HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Warren DeMontague » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »

Warren DeMontague

Profile Information

Name: Jack Pruitt
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 62,121

About Me

The Large Print Giveth, and The Small Print Taketh Away.

Journal Archives

You have a point. And it is good that we are examing the SPECIFIC underlying mechanism & impact

of SPECIFIC words and terms.

Granted, by an objective analysis- say, from an Alien who just got to Earth and was running the English language through the computer- there would be little to obejctively differentiate the words "c**t" and "dick". Both are insults which insult a member of a particular gender by calling them a slang term for their respective genitalia.

The fact is, though, it's not only the objective meaning of the words, but also the cultural impact or import. Like I said, most people on DU get that "c**t" is not acceptable.

But what we have here (again) is some people arguing against a strawperson that doesn't- for the most part- exist; those people who supposedly "demand" to use all terms, under all circumstances, regardless of context or feeling attached. The dreaded individualists with pesky free speech arguments.

As rrneck notes upthread, there is already widespread agreement on DU about the c word, for instance. As you've seen, even an OP criticizing the use of the word receives approbation for using it. The idea that there is some groundswell demanding that the "C" word be given more free use, or not understanding why it is deemed offensive, is fallacious.

Likewise, "Pansy". Most of DU, I believe, understands why that word is offensive- because in the context which it was objectionally used, it implies not just homosexuality, but that homosexuality is bad. It is a homophobic, bigoted term and does not belong on DU. I also feel that the discussions around the "Romney and Ryan are gay huh huh" photoshops were helpful and educational, in terms of why they were, also, clearly offensive and out of line.

Now, let's move on to the word "b**ch". I believe that, actually, this word in terms of a weighted combination of what it actually means (a female dog) and the cultural linguistic impact, that word is roughly equivalent to "dick"- in that, again, it is a targeted insult (as in, an insult targeted at the person it is directed at, not a group) with a gender-specific component. Same as, generally, we call men "dicks", etc. Language is, more or less, often gendered. ("Asshole" works for both, beautifully, doesn't it?)

In the case of "b**ch", though, you have people (time honored meta tradition!) conflating a gender-specific insult with a slam or slur on the entire gender. They are not one and the same.

So the real question is, are there any gender-specific yet targeted only at individual insults which would be acceptable, in the case of women? Dick is acceptable for men. Are there any comparable words for women which would not be taken, by some, as offensive and as such an attack on ALL women and not just the woman in question (i.e. Ann Coulter, or whoever)

I think, since we are delving into the specific language and culture-based machinations here, this is a reasonable question.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Oct 18, 2012, 03:06 PM (2 replies)

Then weve established neither of us are MRAs. You allege there are "MRAs on DU" (your words)

So Id like to know where and who they are.

I will reiterate my point about "The Patriarchy" since you seem inclined to ignore it.

Yes, I think "The Patriarchy" in the sense of the original all-pervasive source of all oppression, an illuminati-like cabal that has plotted throughout history to convince women that PIV sex is 'natural' as well as the spooky plot to have men get sex change operations to sneak into the michigan Womyns music festival, for instance, IS a conspiracy theory, as nutty as anything Lyndon LaRouche ever dreamed up.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Oct 16, 2012, 05:39 PM (0 replies)

Here's the point I always want to see made, because they love to say "it should be up to the voters"

Yes, remember, 'unelected judges should not decide'. No, 'the voters should decide'.

Okay. So which voters? The voters in the whole country? No, they don't want that. Especially because the majority of Americans are pro-choice.

So "leave it up to the voters" means- what? Oh, leave it up to the individual states. Right. Because you know, allowing a smaller geographical and human area to have its own self determination in this regard is, somehow, preferable. But why stop at states? Why not let individual counties decide? Or, wouldn't it be better to let the issue be decided on a town-by-town basis? Or even better, block by block? One block could vote to allow abortions on the block, another could vote to prohibit them... wouldn't that be a preferable situation, whereby people of differing views would have the maxium ability to express themselves and their feelings on this admittedly "contentious" matter?

But wait. If block-by-block is good, why not house by house- each house could vote on whether or not they, personally, think abortion should be allowed! Yeah!

Oh.. hang on, I've got an idea.

Yeah, the best way to allow maxium leeway for individuals to express their own conscience on this issue? I'VE GOT IT!

Here's an idea! How about

we let the individual women who are pregnant decide for themselves about their own pregnancies, and their own bodies!


Yeah. Great idea! Democracy in action!
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Oct 12, 2012, 04:07 AM (1 replies)

Chris Hedges is an asshat.

In fact, he's such an asshat, the hat on his ass has it's own ass, which has another, smaller, hat on it.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:03 PM (2 replies)

"That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof"

I agree that its not helpful to be a dick about it, but im of the opinion that if people want to believe in incredulous or logically impossible shit, to live in a Pluralistic, open society they need to understand that sometimes other people will make fun of it.

And with a lot of this stuff, there is semantic nit picking and an element of emperor's new clothes-ness.

For instance, here is an example of an exchange that i see from time to time around here: (for the purpose of this example, i m using 2 hypothetical DU members, "numyum" and "glingybunger")

Numyum: "I am deeply offended that you referred to God as an 'invisible, unprovable man in the sky' "

Glingybunger: "this God, you speak of- can people see him?"

Numyum: "of course not"

Glingybunger: "can you prove the existence of this God?"

Numyum: "no. That is why we have faith"

Glingybunger: "that lords prayer, what are the first two words?"

Numyum: "our father"

Glingybunger: "which implies gender.. Okay, moving on, what are the next 4 words?"

Numyum: "who art in heaven"

Glingybunger: "and where is this heaven?"

Numyum: "according to the Bible, it is above"

Glingybunger: "okay. So according to you, you believe in an invisible, unprovable male entity (who created man in "his own image") who resides 'above' ... But if i say you believe in an invisible, unprovable man in the sky, it is offensive"

Numyum: "exactly."

Same with Romney. If he wears an undergarment that is supposed to confer supernatural protection or power, "magic underwear" isnt so far off the mark.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Sep 20, 2012, 05:30 PM (2 replies)

I KNOW!!! It's just a swirling vortex of offensiveness, an exponentially increasing source of

ever-escalating reasons for irritation and annoyance, mathematically compounding towards an infinite point upon which a singularity of outrage is always beyond an ever-receding schwarzchild radius of deeply felt indignation, yet never quite reached!

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Sep 18, 2012, 09:37 PM (0 replies)

Frammit! I'm Numinous! Or Fruminous.

It's all this Flam-Dam Bandersnatch.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:09 AM (1 replies)

Wait! I know where I've seen those eyes before!!!!

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:50 PM (10 replies)

The 1st Amendment is irrelevant when we're not talking about the US. HOWEVER:

When people try to crap all over the 1st Amendment by saying, in essence, "you're not allowed to say something that might make someone else angry", they are wholly and utterly incorrect. Speech isn't prohibited just because it might make someone angry or offend them.


Someone standing up in front of a group of Fundamentalist Right Wing Christians and saying "I'm Gay", or two men kissing, might very easily be considered "incitement to riot". Sorry, there are no "hate speech" exceptions to the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment protects unpopular speech- that's the whole point. We want to go down the path of banning all speech that might piss someone off? Really?

Why there are so many people falling all over themselves today to attempt to "educate" the rest of us, incorrectly, on the myriad long lists of things apparently we're not allowed to say in this country, I have no fucking idea, but I will be damned if I'm going to sit back and allow the core values of the 1st Amendment to be misrepresented.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:58 AM (1 replies)

Everyone knows that Zeus is the Deity in charge of overpriced bundles & throttled broadband service

I would think they'd be more concerned about that omission.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Sep 5, 2012, 05:06 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »