Quote:
Originally Posted by fleury
Hang on a second. I haven’t accused anyone of being a gold digger. So what’s offensive? I simply accept that there are people like that who exist to some degree on the spectrum. We all have our motivations and how we want to accomplish things in life. Some people want others money through cozying you to them, other want it through manipulation. Is it derogatory to point out it exists? If I term that the gold digging spectrum, it’s really not a negative term (well, maybe the manipulators are). Anyway, I think this whole thing is silly. The definition is loosely defined and I don’t think many people on the street polled would be crying this as a misogynist word. I’ll leave it at that.
|
To break this down as simply as possible:
- What's offensive? The term "
gold digger"
- Do people exist who fit the term exist?
Yes
- Is it offensive to point out the general fact that people like this exist?
No, and nobody is suggesting that
- Is it fair to label a specific group of people that way without knowing, definitely, that they fit the term, based on their sex, appearance, and the wealth of their partners?
No
- Is the definition loosely defined?
No, it's the definition, you cannot loosely define a definition
- Is there a gold-digging spectrum? No, there is no "gold-digging spectrum"
- Yes, it
is a negative term
The issue seems to be that you don't understand the word, which is your right. But if your response is "I don't mean it offensively, I'm talking about a spectrum and people with motivations other than pure money" then you're simply using the wrong word.
It would be completely ridiculous to call a horse a dog and when someone explains to you what a dog is, you say "I'm referring to the dog spectrum, mostly, I mean dogs, but also horses, is it not fair to say dogs exist?"