger" can be used in a pejorative sense without even knowing the sexual connotation. It sounds trivial in the modern day context. It isn't as though it would cause a great commotion anymore to dump tea into a harbor to protest English taxation, except for the EPA fining them for polluting the water. If they want to staple orange pekoe tea bags all around the brim of their hats and posters and use them for other displays during demonstrations, fine.

When I have used the term it has not been with the sexual connotation in mind, which is an obvious "Johnny Come Lately" to our language.

The Methodist Church would not have its name if it got all bothered about being called that. "Methodist" was a derogatory term used by the Church of England to describe the church reform movement started by John Wesley. The term stuck, and it is as respected a name these days as any church's name, original derision notwithstanding.

If I were one of the Teabaggers, I would wear that moniker with honor, acknowledging its historical and decent denotation and connotation. Maybe we should stop worrying about Urban Dictionary definitions for a change, stop snickering, and grow up.
moif
QUOTE
If I were one of the Teabaggers, I would wear that moniker with honor, acknowledging its historical and decent denotation and connotation. Maybe we should stop worrying about Urban Dictionary definitions for a change, stop snickering, and grow up.
Well said PE!

Quite apart from anything else, who knows which word will be next? How long before 'blogger' means something awkward,
or AD'er,
or Liberal? ohmy.gif
whistling.gif

Maybe Maybe Not
QUOTE(moif @ Sep 20 2009, 01:28 PM) *
Quite apart from anything else, who knows which word will be next? How long before 'blogger' means something awkward,
or AD'er,
or Liberal? ohmy.gif
whistling.gif
So why are Raptavio and Lesly (among others, presumably) using the word? Do they intend merely to name the people of whom they speak? Or do they intend that we should assume those so named are men who "squat on top of someone's face and lowers his genitals into his/her mouth during sex"?

Seems to me Raptavio has admitted the latter.
Raptavio
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 01:37 PM) *
QUOTE(moif @ Sep 20 2009, 01:28 PM) *
Quite apart from anything else, who knows which word will be next? How long before 'blogger' means something awkward,
or AD'er,
or Liberal? ohmy.gif
whistling.gif
So why are Raptavio and Lesly (among others, presumably) using the word? Do they intend merely to name the people of whom they speak? Or do they intend that we should assume those so named are men who "squat on top of someone's face and lowers his genitals into his/her mouth during sex"?

Seems to me Raptavio has admitted the latter.


Calm down, Chuckles, I admit no such thing.

I admit to being fully aware of the double meaning of the term, but I don't use the term to make the suggestion that any of the teabaggers are in fact engaging in the sex act. I'm using it to make light of their unfortunate ignorance -- and to be perfectly truthful (as I do try to be), I feel that those at the top of the "teabagger" hierarchy have spent a great many years "screwing" the American people in a metaphorical sense, and "teabagging" in a similarly metaphorical sense seems just as apt a comparison to me.

Ergo, I intend the double meaning metaphorically. And I would argue that if the term "teabagger" is to be forbidden, so should "screw" as in "The Bush administration screwed the American people sideways."
Vermillion
Look, in the end they are to a certain extent the victims of their own ignorance, and who can blame them. I also had to look up 'teabagging', and I'm pretty confident there is an entire demographic of people who have no idea that the term has a sexual meaning behind it.

In the end, if some political action groups decides to form an organization called the "Democratic Organization for Unity, Change, Health and Education, Beginning with Achievement Grants and Standards", they cannot then be angry if someone turns around and refers to them as the D.O.U.C.H.E.B.A.G.S.
Maybe Maybe Not
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 20 2009, 02:57 PM) *
Ergo, I intend the double meaning metaphorically. And I would argue that if the term "teabagger" is to be forbidden, so should "screw" as in "The Bush administration screwed the American people sideways."
You think the non-sexual meaning of the term "teabagging" is as entrenched in the language as the the non-sexual meaning of the term "screw"?

(Even if it were, you just said you intend to use the term to connote the double meaning. Both. The designative sense AND the pejorative. sexual sense.)

Stop it - it's inappropriate.
Lesly
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 02:37 PM) *
So why are Raptavio and Lesly (among others, presumably) using the word?

'Cause these clowns used it first? I'm not responsible for movements that don't vet their own slogan. It's not my job to say, "Hey, you may want to reconsider".

QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 02:37 PM) *
Or do they intend that we should assume those so named are men who "squat on top of someone's face and lowers his genitals into his/her mouth during sex"?

I don't intend for you to think of the verb. To me, at this time teabagger is synonymous with "high chance of idiot exorcising his or her demons in public". Ditto birthers. Is that better?

QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 04:27 PM) *
You think the non-sexual meaning of the term "teabagging" is as entrenched in the language as the the non-sexual meaning of the term "screw"?

Well, it's only been around a few months. Give it time, M,MN.

If I've used screw on ad.gif before I may have used the double meaning at some point. If not me some other poster. Thankfully nobody's started a screw thread yet. I hope that's not on urban dictionary. mellow.gif
Maybe Maybe Not
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 20 2009, 04:11 PM) *
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 02:37 PM) *
So why are Raptavio and Lesly (among others, presumably) using the word?

'Cause these clowns used it first? I'm not responsible for movements that don't vet their own slogan. It's not my job to say, "Hey, you may want to reconsider".
Nope. That's not your job.

Your job, knowing the two meanings, is to be better than they are ... or, to be crude and puerile in response to their ignorance.

Your choice.
Lesly
That's not my choice. That's your choice in viewing things, and you're welcome to your mind reading skills. If you want your choice enforced after this thread fades from memory and policy doesn't change towards teabagger or screwing, report posts.
Maybe Maybe Not
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 20 2009, 04:28 PM) *
That's not my choice. That's your choice in viewing things, and you're welcome to your mind reading skills. If you want your choice enforced after this thread fades from memory and policy doesn't change towards teabagger or screwing, report posts.
"So REPORT ME!!"

You don't see that you have any responsibilty for the quality of your posts. If no one reports you (or even if they do and the posts aren't technically against the rules), you're good.

Grow up.
Lesly
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 05:57 PM) *
You don't see that you have any responsibilty for the quality of your posts.

Of course I'm responsible for the quality of my posts. That's why I've never sought anyone's approval, including yours.
ZeeSaga
I think some of you using the term need to step back and realize that by using this terminology AD may be losing credibility as a place where mature adults debate and not children using questionable language. Is it that hard to use "tea party activists" instead? It just sounds more professional which, I'm sure, you would rather be looked at as. Some people may even shy away from ad.gif if they see that kind of language. Just be good users and don't use it for the sake of the site's good name.
Vermillion
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 20 2009, 10:18 PM) *
I think some of you using the term need to step back and realize that by using this terminology AD may be losing credibility as a place where mature adults debate and not children using questionable language.



Actually (personal opinion alert)I think everyone in this thread needs to step back entirely.

Seriously, while you were debating whether or not this self-appointed term which also happens to be a vague euphamism for an obscure sexual act is acceptable or not, I have been called a baby-killer and pro-death on one thread, people are being called deviants and lunatics and gullible on another thread, and I'm sure there is more I have not seen. Thats in the last 48 hours.

Teabaggers is a self-appointed term which has a double entendre, and if people choose to use it dispite that, well, there certainly is far worse going on all the time. I have called, and have been called, much nastier things even in this relatively strictly monitored board.

If a teabagger doesnt like being called a teabagger, then they shouldnt have stood up to be counted among an aorganization that called itself teabaggers. Who knows, maybe its intentional and the group is trying to reclaim the word, like the gay community reclaimed 'queer' in the 1980s. One way or another, it is pretty small potatoes.
entspeak
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 20 2009, 05:18 PM) *
I think some of you using the term need to step back and realize that by using this terminology AD may be losing credibility as a place where mature adults debate and not children using questionable language. Is it that hard to use "tea party activists" instead? It just sounds more professional which, I'm sure, you would rather be looked at as. Some people may even shy away from ad.gif if they see that kind of language. Just be good users and don't use it for the sake of the site's good name.



Okay... you've convinced me.

The movement adopted the verb teabag to describe what they were doing... they adopted it to define their movement. Referring to them as teabaggers in that context is a reference to that movement. So, barring other sexual references in connection with it, it should be perfectly fine to call them teabaggers. If someone wants to read a sexual meaning into it, that is more the reader than the writer. In response to this thread, I will now adopt the term - but know, I'm not referring to the sex act; I'm referring to those in that movement. Should the moderators decide that term is inappropriate then I will stop. Language is powerful and flexible and I love it for that very reason... if you choose to keep your head in the gutter with regard to the term, by all means do so... but don't put that on me.

So, congratulations... you've sold me on the use of the term to refer to tax party activists. I've never used it before outside of this thread, but I will from now on. Vive la Parole!
Maybe Maybe Not
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?
ZeeSaga
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Sep 20 2009, 03:27 PM) *
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 20 2009, 10:18 PM) *
I think some of you using the term need to step back and realize that by using this terminology AD may be losing credibility as a place where mature adults debate and not children using questionable language.



Actually (personal opinion alert)I think everyone in this thread needs to step back entirely.

Seriously, while you were debating whether or not this self-appointed term which also happens to be a vague euphamism for an obscure sexual act is acceptable or not, I have been called a baby-killer and pro-death on one thread, people are being called deviants and lunatics and gullible on another thread, and I'm sure there is more I have not seen. Thats in the last 48 hours.

Teabaggers is a self-appointed term which has a double entendre, and if people choose to use it dispite that, well, there certainly is far worse going on all the time. I have called, and have been called, much nastier things even in this relatively strictly monitored board.

If a teabagger doesnt like being called a teabagger, then they shouldnt have stood up to be counted among an aorganization that called itself teabaggers. Who knows, maybe its intentional and the group is trying to reclaim the word, like the gay community reclaimed 'queer' in the 1980s. One way or another, it is pretty small potatoes.


Good points, I think that all this kind of name calling and such hurts the reputation of AD. No one has yet linked something that shows these people naming themselves this, though. They link to these people saying they will teabag others but they don't go as far as calling themselves teabaggers. 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. I don't think anyone wants to take back the word teabaggers and I don't think it has ever been used to describe someone who uses a tea bag.
Ted
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 06:51 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?

Clearly if you mean to use any word, regardless of the number of meanings, as a derogatory comment, then it should be taken that way.

That is the context and that is the intention – period
entspeak
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 ad.gif will be fine. thumbsup.gif

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. smile.gif

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.
Maybe Maybe Not
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 20 2009, 06:01 PM) *
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.
... except that you KNOW the sexual meaning, and the ones who adopted it do not. If you use it to mock them, you are using the sexual meaning because you KNOW the sexual meaning.

I expected more of you.
BoF
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 20 2009, 05:58 PM) *
Clearly if you mean to use any word, regardless of the number of meanings, as a derogatory comment, then it should be taken that way.

That is the context and that is the intention – period

Ted what you said, doesn’t tell us whether or not you approve of the term “teabbagger.”

If you disapprove, then perhaps you need to reconsider some of the invective you’ve hurled at Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi, among others, over the years. huh.gif

ZeeSaga
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2009, 04:15 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 20 2009, 05:58 PM) *
Clearly if you mean to use any word, regardless of the number of meanings, as a derogatory comment, then it should be taken that way.

That is the context and that is the intention – period

Ted what you said, doesn’t tell us whether or not you approve of the term “teabbagger.”

If you disapprove, then perhaps you need to reconsider some of the invective you’ve hurled at Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi, among others, over the years. huh.gif


2 wrongs don't make a right, do they?
entspeak
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 06:13 PM) *
except that you KNOW the sexual meaning, and the ones who adopted it do not. If you use it to mock them, you are using the sexual meaning because you KNOW the sexual meaning.

I expected more of you.


I also KNOW that they didn't mean it sexually when they adopted the verb for their use. Where is the shame in expanding upon their usage? Perhaps, if those in the movement didn't wish to be called teabaggers, they shouldn't have used a verb that only had one meaning to describe what they were doing. Being that they did and they used it in a non-sexual way, they introduced a new meaning of the verb - to protest the government in the spirit, so they believe, of the Boston Tea Party.

And I said quite clearly I wasn't going to use it mockingly, so don't go chastising me.
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(ZeeSaga)
I think some of you using the term need to step back and realize that by using this terminology AD may be losing credibility as a place where mature adults debate and not children using questionable language.

"Mature" adults. Hmmm... hmmm.gif For the past few decades (at least three), that has been used as a designation for people old enough to watch porn. I prefer the term "grown up" for that reason, because I see no maturity in viewing porno movies. The movie industry is just covering its collective backside. I'm "not mature enough" for some of the movies out there!

It is impossible to tell who means what when there are other meanings to the words a writer is saying. We cannot hear tone of voice nor see the writer's expression. Some members undoubtedly infer meanings in ordinary words that are used here regardless of what the writer intends to communicate. But--If a certain writer habitually uses terms of derision on this site, it is reasonable to surmise that a term that might be construed as derogatory is meant in a derogatory way unless the writer clearly indicates otherwise.

For what it is worth, if I happen to choose the term "teabagger" in my posts, I am using it as a descriptive term for how these protesters identify themselves and the props they use in their demonstrations, and it is NOT used in the sense of a gutter-level vulgarity.
BoF
QUOTE(ZeeSaga @ Sep 20 2009, 06:16 PM) *
2 wrongs don't make a right, do they?

Well excuse me, ZeeSaga. We’ve been waiting for a moral compass on this board.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Nice cliché.

What I am trying to find out is whether or not Ted frowns on the word “teabagger.”

I realize that anyone can respond to anything on this board, but only Ted can answer the question I asked him.

In any event, "rock on."
Ted
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2009, 07:15 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 20 2009, 05:58 PM) *
Clearly if you mean to use any word, regardless of the number of meanings, as a derogatory comment, then it should be taken that way.

That is the context and that is the intention – period

Ted what you said, doesn’t tell us whether or not you approve of the term “teabbagger.”

If you disapprove, then perhaps you need to reconsider some of the invective you’ve hurled at Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi, among others, over the years. huh.gif



BOF
If it is meant in the derogatory sense I don't approve of it.

QUOTE
If you disapprove, then perhaps you need to reconsider some of the invective you’ve hurled at Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi, among others, over the years.


They are public figures – and in any case I have never called them anything like the vulgar meaning of this word.

Lesly
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 20 2009, 07:13 PM) *
I expected more of you.

What you expect is everyone to agree with you. This doesn't change minds.
Mrs. Pigpen
Wow. It is unfortunate the movement in question didn't choose to call themselves tea strainers (I don't think they actually used those little bags back in the day anyway, but Americans are as familiar with teas as the British are with our bawdy oh-so-clever colloquialisms).

Let's see what the Rules say: Prohibited Item number IV:
QUOTE
Inappropriate sexual references or terminology. Sexual acts/body parts are to be referred to by their scientific/medical names.


So, again, context matters. Comments that skirt the line, like "Have fun teabagging!" aren't welcome here. Otherwise I see no objection to the term....at least not unless and until Jaime and Mike weigh in differently.
BoF
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 20 2009, 06:25 PM) *
They are public figures – and in any case I have never called them anything like the vulgar meaning of this word.

I don’t know whether or not I’ve used the word “teabagger” on this board, other than in this thread. To my knowledge, no member on this board has called another member a “teabagger.”

When someone posts on Facebook, it’s sort of out there.

When people show up in a public place carrying tea bags and all manner of signs they get caught on camera. They may not be “public figures,” but they have certainly put themselves in the public spotlight.

Like people who post stuff on Facebook, protesters caught on camera become part of a public record.

I personally don't think you can legitimately object to "teabagger" without reconsidering your own rhetoric. you know - "idiot," "moron," "liar," "stupid," etc.

BTW: Some of the people who have attended these events are public figures. That would include former congressman Dick Armey and Gov. Rick Perry, - both Texans, of course.
Lesly
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2009, 07:40 PM) *
I personally don't think you can legitimately object to "teabagger" without reconsidering your own rhetoric. you know - "idiot," "moron," "liar," "stupid," etc.

If the idiot, liar and moron in question is a public figure, who cares?

If I'm asked, "Don't you realize you're killing babies?" Believe me I don't care.

I wouldn't even report someone for calling me a babykiller, though that is clearly against the rules (name calling). I'd smirk.
Mrs. Pigpen
This thread is too contentious. I'm closing it for staff review.
Jaime
CLOSED. Everyone's had their say and now some of you are using this topic as an opportunity to troll each other. We will continue to allow the term, and will look at context if/when it gets reported for a specific rule violation.

Maybe we should take this topic as a reminder to review Rules and Survival Guide from time to time.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.