Hitch inspires another word

We already had “Hitchslap,but now The Urban Dictionary has adopted  a new word coined by Anne Crumpacker:  


  1. GBJames
    Posted December 20, 2011 at 8:39 am | Permalink


    • GBJames
      Posted December 20, 2011 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      (damn check box)

  2. Dermot C
    Posted December 20, 2011 at 8:43 am | Permalink


    ‘A child, disabused of religious indoctrination, who is encouraged to read broadly and to seek the truth unapologetically.’

    ‘A child void…’ makes me queasy.

    Good word, though, but.

    • DV
      Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:04 am | Permalink

      “void” implies there’s an emptiness there that needs filling. perhaps by God? 🙂

      • GBJames
        Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:23 am | Permalink

        Better: a hamburger.

        • Posted December 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

          Even better: “devoid of religious indoctrination.”

          • Dermot C
            Posted December 20, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

            ‘…innocent of…’
            ‘…uncontaminated by…’
            ‘…unpolluted by…’
            ‘…undefiled by…’
            ‘…unsullied by…’
            ‘…untainted by…’
            ‘…unadulterated by…’

            But, of course,

            ‘…free from…’

    • Kevin Anthoney
      Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      Wouldn’t “disabused” imply she used to be religious?

      • Dermot C
        Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:39 am | Permalink

        True, my anaemic attempt at Biercean lexicography; the ‘disabused’ is a reference Dawkins schtick on ‘Christian chil…’.

        Oh, if you have to explain a joke, it can’t be any good in the first place. As you were.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray
      Posted December 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

      Replace “disabused” with “without”, and I’d essentially agree.
      To be disabused of a notion strongly implies that one previously subscribed to that notion.

  3. Posted December 20, 2011 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Adorable batch of “hitchlings” here:

    They will make your day.

    • ManOutOfTime
      Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      The Crumpacker Hitchling. Sounds like a Cohen Brothers film.

      • Dermot C
        Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:29 am | Permalink

        On the subject of nominative determinism, BBC Radio 4 had an item today. These are all true:

        The leader of the British ‘Howard League for Penal Reform’ – Frances Crook (Frances means free)
        The priest, The Reverend Vickers.
        Scottish legal firm: Welch, Steele & Robb
        The soccer defender: Mark de Maan

        I know of some Twickenham undertakers: Wake & Paine.

        Pupils’ daft names: Tamara Knight

        And the toweringly incomparable Pocahontas McGinty

        • Posted December 20, 2011 at 10:07 am | Permalink

          Hmm… Tamara Knight was from a Two Ronnies sketch… someone still went ahead and gave their child that name?!


          • Dermot C
            Posted December 20, 2011 at 10:19 am | Permalink

            I got Tamara Knight from my mflresources chatroom (MFL – Modern Foreign Languages); same with Pocahontas McGinty; you’ve punctured my delusions, Dr. Ant, I’ll never trust a Spanish teacher again.

  4. Draken
    Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    I normally avoid that crummy Urban Dictionary but I thumbed it up anyway.

    • Dermot C
      Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      Ever ready with a battery of puns.

  5. Posted December 20, 2011 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    I was on a roll the other day, so I came up with this one for Dr. Jerry.

    Coynedog- noun (see “cat”)

  6. Posted December 20, 2011 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    kindling a child that has never read a book with real pages. *coat*

  7. Andy Dufresne
    Posted December 20, 2011 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Well, it sure has an interesting word origin, and it’s a rather nice sounding, one of those words that seems to harmonize with its meaning. It has those hard British consonants softened by the bouncy “-ing.” And as much as I admire Mason and her mother, the word “crumpacker” doesn’t land on ear in quite the same way.

  8. Woody Tanaka
    Posted December 20, 2011 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    “seek the truth unapologetically”

    I loved Hitchens’s writing on atheism, but to say he sought the truth, given his position on Iraq, is false in my opinion.

    • Tim
      Posted December 20, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      What’s worse, his behavior in his defense of his Iraq position was far beneath the standards he applied in his defense of atheism. John Cook at Gawker put it well:

      If you dispute the Bush Administration line that “terror” must be fought in Iraq lest it be fought on our soil, Hitchens alleged, you are guilty of dispensing “sob-sister tripe pumped out by the Cindy Sheehan circus and its surrogates.” Sheehan’s son had been dead scarcely a year at the time Hitchens wrote this…It was thrilling and gratifying to see that articulate viciousness deployed against the Clinton cartel, or Mother Teresa, or Henry Kissinger—against power and pretense. To see it deployed in favor of war, on behalf of a dullard and scion, against the hysterical mother of a dead son was nauseating.

      But surely Christopher, you recognize that the war has been badly bungled even if all your hearts were in the right place, right? “We need not argue about the failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some ways argue themselves.” For Christopher Hitchens to identify a subject about which no argument is required is a rare thing indeed. Abu Ghraib—why argue? The $9 billion in cash that simply disappeared—what’s to argue? Two months after the Hitchens wrote those words, U.S. Marines massacred 24 men, women, and children in Haditha. No need to argue.

      Hitchens never saw one’s death as an occasion to paper over the misdeeds of one’s life (recall his outstanding and perfect take-down of Jerry Falwell). Most of the time, I deeply admired Hitchens, but he was far from perfect.

      • Mike B
        Posted December 21, 2011 at 2:32 am | Permalink

        At least remember that Hitch had many Kurdish friends who had watched as their country was bombed and gassed by Saddam over many years. In fact after the first Gulf War, until the coalition enforced a no-fly zone, entire villages were massacred by Saddam’s helicopter gunships. Following the second (and for Saddam, decisive) gulf war the Kurds gained a semi-independent democratic secular republic.

        • Tim
          Posted December 21, 2011 at 7:47 am | Permalink

          Yes, I remember. It was always the Kurdish regions of Iraq that Hitchens brought up too – and there is little doubt that the Kurds are better off, for now at least. If the US government wanted to go to war to liberate the Kurds (and that was a result of the US invasion that was predictably postive), then the US government had an obligation to its own people and to the people of other countries to tell the truth. Instead, we got lies: we got 9-11/Saddam connections that were lies, we got WMD claims that were lies and we got Jeffersonian democracy scenarios that were neoconservative fantasy. The result of the Iraq war, an extraordinarily corrupt theocratically dominated semidemocracy was a likely result – as was understood by even many of the people who later supported the war. How many kids joined the US military after 9-11 because they thought they were liberating the Kurds and how many thought they were joining for some other reason?

        • Tim
          Posted December 21, 2011 at 8:06 am | Permalink

          One more thing: If Christopher Hitchens, one of the finest rhetoricians who ever lived, can’t come up with something better than ‘the Dixie Chicks are sluts’, and Cindy Sheehan is ‘a sob sister’, I’m inclined to think he didn’t have real counterarguments to his detractors arguments – and I’d guess that as time went on, he knew it.

          • Mike B
            Posted December 21, 2011 at 10:46 am | Permalink

            You acknowledge the huge benefit to the Kurds of the war then immediately ignore it, not something any Kurd would do.

            What Americans or Britons now think of their government’s sometimes-lying propaganda is surely a secondary issue.

            • Tim
              Posted December 21, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

              Spoken like a antidemocratic imperialist. The lies the Bush and Blair administrations told may be secondary to the Kurds, and that it is understandable from the Kurds point of view. It isn’t secondary to the people who followed the liars into a war under false pretenses. If the neoconservatives want to fight a war, let ’em put together a private army and fight it themselves. If the want to take their fellow citizens along, then their fellow citizens deserve to know why they’re going.

  9. MadScientist
    Posted December 20, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    The thought of being called a ‘hitchling’ brings Noel Coward to mind:

    One day you’ll clench your tiny fists
    And murder your psychiatrists!

  10. TrineBM
    Posted December 20, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    I like the word hitchling – and I’ve got a little hitchling at my house.

  11. Posted December 20, 2011 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    I think we miss the point if we play smartest guy in the room.

    Found this online:

    “Devoid” is always used as an adjective, while “void” can be used as an adjective, a verb, or a noun. As adjectives, “void” and “devoid” mean basically the same. “Void” means empty; “devoid” means empty, but only after something has been taken away. “Devoid” is usually followed by “of.”
    Example: After her husband’s death, her life seemed to be devoid of meaning.

    Noun: an empty space, a vacancy
    Verb: to empty, to clear
    Adjective: empty, vacant, unoccupied

    I like empty. Empty just means it isn’t there.

    Also, the word doesn’t imply “fan of” or “follower of.”

    See here: http://socraticmama.com/2011/12/16/hitchling-hitch-ling-noun/secular-parenting

    • Posted December 20, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      OT. Void (n.) always make me think of Flash Gordon: “Pathetic Earthlings! Hurling your bodies out into the void.”


      • Posted December 20, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        Now that’s the spirit!

      • Dermot C
        Posted December 21, 2011 at 3:31 am | Permalink

        There’s a town in Northamptonshire called Irthlingborough.

        As the leader of the council no doubt openes proceedings, “My fellow Irthlings…”.

        • Posted December 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

          The town’s name does indeed come from Old English forms of “earthling”, namely “erthling”, “yrthling”. But the OE word doesn’t mean “inhabitant of Earth”, but “ploughman”.

          “Pathetic ploughmen!” doesn’t have quite the same ring!


          • Dermot C
            Posted December 21, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink


            I have ‘yrđling’ in my ‘A Concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary’, 2008; husbandman, farmer, ploughman. Also in Aelfric, yrđling is given as ‘wagtail?’. A mid-nineteenth century reference (Herrig) has the spelling ‘earthling’.

            The thorn, the ‘th-‘ sound looks like a strange ‘d’ in this font.

            No jokes, just relentlessly pedantic orthography.


  12. Still learning
    Posted December 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    In the nursing field, void means to empty one’s bladder…just sayin’ 🙂

    • Dermot C
      Posted December 21, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

      So, do you tell them to, ‘Lay down all thought, surrender to the void’? (The Beatles -Tomorrow Never Knows)

      Seems a bit of a hi-falutin’ phrase for ‘to have a pi..’.

%d bloggers like this: