I'm convinced that title's a euphemism for something really, really dirty.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

I've watched it 5 times now. Not once did I see a bike... is it some sort of new invisible bike technology?
Perhaps "bike" is a euphemism? (I don't relish being a buzzkill, but does this not run afoul of VideoSift's content policy?)

Women's monthlies follow the lunar calendar.

I can see Lunar Yap being a euphemism for yonny.

And yeah. Romney and Ryan do torment my vagina.


>> ^critical_d:

I Torment My Lunar Yap

>> ^SevenFingers:

>> ^00Scud00:
Piss Flaps. Yep, I can thank Deadwood for that lovely euphemism.

Good ole Calamity Jane... if I remember right


Really? I could swear I thought I heard the doctor say it, which just made it even better.

>> ^00Scud00:

Piss Flaps. Yep, I can thank Deadwood for that lovely euphemism.


Good ole Calamity Jane... if I remember right

Piss Flaps. Yep, I can thank Deadwood for that lovely euphemism.

>> ^MrShineHimDiamond:

Isn't "tickling the gorilla" a euphemism like "flogging the dolphin"?


Perhaps you're thinking of "shock the monkey"?

Isn't "tickling the gorilla" a euphemism like "flogging the dolphin"?

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Bath Salts: make you crazy - Legal
Cannabis: makes you sleepy - Illegal

Yay War on Drugs! We're winning! Just like in Afghanistan!

It's not actually legal, they are in violation of the Federal Analog Act. The whole bath salts euphemism is an attempt to get away with breaking the law, but there's no real doubt they're breaking it.
But yeah, it makes all the enforcement efforts against pot seem even more ridiculous and heavy handed when untested designer drugs are an actual danger to the public.


Wow...that's a pretty scary act. I just love it when the idiots in Congress try to legislate stuff that doesn't exist yet. It's guaranteed to produce a trainwreck of generalities and vagaries. I'm amazed this hasn't yet been found unconstitutional yet.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Bath Salts: make you crazy - Legal
Cannabis: makes you sleepy - Illegal

Yay War on Drugs! We're winning! Just like in Afghanistan!


It's not actually legal, they are in violation of the Federal Analog Act. The whole bath salts euphemism is an attempt to get away with breaking the law, but there's no real doubt they're breaking it.

But yeah, it makes all the enforcement efforts against pot seem even more ridiculous and heavy handed when untested designer drugs are an actual danger to the public.

>> ^hpqp:

^upvote^ for a new euphemism for vagina: "the situation".

Now whenever I hear them talk about "the situation room", I am going to openly laugh. The thought of Wolf Blitzer wondering into a room full of vaginas is enough to cause asphyxiation by laughter.

^upvote^ for a new euphemism for vagina: "the situation".

>> ^bareboards2:

@ChaosEngine, you are absolutely right. Context does matter.
I haven't gone into another aspect of my (much thought about) logic around this language issue -- although I did allude to it above -- but it is indeed about context.
I have no problem with the word girl being applied to grown women IF IF IF in the same CONTEXT, you would use the word boy for a grown man.
That is why your wife calls her women friends girls -- just like @longde called his friends boys. Same context.
My personal internal test for whether it is (unconsciously) sexist or not to call a grown woman a girl is to change the gender and ask myself -- if this were a man, would I call this grown man a boy under the same circumstances. If the answer is yes, then hey, go for it. CONTEXT does matter. I am with you 100%.
But I'll say the same thing to you -- go through one day doing that. Change the gender. When you hear "man", change to "boy" and see if that doesn't feel WRONG to you. When you hear "girl", change to "woman" and see if your internal landscape doesn't shift the tiniest bit.
Thank you for the first respectful response I have gotten to my point here. I really really appreciate it.
I also would be interested in hearing your wife's response to all my posts. That would be fascinating.


To be fair to you. I rewatched the video and tried to imagine if the story involved young men being racist hipster idiots.

And I can't help but concede you probably have a point here. It's highly unlikely that these guys would have referred to males in the same position as "boys". They would probably have been initially called "dudes" and later as the story progressed referred by some non-gender specific epithet (idiots/morons/etc.)

There's an interesting societal language thing at work here, and there's probably an element of "unconscious sexism" as you put it. Generally men are raised to treat women differently. This can be "positive" (holding a door open, "never hit a girl", etc) or negative (do I really need to provide examples of this?). And it's undoubtedly leaked into language. Also to be fair to the guys telling the story in the video, "girl" is such a common euphemism for woman in society that it's kinda hard to see it as anything but equivalent to "dude", "bloke" etc.

I don't know if that's down to sexism or just evolution of language, but as I said, there is definitely a difference. Whether that difference is ultimately problematic is, I guess, personal.

I can get behind that historian's way of describing it, and I agree with what you're saying about how the Civil War went down. I just disagree with your assessment of what Paul himself said -- he didn't just say "it's not the only issue" he later says "it wasn't the deciding issue" which is just...wrong.

The South seceded and fired the first shots because they wanted to keep their slaves so badly they'd rather leave the Union than give them up.

There was a confluence of other issues involved in the conflict, but "State's rights" was and always has been a euphemism for the bargain that was struck at the signing of the Constitution to let some states keep slavery, not some separate, lofty moral principle that has nothing to do with slavery.

>> ^Skeeve:

"While slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war." - Elizabeth R. Varon, Bruce Levine, Marc Egnal, and Michael Holt at a plenary session of the organization of American Historians, March 17, 2011.
Most historical works I have read about the American Civil War explain that, from the North's perspective, the war wasn't to end slavery, but to preserve the union. That said, the South's reason for seceding was based more heavily on protecting their right to have slaves.
As with all wars, there wasn't just one cause and, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, I have to agree with his statement that slavery wasn't the only reason for the Civil War.>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Kreegath:
However, he does make his opinion clear that he doesn't think ending slavery was the deciding reason for the civil war, something that I've actually heard is a historically defensible position.

Heard from who?

lots of euphemism and innuendo -- And Charlie's well-aware...