Naked Science Forum

General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Titanscape on 03/05/2004 18:46:03

Title: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Titanscape on 03/05/2004 18:46:03
Around the world we have some idea of North American terms which describe people, favourably and noteably disfavourably. Such as Nerd, screwball, dork, chock, dweeb, freak and geek...

What makes a nerd and what makes a dweeb...? I hear it relates to looks and social behaviour. What effects does it have on the outcast to be named such?

In Australia we seldom use those terms and what of England? We call some people "dags" here.

What are these American terms?


Titanscape
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: roberth on 04/05/2004 01:23:03
By golly, Titan. You make us out to be so perfect, but we do have names for some people. ****er and d!ckhead come to mind as do many others that would just get edited out. Seppo, abo, pommie, wog, slope, poof, well...you get the idea. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't use these terms myself. I haven't heard dag for a while either.

Cripes, the edited word was like tanker with a w.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: neilep on 04/05/2004 01:40:09
I think Titan...Perhaps it's just you who does not use those terms..or the people you know do not use such language.......but....as a Pom who visited Oz a short while ago...I certainly received the warmth and generosity that the people of Sydney could vocalise to their bestest capacity !!!...I gave as good as I got mind !!..and it was all in good spirits too.

Now what makes a nerd a nerd or a dweeb a dweeb ?...well...Media of all sorts.....a predilection for prejudice perhaps ?.....I can not imagine the person at the receiving end of said names would take these comments/insults/nomenclatures well.....unless they had thick skin.....but I would hope that they(the so called nerds etc) would have the last word with success and happinness, because, as the the insulters purvey such colloquial terms, they themselves must feel inadequate to  have to afford such phrases towards others....they are ususally the no hopers, the losers, the spongers and the leeches of society......if the only way they can derive satisfaction  is by making others feel bad, then it's because they do not have it within themselves to elevate their own position. they must denigrate and belittle to have themselves 'appear' tall.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.world-of-smilies.de%2Fhtml%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Flove%2F2015.gif&hash=901cd12278f46c3480e43bc40519e7fb)
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Donnah on 04/05/2004 04:11:16
Wow, Neil, Bravo!!!
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: MayoFlyFarmer on 04/05/2004 06:01:19
While each wod as those named above does have a specific meaning, they are rarely used by such desegnation.  They are more so just general slander used to degrade or tease someone (often just in good fun)with out giving thought to which word is being used.  Individuals, and social circles all have their favorites.  I prefer ****.  I call everyone a slutIts kind of if you you don't know me well enough to know that I mean nothing by it, then its ytour problem and you can take all the offense to it that you want to.   With that I'd like to say "Sup sluts?"

A submarine is NOT a cargo ship!
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Donnah on 04/05/2004 15:35:58
I have an issue with the word ****.  Does it not have a female connotation?  And if so, what's the male equivalent of the word?
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: neilep on 04/05/2004 16:27:24
quote:
Originally posted by Donnah

I have an issue with the word ****.  Does it not have a female connotation?  And if so, what's the male equivalent of the word?



I agree Donnah....and that's a good question about the male version of ****. It is most certainly attributed towards women and also gay men.

 What ever the circumstance though,it seems quintessentially to be a female/effeminate orientated term.

 What ever the male(masculine) version is though, it obvioulsy has not a shadow of the impact of '****' else it would presumably be well known.

2 MINS LATER


I just looked up '****' in the dictionary and it says....'a dirty slatternly woman,  an immoral woman'



'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.world-of-smilies.de%2Fhtml%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Flove%2F2015.gif&hash=901cd12278f46c3480e43bc40519e7fb)
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Titanscape on 04/05/2004 18:09:13
What makes one cool or mint as they say in Perth WA or suave or hot... differs from place to place. In India it is totally different to here. The fabric of the cultures is different. In Australia intellectuals are the cool dudes which get the girls and dress well often times but that is just my experience amidst a great diversity and unknowing. Our jocks fair about equal with the intellectuals unless they are sharp as well. Smartness is respected. Also power is and by women.

I went to 2 hi schools in Perth WA and 3 in Sydney. Mostly Catholic ones.

What is it like in other countries and are the Revenge Of The Nerd style movies and Buffy anything to go by? This is all very intersting to me to look back on and compare with you!!! All you foreign fellows make an excellent opportunity to discuss stuff.

My appearance is symetrical but I am not at all a good looker. Perhaps If I were from Chicago I would have been a geek or something. Except that my dad was a film maker and art was my mains in high school along with English.


Titanscape
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Donnah on 04/05/2004 18:23:11
quote:
Originally posted by neilep

quote:
Originally posted by Donnah

I have an issue with the word ****.  Does it not have a female connotation?  And if so, what's the male equivalent of the word?

I just looked up '****' in the dictionary and it says....'a dirty slatternly woman,  an immoral woman'
'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

My mistake Neil.  It has a female denotation.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: neilep on 04/05/2004 19:13:10
You didn't make a mistake as far as I can see Donnah...I think 'connotation' still works or applies.....language eh ?

I have tried to research a male version of '****'....I can't find one...yet...but perhaps someone knows eh ?..or mayne there just isn't one !!

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.world-of-smilies.de%2Fhtml%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Flove%2F2015.gif&hash=901cd12278f46c3480e43bc40519e7fb)
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: MayoFlyFarmer on 05/05/2004 06:04:17
I just thought the deffinition of **** was just someone sexually permiscuos.  i know it usually has a female association because thats where its more typically used when in its propper meaning, however, I thought by definition it could be applied equally to either gender.  
My personal use of the word has noting to do with sexual permiscuity or gender.... I'd cal mother teresa "****" if she were alive and ZI met her (well no, I probably wouldn't but if she were my friend I would)  I think I am doing society a favor by depowering the word which can be otherwise negative [8D]

A submarine is NOT a cargo ship!
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: neilep on 05/05/2004 10:17:33
I think we understood your use of the word '****' was as a term of endearment Justy......well...and that YOUR particular use of thr word has no malice behind it at all. I was just looking into the definition and it is most definitely a word specific in it's orientaion towards the female gender......well, to be even more pedantic about it....it is by nature a feminine word.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstagiber.net%2Fsmiliesdotcom%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fsleep.gif&hash=fe99e79560e224eed0697eef2c4c7c1c)
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: MayoFlyFarmer on 06/05/2004 23:08:08
quote:
Originally posted by neilep

I was just looking into the definition and it is most definitely a word specific in it's orientaion towards the female gender......well, to be even more pedantic about it....it is by nature a feminine word.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstagiber.net%2Fsmiliesdotcom%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fsleep.gif&hash=fe99e79560e224eed0697eef2c4c7c1c)



I still don't know about this.  MY use aside.... I really think that the word refers to the sexual activities of a person (or creature I guess) of either sex.  Its just traditionally used more in female cases as society (claims to) care less about the permiscuity of a man.  I know some dictionaries will implicate otherwise, but I've learned not to trust them [:)]

A submarine is NOT a cargo ship!
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: neilep on 06/05/2004 23:29:03
Soz mate....we'll have to agree to disagree.....if you can argue with concise dictionary definitions and then expect people to realise Your meaning then I think no one will be able to agree with anything...If you can't trust a dictionary what can you trust ?...and does your rational apply to any and all text/reference books or any reference material of any sort ?

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstagiber.net%2Fsmiliesdotcom%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fsleep.gif&hash=fe99e79560e224eed0697eef2c4c7c1c)
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Donnah on 07/05/2004 03:17:43
Language evolves over time.  Thank goodness, or we might all sound like Chaucer.  If **** is evolving to include both genders as Justin suggests, I'm all for it.  The double standard for wo/men has always iritated me.  If it's alright for men but not women to have sex, then they'd all have to have intercourse with other men.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: neilep on 10/05/2004 21:45:26
I'm sure in the time of Chaucer the language was just as 'normal' as ours is today....and I'm certainly up for one big homogeneous bowl of Language Pie !!....perhaps we should all learn A: Sign Language and B: Esperanto..............actually having said that.....I presume Sign language is geographically different.......or is there am international standard ?

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstagiber.net%2Fsmiliesdotcom%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fsleep.gif&hash=fe99e79560e224eed0697eef2c4c7c1c)
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: MayoFlyFarmer on 11/05/2004 07:49:14
its geographically different because I know if you learn sign language over here you technically learn the language "american sign language"  (unless we are just cooler than everyoneelse and the rest of the world has a standard format but I doubt it)

I wonder if there are sighn language accents/dialects??

That's no moon.... its a GRAPEFRUIT!!!!
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Ultima on 11/05/2004 11:00:41
Titanscape:  
quote:
In Australia intellectuals are the cool dudes which get the girls and dress well often times but that is just my experience amidst a great diversity and unknowing. Our jocks fair about equal with the intellectuals unless they are sharp as well. Smartness is respected. Also power is and by women.


Where I live imagine the complete opposite... you are persecuted like a leper if you are the remotest bit intelligent, popularity is measured on stupidity, looks and physical strength alone. The place is over run with Chavs, which is a local word just to describe these kinds of people. Lots of my intelligent friends act like morons just to fit in… which makes them appear two faced at times…. [V]

http://www.chavscum.co.uk

wOw the world spins?
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: neilep on 11/05/2004 12:04:14
According to this site http://www.rit.edu/~dabdis/indj/dcoew.html it seems that sign language is just geographically different as the wspoken word.

Matt....that's a fun website.......!!...do you live in Essex ?  (sorry Rich and Chris..essex is great !)

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstagiber.net%2Fsmiliesdotcom%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fsleep.gif&hash=fe99e79560e224eed0697eef2c4c7c1c)
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Ultima on 11/05/2004 12:35:02
Nah Neil I live in Cheltenham, near Gloucester. Chav is taken from Romany for boy, and CHeltenham AVerage.

wOw the world spins?
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: tweener on 11/05/2004 20:28:35
quote:
Originally posted by Ultima

Titanscape:  
quote:
In Australia intellectuals are the cool dudes which get the girls and dress well often times but that is just my experience amidst a great diversity and unknowing. Our jocks fair about equal with the intellectuals unless they are sharp as well. Smartness is respected. Also power is and by women.


Where I live imagine the complete opposite... you are persecuted like a leper if you are the remotest bit intelligent, popularity is measured on stupidity, looks and physical strength alone. The place is over run with Chavs, which is a local word just to describe these kinds of people. Lots of my intelligent friends act like morons just to fit in… which makes them appear two faced at times…. [V]

http://www.chavscum.co.uk

wOw the world spins?



We have different names, but it's the same in the US. Any sign of intelligence is immediately persecuted.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: MayoFlyFarmer on 11/05/2004 21:45:43
unless you actually associate with inteligent people (but the can be hard to find at times)

That's no moon.... its a GRAPEFRUIT!!!!
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Donnah on 11/05/2004 22:32:11
Sad that so many are judged by looks or intellect, since they are both the result of a birth lottery.  I am treated differently when I'm all dollied up than I do when I'm plain.  For the record, I despise oglers, especially when they are already with a partner.  I find it incredibly rude.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: qpan on 17/05/2004 20:14:20
quote:
Originally posted by Ultima

Where I live imagine the complete opposite... you are persecuted like a leper if you are the remotest bit intelligent, popularity is measured on stupidity, looks and physical strength alone.


 Yep- i totally agree with you there Ultima- there is almost a negative work ethic here - it's actually wrong to do well at school! I can remember when one of my friends at school got jeered by the rest of the class just for answering a few questions right in a row!

I thought the whole of the western world was like the UK - its nice that Austrailia is different!

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: roberth on 18/05/2004 02:04:37
Sorry qpan, Australia isn't different!
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: qpan on 18/05/2004 19:32:18
but.......

quote:
Originally posted by Titanscape

In Australia intellectuals are the cool dudes which get the girls and dress well often times but that is just my experience amidst a great diversity and unknowing. Our jocks fair about equal with the intellectuals unless they are sharp as well. Smartness is respected. Also power is and by women.

I went to 2 hi schools in Perth WA and 3 in Sydney. Mostly Catholic ones.

 


Titanscape



Maybe he's from a different part of Oz then...

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: starburst on 17/06/2004 06:35:17
my best friend is ostracized by our class and the whole sec 4 level in school. as i'm her friend i'm also ostracized, though i do not have the same problem that people think she has, which is why people avoid her and hate her and look down on her. its more of a character/personality problem, though i don't see her having any problem at all. her initials are e.t, so people mock her by calling her ET -- extra-terrestrial.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Monox D. I-Fly on 16/01/2018 01:46:57
Soz mate....we'll have to agree to disagree.....if you can argue with concise dictionary definitions and then expect people to realise Your meaning then I think no one will be able to agree with anything...If you can't trust a dictionary what can you trust ?...and does your rational apply to any and all text/reference books or any reference material of any sort ?

<font color="blue">'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'</font id="blue">  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstagiber.net%2Fsmiliesdotcom%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fsleep.gif&hash=fe99e79560e224eed0697eef2c4c7c1c)
Me, too, don't trust my national, official, dictionary. They either didn't count evolving language, ignoring specific definition, or mixing double negatives.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: syhprum on 16/01/2018 09:15:54
I notice many words are replaced by asterix,s presumably not to frighten the horses but for one not always familiar with the latest slang would it be possible to number them and include the originals in an appendix.
 
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: puppypower on 16/01/2018 12:00:52
<font color="blue">Around the world we have some idea of North American terms which describe people, favourably and noteably disfavourably. Such as Nerd, screwball, dork, chock, dweeb, freak and geek...

What makes a nerd and what makes a dweeb...? I hear it relates to looks and social behaviour. What effects does it have on the outcast to be named such?

In Australia we seldom use those terms and what of England? We call some people "dags" here.

What are these American terms?</font id="blue">

<font color="green">Titanscape</font id="green">

In the more masculine societies of old, men often made sport of each other, using these and other words. This was all part of a pack mentality, pointing out superficial differences, until they no longer made a difference with respect to the pack. If you enlisted into the army, your comrades will come from all parts of the country. In battle, you will work as a team in spite of these shallow differences. But in peace time and training, you will spar and compete, with the goal of toughen each other up, so you can work as a team when needed.

I remember when I lived down south in the USA, I was called a Yankee by the indigenous males, while my southern friends were called the red necks. It was not done in anger or hate, but in humor. The clever insults from both sides and the group laughter, made us all friends. This is natural male behavior and is part of organizing.

Many of the terms you mentioned were originally coined in American colleges, among guys making friends and forming packs. Nerd was originally spelled, " knurd ", which was "drunk" spelled backwards. It was originally a friendly insult giving to a friend, who wanted to study, when there was a party. It was peer pressure, with a limited amount of pressure. The spelling was changed to nerd, remove this play on words. PC made it an insult.

As culture became more feminine, the original male pack banter got lost in the shuffle; locker room talk. Women are more concerned with their surface appearance, which is why they spend so much time on make up. This may be due to the fact this is how they attract males, since men tend notice female secondary sexual characteristics and many will not see much deeper.

The problem with living in a world more concerned with the needs of the surface, than the strength of the pack, is it does not take much for someone to smear your eye liner and degrade the perfection of your look. There is no foundation in the depths.The change from depth to shallows changed the entire dynamics of these words. If you add to this, broken homes where mothers raise sons, then many boys lose access to that friendly banter, among their dad and his male peers. The boys starts to think like mom, more concerned about makeup, less she/he become less desirable to suiters  like employers.

President Trump is an old school male. He was born at the end of WWII, when culture as still very masculine. He is  not feminized or PC, but is an old fashion male pack mate. His words appeal to the more masculine on the right, who look at this differently. The more feminized political left has a cow, because even though President Trump is trying to make the American pack strong, all the left can see is their make-up is being smudged. Even a hand gesture runs the risk of the lip stick being smeared and the whole look is ruined.

We may not be able to change male and female human nature, but we can show boys how to be men, who can spar with words, to strengthen packs, while having respect for the ladies who are concerned with makeup.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2018 22:55:29
Some good observation there.

The British characteristic is to be utterly polite to your enemies ("with the greatest respect....") and rude to your best friends (tosser, prat...) but you don't refer to actual appearance or shortcomings. This has confused many of my American friends and colleagues.

It's more complicated in the military, where class and rank are overlaid with necessary skills. I have heard of a famous exchange on a firing range:

"Sergeant, why do I keep hitting low and left of the bull?"

"Because you is an orrible little man wot cannot clean a rifle or stay awake in my classroom, Your Highness."
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2018 21:50:45
Soz mate....we'll have to agree to disagree.....if you can argue with concise dictionary definitions and then expect people to realise Your meaning then I think no one will be able to agree with anything...If you can't trust a dictionary what can you trust ?...and does your rational apply to any and all text/reference books or any reference material of any sort ?

<font color="blue">'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'</font id="blue">  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstagiber.net%2Fsmiliesdotcom%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fsleep.gif&hash=fe99e79560e224eed0697eef2c4c7c1c)
Me, too, don't trust my national, official, dictionary. They either didn't count evolving language, ignoring specific definition, or mixing double negatives.
There is some irony to resurrecting a 14 year old thread to talk about evolution in language.
Title: Re: Social science, looks, and names for outcasts...
Post by: Monox D. I-Fly on 18/01/2018 01:03:26
Soz mate....we'll have to agree to disagree.....if you can argue with concise dictionary definitions and then expect people to realise Your meaning then I think no one will be able to agree with anything...If you can't trust a dictionary what can you trust ?...and does your rational apply to any and all text/reference books or any reference material of any sort ?

<font color="blue">'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'</font id="blue">  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finstagiber.net%2Fsmiliesdotcom%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fsleep.gif&hash=fe99e79560e224eed0697eef2c4c7c1c)
Me, too, don't trust my national, official, dictionary. They either didn't count evolving language, ignoring specific definition, or mixing double negatives.
There is some irony to resurrecting a 14 year old thread to talk about evolution in language.
Well, languages do evolve in 14 years, don't they?