stool penetrometer: the new euphemism for rear-roaming dicks.

Backstory would be essential here methinks. Going all shoot'm dead like that is pretty extreme (<--euphemism).

Well, the movie they are promoting is known in the US as "Friends with Benefits" an american euphemism with a sexual connotation. So I think that the sign is that expression, loosely translated.>> ^legacy0100:

The sign in the back is saying Secks Podruzhbe, what does it mean? Sex friends?

Cornhole ? lol sounds like an Euphemism for anal sex

@SDGundamX

(just so you know, I do not agree with everything Harris says, but he makes quite a few good points).

Interesting extract from this article (bold=added): http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/holy-terror


Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. The social policy that can be derived from the Koran currently poses even greater dangers. According to this text, it is the duty of every Muslim man to make war on unbelievers (Koran 9:73 and 9:123), and such men are promised eternal happiness after death. It is true that many Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran’s solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that many are not so inclined, and they now regularly murder innocent noncombatants for religious reasons. The phrase “the war on terrorism” is a dangerous euphemism that obscures the true cause of our troubles in the world, because we are currently at war with precisely the vision of life prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with “the friends of Satan”? How can we expect the faithful to feel about people who God himself is in the process of “mocking,” “cursing,” “shaming,” “punishing,” “scourging,” “judging,” “burning,” “annihilating,” “not forgiving,” and “not reprieving”? While there are many charges that can be fairly leveled at men like Osama bin Laden, perverting the teachings of the Koran is not among them. Why did nineteen well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to Paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so fully and satisfactorily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.

Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between our religious traditions is simply never discussed. Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They, too, suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.

It may not be a euphemism, but I'm going to use it as one now!

>> ^Sagemind:

I think of the word gay as something fun, the way the word was intended.
Time and culture is re-defining the word.
When I hear it used to describe something not cool, I often think of Michael Jackson's "Bad". Meaning the slang intention of describing something using the opposite term. (wow, That's "Sick!")


OK, a couple of things here. First off, I think it's generally fine when a word's meaning gradually changes, as in the words "bad" or "cool" (even "nice" used to mean something else, way back when), and I'm not generally opposed to language evolving. When a word changes so that its connotations become negative, in the case of a word used to describe a minority, it is damaging to members of that minority.

The major point I want to make is that the word "gay" has the connotations of "generally bad" because of the homophobia of many of those who use it that way. To these people, "Gay" has come to mean "generally bad" because being gay (ie being a homosexual) is bad. This is one change in the language that shouldn't pass without protest, just as we wouldn't tolerate the use of the word "jewish" should kids start using it to refer to things they think are bad, as in "I hated that film, man, it was so jewish". If that started happening, I think the opposition to this new usage would be a lot stronger than it is for "gay".

Also, I don't believe for a minute that the first meaning that comes into your head when you hear the word "gay" is "happy" or "something fun", unless you're a time traveller from the 1930s.

>> ^Sagemind:

Not so much as using "reverse gendered" individuals as the target but taking an innocent word, meaning good and great and fun and turning it around to mean un-good, un-great or un-fun.
Gay people need to realize that the term was there before they started using it and it has a true meaning, even if they are upstaging it.


You have the wrong end of the stick there. The history of the word "gay" as applied to homosexuality started as a polite euphemism for homosexuals, particularly those flamboyant individuals for whom its connotations of "happy and merry" and "homosexual" would have been most apt. Gay people did not start using the term themselves until after it had been applied to them. The community didn't just start using this new connotation of "gay" and decide that everyone should go along with it, any more than Native Americans walked up to the colonists upon landing and introduce themselves as redskins or Indians. Therefore "gay" doesn't have a "true meaning" that gay people are undermining. I think the desire to prevent its mutation into a pejorative term is entirely reasonable, especially considering the gay community has still so much to fight for in terms of equal rights and the right to live without fear of prosecution.

"Reverse gendered"? Is that what you think gay people are? I'll put that down as a bad choice of words.

Ryjkyj, anyone who has truly been bullied will tell you that words can indeed hurt. We all know this; to pretend otherwise is naive, and I'm sure we've all been hurt by someone in this way. Don't forget, you can do something about being lazy, if you're lazy - I can't do anything about being gay (I tried, when I was 16: it was absurd, the girl never spoke to me again).

And I'm not just being thin-skinned. It can take a long time to get over genuine hurtful homophobic abuse, as I know from first-hand experience. Homophobic bullying can and does drive kids and adults to depression or worse, and the casual tossing around of the word "gay" by their peers to mean "bad" creates an atmosphere where even self-identifying as gay becomes fraught with unease and self-doubt.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^Fantomas:
>> ^DerHasisttot:
OMFG I want one!

A drunk woman?

No, a woman that can cook! Drunk women anyone can easily have, that's not special. Also, very annoying.


I don't know, I think she shows more talent at adorable drunkenness than at cooking. I wouldn't eat her pancakes, but I would drink her mimosas. (the preceding was not a euphemism)

>> ^gwiz665:

It is now... have you tried my dressing?
>> ^residue:
>> ^lucky760:
>> I've gotten in one too many bar fights trying to dip my french fries into someone else's plate.

Is that a euphemism?



*jelly

mmm, tangy

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
It is now... have you tried my dressing?
>> ^residue:

>> ^lucky760:
>> I've gotten in one too many bar fights trying to dip my french fries into someone else's plate.

Is that a euphemism?

It is now... have you tried my dressing?
>> ^residue:

>> ^lucky760:
>> I've gotten in one too many bar fights trying to dip my french fries into someone else's plate.

Is that a euphemism?

>> ^lucky760:

>> I've gotten in one too many bar fights trying to dip my french fries into someone else's plate.


Is that a euphemism?

>> ^dag:

Some ADDers take offense at this popular view. They see ADD and ADHD as very specific set of symptoms that you either have or don't have - but would agree that many people have been misdiagnosed with the disorder.
I share your view however.
>> ^blankfist:
utilizing
ADD and ADHD are euphemisms for strong-willed and creative, possibly. Maybe these people are bored with the humdrum of institutionalized education or the repetitiveness of their job, and these little pills help them "fit in" and be the cog instead of the new voice or innovator.



I suppose I'll jump in here since I have been diagnosed with ADD (not the hyperactive type).

I don't think it is a well-defined condition, so it could just be a catch-all for several unrelated conditions. It's an issue that seems so simple when viewed through the lense of "common sense", but the further I've dug into the research behind it the murkier it has become.

Symptoms? Just to pick one... you know when you're thinking or reading about something and in the middle of it it reminds you of something else? How is that handled internally? How easy is it for you to quickly and consistently downgrade the importance of that sudden reference and maintain focus on the main idea of the original thought?

Imagine the mechanism(s) for controlling the importance of that new cognitive direction isn't working correctly for whatever reason, and the new direction becomes the primary direction almost instantly, unnoticeably, and in a way that completely destroys the original line of thought. Now imagine that happening two or three times per sentence while reading.

That's a state I was in for a while (to varying degrees). I wish it were something that could be overcome with effort, because I've never put more effort into anything in my life.


Causes? I have no idea. Maybe genetic, maybe environmental, maybe developmental, maybe something else? My guess is that it is largely developmental (a structural result of experience/habit), though with a smaller level of genetic and environmental influence. It's definitely affected by nutrition, sleep, exercise, meditation (etc), but those affect nearly any mental state.


All I can speak for is myself. Whatever I have/had (ADD or something else) had very real effects, and I certainly wouldn't say it stemmed from any form of "boredom". I love reading and science and math, but it's nice to be able to study something I love without suddenly realizing I'm thinking about how many screws are in a toaster and that I have no idea what I read over the past three paragraphs.



As far as whether or not ADD is a "disease" (perhaps disorder is more appropriate), I think that generally depends on how many people fit the symptoms. Is it a disorder if it affects 30% of people? What about 90%? ADD medication improves the mental performance of lots of people, but it also tends to decrease the performance of the top performers. It's a fascinating subject.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Some ADDers take offense at this popular view. They see ADD and ADHD as very specific set of symptoms that you either have or don't have - but would agree that many people have been misdiagnosed with the disorder.

I share your view however.

>> ^blankfist:

utilizing
ADD and ADHD are euphemisms for strong-willed and creative, possibly. Maybe these people are bored with the humdrum of institutionalized education or the repetitiveness of their job, and these little pills help them "fit in" and be the cog instead of the new voice or innovator.

*utilizing

ADD and ADHD are euphemisms for strong-willed and creative, possibly. Maybe these people are bored with the humdrum of institutionalized education or the repetitiveness of their job, and these little pills help them "fit in" and be the cog instead of the new voice or innovator.