I blame Bush, speaking of "how the culture has changed for the worse" . He was constitutionally incapable of acknowledging his fuckups.

(Warning: These are links to DU posts still openly available and not hidden in the archives, however, some of the threads may contain words or language readers may find offensive. Again, these are only links to posts and threads, written by DU members years ago, which are readily and publicly available to anyone who searches the archives of DU2.)


2004:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1359420

Skinner: "this is thread #8 on the subject" - April 6, 2004.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1332538&mesg_id=1332538


2007:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=6699622&mesg_id=6699628

2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7581142

2010:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8848113&mesg_id=8848170


No offensive google ads to complain about, either, in the good old -sigh- days...

oh wait

2009:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7146970&mesg_id=7146970

That's more like a "shit-taking grimace"

It's because of people like you, I get no sleep!~



Anyway, rush job, I'm sure someone could do a better one.

The Repeatedly Band!



HELLO CLEVELAND ARE YOU READY TO ROOOOOOOOOCCCCCCCKKK??

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.

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.

The proposal to declare by fiat every fertilized egg the constitutional equivalent of a "baby" and protected by the 14th Amendment?

You really ought to pay more attention. Of course they're not advertising this aspect of it, however, all the major anti-choice organizations in this country are uniformly opposed to the birth control pill, and the majority consider it "morally indistinguishable from abortion".

See, they believe, rightly or wrongly, that oral contraceptives can function as an abortifacent- i.e., can block the implantation of an already fertilized egg in the uterine wall.

As such, oral contraceptives are- MUST BE- considered instruments of "murder", as are IUDs, etc.

Oh, they'll also cover up the indisputable fact that they want to prosecute not just abortion doctors, but women who have abortions. So - if the pill is a murder weapon, and women who "murder" their fertilized eggs are fair game... do the math.

And why do you suppose it's not even so much Roe v. Wade, but Griswold v. Connecticut that has chafed their legal shorts all these years?

The goal is to outlaw contraception. Always has been. You vote Republican, that's what you're voting for.

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!

WHOA!

Yeah. Great idea! Democracy in action!