4 ms·

"losers". FFS. Does anyone other than primary school kids and US Presidents think about their fellow humans in this way?

jaredklewis 7y ago
Scott Adams' use of the word does not seem inappropriate or juvenile to me. He is describing his impression of Mensa members. His expectation was that Mensa was an "organization of geniuses," which gave him certain expectations, but he what he found was very different. He observed that Mensa members were financially unsuccessful, unaccomplished, and idle. Describing someone that is financially unsuccessful, unaccomplished, and idle as a "loser" just seems like colloquial English to me. Adams doesn't express any dislike or hate for the Mensa members; he just describes his impressions. Is there something wrong with using the word "loser?" If we stop using the word will everyone suddenly be richer and more accomplished?
- crispinb 7y ago
  > Scott Adams' use of the word does not seem inappropriate or juvenile to me. Well then we differ. Given your (by my lights) Jesuitical approach to glossing a common English usage, I don't think we have anywhere further to go here. I personally can't imagine a circumstance where I'd call a brother or sister a 'loser', and certainly not by reference to a trivial superfluity like financial 'success'. And if I did not for a minute do I believe they'd consider the term a neutral descriptor. But by all means carry on using the term however, and to whomever, you like.
  - jaredklewis 7y ago
    Neither Adams or myself has assigned any more importance or worth to financial success than you have. He merely observed that he expected a society of geniuses would be very different than they were, and I can’t for the life of me find anything wrong with that. Remarking that someone with a disabled limb is ”lame” is not offensive; it’s just using a word according to its definition. Look up ”loser” in a dictionary.

jaredklewis 7y ago

Scott Adams' use of the word does not seem inappropriate or juvenile to me. He is describing his impression of Mensa members. His expectation was that Mensa was an "organization of geniuses," which gave him certain expectations, but he what he found was very different. He observed that Mensa members were financially unsuccessful, unaccomplished, and idle. Describing someone that is financially unsuccessful, unaccomplished, and idle as a "loser" just seems like colloquial English to me. Adams doesn't express any dislike or hate for the Mensa members; he just describes his impressions. Is there something wrong with using the word "loser?" If we stop using the word will everyone suddenly be richer and more accomplished?

crispinb 7y ago
> Scott Adams' use of the word does not seem inappropriate or juvenile to me. Well then we differ. Given your (by my lights) Jesuitical approach to glossing a common English usage, I don't think we have anywhere further to go here. I personally can't imagine a circumstance where I'd call a brother or sister a 'loser', and certainly not by reference to a trivial superfluity like financial 'success'. And if I did not for a minute do I believe they'd consider the term a neutral descriptor. But by all means carry on using the term however, and to whomever, you like.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  Neither Adams or myself has assigned any more importance or worth to financial success than you have. He merely observed that he expected a society of geniuses would be very different than they were, and I can’t for the life of me find anything wrong with that. Remarking that someone with a disabled limb is ”lame” is not offensive; it’s just using a word according to its definition. Look up ”loser” in a dictionary.