Alright you rightgeous fucks....answer this

the thing is that the phrase nu-metal was orginally used to describe bands like Korn when they first started getting some attention.

That was friggin YEARS AND YEARS ago though, so it's not 'nu' anymore is it?

Now people are just using 'nu-metal' to describe anything that doesn't sound like it's heavilly influenced by 80s metal.

It's kinda stupid I guess.
 
I'll agree with Gorey. Although I disagree with most of what you said, it's good to see that you've actually put some thought into your position and made a personal call, rather than jumping on the band-wagon of nu-haters.
 
The word 'nu-metal' is always used in a negative sense, since people who like Slipknot, Limp Bizkit, Korn, Disturbed etc NEVER call their music of choice 'nu-metal'. People simply use the 'nu-metal' tag to refer to metal they don't like.
 
I pretty much agree with all of this, and even though alot of people do refer to new heavy music they don't like as nu-metal (hence St Anger getting the tag), I don't think it is a negative thing, and there is some nu-metal that is actually quite good. For example, Disturbed's 'The Sickness' is definately a nu-metal album, because of the style, but I still think it is a great album. For me, it is more of a label of style that fits the genre (as said by everyone earlier, Korn, Deftones, etc), but yes, people do use it as the label of new stuff they don't like, and they shouldn't.
 
Disturbeds second album is freaking genius, everyone should own it. I cannot believe the huge jump they made in their songwriting from the first album to the second, its amazing!