Category talk:English dysphemisms

RFM discussion: September 2022–March 2023
Is it right/maintainable to distinguish this from labels like "derogatory" / "vulgar"? Dysphemisms are 'worse' terms used in place of neutral ones, but so are (most) derogatory terms. The current 7 entries are haphazard: why is "shit on a shingle" for "chipped beef on toast" a dysphemism while "shit on toast" is just vulgar for "Vegemite on toast"? Why is "worm food" categorized (but not labelled) a dysphemism while the same sense of "dog meat" gets by without "dysphemism"? The few other CAT:Dysphemisms by language (1 Danish, 1 Dutch and 2 Nepali entries) also seem indistinct from "derogatory" / "vulgar". (Some entries in the English "dysphemism" category could just be removed from it without being relabelled "derogatory", e.g. it seems correct that we only label "dihydrogen monoxide" as "usually humorous", and we could just drop the "dysphemism" category.) - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the worthwhileness or practicality, but I think they are distinct. I'm having trouble explaining why. A word like "shithead" is clearly derogatory (it's an insult) but not exactly a dysphemism, because it isn't used for avoidance purposes. (Remember we use euphemisms to avoid talking about something ostensibly unpleasant or immoral, such as sex or toilets.) OTOH, calling smallpox the "speckled monster" isn't especially derogatory (we may dislike diseases, but they are not insultable), but it seems to be avoiding saying something: it's poetical, not medical, almost reminds me of Aboriginal "mother-in-law language", or that special Finnish hunters' word for a bear. Equinox ◑ 18:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like an unnecessary category to me. Trying to distinguish its contents from the contents of the “derogatory” or “vulgar” categories is likely to be too difficult, with the result that entries will end up in two categories or someone will have to keep reviewing the contents of the “dysphemisms” category to remove inappropriate entries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As I understand it dysphemisms are deliberately constructed to cast the referent in an especially unfavourable light. Words can be intentionally derogatory without having been constructed to sound unpleasant or carry particularly strong negative connotations. That said, I'm not sure whether it would be possible to pin down clear, consistent criteria for what does and does not qualify as a dysphemism. It's something of a discretionary identification for me. Some words just seem to "go the extra mile" in terms of being derogatory. And that's a different quality than being offensive or vulgar. I think it all cuts back to how they are constructed.
 * is derogatory, given that it frames opposition to abortion in a negative manner, but it doesn't seem quite as pointedly unfavourable as . ("feminism-appropriating reactionary transphobe") is another example. If one simply wanted to coin an explicitly negative synonym of, they could invent something like FFT ("fake feminist transphobe"). It was a deliberate choice to coin an acronym that sounds and reads like . On the same subject,  and  strike me as dysphemistic. Beyond intentionally misgendering the referents, these coinages frame being trans in an oppositional manner (as something one "identifies" as rather than is), and also seem to have been constructed to have acronyms that read as misgendering names ( and , respectively). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could names also be added to the dysphemism category to help better distinguish it? For example, to take some milder ones from the tech industry, Windoze, Lunix, Slowaris, and so on. For people there are plenty of examples as well, ... we still have Shrub for George W. Bush.  Possibly the oldest known example of a derisive alternation of a name is Baalzebub.  I've always called these dysphemisms, and was actually surprised to see that neither Wiktionary nor Wikipedia uses that term, but I can't think of what else to call them. Thoughts? — Soap — 18:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm closing this since people feel there is a distinction so the category isn't going to be merged. It will likely require periodic monitoring to ensure that it is being used correctly, but I suppose that's no different from many other categories. (Things improperly categorized as dysphemisms in the past include the use of whiteness to mean the state of being white, lol.) - -sche (discuss) 22:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It'd be useful to sort out the situation with worm food being labelled a dysphemism while dog meat (for the same meaning) isn't, though. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Buzzard's gotta eat, same as worms! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt object if someone added the label to both entries, but I think is the more unpleasant of the two expressions, for various reasons that we could probably write a book on ... so I'll leave them as they are for now, although I did link to the dog meat expression from the entry for worm food.  Thanks for the reminder ... I had forgotten this discussion even existed, and maybe I can keep an eye on this whole category from time to time.  My comment above was only six months ago, but I've learned a bit since then and I think I could add the redlinked proper names I mentioned above .... even Slowaris is easily attestable. — Soap — 02:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)