Sorry, I think I mean "genteel"-wrong language!
Is "screwed up" an inappropriate term for a presid
↑ Language, I don't think Biden said anything today; he must be slipping a little. ;-)
There were at least a couple of times, though, that I wish he'd kept his danged mouth shut, because it revealed tactlessness to the point of angering his constituents.
It's scary to ponder the fact that he was Obama's original choice of Secretary of State. Can you just imagine? A couple of Biden's malaprops could have done real international damage. Fortunately, the Gods knew best.
There were at least a couple of times, though, that I wish he'd kept his danged mouth shut, because it revealed tactlessness to the point of angering his constituents.
It's scary to ponder the fact that he was Obama's original choice of Secretary of State. Can you just imagine? A couple of Biden's malaprops could have done real international damage. Fortunately, the Gods knew best.
Jasper, wow, I had long forgotten the word "germane." I think I forgot it by high school. Thanks for re-teaching it. :P
I'm American, and I can definitely say there are many people who do find it inappropriate. You won't hear people voice their opinions of course, no one's going to complain about "screwed up," especially since, it isn't too bad. But in the same way, I wouldn't complain about people using the f's.... unless they use it a lot, and then their lack of respect does get bothersome. Slightly off-tangent b ut related to what I just siad, we overuse the O-word, I think (the word offend, lol). Although there are many people who do go crazy and emo and get offended over everything, a lot of people like me, aren't really offended by mere words and stuff - it's the lack of respect, consideration, etc. behind them. :)
POLIGLOB: <<I don't even think of the sexual meaning when I hear 'screwed up'.... 'screwed' ....the sexual meaning would cross my mind .... That I'd definitely consider inappropriate.>>
This is one of things that doesn't quite make sense and is part of the whole issue. They get overused so that people don't think of the sexual meaning anymore, or if it's non-sexual, even what the word itself represents, whether it's s**t, screwed, f, etc. That doesn't make it less inappropriate.
"So i f'ing went to the f'ing ___ and this f'ing person f'ing did this and it just f'ing p'd me off and it's just so f'd up." I don't think anyome would think of the sexual meaning of f in that... but it doesn't make it any less vulgar.
but such a thing does happen. I'm sure screwed eventually will totally lose it's vulgar connotations. We're obviously getting close, but there's still lots of people, even from the young generation, that aren't totally ok with it.
Jasper, that was close to being a good point, regarding mess, but it's not the same thing. Mess is just another proper word in the english, and it can be used to refer to something that *IS* a mess. You're useing a more vague, less specific word, becuase the meaning is implied, and you're not being direct. It totally makes sense and it does NOT make "mess" vulgar in the least. On the contrary, it comes off as more polife.
"screw" however, naturally has no relation to the more vulgar meaning, and using it is more vulgar than some other alternative, becuase, you can imagine what screw means. That word is quite specific to a certain image or act, which is defintely not as clean and respectful of the act as "making love" and instead goes for a more direct, explicit meaning. Just like the f.
I'm American, and I can definitely say there are many people who do find it inappropriate. You won't hear people voice their opinions of course, no one's going to complain about "screwed up," especially since, it isn't too bad. But in the same way, I wouldn't complain about people using the f's.... unless they use it a lot, and then their lack of respect does get bothersome. Slightly off-tangent b ut related to what I just siad, we overuse the O-word, I think (the word offend, lol). Although there are many people who do go crazy and emo and get offended over everything, a lot of people like me, aren't really offended by mere words and stuff - it's the lack of respect, consideration, etc. behind them. :)
POLIGLOB: <<I don't even think of the sexual meaning when I hear 'screwed up'.... 'screwed' ....the sexual meaning would cross my mind .... That I'd definitely consider inappropriate.>>
This is one of things that doesn't quite make sense and is part of the whole issue. They get overused so that people don't think of the sexual meaning anymore, or if it's non-sexual, even what the word itself represents, whether it's s**t, screwed, f, etc. That doesn't make it less inappropriate.
"So i f'ing went to the f'ing ___ and this f'ing person f'ing did this and it just f'ing p'd me off and it's just so f'd up." I don't think anyome would think of the sexual meaning of f in that... but it doesn't make it any less vulgar.
but such a thing does happen. I'm sure screwed eventually will totally lose it's vulgar connotations. We're obviously getting close, but there's still lots of people, even from the young generation, that aren't totally ok with it.
Jasper, that was close to being a good point, regarding mess, but it's not the same thing. Mess is just another proper word in the english, and it can be used to refer to something that *IS* a mess. You're useing a more vague, less specific word, becuase the meaning is implied, and you're not being direct. It totally makes sense and it does NOT make "mess" vulgar in the least. On the contrary, it comes off as more polife.
"screw" however, naturally has no relation to the more vulgar meaning, and using it is more vulgar than some other alternative, becuase, you can imagine what screw means. That word is quite specific to a certain image or act, which is defintely not as clean and respectful of the act as "making love" and instead goes for a more direct, explicit meaning. Just like the f.
Also there is the fact that the expression seemed incongruous with the situation. "screw up" is a very strong expression (at least when used by a president) and yet his errors were, while embarrassing, hardly unheard of or surprising. It degrades his image and is quite attention-grabbing to use that word for such errors. I don't oppose to him using the expression, but he should wait till the end of his presidency, look through all his long list of mistakes, pick the most serious , and only THEN say "I screwed up". But using it the way he did, it makes you wonder if he WILL say "I fucked up" one day, because surely he will make more serious mistakes than this.
I would not say that the US is quite as well, classless, as some would say, though. At least here in Wisconsin (which I will use as an example simply because it is the one which I am by far the most familiar), social class is most definitely a major factor in everyday life, but at the same time it operates in a completely different fashion from such in the UK.
At least here, social class is extremely apparent from just looking around, but the key thing is that may not be immediately apparent is that money is not the key factor behind it at all. Rather, it is the internalized social ideology held by the individuals in questions that matters, which is often but not always tied to the amount of opportunity available to and education had by the individuals in question. In many cases, it is precisely the family one is raised in or the amount of education had by one that matters, and the social circles one associates with and shares social views with.
In particular, many twenty-somethings may differ very little in wealth here, yet still fundamentally be of distinctly different social classes. There are those whose lack of wealth is only temporary, and who will go on to greater things, and there are those who will die in largely the same social position that they have at the point time. Furthermore, it is practically obvious from just that point in time who will be in which group. And yet it is not necessarily a matter of just some kind of personal attributes of "hard work" or whatnot, but rather a matter of the backgrounds of the individuals in question and the degree of education available to them. All of the above can be summed up in terms of social class, which in many ways is practically hereditary even though a degree of movement is definitely possible provided the proper conditions - or practically impossible under other conditions.
Case in point: take my own parents, for instance. They were very poor during much of their twenties. They had very little money or jobs that payed well at all during the time, and only managed to get ahold of the house they own right now because it was in bad condition and owned by an elderly person who was going off to "the home"; it only looks good today due to extensive repairs and improvements since that time. They really were no better off superficially than many people in the inner city of the same age and at the same point in time.
Yet, they are doing quite today, while most of said people in the inner city are just where they were when they were in their 20s, if not worse. My father, while a postal worker, has enough seniority that it pays quite a good amount today, and such has provided plenty of benefits the whole way along, and my mother is now an art therapist and has her master's after having passed through many other jobs along the way. And why? Because they had the fundamental internalized social beliefs of the middle class while those in the inner city do not; my father was raised in a middle class family (his father was an accountant for that matter, and it shows) and was university-educated, and my mother, while being raised in a traditional working-class family, was also university-educated like her other sisters, who now mostly hold professional jobs. It just happened that they had not necessarily chosen the most profitable of majors in school, and hence when they got out of school they ended up with jobs that were not very well-paying. But it was not really a matter in the end of what particular jobs they happened to immediately hold, but rather their overall views of life in general - views not shared by most people in the inner city, who consequently are far less likely to do well in the long run. And such are not things that really are a matter of how much money one has at any given moment in time, contrary to the whole idea that social class is merely a matter of money in the US.
At least here, social class is extremely apparent from just looking around, but the key thing is that may not be immediately apparent is that money is not the key factor behind it at all. Rather, it is the internalized social ideology held by the individuals in questions that matters, which is often but not always tied to the amount of opportunity available to and education had by the individuals in question. In many cases, it is precisely the family one is raised in or the amount of education had by one that matters, and the social circles one associates with and shares social views with.
In particular, many twenty-somethings may differ very little in wealth here, yet still fundamentally be of distinctly different social classes. There are those whose lack of wealth is only temporary, and who will go on to greater things, and there are those who will die in largely the same social position that they have at the point time. Furthermore, it is practically obvious from just that point in time who will be in which group. And yet it is not necessarily a matter of just some kind of personal attributes of "hard work" or whatnot, but rather a matter of the backgrounds of the individuals in question and the degree of education available to them. All of the above can be summed up in terms of social class, which in many ways is practically hereditary even though a degree of movement is definitely possible provided the proper conditions - or practically impossible under other conditions.
Case in point: take my own parents, for instance. They were very poor during much of their twenties. They had very little money or jobs that payed well at all during the time, and only managed to get ahold of the house they own right now because it was in bad condition and owned by an elderly person who was going off to "the home"; it only looks good today due to extensive repairs and improvements since that time. They really were no better off superficially than many people in the inner city of the same age and at the same point in time.
Yet, they are doing quite today, while most of said people in the inner city are just where they were when they were in their 20s, if not worse. My father, while a postal worker, has enough seniority that it pays quite a good amount today, and such has provided plenty of benefits the whole way along, and my mother is now an art therapist and has her master's after having passed through many other jobs along the way. And why? Because they had the fundamental internalized social beliefs of the middle class while those in the inner city do not; my father was raised in a middle class family (his father was an accountant for that matter, and it shows) and was university-educated, and my mother, while being raised in a traditional working-class family, was also university-educated like her other sisters, who now mostly hold professional jobs. It just happened that they had not necessarily chosen the most profitable of majors in school, and hence when they got out of school they ended up with jobs that were not very well-paying. But it was not really a matter in the end of what particular jobs they happened to immediately hold, but rather their overall views of life in general - views not shared by most people in the inner city, who consequently are far less likely to do well in the long run. And such are not things that really are a matter of how much money one has at any given moment in time, contrary to the whole idea that social class is merely a matter of money in the US.
Rhoi, I share your dislike for the casual use of sexual terms in ordinary speech -- both because they may offend unintentionally and because their use that way weakens the effect when used for their original purpose. For me, though, it's too late for 'screwed up'. Language changes, and I just don't find that term shocking anymore. If a significant number of other persons do, though, then I agree that the term would be inappropriate (not because of its origin but because of the associations that remain).
There are still classes in the United States, of course, but there's also class mobility, and I rarely find that class origin is held against anybody. It may be in some cases, but that's counterbalanced in others by the added respect that's given to persons who rise on their own efforts. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, wasn't ashamed of having been born in a log cabin. To rise from such an origin was seen as something to his credit.
I haven't risen as high as Lincoln, but I was born and grew up poor myself, and I'm not a bit ashamed of it. In my parent's time most persons in the American South were poor and had little formal education. My family, though, were all fond of reading, spoke something close to what's called standard English, and had respect for learning. (One aunt was even a published poet.)
I was never told that my background would keep me from doing well. On the contrary I was taught that what I accomplished would be up to me. And, in fact, I had plenty of opportunity, and found rising out of poverty rather easy. About all I had to do was do well in school and stay out of trouble (avoid committing serious crimes, becoming addicted to drugs, or having children while still a teenager). Not that I'm rich now, but that's mostly by choice. I've partially modeled my life on that of Thoreau, and never made much effort to accumulate riches. I have as much, though, as I'm willing to spend my time earning.
If there's any stigma to having been born poor, I haven't noticed it. There is to being ignorant, of course, but with public libraries available to rich and poor, anybody who can read should be able to avoid it.
I haven't risen as high as Lincoln, but I was born and grew up poor myself, and I'm not a bit ashamed of it. In my parent's time most persons in the American South were poor and had little formal education. My family, though, were all fond of reading, spoke something close to what's called standard English, and had respect for learning. (One aunt was even a published poet.)
I was never told that my background would keep me from doing well. On the contrary I was taught that what I accomplished would be up to me. And, in fact, I had plenty of opportunity, and found rising out of poverty rather easy. About all I had to do was do well in school and stay out of trouble (avoid committing serious crimes, becoming addicted to drugs, or having children while still a teenager). Not that I'm rich now, but that's mostly by choice. I've partially modeled my life on that of Thoreau, and never made much effort to accumulate riches. I have as much, though, as I'm willing to spend my time earning.
If there's any stigma to having been born poor, I haven't noticed it. There is to being ignorant, of course, but with public libraries available to rich and poor, anybody who can read should be able to avoid it.
Maybe you guys are right.
I haven't lived in the Bible Belt for twenty-eight years, so I have lost my sense of perspective to a degree. The term "screwed up" might indeed seem to be inappropriate to the Sunday School crowd.
We need to find somebody who's "in the know". I think Skippy might still be plugged into the Sunday School circuit. Skippy, if you're reading this, what do YOU think about the use of "screwed up"?
I haven't lived in the Bible Belt for twenty-eight years, so I have lost my sense of perspective to a degree. The term "screwed up" might indeed seem to be inappropriate to the Sunday School crowd.
We need to find somebody who's "in the know". I think Skippy might still be plugged into the Sunday School circuit. Skippy, if you're reading this, what do YOU think about the use of "screwed up"?
Maybe "screwed up" is not elegant, or considered vulgar by some, but so what anyway? This isn't the 1900's, so it's nothing to get worked up over in my opinion. I didn't even know it was a big deal.
<<There are still classes in the United States, of course, but there's also class mobility, and I rarely find that class origin is held against anybody. It may be in some cases, but that's counterbalanced in others by the added respect that's given to persons who rise on their own efforts. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, wasn't ashamed of having been born in a log cabin. To rise from such an origin was seen as something to his credit. >>
You're right, and it works the other way too. I was born in a rich family and yet here I am in a stenching one-room apartment , my only possession my computer, eating one microwave meal a day, bitten by cockroaches and fleas, 2 pairs of clothes, washing once a month, using only public toilets...
You're right, and it works the other way too. I was born in a rich family and yet here I am in a stenching one-room apartment , my only possession my computer, eating one microwave meal a day, bitten by cockroaches and fleas, 2 pairs of clothes, washing once a month, using only public toilets...
Poor, so you're using your own computer with an internet account (rather than just using a public one in a library)? And you're unable to wash more often than once a month (even though homeless persons can find places to wash every day in almost any city -- if they're so inclined)?
Interesting. I suspect that you're putting us on. If you aren't, I apologize for questioning what you've said. Anyway there are ways (and places) in which you can get along much better than the way you describe (and get good meals for free).
Interesting. I suspect that you're putting us on. If you aren't, I apologize for questioning what you've said. Anyway there are ways (and places) in which you can get along much better than the way you describe (and get good meals for free).
Just because you are not homeless does not mean that you have little in the way of money or material possessions at all... If your only possessions are your computer, your clothes, and whatever you sleep on, and practically all of your disposable income goes to your Internet access (which can be quite inexpensive as long as one does not care about constantly sharing files via Bittorrent), you are still poor. And just so you know, computers are not expensive if you do things right (i.e. buy your own parts on the net and not buy anything beyond what you really need capability-wise, or for that matter simply buy a computer off of someone else who is upgrading to the latest and greatest).
I agree that what he said is possible, and I allowed for that possibility. To me, though, it sounds like something made up by somebody who doesn't know what it's like to be poor. (I mentioned the homeless only to point out that many persons in even more extreme conditions find ways to get good meals and to wash.)
The reference to eating one microwave meal a day is especially unlikely if that's really all he lives on. Unless his -- or her, I'll guess his -- digestion system is quite different from mine, that would mean going hungry for most of the day. People really concerned about hunger would almost certainly get something cheaper with more volume, and eat more than one meal.
When my inclination to travel with little money put me temporarily in a difficult situation, I dined on grape sandwiches and water until things improved. That way I was able to keep full all day. Poor supposedly has access to a refrigerator and a means of cooking. That gives him all kinds of options for buying food in bulk, and saving the cost of processing.
My experience happened decades ago. Slightly old bread is probably still cheap in some places, but I don't ordinarily buy bread in stores anymore. Maybe that's no longer a good choice (even for a temporary predicament). Canned goods are another alternative that can be eaten even by persons without refrigerators or stoves. And, as I mentioned before, for the really destitute there's access to nutritional meals in most U.S. cities (all of them, I'd expect).
In any case, Poor's situation is appropriate for internet chatting only if it's hypothetical. If he's really living as he describes, he may be suffering from depression. (Mere poverty doesn't necessarily cause depression.) He'd probably be better served if he gets help locally, or -- if he has to -- go to another place where it's available. There are people who will help him.
[Poor, I apologize again if your story is true. If you're seriously unhappy with your situation, get help. You can live better than that.]
The reference to eating one microwave meal a day is especially unlikely if that's really all he lives on. Unless his -- or her, I'll guess his -- digestion system is quite different from mine, that would mean going hungry for most of the day. People really concerned about hunger would almost certainly get something cheaper with more volume, and eat more than one meal.
When my inclination to travel with little money put me temporarily in a difficult situation, I dined on grape sandwiches and water until things improved. That way I was able to keep full all day. Poor supposedly has access to a refrigerator and a means of cooking. That gives him all kinds of options for buying food in bulk, and saving the cost of processing.
My experience happened decades ago. Slightly old bread is probably still cheap in some places, but I don't ordinarily buy bread in stores anymore. Maybe that's no longer a good choice (even for a temporary predicament). Canned goods are another alternative that can be eaten even by persons without refrigerators or stoves. And, as I mentioned before, for the really destitute there's access to nutritional meals in most U.S. cities (all of them, I'd expect).
In any case, Poor's situation is appropriate for internet chatting only if it's hypothetical. If he's really living as he describes, he may be suffering from depression. (Mere poverty doesn't necessarily cause depression.) He'd probably be better served if he gets help locally, or -- if he has to -- go to another place where it's available. There are people who will help him.
[Poor, I apologize again if your story is true. If you're seriously unhappy with your situation, get help. You can live better than that.]