But Mr Thompson was shunned for years by fellow soldiers, received death threats, and was once told by a congressman that he was the only American who should be punished over My Lai.
It's really sickening how we treat the true heroes. The guy who revealed the torture at Abu Ghraib is another example.
Pet peeve: no offense intended, FL, but why do people use the dorky locution "passed away" or "passed on"? Especially for those of us who don't believe in the Sky Fairy (most of us writing and commenting on this blog, it seems), those phrases, which imply that the person went someplace else, seem weird. The guy died. It's a shame, especially given that he wasn't very old, but using a silly euphemism doesn't help anything.
It would have been nice if he'd broke that congressman's face.
I don't get what's wrong with "passed away."
It may be a euphemism, but it ain't silly.
I don't get what's wrong with "passed away."
It's a euphemism. Why can't we just say "he died"?
Do you take issue with all euphemisms?
Tragedy today, as former warrant officer Hugh Thompson was eaten by wolves. He was delicious.
Do you take issue with all euphemisms?
You mean like "bathroom," or what? It's true that I don't demand that one say "shitroom" or something instead, although there isn't really a properly descriptive accepted term for it. In general, I don't like euphemisms, but I can't think of any other good examples. Certainly we raised our kid to use standard anatomical terms, not "wee-wee" and such.
Another euphemism I don't like: saying that one "slept with" someone. The sleeping part isn't really what's relevant . . . .
Yes, but in this age of birth control one can't simply go around saying "I ejaculated in her vaginal canal", or "he ejaculated in my, &c"—ignoring the other sexual vagaries the modern age has brought us! (My presumption is that the natural understanding of "in" will be "into", and not merely locative, in this context. Compare "I ejaculated in her kitchen".)
"Slept with", I don't mind. "Made love", I hate.
Yes, but in this age of birth control one can't simply go around saying "I ejaculated in her vaginal canal",
Can't one just say, "I had sex with her"? I admit I don't consider it obligatory, or generally even in good taste, to go into great detail in such matters. "Made love" is pretty dorky, although I confess I did use that phrase once in the past few weeks. I also will use "slept with" if I think someone (typically female) might be more comfortable with that terminology than "had sex with."
Actually, I think I'd usually use "went to bed with," which is euphemistic but not inaccurate, in preference to "slept with," which is both.
"Went to bed with" could well be inaccurate, and "slept with" could well be accurate. Actually, I don't see how you can prefer the one to the other—it seems on all accounts worse, since even "I went to bed" is frequently not really what you did (you went to sleep). (Probably in a bed! But what you're trying to convey is not where you went but what you did.)
Anyway, what is your principle for opposing euphemism? Is it not frequently a way of avoiding going into detail, in the interests of good taste?
I avoided all euphemisms until the incident.
My theory is that euphemisms were initially propagated by men and women of great wit and social finesse who were caught in sticky conversational situations and had to improvise, on the spot, a means of conveying something that couldn't be said outright but which nevertheless had to be clearly communicated to everyone present. From the examples of these godly the practice of euphemism-making in general was derived; however, some of the best and original euphemisms are now lost to us, through the action of the simple passage of time and great disasters (eg destruction of the library of Alexandria).
Yes, that's right. I'm a euphemistic ephemeral euhemerist.
From the examples of these godly diplomats
s it not frequently a way of avoiding going into detail
It is also a sort of secondary shared language, which is sometimes inaccessible to children, or it at least permits the euphemism users to a) ascertain whether the euphemismer and the euphemismee operate in the same culture context and b) establish boundaries of discussion.
It both makes and obscures meaning, and for that I like it.
what is your principle for opposing euphemism? Is it not frequently a way of avoiding going into detail, in the interests of good taste?
It seems better to me to be honest about what one is talking about, although yes, one can avoid going into detail in the interest of good taste. "We had sex" doesn't really give more detail than "I slept with her." Avoiding giving offense to others one thinks might be offended is a legitimate consideration, though, and might warrant speaking euphemistically.
Actually, I don't see how you can prefer the one to the other—it seems on all accounts worse
Either phrase is used as a substitute for "we had sex." "I slept with her" is really inaccurate, because it makes no reference to sex. One can sleep with someone without having sex, and one can have sex with someone without thereafter going to sleep. If one has had sex with someone it usually will have been in a bed, so "I went to bed with her" will usually be true, albeit imprecise.
The euphemistic usage of frig dates to 1598, don't you know.
On topic: I know I really should stop asking administrative questions in the middle of the night, but are trackbacks manually approved? I tried to trackback this but it doesn't seem to have worked.
Fascinating link, apostropher. I didn't even know that a lot of those words were euphemisms (e.g., Sam Hill, crikey, caramba). Our favorite Mexican restaurant is "Hay Caramba." I had no idea "caramba" was a euphemism for "dick." And I would never have dreamed that "frig" has been used as a euphemism for "fuck" since 1598.
"Slept with", I don't mind. "Made love", I hate.
Without the "make love" euphemism we would not have the excellent slogan, "make love not war".
I mean "have sex not combat" just doesn't do it for me. Nor "Exchange fluids not artillery fire".
And (realizing that I am picking up on a kind of silly side issue commenting on a serious post, and not meaning to show disrespect to FL or to Mr. Thompson): Thanks for the acknowledgement of Thompson's passing, Labs.
You mean like "bathroom," or what? It's true that I don't demand that one say "shitroom" or something instead, although there isn't really a properly descriptive accepted term for it.
"Pisser," while slightly crude, is still widely acceptable, and is very accurate.
"Bathroom" has never made sense to me. If I'm somewhere that requires I be ultra-polite all night, I'll eschew "pisser" in favor of "restroom"; if I'm somewhere that requires I be ultra-polite all night, I'm likely to need a bit of rest, anyway.
"Pisser"? In an American context? I can't see that ever being used.
I don't see how bathroom could be considered a euphemism anymore. Maybe it was at one point, but nowadays, it's the most common term for what's being referred to.
Though if you want to avoid it, you could say instead of "going to the bathroom", "going to the toilet" or "going to take a dump/shit/leak/piss", or, to trade one euphemism for another, "going to relieve myself". "Relieving oneself" is actually a pretty accurate euphemism, though, so maybe Frederick wouldn't be as annoyed by it.
Yeah, bathroom seems much less euphemistic than restroom, a word that has always struck me as odd. "If you'll excuse me, I have to go take a rest."
The euphemism I grew up hearing (and now use, because it strikes me as funny) was "I gotta go talk to a man about a dog."
Last night I was involved in a discussion that resulted in a new slogan: "Make porn not war."
I spent about 20 minutes reading Spread last night. Does that count?
I think we use euphemisms because we have lots of ways to express the same thing, and it's boring to use the same words all the time. A lot of them originated as cutesy polite ways of expressing bodily functions, but most of them ('restroom') don't really connote shame or modesty. It's just the word for it.
'Passed away' and 'making love' are probably like that. In a religious context, where dying isn't supposed to be the end of things calling someone 'dead' is awfully harsh; a lot of people don't buy into a worldview that includes a resurrection these days, but the idea that flatly calling someone 'dead' is harsh remains. 'Making love' (outside of its 'wooing' context) probably has some idea of we're-not-supposed-to-say-sex behind the phrase, but now I think there's a level of caring implied with 'make love' that might not be there with 'had sex with'.
So, what's the alternative here? Clinically describing every activity? Or maybe everything should be described in mathematics?
On topic: here's an interview with Hugh Thompson describing what happened.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/thompson/
"died," or "is dead" is insufficiently respectful. French has two words for "died," - one for humans, and one for everything else. I think we intuitively make this distinction, and want to linguistically express it. "Passed away" is fine by me, and I don't see that it necessarily implies "passed away unto teh afterlife."
I don't know that "died" is insufficiently respectful to the dead. It's pretty blunt, but death isn't a pretty thing. It might be disrespectful to the dead's relations, though, if saying "died" instead of something more euphemistic would cause them any pain. And while "died" is more easily used disrespectfully, since it's more blunt, that doesn't mean it can't be used respectfully.
Could we draw on the distinction between euphemism and idiom here? Among the statements discussed here, I would say that "go to the bathroom" is most clearly an idiom, in that it is used without any conscious reference to what the individual words "literally" mean. "Pass away" might approach idiom rather than euphemism.
Sure, "go to the bathroom" is an idiom. It's also a euphemism. I think you may have a point in that the hidden meaning is starting to become pretty transparent (as it does for all euphemisms eventually), but for this particular idiom I don't think it's gotten to that point yet. There's still a bit of a sense of indirection, of euphemism, when one uses it.
It seems better to me to be honest about what one is talking about
And euphemisms, which are only possible because everyone knows what you mean, are dishonest because…?
Either phrase is used as a substitute for "we had sex." "I slept with her" is really inaccurate, because it makes no reference to sex. One can sleep with someone without having sex, and one can have sex with someone without thereafter going to sleep. If one has had sex with someone it usually will have been in a bed, so "I went to bed with her" will usually be true, albeit imprecise.
"I went to bed with her" makes no reference to sex. I myself have gone to bed with (and proceeded to sleep with) at least one person without having sex.
I'm not sure that it's any more usual to have sex in a bed than it is to have sex at night and follow it up with some well-earned rest.
How do you feel about "I bedded her"? That has an admirable mix of traits: it's a euphemism and it's in poor taste!
"Went to bed with her" seems a little more accurate to me, but I'm not going to argue that it's markedly better than "slept with her." If one has sex other than in a bed more often than I do, maybe "went to bed with her" isn't even more nearly accurate. And yes, of course one can go to bed with someone without having sex with him/her. Why, just last night, my wife and daughter went to bed together, then hours later I got off the computer, dispatched my daughter to her own bed (where she probably went to bed with our calico cat), and I went to bed with my wife. The dog was also "sleeping with us," albeit on the floor. I am confident that no sex occurred among any permutation of me/my wife/our daughter/the calico cat/the dog.
I agree with your assessment of "I bedded her."
It's a euphemism. Why can't we just say "he died"?
I'd say it's more like a synonym. No native English speaker will hear "passed away" and fail to comprehend that it means "died".
The only euphemisms that bother me are the ones that withhold actual information, like "female trouble".
And I would never have dreamed that "frig" has been used as a euphemism for "fuck" since 1598.
I never thought "frig" had been used as a euphemism for "fuck" ever. In my dialect, and in the Victorian porn collection I stole from a book factory, it means "give a hand-job to" or "masturbate". Q.E.D.
The link Apo gave indicated it had been used as a euphemism for either "fuck" or "masturbate" since 1598. I have seen it used for both, but as to "fuck" only in the non-literal sense, e.g., "he told the whole frigging school."
Well, as fun as the euphemism discussion is, the Baltimore Sun ran a very good feature article on Joseph Darby just after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in which Darby's situation was compared with Thompson's. I posted the relevant excerpt on my blog, which is what I was trying to trackback in 26, but I see the trackback has shown up, so this comment is probably redundant.
This is very interesting, compared to some other threads I could name.
This thread is gay.
(Except for 20 or 34, and the few on-topic comments.)
Ogged is also gay. This has nothing to do with the above. He's just a boner-biter. That's all.
I thought I'd flip on the TV, and so I just did. Korn on SNL came on....Korn is in a league of their very own when it comes to being gay.
I was reading $pread at a feminist bookstore. I also looked through these, which look like things everyone here has read.
I prefer "past away".
I prefer "Kicked the bucket", "Hopped the twig", "Stuck his spoon in the wall", "Met the big one", ...
54: This comment reminds me of John Cleese's eulogy for Graham Chapman, which, if you've never seen it, is as fine a send-off as he could possibly have gotten.