I know you didn’t intend this about my comment, but just to make it clear to others: By “English is flexible” I meant we have the wonderful ability to use old words in new ways and modify usual syntax as we see fit for a given communication purpose.

I didn’t mean using it (English) to say the types of things the modern right does on a regular basis is a good thing.

Yes, you can even make numerous racist/ethnicist remarks as a candidate and a president without, according to RickA, being a racist/ethnicist. (And I can even coin a new word.)

Yeah, I guess that’s my point. But — English is nothing if not flexible.

“It’s all fun and games until someone gets criped…”

Yeah, I knew these. I’ve just never seen it used the way Greg has. I’m assuming it’s meant in the same way we’d say (in MI at least) “Don’t rag on …”

Cripe –> expression of annoyance?
=======

Also…

“Cripes Miss Wilcox, they’re not guns,’ I said.
No, they’re not Mattie, they’re books. And a hundred times more dangerous.”
— Jennifer Donnelly

======
cripes
interjection
old-fashioned , slang an expression of surprise
Word Origin for cripes

C20: euphemistic for Christ!
Collins English Dictionary

====

Criminy!!!

I am from Minnesota and I have to admit the phrase is new for me also.

I just rolled with it based on context.

Is that a one-off or a Minnesota thing?

There was no confusion. The white supremacy movement which was given support by Donald Trump throughout his campaign and even after he was slipped into the presidency despite the popular vote. In what way would such support qualify someone for the presidency of a country which, according to the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law? There is also, of course, the 13th Amendment which (except for penal servitude) which outlawed the race-based enslavement prevalent in several states at the time.

The 1st Amendment prohibits laws “abridging” freedom of speech; it certainly does NOT say that someone’s utterances can’t disqualify him or her from a job. Court decisions have held that it also does not protect someone from legal action in cases of slander, “shouting fire” where there is none — or the equivalent, or “inciting violence,” all of which, arguably, Trump has done.

I note (again) that I am describing a logical point that is not necessarily reflected in actual law, although perhaps it should be.

As a Brit, I’m always surprised by the level of protection afforded to hate speech by the First Amendment. But whatever. Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, not being Public Enemy Number One.