Talk:Loaded language/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

New Ordeal

Is this like "New Ordeal"? Did you just make this up?? You must be some sort of intellectual elitist.DocSock 17:00, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Ah, there's one I missed! Thanks.

Actually, I swiped it from Robert Anton Wilson. Where HE got it, I have no idea. --Gulik 20:37, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Do you remember where? It's been a long time since I read any of his stuff, and I'd like to see what he had to say on the subject. (and just to be clear, that's not a rhetorical way of saying "I don't believe you"; it's obviously right up his fnord, and my memory's not as good as it used to be.) --jtl^talk 18:05, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Meaningless?

These words are not meaningless. Communist, for example, has a meaning. Sure, the communist party in China is no more communist than Bush is conservative, but dictionaries still provide definitions for these words. Heart♥Gold ^tx 07:55, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Shut up, Nazi!

See? That's how it works. It doesn't matter that you don't want to annex Poland or kill Jews; now that's I've written that, I and anyone who also hates Nazis, can ignore EVERYTHING you say from now on.

(Not unlike TK calling everyone here Terrorists.) --Gulik 13:13, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Loaded language?

I think snarl word is a better title. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 14:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

"Snarl word" is kind of a neologism, and there's a great deal more to write on the subject than that. If the article gets big enough, we can always break snarl word out on its own again. EVDebs 14:17, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Why, Elassint? I do like the new title, it's much broader and more commonly used. human 14:19, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Framing

Would framing an issue qualify as loaded language? I'm thinking of using terms like calling the inheritance tax the "death tax", taxing both partners in a marriage the "marriage penalty" or calling a policy allowing timber companies to cut old growth forests the "healthy forests" initiative? Rational Ed^faith 13:33, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I think so, yes. It's a form of newspeak, using framing to change the perspective on an issue, with the perpetrators hoping to change the actual content of the debate by changing its name. Let's try to use some "laft wing" examples, if we can find any good ones (might have to go back 40 years...). human 13:47, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

How about "friendly fire", "collateral damage", and "terminate with extreme prejudice"? I think they may have been coined during LBJ's administration. Rational Ed^faith 13:51, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I guess they'd be examples, although they sound more like euphemisms? human 20:30, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Problem with concept of article as loaded language

I have a problem. This article has a lot of errors, if not the entire conception, as far as "loaded language" is concerned. The original author seemed to be implying "code words" and "trigger words", but "loaded language" are words that intend to offer an emotional appeal rater than an appeal to logic and reason. That idea is there, but the author seems to be mixing two things. I'm not comfortable just totally rewriting it without comment, but it really needs to be rewritten and clarified if the intent is to really address loaded language. Comments or suggestions?--Waiting for Godot 14:46, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I've just always seen loaded language as something like Newspeak. Which is all of those things. Just twisting things around. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 14:51, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

See, it's not. I mean, newsspeak involves loaded language, but the two are separate issues. That's why i was like "huh" when i read this. Maybe it's a title issue, and it should be titled something like "rhetoric tools" or "verbage". Loaded language really does have a definition that is precise.--Waiting for Godot 14:53, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Newspeak is generally sanitising of the language to make bad things seem better, such as referring to civilian casualties as collateral damage. Loaded language is making something appear much worse by using terms which have a much more emotional resonance such as referring to people who don't back the state of Israel as being anti-semitic, or, as the article says, using the term liberal which may have a much broader connotation. WfG if you want to rewrite the article, try doing it in your own userspace and then present it for consideration. Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:02, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

So it's reverse Newspeak? Like instead of pro-choice they say pro-death? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{That's what she said.} 15:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion, Genghis. I am not sure exactly what is "wrong", i just kown it's one of those times I can't quite understand what is being intended.--Waiting for Godot 15:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT) Loaded language, by the way, can be very good, as well. You can use loaded language to make a fatty tasteless burger seem like something elite and yummy by calling it "Micky d's new Steak of choice burger", and we all go (like Homor) Ummmmmm steak.... ;-)

Yes, and later you can say "cardial function challenge" instead of "heart attack". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Language is always 'loaded'. Depends on a particular historical subjective individualistic point of view. Dirk Steele (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Revised Page

The page as written had significant errors in understanding what the distinctions are between code words and loaded language. (a term can easily be both a code word & a loaded language). On the suggestion from GK, I rewrote it for your review. I tried to keep as much of the original as possible, but split it into several categories to make it more accurate and clear. let me know what you think. User:WaitingforGodot/loaded language

Checking it out... ħuman 17:06, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

No offense intended, but I don't see much there that is an improvement, and a lot of it isn't written very clearly. I do, however, think the idea of breaking it up into sections of various "kinds" of loaded language, defining why they are different from each other more clearly might work out. By the way, "snarl word" has been around a long time. ħuman 20:33, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

No offense taken, it's just that the main point of this article is supposed to be loaded language - however, from my point of view, this author confuses Loaded Language with "code words". "big" vs. "enormous", "liberal", etc., are not loaded language; one is simply the difference between two words, the other is "code word". When I tried to correct what was here, I wound up changing more than a few words, so I didn't want to make those changes without comment. --Waiting for Godot 00:32, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I replied and the wiki ate my reply. Suffice it to say, I pwned you ;) Actually, the main thing is: there is no "this author", this is a collaborative project. Also, there is a chance, you must admit, that your "definitions" of all these terms may not be universal (and I suspect they aren't). As someone who seems to think the term "snarl words" is a neologism, you might just not have seen or heard these phrases in the situations that some others of us have. ħuman 01:44, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

ohhh the wiki "ate" your reply, hum? ;-) Yeah, true it's collaborative. And nothing is universal. I've heard of snarl words in a very informal context, but i've yet to see a definition of them other than here, hence my comment. I guess I'm just not a good googler. As for loaded language, this article is still very mixed with loaded and "code". by the way, the code word and dog whistle pages are very good. So this article should probably focus on Loaded language, we could make "snarl words" it's own article, too.--Waiting for Godot 10:33, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

That might make sense, yes. They can all just "see also" each other, or simply be linked if the phrases come up. ħuman 21:45, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Also (see above), we should cover "framing", which better describes some of the phrases that Rimshot takes issue with in the "snarl words" talk section. ħuman 22:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Some really aren't snarl words

Liberal and Conservative are snarl words? I don't see how that can be since people frequently use those terms to describe themselves.

Deceiver, troll, moonbat, flat earther, cult, and maybe even elitist are nearly pure snarl words, no doubt about it. No one would describe himself in those terms.

The use of Communist, and especially Fascist and Nazi (see Godwin's Law) often ARE used as snarl words almost exclusively, even tho they happen to be fairly well defined.

Pro-life and pro-choice don't seem loaded to me, so perhaps i don't understand what is meant by loaded. Those are labels chosen by the advocates themselves because they sound good, but they are inaccurate. Pro-life people often support capital punishment and pro-choice people tend to be anti-choice on several issues, one being school choice. The accurate terms would be pro-abortion and anti-abortion, but they don't like those terms and will argue they are not accurate.

Rem^Beau 23:14, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

They (PL & PC) are loaded for exactly the reasons you cite. "Liberal" has been a snarl word for thirty-odd years, in case you haven't been paying attention. We are only just reclaiming it (instead of running for cover behind "progressive" or other such terms). "Conservative" is also a snarl word, hell, read some of the stuff people put on this site that I have to change (did it three times in the last 48 hours already). ħuman 23:33, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I have been paying RAPT attention, thank you, but i haven't even been on the planet for 30 years (i'm 24) -- however it is easy to see why someone would consider me more mature than you, given your propensity for name-calling (see your comments below) as a substitute for an effective argument. Now sit down and try to be still while Uncle Rem sorts things out for you.

Don't know where YOU hail from, but in the states Liberals tend to deny they are Liberals while Conservatives use the term about themselves ad nauseum. My Liberal friends (every Libertarian has them) ask, "When did Liberal become a bad word?" That indicates to me that: (1) Liberal used to not be a bad word, (2) you are wrong about Liberals reclaiming the word. Progressive seems to me to be a better choice, providing you claim it before someone else does.

To call them snarl words on the basis that Left and Right snarl when they use them in reference to the opposite team is silly. By that reasoning, ANY word they use against each other would be ipso facto a snarl word, and that makes little sense. I suspect you are one that hisses at the label Libertarian, does that make it a perjorative?

Rem^Beau 20:06, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

"Liberal" has been a dirty word roughly since the Reagan revolution (1980, give or take). And we are reclaiming it, slowly but surely. ħuman 21:47, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Did Carter call himself a Liberal? LBJ? JFK? HST? FDR? I'm guessing Clinton did, but until he became prez, who was the last president that identified himself with that term? And no fair going back two centuries ago; Liberal meant Libertarian, pretty much.

Rem^Beau 22:46, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

JFK, absolutely, in fact one of my radio shows uses a speech clip as a bumper. LBJ, probably. Not sure about Carter. Note when I said it started becoming a pejorative... ħuman 22:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

So maybe Carter gave Liberals a bad name? -- Rem^Beau 23:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

No, it was the work of right wing talk radio, mostly, which bloomed in the 80s after the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated. ħuman 23:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

(1) Is it your belief that if the govt didn't control radio, Liberalism couldn't prevail? (2) Who would administer the program and decide what was fair, a Liberal or a Conservative? (3) Would Libertarians get equal time as well? (4) Granted the Right-Wing rules radio, but what about TV?

Rem^Beau 00:10, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

PD, we're working on not only reclaiming "liberal", but turning "conservative" into a bad word (see many usages on this very here wiki - and Aschlafly is helping a lot with his site, too!), soon enough you'll all be calling yourselves "libertarians" out of embarrassment. ħuman 22:58, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I doubt that; there seems a fair amount of bias here against Libts. And that is without most of you really understanding Libt positions.

Rem^Beau 23:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Estate tax strikes me as a euphemism; death tax is accurate and more descriptive of reality, is it not? It wouldn't be a tax on an estate unless the owner of the estate dies.

If it turns out to be true that married couples pay higher taxes than unmarried couples, why wouldn't "marriage penalty" be accurate?

Rem^Beau 23:27, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not a "death tax" - there is no tax on "dying". There is, however, a tax on large estates. And the "marriage penalty" is a bit of an old tax law thing designed to promote "traditional marriage", where two adults (mister + missus) lived off one income (his), so paid less taxes on said income than a bachelor would. Once the economy was squeezed enough that most couples had to both work, the unforeseen consequence was that "married filing jointly" didn't always work well for many couples. ħuman 23:33, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Nice try Human, but there are several taxes on estates large, small, and in-between -- only one of them applies when the owner dies -- that would be a death tax.

What can you mean by a "marriage penalty" being designed to promote "traditional marriage"? That makes absolutely no sense. And if it isn't true that couples are worse off filing jointly than when they file separately, there IS no marriage penalty.

It's hard to see why govt should provide an incentive either way. In any case, a flat tax with no deductions would remove any perception that anyone is penalized.

Rem^Beau 20:21, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

The "marriage penalty" is due to... well, I explained it once above already. It dates from when families usually had one wage earner, so if an earner was married, they paid a lower rate. The system broke when most couples started both working. Maybe you could research how this happened, and the modern results, if you are curious. ħuman 21:51, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Your third sentence must have some typos that obscure the meaning -- i can't quite make it out. Anyhow, i'm guessing that the research you suggest would be aimed at determining why women have been forced into the workplace. One reason would have to be separate living expenses due to divorce. Another would be much higher taxes, which means higher prices and less money to spend. One breadwinner can no longer support a family.

Rem^Beau 22:59, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I fixed the typos, thanks. No, I meant researching the various filing options in the US tax code. Although what you brought up is obviously part of the "story". By the way, back when one earner could support a family (as recently as the 60's, easily) taxes were substantially higher than they are now. ħuman 23:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

No way. I can't imagine how you come to that conclusion considering how govt has grown by leaps and bounds, plus transfer payments were very small back then, and are huge today. Raising taxes is the only way govt can fuel that spending -- it doesn't earn any money, and those bureaucracies don't come cheap.

I don't think i could stand researching the various filing options in the US tax code. I cringe at the thought.

Rem^Beau 23:26, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you don't research them somehow, how will you know that what I said is absolutely true? It's not a "conclusion" - the tax rates were higher. By the way, one thing govt does to get money is borrow it. ħuman 23:35, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah -- NOW you're saying tax RATES. If you went with the confusing systems of rates, anybody could prove anything just by looking at them differently.

I was addressing your assertion that "taxes were substantially higher than they are now", and on that score, it certainly isn't true. When govt "borrows" money (FDR invented it, during WW2 i think) that works as a tax as well, stealing value from our currency.

Rem^Beau 23:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

In other words, "thanks for your right wing talk radio talking points" but you actually seem to have no idea what you are talking about. ħuman 01:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

A common mistake for a Liberal is to see anybody NOT Liberal as Right-Wing -- that would mean something like 80% of the population. Also, you COULD try to mount an argument when you disagree with me, and that way everybody could decide who it is that doesn't know what he is talking about.

Rem^Beau 20:34, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I didn't say you were right wing - I thanked you for regurgitating talking points. ħuman 21:51, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

moved from somewhere in the middle of one of the previous comments (check the diffs)

If I can butt in, this is why I think the page is really unclear about what loaded language is. "pro life" is not loaded because it means something other than what it says -- that would be a "code word", pro life is "loaded" because the term "life" itself invokes strong images on an emotional level. Loaded language is very specifically defined as language that carries emotional weight. "Death tax" invokes dead things, ick! "Family Values" references the hearth and home and all things safe and warm. It's all about the feelings you associate with individual words. ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

"Loaded language is very specifically defined as language that carries emotional weight" I am actually curious as to where that "very specific" definition comes from. And you think "pro life" is not loaded with emotional weight but "death tax" is??? "Family values" = "safe and warm" is not emotionally weighted??? I beg to explain, these are the kind of things we call "loaded language". Some are code words, some are (whatever), but that is what they are. ħuman 01:47, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

PS, actually, try not to "butt in" in the middle of someone's else's comment, it makes it hell to read who wrote what. See, I replied to each of Rimjobs's comments, and indented one further in each case. You interrupted in the middle of one of our edits, and didn't even sign your comment. Making it so that no one can figure out who wrote what. It's rude to edit in the middle of someone else's comment - just add your piece after theirs. And, especially, sign your comments, please. ħuman 01:53, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I respect that, expect I don't know how you are supposed to reply to a prior comment. Sorry, and I'll try to figure out something different.--Waiting for Godot 10:35, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Rimjob he calls me, eh? And Human is lecturing YOU on rudeness? If i were you Godot, i wouldn't waste any respect on him, and you have my permission to refer to him as sub-Human. (I was a kiddy once as well.) Nietzsche would.

Rem^Beau 20:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Adds & deletes

Added Loaded Question. Not sure if it should be part of this article or its own. It seems like it could be part of a Push Poll article. I didn't see that here, either. Removed: the stuff about thesaurus and the "common examples". They are not really loaded language, they are just the nature of differences in language use. Big isn't Huge, but neither have any particular emotional associations with them. Added Political Examples.^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

First, WfG - "single" carriage returns don;t create a break in the wiki software, you have to use two. I think the loaded questions are fine here, and a few of those links I was able to make blue, btw. (Like, there is a push poll article...). You might want to try different versions of a word to see if one comes up blue in "preview". Also, loaded language is about more than just emotional responses - for instance, code like "states' rights" is just a "hidden" meaning for the in-group. Some Bush examples would be good, he used a lot of them over the years, signals to the Xtian Right that he was on their side and that sort of thing. As far as the thesaurusy part, I think with better examples it could still make a good part of the intro, although probably not political (deceptive sales technique, perhaps?), but I won't add anything unless I think of a really good example. ħuman 18:30, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

This page and Code word

Okay, here's the thing -- two pages that as written are largely redundant. However, though "code word" and "loaded language" are two closely related concepts, they are quite distinct. How can we rewrite these two pages to reflect that? EVDebs (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And how can we do it while keeping our colleagues from all shades of the political spectrum happy? ħuman 06:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Trick question examples

I feel that the "Trick Question" examples seem rather weak (at the time of this posting). They are easily defeated by a microsecond of thought.
If I were asked "When did you stop beating your wife?", my answer would be "I am not married."
If I were married and was asked "When did you stop beating your wife?", my answer would be "I would never beat my wife."
What I am trying to say is; could we get some better examples of trick questions? I can't think of any (at the time of this posting). - Gameboy (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of anything off hand either, but if you do find something that works, feel free to revise. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 02:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberal

... has one meaning in the US, and different meanings elsewhere (David Steel is a very respectable politician). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why it says "is used in the United States as an insult". Röstigraben (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that. The conventional meaning in the US refers to left-wing progressive politics, while the meaning in other places refers to economic liberalism, i.e. free market economics. (The latter is usually called neoliberalism in the United States.) Both trace their ancestry to the same set of Enlightenment principles, but political liberals discarded free market politics a long time ago because it worked against those ideals. The third term to watch out for is "classical liberal" -- that's an extremely loaded term used mostly by libertarians. It attributes a political connotation to the economic definition, and in the process attempts to delegitimize progressive claims to the term. EVDebs (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have expected a person using the signature "EVDebs" to be alert to the fact that what capitalists say about capitalism is not necessarily Gospel. Liberalism, in British English, is the political claims of manufacturers and investors as opposed to those of landowners, for whom the corresponding verbal construct is Conservatism. Both claim, with equal mendacity, to believe in free market economics.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Examples" section

There are two of them. Hmm. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Assault Weapon"

To be fair, we really should add this in. It's a phrase than mast shooters detest and is very popular in the media. If you have a semi-automatic rifle that looks scary, it is suddenly an "assault weapon", in an attempt to associate it with a select fire rifle (meaning you can switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic)

Mast shooters??? And I thought I was the only one! Fuckin masts... always displaying primative primate symbols. Bah. Dirk Steele (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Chemophobe

and associated "chemophobia" are loaded terms used to dismiss serious concerns about health and safety issues by the proliferation of man-made chemicals in the last century. These are concerns held by scientists, professionals and otherwise highly educated folk.

According to the EPA:

"Of the 3,000 chemicals that the US imports or produces at more than 1 million lbs/yr, a new EPA analysis finds that 43% of these high production volume chemicals have no testing data on basic toxicity and only seven percent have a full set of basic test data. "

"Most Americans would assume that basic toxicity testing is available and that all chemicals in commerce today are safe. A recent EPA study has found that this is not a prudent assumption."

http://www.epa.gov/hpv/pubs/general/hazchem.htm

Saying that chemicals occur naturally (eg lead), is a mind numbingly dumb argument, since the issue is not whether anything is a chemical (nearly everything is - duh), but that we are rapidly introducing chemicals (both pre-existing and anthropogenic) in highly foreign ways and in volumes and concentrations that are without precedent in history. (eg lead in fuel and pumping it around the air, or in chew toys).

Agent Orange, Dioxin, DDT, PCB's, Mercury, Benzene, outgassing VOC's the list of screwups is endless. Those using the "chemophobia" label almost always use to dismiss, from a position of ignorance.

Happles (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, a boilerplate list of chemophobe nonsense. The 43% chemicals are mostly untested because their effects have been known since antiquity (one of those chemicals is water, for a start). King Skeleton (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, the irony is too much. Rather than refute the claims made, you resort to the very thing this page is purportedly railing against, a closed minded one word dismissal, aimed at shutting down debate. Happles (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You claim amounts to "some chemicals are scary, therefore all chemicals must be treated as potentially scary." That's as irrational as being scared of house spiders because black widows are poisonous. King Skeleton (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What a ridiculous case of fabrication. Obviously not all chemicals are scary, viz. dihydrogen monoxide, sodium chloride NaCl etc etc the list is massive. What is irrational however, is not being committed to improving your beliefs in order to be more rational. Instead you resort to an unsophisticated straw man reply Happles (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This would be based on your initial argument being more compelling than "we don't know things! Percentage! Scary names! Waaa!" Also, water is a deadly neurotoxin in high doses, and sodium chloride can cause heart disease. Methinks you are not as well-informed as you fluff yourself up as being. King Skeleton (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You're the only one that responded to my initial edit, and you took it personally. My initial post, wasn't an attack on you, but that didn't stop you from coming out the gate swinging. To me this demonstrates and emotional response and that you have little interest in improving your beliefs (eg being rational), but rather making personal attacks and dreaming up opponents (eg an uninformed-scared-of-chemicals internet noob), that don't actually exist. I get that you like to be creative, but don't you think it's being a bit juvenile?

So lets recap: I listed some facts about past safety failures, and statements from the EPA. Two things: I think the precautionary principle should be invoked. And in the case of safety data, an absence of evidence not evidence of absence (of harm). Personally, I'm not scared of chemicals. Just like I'm not scared of cars, but when I drive, I tend to watch the road to reduce the risk of harm to myself ;).

Maybe those phobic people really do exist (in which case the term might be appropriate), but the point I was making is that it's loaded language. It's almost certainly used against people that aren't scared of chemicals to shut down debate. Again, you did not refute this, instead in a delicious act of irony, embraced it as a weapon and started firing dismissals at me, thus demonstrating the point. ^{— Unsigned, by: Happles / talk / contribs}

Two separate issues here: 1: Is "chemophobe" loaded language? Yes, clearly, as are the chemicals Happles listed. All of these terms should be added to a new section to point this out. 2: Is chemophobia justified? IDC. Different article, irrelevant here. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have an article on chemophobia. Why is this argument taking place here instead of there? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, folks Happles (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: "reactionary" should be added.

Face it, it's used as a snarl word itself. Not quite as common as some others, but by no means obscure. WittyUsername (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So far the proper use far outweighs it. Especially when describing people who deny stuff like this. Is your reason for wanting to add this word personal? Typhoon (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No. All that needs to be said. WittyUsername (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also seen this being used as a snarl world; going as far back to at least a 1970s Columbo episode. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a source explaining its use as a snarl word, sure. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Antonym

What is the antonym of 'snarl word'?

For the Funspace equivalent - a random plot generator using the two lists (possibly also borrowing from the Postomodernist Generator). 109.150.11.133 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Another category

Phrases which mean something quite different to their face value.

• 'To be perfectly honest/frank...'
• 'I am not resigning' (said by a politician having done something inappropriate)
• 'Fresh food' and 'latest fashions' etc in shops - have you ever seen 'stale food' (as distinct from 'for quick sale') and 'old fashion' (not having reached 'retro'/'antique') Anna Livia (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)