A truly Unappetizing Nonce Term

Big Horn

Big Horn

Member
Location
Cody, Wyoming
I've read it twice in the past several days on this website, but I couldn't convince myself to use it in the title. The term is mosh pit. A search gave me moshing. The Wikipedia link describes an activity which goes beyond being conduct of the lowest social classes. It's savagery.

I was both surprised and disheartened that posters here would have ever heard the term, let alone use. I'll never use it. There are some things that should never be mentioned.there are over a million words in the English language. There are plenty of pejoratives to describe this activity without resorting to the cant of the underclass.

For many years there was a commercial on the radio during the wee hours that began: "People judge us by the way we speak." They do and they should.
 

Well I think I used that word in replying to a post by falcon, didn't realize it was an offensive word. Ive heard it many times in the 80's and recently in the post I'm referencing.

I think there are many words that are more offensive.
 

Well tbh...the word in your title is more offensive to me ...at least in the UK anyway ... the word ''Nonce'' mean paedophile... or deviant sex offender

Mosh pit, here only means the area right in front of the stage where really physical dancing takes place...
 
hollydolly said:
Well tbh...the word in your title is more offensive to me ...at least in the UK anyway ... the word ''Nonce'' mean paedophile... or deviant sex offender

Mosh pit, here only means the area right in front of the stage where really physical dancing takes place...
Click to expand...

Yes, Ive heard that about the word "nonce" also from someone in the UK.
 
Interesting topic. I have the same sensibilities as HollyDolly. I am aware of the same meaning of the word 'nonce' but have only heard the words 'mosh pit' used for the area in front of the stage at a rock concert. I might add that I have never been to a single rock concert in my life but self preservation instincts would prompt me to avoid this area. I will now try to find out the deeper meaning.

I have come to realise that words that are considered obscene or offensive in one culture may be calmly used in another. Also, even within the same culture, context is everything. There seems to be little rationality involved. For example the words poo, sh*t, faeces and turd all refer to the same thing but only one of them is considered coarse and offensive. Why? The only answer seems to be cultural.
 
Warrigal said:
Interesting topic. I have the same sensibilities as HollyDolly. I am aware of the same meaning of the word 'nonce' but have only heard the words 'mosh pit' used for the area in front of the stage at a rock concert. I might add that I have never been to a single rock concert in my life but self preservation instincts would prompt me to avoid this area. I will now try to find out the deeper meaning.

I have come to realise that words that are considered obscene or offensive in one culture may be calmly used in another. Also, even within the same culture, context is everything. There seems to be little rationality involved. For example the words poo, sh*t, faeces and turd all refer to the same thing but only one of them is considered coarse and offensive. Why? The only answer seems to be cultural.
Click to expand...
Both are considered vulgar in this country.

We also write /realize/, not /realise/, /feces/, not /faeces/, and pedophile/, not /paedophile/.
 
Warrigal said:
:lol: I am also aware of the spelling differences. I am sure you will learn to cope with my Antipodean idiosyncrasies.
Click to expand...

I think it was Mark Twain who said something about "I have no use for a man who only knows how to spell a word one way". (I paraphrase.)
 
‘The Wikipedia link describes an activity which goes beyond being conduct of the lowest social classes. It's savagery.‘

Well I’m British and had never heard of it, after Googling it with much trepidation, I’m thinking this must be a wind up, there’s a lot more savage things going on in the world.......
 
I wonder if it's the body-slamming that's considered offensive by posters here. If so, that's odd because I've seen far more body-slamming among guys goofing around, challenging an adversary, perpetrating domestic violence, wrestlers, the police and military forces than I've seen in mosh pits. At least in the mosh pits, those who are doing it are having fun and there is no intention to cause actual harm. Body-slamming has always seemed to me to be fairly typical hypermasculine behavior.
 
SIMPLY PUT; A "mosh pit" is the area down and in front of a stage where some kind of entertainment is taking place !!!!

Fans like to gather there to be close to the performers and listen to the music.

IFsome sort of violence takes place has nothing to do with the initial description.
 
I really don't understand the problem? Words mean different things in different cultures. Same with spelling. Diversity can be a good thing in my book. Often, perceived vulgarity is a generational thing. My gramma would turn over in her grave at some of my speech patterns, yet they seem very normal to my compatriots.
 
If, in our choice of words, we simply asked ourselves whether a word would have been acceptable in 1950, the problem would be solved.
 
Big Horn said:
If, in our choice of words, we simply asked ourselves whether a word would have been acceptable in 1950, the problem would be solved.
Click to expand...

Why? I, for one, am delighted that I don't live in such an antiquated time. I have no desire to "serve" men, or have difficulty buying a house, or require my husband's permission in order to open a bank acct etc. doubt there were many female psychologists in 1950 either. What is morality to some, is often repression to others.
 
Shalimar said:
Why? I, for one, am delighted that I don't live in such an antiquated time. I have no desire to "serve" men, or have difficulty buying a house, or require my husband's permission in order to open a bank acct etc. doubt there were many female psychologists in 1950 either. What is morality to some, is often repression to others.
Click to expand...
My late wife and I were in Calgary in 1968. We decided to stop at a bar for a beer. The arrangement of the bar was the strangest I had ever seen or have seen since. There were two doors side by side at the front. One was marked, "Men Only." The other was marked, "Couples Only." We entered through the couples' door and found ourselves upon entering to be standing next to a stout lattice barrier. There was a seating area. About halfway into the room there was an opening in the fence where the bar, service bar only, was. We could see enough through the opening enough to note that the barman served the entire place from the two sides of the bar. We had a waiter, not a waitress. He was a rather surly specimen who couldn't be bothered to tell us about the arrangement. We left shortly thereafter. My wife found the fact that women couldn't enter by themselves to be particularly offensive.

I'm not surprised that a country that would have establishments of that sort would also have laws requiring a husband to grant permission to his wife before she could open a bank account and why she might have difficulty buying property. We have never had laws of that sort in this country. Women could always have bank accounts as well as brokers' accounts, own businesses, and enter into contracts. Hettie Green, the "Witch of Wall Street," was treated as an equal by her male counterparts. Businesswomen always were. There were physicians and lawyers of the fair sex during the nineteenth century. A woman was first elected to office as a Justice of the Peace in 1876. By 1950 women had served as governors and senators.

America has its faults, but it's still the best place for those who value freedom and opportunity.
 
Big Horn said:
My late wife and I were in Calgary in 1968. We decided to stop at a bar for a beer. The arrangement of the bar was the strangest I had ever seen or have seen since. There were two doors side by side at the front. One was marked, "Men Only." The other was marked, "Couples Only." We entered through the couples' door and found ourselves upon entering to be standing next to a stout lattice barrier. There was a seating area. About halfway into the room there was an opening in the fence where the bar, service bar only, was. We could see enough through the opening enough to note that the barman served the entire place from the two sides of the bar. We had a waiter, not a waitress. He was a rather surly specimen who couldn't be bothered to tell us about the arrangement. We left shortly thereafter. My wife found the fact that women couldn't enter by themselves to be particularly offensive.

I'm not surprised that a country that would have establishments of that sort would also have laws requiring a husband to grant permission to his wife before she could open a bank account and why she might have difficulty buying property. We have never had laws of that sort in this country. Women could always have bank accounts as well as brokers' accounts, own businesses, and enter into contracts. Hettie Green, the "Witch of Wall Street," was treated as an equal by her male counterparts. Businesswomen always were. There were physicians and lawyers of the fair sex during the nineteenth century. A woman was first elected to office as a Justice of the Peace in 1876. By 1950 women had served as governors and senators.

America has its faults, but it's still the best place for those who value freedom and opportunity.
Click to expand...
Je suis triste that apparently the Canada of almost fifty years ago did not live up to your standards, as for America being the best place for those who value freedom and opportunity, my goodness, I think there might be some people of colour who may disagree with you. Perhaps some LGBTQI individuals also. Such a strong response, slamming my country, merely because I disagreed with you?
 
Shalimar said:
Je suis triste that apparently the Canada of almost fifty years ago did not live up to your standards, as for America being the best place for those who value freedom and opportunity, my goodness, I think there might be some people of colour who may disagree with you. Perhaps some LGBTQI individuals also. Such a strong response, slamming my country, merely because I disagreed with you?
Click to expand...
I thought we agreed that Canada's treatment of women has been abysmal.
 
Big Horn said:
I thought we agreed that Canada's treatment of women has been abysmal.
Click to expand...
Not at all. In America, during the 1960's, a bank could refuse to issue a credit card to an unmarried woman, if she was married, her husband was required to cosign. Under those circumstances, buying property on her own could be problematic. Not until

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, was it illegal to refuse a credit card to a woman based on her gender. Regarding education, Yale and Princeton didn't accept female students prior to 1969, Harvard denied them entry until 1977. With the

exception of University of Pennsylvania, which accepted some women on a case by case basis, in 1876, and Cornell, which opened it's doors to some women in 1870, women were barred from Ivy League schools until at least 1969. Women have come a long way in both America and Canada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top