Talk:cacophemism

A simple redirect strikes me as not quite right, at least in the usage I'm familiar with. I would see cacophemism as specifically involving vulgarity, unpleasant imagery, or the like (e.g., "axe wound" for "vulva"), not the adding of a negative assessment of morality (e.g., "theft at gunpoint" for "taxation") or value (e.g., "trash" for "low quality products"), nor the giving of offense through hostility or bigotry (e.g., "nigger" for "black"). While the linked definition seems to include all of those.

Obviously, the line can be blurry, since slurs are often considered vulgar, and many of them invoke unpleasant imagery about their targets. But it still seems like a meaningful distinction. Is my perception of the usage incorrect?159.178.232.160 15:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Where did you get that perception? I think the burden of proof is on you. See e.g. Joel Feinberg 1984, "Offense to Others", page 252: "Speaking very loosely at first, we can label the terms expressing positive attitudes “euphemisms” (from the Greek euphemos, good-sounding, auspicious) and those expressing negative ones “cacophemisms” ..." Equinox ◑ 18:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP may be right. Humor is key differentiation:

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-cacophemism-words-1689819#:~:text=Cacophemism%20is%20a%20word%20or,bad%22%20plus%20%22speech%22.

Zezen (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)