3 ms·

> 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

> 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.