Here's a query for anyone:
The word crank in its usual usage refers to a device that gets some machine wound up and going. This is generally a favorable device, and one can see a connection between that usage and the use of the term in a discussion. Cranks could crank up the discussion, get it going. Admittedly, the cranking process is "cranky," makes an unpleasent noise, is laborious, and should not go on too long. But, when things get stalled, a crank could be quite handy. So, why is the term so pejorative?
I get a similar thought, thinking about being a nut, or a nutcase. Nuts are amazing. Besides being the fruit of really old trees, and having the power to make another great tree, they are full of poly-unsaturated fats that make anyone who eats them have a good heart, and good mind. And the proteins in nuts are good for the neurotranmitters that make one think clearly. Why when we call a person a nut are we being pejorative? Again, I can see where a person who is dealing with really long-term issues, in a healthy way, might be told, as a complement, that they are "nuts."
And trolls. Now, I believe I am right in thinking a troll refers not to someone lurking under a bridge with evil intentions, but to someone looking to lure someone into something. We are borrowing the term from fishing, where one drags a baited hook through the water after a boat. So, internet trolls would be "fishing for men." Now, both trolling for fish, and fishing for men, are honorable enough occupations. And believers in Jesus on this forum had better be fishing for men, or they are hypocrites. His invitation to be with Him at all was contingent on wanting to be trained to be a fisher of men. Yet, somehow, the term has pejorative notations here. Wonder why.
Finally, about lurkers, people who sit in on a debate without entering in. Well, again, this is pejorative, somehow, even though it can only lead to good. The "lurker" themselves are made to think in new ways, and their potential attention to the debate makes it more interesting to the debaters. And what harm is done?
It's weird to me that we would use terms that ought to be complementary, as derogatives.
Any thoughts?
Stephen