thecel
morph king
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Posts
- 24,728
- Reputation
- 52,271
Describing something as “dogshit” makes it seem worse than if it were described as just “shit”. Why does putting “dog” before “shit” make it stronger? Isn’t human shit more disgusting than dogshit is?
Imagine walking past some dog shit on some grass at a park. No big deal, right? Imagine walking past human poop. That’s far more disgusting than dog poop.
Who thought it’s a good idea to make “dogshit” a stronger word than “shit” even though (1) human shit is grosser than dog shit and (2) human language defaults to humans for pretty much all words (“Foot” means “human foot” by default, so “shit” means “human shit”.)?
Even more mind-boggling is the fact that dogs and occasionally horses are the only animals used for the linguistic purpose of intensifying “shit”. When PSL users want to express an even stronger kind of shit, the just slap on the word “utter” right before “dogshit” rather than upgrading to a dirtier animal such as pig, cow, or hippo.
Imagine walking past some dog shit on some grass at a park. No big deal, right? Imagine walking past human poop. That’s far more disgusting than dog poop.
Who thought it’s a good idea to make “dogshit” a stronger word than “shit” even though (1) human shit is grosser than dog shit and (2) human language defaults to humans for pretty much all words (“Foot” means “human foot” by default, so “shit” means “human shit”.)?
Even more mind-boggling is the fact that dogs and occasionally horses are the only animals used for the linguistic purpose of intensifying “shit”. When PSL users want to express an even stronger kind of shit, the just slap on the word “utter” right before “dogshit” rather than upgrading to a dirtier animal such as pig, cow, or hippo.
Last edited: