We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

http://shrillblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Are you saying it started earlier, or that the quotations in that are wrong? If the former, I'm interested -- where? If the latter, it's there in black and white, but whatever. Not clear what part is "shite," or why.

eta: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that what Delong described happened. I remember it. If you don't recall the meme, fair enough -- we read different things. If other people were calling liberals shrill before that became a thing around Krugman, I would like to see that, but I remember it as a way to marginalize Krugman.

Started way earlier. I recall my mom using the term in the 80s.

I’ve always liked it. Good sound, rolling off the lips with a nice mash-up of consonants, and the definition is immediately dismissive. Frivolous, reactive, emotional, overwrought, dramatic, coarse, irritating, weak — it encapsulates a number of strong insults in a tight package. It’s also a feminine word. You don’t hear men using it a lot. I think that gives it even more bite. Women insult far more effectively than men. I don’t think Krugman deserves it. But using it on him is brilliant for numerous reasons. It’s a truckload of discrediting criticisms, personal and professional, in barely two syllables.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Started way earlier. I recall my mom using the term in the 80s.

I’ve always liked it. Good sound, rolling off the lips with a nice mash-up of consonants, and the definition is immediately dismissive. Frivolous, reactive, emotional, overwrought, dramatic, coarse, irritating, weak — it encapsulates a number of strong insults in a tight package. It’s also a feminine word. You don’t hear men using it a lot. I think that gives it even more bite. Women insult far more effectively than men. I don’t think Krugman deserves it. But using it on him is brilliant for numerous reasons. It’s a truckload of discrediting criticisms, personal and professional, in barely two syllables.

Since you and GGG both thought I was saying that the word wasn't used before it was deployed on Krugman, clearly I didn't make my point. It's not that no one was called "shrill" before. It's that "shrill liberal" became a cliche after it was used with Krugman.

If you think calling Krugman shrill was brilliant, you deserve Trump. I'm sorry the rest of us have to live through it too.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you think calling Krugman shrill was brilliant, you deserve Trump. I'm sorry the rest of us have to live through it too.

One can say that a tactic was “brilliant” without approving of it or the goals it was designed to achieve. See e.g. Willie Horton, the infield shift against pull hitters, and many pharmaceutical commercials on the tee-vee.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

One can say that a tactic was “brilliant” without approving of it or the goals it was designed to achieve. See e.g. Willie Horton, the infield shift against pull hitters, and many pharmaceutical commercials on the tee-vee.

One can. One can also refer to "shrill liberals" non-ironically. Here's a Venn diagram of those two sets:

O O

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Started way earlier. I recall my mom using the term in the 80s.

I’ve always liked it. Good sound, rolling off the lips with a nice mash-up of consonants, and the definition is immediately dismissive. Frivolous, reactive, emotional, overwrought, dramatic, coarse, irritating, weak — it encapsulates a number of strong insults in a tight package. It’s also a feminine word. You don’t hear men using it a lot. I think that gives it even more bite. Women insult far more effectively than men. I don’t think Krugman deserves it. But using it on him is brilliant for numerous reasons. It’s a truckload of discrediting criticisms, personal and professional, in barely two syllables.

Calling someone shrill is like saying they are hysterical. It suggests they are like a woman -- high-pitched, overly emotional, etc. -- and that their arguments can therefore be dismissed, in the same way that a real man dismisses the shrewish nagging of his wife.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The big question remains: will Republicans continue to just give the country the middle finger rather than doing their jobs.

How can it be a big question if we already know the answer?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Since you and GGG both thought I was saying that the word wasn't used before it was deployed on Krugman, clearly I didn't make my point. It's not that no one was called "shrill" before. It's that "shrill liberal" became a cliche after it was used with Krugman.

If you think calling Krugman shrill was brilliant, you deserve Trump. I'm sorry the rest of us have to live through it too.

Who gives a fuck where it came from? It's the same tactic employed by the right since the beginning of time. Ignore the substance of the argument and recharacterize it to connote "nagging like an annoying woman" and sit back and watch thoughtless idiots eat it up and spread it on their own like wildfire.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Calling someone shrill is like saying they are hysterical. It suggests they are like a woman -- high-pitched, overly emotional, etc. -- and that their arguments can therefore be dismissed, in the same way that a real man dismisses the shrewish nagging of his wife.

Couldn't (and didn't) say it better myself.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Women insult far more effectively than men.

The first time I read this, I thought you meant that women are more effective at insulting other people than men. But I realize that no woman is calling anyone shrill.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The first time I read this, I thought you meant that women are more effective at insulting other people than men. But I realize that no woman is calling anyone shrill.

Correct on point 1, dead wrong on point 2.

Ever heard a man call someone shrill? It’s like hearing a man call someone tacky.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Calling someone shrill is like saying they are hysterical. It suggests they are like a woman -- high-pitched, overly emotional, etc. -- and that their arguments can therefore be dismissed, in the same way that a real man dismisses the shrewish nagging of his wife.

It’s effective. It works. There are few adjectives left with any bite these days, given hyperbole is now the baseline for discourse. From a linguistic perspective, shrill is an impressive little hand grenade. Kind of a cockroach after a nuclear war. Where almost nothing has any sting anymore, shrill retains one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Correct on point 1, dead wrong on point 2.

Ever heard a man call someone shrill? It’s like hearing a man call someone tacky.

The only person calling anyone shrill here is you, and the dudes that Delong cites. (Although you have some unspecified issue with the accuracy of his account -- maybe you mean everyone who used the word was a woman? Do tell.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The only person calling anyone shrill here is you, and the dudes that Delong cites. (Although you have some unspecified issue with the accuracy of his account -- maybe you mean everyone who used the word was a woman? Do tell.)

I don’t care about DeLong and have no interest in addressing what he wrote other than to note, “shrill” has been around for a long, long time, and did not rocket into fashion as a result of Paul Krugman.

I’ve used the term forever. My earliest recollection of it was my mother using it. I’ve also heard female friends use it. I’ve not heard many male friends use it. I think this may result from most males simply ignoring shrill people. I know when I encounter a shrill person, and I do so more than I’d like, I walk away from them, or ignore them. Protestors tend to be shrill. You can’t talk to most protestors. Even if you agree with them, they’re annoying.

Women tend to be more verbal. They come up with and use excellent words to describe annoying people, like “shrill.” Its target is often other women, as PLF noted, but it works just as well on men.

It’s an excellent word. Fills in a blank where “overwrought,” or “dramatic” fall short.

I don’t think it applies fairly to Krugman, who is contemplative and very measured in demeanor. But if his critics can nevertheless make it stick to discredit him, such a tactic would be very shrewd. The adjective delivers a lot of derision.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t care about DeLong and have no interest in addressing what he wrote other than to note, “shrill” has been around for a long, long time, and did not rocket into fashion as a result of Paul Krugman.

You already called it shite. I was just asking why. If it's too much work for you to make up some post hoc explanation, never mind.

And calling Krugman shrill doesn't "discredit" him. That's exactly the point.