McGazz ([info]mcgazz) wrote,
@ 2009-03-04 14:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Dirty Smuggers
I've noticed recently that the meaning of 'smug' has changed. No longer an adjective describing someone "offensively self-satisfied or self-righteously complacent", it is now used to mean "unashamedly expressing a point of view opposed to my own".

Of course, resorting to dictionary definitions is, in itself, smug, innit?

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]rhodri
2009-03-04 03:34 pm UTC (link)
I don't think anyone could reasonably call someone smug if they said "I don't agree with your opinion on this issue for many reasons, namely x, y and z". But what generally happens online is that (often because of the cloak of anonymity) people say stuff like "I would suggest that you re-read your original statement and have a long, hard think about what you've just said." Or whatever. It's smug. And it happens because people don't have a clue how to express themselves without sounding utterly objectionable, but they've suddenly been afforded the opportunity to blast their brainless bollocks across thousands of web pages. I don't think the meaning of "smug" has changed, I just think that smugness is becoming so endemic that it's hard to tell the difference between your two definitions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mcgazz
2009-03-04 05:44 pm UTC (link)
> And it happens because people don't have a clue how to express themselves without sounding utterly objectionable, but they've suddenly been afforded the opportunity to blast their brainless bollocks across thousands of web pages.

That sounds about right.

I remember being called smug on a messageboard once for (calmly) refuting someone's bollocks argument. I'm pretty sure the person didn't find my manner "offensively self-satisfied or self-righteously complacent" - he was just pissed off because he'd been pwned. When idiots can't deny the person they're arguing with is right, they resort to criticising them for not using the same prejudice-based system as them. It's a bit like the anecdote Stewart Lee tells where he questions a bigoted statement made by a taxi driver and gets the dismissive reply "well, you can prove anything with *facts*, can't you?" Similarly, I remember reading some lefty blogger talking about people on the right criticising things he'd posted as being "fact-heavy".

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]eulogytobiko
2009-03-04 04:01 pm UTC (link)
Who called you smug?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mcgazz
2009-03-04 05:27 pm UTC (link)
Nobody has for ages - since I stopped posting on messageboards ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tam_qwithoutu
2009-03-04 05:52 pm UTC (link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGazz_finally_morphs_into_Jo_Reeves

:D

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mcgazz
2009-03-04 10:29 pm UTC (link)
I think you'll find....oh shit, maybe you're right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tam_qwithoutu
2009-03-05 06:26 pm UTC (link)
you allergic to 'bru yet?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mcgazz
2009-03-06 02:32 pm UTC (link)
Quick, pass the Migraleve...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…