| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Kayla Moore...
....just said at a rally: “One of our lawyers is a Jew.” :) -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
Kayla Moore...
Keyser Söze wrote:
...just said at a rally: “One of our lawyers is a Jew.” :) Was she wrong? |
Kayla Moore...
On 12/12/17 11:41 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: ...just said at a rally: “One of our lawyers is a Jew.” :) Was she wrong? Gee, I dunno. That you don't seem to get the outrageousness of that remark is no surprise. |
Kayla Moore...
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 11:41:35 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: ...just said at a rally: “One of our lawyers is a Jew.” :) Was she wrong? No, not in any sense. "It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun." Some folks just want to be offended, or are looking too hard for offensive things. |
Kayla Moore...
On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 13:15:32 UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/12/17 11:41 AM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: ...just said at a rally: “One of our lawyers is a Jew.” :) Was she wrong? Gee, I dunno. That you don't seem to get the outrageousness of that remark is no surprise. There'a a whole lot of things that Swill doesn't get...and that is no surprise to anyone. |
Kayla Moore...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:15:29 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 12/12/17 11:41 AM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: ...just said at a rally: “One of our lawyers is a Jew.” :) Was she wrong? Gee, I dunno. That you don't seem to get the outrageousness of that remark is no surprise. Do you have something against Jewish lawyers? |
Kayla Moore...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:33:41 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 13:15:32 UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/12/17 11:41 AM, Bill wrote: Keyser Sze wrote: ...just said at a rally: One of our lawyers is a Jew. :) Was she wrong? Gee, I dunno. That you don't seem to get the outrageousness of that remark is no surprise. There'a a whole lot of things that Swill doesn't get...and that is no surprise to anyone. Did someone call you a name, Don, or are you simply exhibiting your level of maturity? |
Kayla Moore...
Its Me
- show quoted text - No, not in any sense. "It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun." Some folks just want to be offended, or are looking too hard for offensive things. —— Though the Italian settlements in St. Louis is now called “The Hill” to be politically correct, nobody is ever offended if you ask where “Daygo Hill” is. That’s where the family eating establishments are. “Daygo Hill”. Gotta love it. |
Kayla Moore...
|
Kayla Moore...
On 12/12/17 1:35 PM, Tim wrote:
Its Me - show quoted text - No, not in any sense. "It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun." Some folks just want to be offended, or are looking too hard for offensive things. —— Though the Italian settlements in St. Louis is now called “The Hill” to be politically correct, nobody is ever offended if you ask where “Daygo Hill” is. That’s where the family eating establishments are. “Daygo Hill”. Gotta love it. The pejorative is "Dago," not "Daygo." Crikey. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com