Comments

HaroldRowsdower

Random_Fanguy said:

I kinda like the idea of it being used as the male version of "thot". Makes sense when I think about it.

I prefer "himbo" for that, myself.

Pronak

11 days ago

Random_Fanguy said:

I kinda like the idea of it being used as the male version of "thot". Makes sense when I think about it.

But it's the opposite: a simp pays a thot for attention. Thots needs simps to maintain their way of living.

Saladofstones

11 days ago

HaroldRowsdower said:

I prefer "himbo" for that, myself.

Can I note that there is an irony with that, considering Bimbo originally referred to men to begin with, then in the late 70s/80s got applied to women, and is now morphed into "Himbo" to refer to men again?

Qpax said:

What the hell is "simp". All of the internet is giving me different definition. I am way beyond of confusion now. Day by day internet is creating new meme words.

A simp is basically a whale (someone who throws a lot of money in gambling/F2p) but for livestreams in order to get attention.

blindVigil

11 days ago

zgryphon said:

I assume it migrated to its bizarre modern use by way of people who had read it in, for example, early-20th-century detective fiction; didn't know what it meant; and misinterpreted it from context as an accusation of some sort of unmanliness, when in fact it meant no such thing.

The current incarnation of the word most likely originates as an acronym, just like thot, or as a fusion of sissy and pimp. The earliest definition resembling its current usage appeared online in 2005, it's just only recently gotten popular.

Claverhouse

11 days ago

zgryphon said:

Simp is a rather old word (by American word-coinage standards, anyway), and long predates all of the Internet nonsense elaborated above. It's a street slang abbreviation of "simpleton", i.e., a foolish, simple-minded person, circa 1910. I assume it migrated to its bizarre modern use by way of people who had read it in, for example, early-20th-century detective fiction; didn't know what it meant; and misinterpreted it from context as an accusation of some sort of unmanliness, when in fact it meant no such thing.

Very useful. I have mainly seen it in early 20th century American literature, particularly of the [ ( necessarily ) pseudo ] tough-guy variety.

Krugger said:

Is that where Simpleton comes from?

He just said, the other way round.

More interesting than simp to me is the ridiculous quote, it sounds the sort of junk the more simple-minded Americans would be indoctrinated with --- thus paying homage to kingship for oneself whilst violently rejecting it --- I have what seems a false recollection of a non-hard-boiled mid 20th century piece of American literature, Every Man A King, about Quakers. Historical fiction set in the 18th century.

It seems to have been a later Anarchist motto, when those simpletons were blowing people up, referenced in G. K. Chesterton ( as a Catholic sentimental semi-anachist ) , and then used as a motto by Huey Long. Huey was not a bad man, but neither a good man, a sort of Proto-Trump before his time. Definitely not a King though. It's the sheer impossibility of the idea that gets me, the notion that a multitude of persons can each hold the one, supreme power. Like 'squaring the circle' or 'perpetual motion'.

I assume it is here a direct quote from a film I have never seen [ and in fact have strenuously avoided ].