It's interesting -- but not at all surprising -- that the people saying those innocuous English idioms shouldn't be used (or should be banned) because their "offensive" origins make their modern meanings irrelevant...
... are the very same people who claim the plain words of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are malleable and subject to interpretation based on modern meanings.
It's almost like they promote double standards, or something.
Sigh. I remember Readers’ Digest when it was a traditional, conservative magazine, and not yet another PC megaphone.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting -- but not at all surprising -- that the people saying those innocuous English idioms shouldn't be used (or should be banned) because their "offensive" origins make their modern meanings irrelevant...
ReplyDelete... are the very same people who claim the plain words of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are malleable and subject to interpretation based on modern meanings.
It's almost like they promote double standards, or something.
Who would have guessed Flagg was prescient?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP6LRwE-U-A