Talk:Teabagging
Definitions...[edit]
I'm *ahem* familiar with the first, was not with the second. I learned something at RatWik today!!! TheoryOfPractice 20:35, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
- I don't think Beck, Reynolds et al are using the term for their "Tea Bag" protests, but their detractors sure are and it's spreading around the net rather fast. Secret Squirrel 20:39, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
Pretty sure guys can offer quite a bit on this subject :) --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete[edit]
We've already deleted the pointless/childish stub entries on cunnilingus, fellatio, handjobs, the missionary position, etc. This one can go too. The Tea Party is already covered elsewhere, and has nothing to do with teabagging anyway. As for implying that it does (because that would make them gay LOL), I think we can set the bar a little higher. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- In the US Tea Party's early appearances, I believe they themselves referred to their street manifestations as "tea bagging." (In the city where I live, I saw some dingletons on a downtown street corner with tea bags hanging from their hat brims like corks off a stereotypical bush hat.) You'd better believe that Jon Stewart worked the innuendo for all it was worth. Something about an astro-turf movement spawned by old white men, out of touch with modern lingo. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't Delete[edit]
Unlike the other stub articles on various sexual acts that have been deleted, this one contains social relevance due to the astroturf teabag movement.ROPChain (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The astroturf teabag movement has nothing to do with teabagging. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- They carry signs endorsing the act of teabagging, so the article does have some relevance. If, for no other reason, than to point out how out of touch the members are. I know RW is trying to maintain a certain level of decorum and credibility, but removing the teabagging article is cracking down too far on lulz. ROPChain (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- So mention it in the Tea Party article. There's nothing in this stub to justify a separate page. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 07:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is, there is some decent content in the "Outside the dirty" section. It would be tough to work in that content into each page related to the teabag movement (individuals, parties, organizations, political theory pages, etc).ROPChain (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why would you need to work into each page? Just put it in the main page about the movement. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel
- Why would you need to work into each page? Just put it in the main page about the movement. Wéáśéĺóíď
- The problem is, there is some decent content in the "Outside the dirty" section. It would be tough to work in that content into each page related to the teabag movement (individuals, parties, organizations, political theory pages, etc).ROPChain (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- So mention it in the Tea Party article. There's nothing in this stub to justify a separate page. Щєазєюіδ
- They carry signs endorsing the act of teabagging, so the article does have some relevance. If, for no other reason, than to point out how out of touch the members are. I know RW is trying to maintain a certain level of decorum and credibility, but removing the teabagging article is cracking down too far on lulz. ROPChain (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Even more off-RW-missionality[edit]
Teabag folding.
'The history of the tea bag' is borderline urban legend (or 'various people did something similar, and one person became known for the item') Anna Livia (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)