Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:47 PM
boston bean (31,189 posts)
Is the c word a word you would like to see bantered about DU often?
As if the word as used in the US isn't a misogynistic slur. Do you believe you should be able to call any woman or male one.... at any time, in any context?
As a community standards issue, I would like to gauge the communities thoughts on this? We are mostly self moderated. We see George Carlin being touted and his 7 words you can't say on television. So, I assume there must be support for it unfettered usage here. And any objection to that is a violation of free speech in some minds. Of course context should be taken into consideration. Ie if the word itself is being discussed, so people know what you are talking about. So, please let's not get side tracked. Or is it a free speech issue here on DU, where it should be no holds barred? Yes = you would like to see it bantered about on DU in any context No = you don't want to see it bantered about on DU. Please try to refrain from calling me the PC Police, word police, prudet (sic LOL), needing a fainting couch, a book burner, a squelcher of free speech. I am looking for honest opinions.
|
71 replies, 6207 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
boston bean | Jun 2014 | OP |
Egnever | Jun 2014 | #1 | |
hrmjustin | Jun 2014 | #2 | |
Gormy Cuss | Jun 2014 | #12 | |
hrmjustin | Jun 2014 | #13 | |
Gormy Cuss | Jun 2014 | #18 | |
hrmjustin | Jun 2014 | #19 | |
Gormy Cuss | Jun 2014 | #22 | |
Violet_Crumble | Jun 2014 | #28 | |
Gormy Cuss | Jun 2014 | #33 | |
BainsBane | Jun 2014 | #15 | |
Gormy Cuss | Jun 2014 | #16 | |
BainsBane | Jun 2014 | #17 | |
BainsBane | Jun 2014 | #3 | |
Louisiana1976 | Jun 2014 | #31 | |
ismnotwasm | Jun 2014 | #42 | |
whatchamacallit | Jun 2014 | #4 | |
lamp_shade | Jun 2014 | #5 | |
mokawanis | Jun 2014 | #6 | |
Journeyman | Jun 2014 | #7 | |
Sissyk | Jun 2014 | #23 | |
Laelth | Jun 2014 | #45 | |
sendero | Jun 2014 | #50 | |
ms liberty | Jun 2014 | #51 | |
Gidney N Cloyd | Jun 2014 | #62 | |
Lancero | Jun 2014 | #8 | |
TheCowsCameHome | Jun 2014 | #9 | |
Brickbat | Jun 2014 | #10 | |
KamaAina | Jun 2014 | #11 | |
Electric Monk | Jun 2014 | #14 | |
AverageJoe90 | Jun 2014 | #20 | |
dilby | Jun 2014 | #21 | |
Starry Messenger | Jun 2014 | #24 | |
Prophet 451 | Jun 2014 | #25 | |
Squinch | Jun 2014 | #48 | |
Glitterati | Jun 2014 | #26 | |
Squinch | Jun 2014 | #46 | |
Paladin | Jun 2014 | #27 | |
orpupilofnature57 | Jun 2014 | #29 | |
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin | Jun 2014 | #30 | |
scarletwoman | Jun 2014 | #32 | |
polly7 | Jun 2014 | #39 | |
pleinair | Jun 2014 | #40 | |
bluedigger | Jun 2014 | #34 | |
quinnox | Jun 2014 | #35 | |
davidpdx | Jun 2014 | #36 | |
TreasonousBastard | Jun 2014 | #37 | |
Codeine | Jun 2014 | #38 | |
Uncle Joe | Jun 2014 | #41 | |
mia | Jun 2014 | #43 | |
Squinch | Jun 2014 | #44 | |
newcriminal | Jun 2014 | #53 | |
Squinch | Jun 2014 | #66 | |
theHandpuppet | Jun 2014 | #70 | |
Exposethefrauds | Jun 2014 | #47 | |
Little Star | Jun 2014 | #71 | |
seaglass | Jun 2014 | #49 | |
ms liberty | Jun 2014 | #52 | |
McCamy Taylor | Jun 2014 | #54 | |
boston bean | Jun 2014 | #55 | |
CTyankee | Jun 2014 | #58 | |
boston bean | Jun 2014 | #59 | |
CTyankee | Jun 2014 | #68 | |
McCamy Taylor | Jun 2014 | #60 | |
boston bean | Jun 2014 | #61 | |
deathrind | Jun 2014 | #56 | |
Little Star | Jun 2014 | #69 | |
dembotoz | Jun 2014 | #57 | |
McCamy Taylor | Jun 2014 | #63 | |
Warren Stupidity | Jun 2014 | #64 | |
boston bean | Jun 2014 | #65 | |
Post removed | Jun 2014 | #67 |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:50 PM
Egnever (21,506 posts)
1. Honestly couldn't care less
The only reason any word would bother me in the least is the effect it has on others, I am rarely if ever bothered by any word or its usage.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:51 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
2. That word should not be used. There are rules to this site.
I was a bit taken aback when I saw that in GD.
|
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #2)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:48 PM
Gormy Cuss (30,884 posts)
12. IMHO there is no rule against using it.
If there were, it would be a TOS violation worthy of admin PPR'ing the poster.
So long as admin chooses not to do so and also chooses to leave it up to DU jurors who may have just joined the site to troll, the word may be unacceptable to some of us but the owners of this site have endorsed the usage here. |
Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #12)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:50 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
13. It is disruptive and should not be used imo.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #13)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:03 PM
Gormy Cuss (30,884 posts)
18. Unfortunately, your opinion (and mine) don't matter
unless we're selected for the jury.
|
Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #18)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:05 PM
hrmjustin (71,265 posts)
19. Well sop alerts can be used.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #19)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:12 PM
Gormy Cuss (30,884 posts)
22. Sure, but hosts will look for a reason to leave the OP unlocked (as they should)
and that leaves it to admin who have pretty much been MIA on this issue.
That of course is their prerogative as owners of the site. |
Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #22)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:26 PM
Violet_Crumble (35,413 posts)
28. The first question any GD host should ask is whether it's violating the SOP...
If it isn't, there's not even a need to look for a reason to leave the OP unlocked. Using the c-word (and I hate having to be coy and not just say the word) isn't a SOP violation. It's up to juries. And if I were on a jury, I'd vote to hide if another DUer or women in general were called that, but I wouldn't vote to hide if it were aimed at conservative extremists, part of an article that's being copied and pasted, or a discussion of the usage of the word. It's about context for me, but I don't have a really strong reaction to the word, probably because it's used reasonably commonly where I live, and in a whole lot of different contexts...
|
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #28)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:11 PM
Gormy Cuss (30,884 posts)
33. Quite right. Nothing in the sparse language of the SOP empowers GD hosts to lock
based on offensive word usage, or homophobia or sexism or racism or any other -ism.
The SOP does say "no whining about DU" except nearly every alert on that basis ends up as a LEAVE. I read the host discussions and know that hosts are acting in good faith but hosts are so constrained in GD it makes me wonder why there are hosts at all. As for using euphemisms like "the c-word," nothing other than your own sense of courtesy to others compels you to do that. I dislike using that or c*** and instead try to avoid direct references. I'd prefer to write out the word because for me it only has power when it's used as an insult but I recognize that spelling it out in academic discussions here would still offend too many people, thus I don't spell it out. |
Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #12)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:54 PM
BainsBane (43,781 posts)
15. There is a rule against bigotry
and that word expresses hatred toward women. That is all theoretical, of course, since it is rarely enforced. As you say, the owners decide what they find acceptable or not.
|
Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:59 PM
Gormy Cuss (30,884 posts)
16. And that rareness of admin action is what informs my opinion.
Also admin's consistent resistance to address misogyny directly (right down to ignoring ATA questions about it) makes it clear to me that it's acceptable here.
|
Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #16)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:03 PM
BainsBane (43,781 posts)
17. And it certainly is read that way by others
which is why we see more and more of it all the time.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:51 PM
BainsBane (43,781 posts)
3. I'd especially like to see people stop pretending they are George Carlin
When they just ain't. The part about being funny obviously escapes them.
![]() |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:09 PM
Louisiana1976 (3,962 posts)
31. Same here.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:22 AM
ismnotwasm (34,259 posts)
42. 1,000,000
AND They don't realize Carlin took no prisoners
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:54 PM
whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)
4. Prohibiting that word is fine for the DU community
but the Rude Pundit's posts should be exempt IMO. You know what they are and don't have to read them.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:55 PM
lamp_shade (12,647 posts)
5. I shudder when I see that and similar words in Titles on DU. n/t
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:56 PM
mokawanis (3,237 posts)
6. On DU? No.
by the Rude Pundit? I don't care.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:57 PM
Journeyman (12,513 posts)
7. Judge the merit of every word by its intent and the context of its use. . .
and be generous in forgiveness, and open to empathy and understanding. Do this, and the world will be a brighter place. Or at least your perception of it will be.
|
Response to Journeyman (Reply #7)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:15 PM
Sissyk (12,665 posts)
23. Hey!
I really like what you just said.
|
Response to Journeyman (Reply #7)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 07:27 AM
Laelth (20,978 posts)
45. Well said. n/t
![]() -Laelth |
Response to Journeyman (Reply #7)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:05 AM
sendero (28,552 posts)
50. Yes..
.... just because a word is appropriate in one context does not make it appropriate in all contexts. The C word is an ugly one that would only be appropriate in certain limited contexts.
But there are very few words that are off limits all the time IMHO. |
Response to Journeyman (Reply #7)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:43 AM
ms liberty (5,030 posts)
51. This.We need a hefty dose of this here at DU. Great post! n/t
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:58 PM
Lancero (1,849 posts)
8. I like Carlins work...
But what a lot of people who pull on it forget is that his material was a product of HIS time, not the CURRENT time. While a lot of his material is applicable today, and some can be with slight changes, not everything translates to the modern day.
Back when he came up with that routine, it was applicable for the time. It fell in with the current standards of that day, and it fell in with the causes of that day. 2014 is a lot diffrient then 1972. |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:36 PM
TheCowsCameHome (35,673 posts)
9. No, but unfortunately it's necessary to discuss
conservatism now and then.
![]() |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:39 PM
Brickbat (19,339 posts)
10. Oh, of course. Because I know when people use it, it's a shtick. That makes it OK.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:40 PM
KamaAina (78,249 posts)
11. Absolutely
I would like to see "conservative" bandied about DU 24/7/365.
![]() |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:52 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
14. How about we all just substitute with Coulter? There's even a FireFox plug-in for that.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:06 PM
AverageJoe90 (10,745 posts)
20. Preferably not, but it honestly depends on the context.
I mean, if said word is being used, or even appears to be used, in a truly misogynistic or even just plain sexist context, then yes, I would want that hidden by a jury. But if not.....well, viewer discretion advised, as they say on TV.
![]() |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:09 PM
dilby (2,224 posts)
21. I compare it on the same level as douche bag.
Word does not bother me but I have thick skin and not many words do.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:18 PM
Starry Messenger (32,235 posts)
24. I hope those who voted yes just start doing it.
Hey, portraits in courage, stand by those votes and show us what you're made of!
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:22 PM
Prophet 451 (9,796 posts)
25. I dunno
Here (the UK), it's a commonly used and non-gender-specific insult. I've used it twice on this board, in fits of anger. Once I got a polite email that I might want to change that word (which I did once I'd calmed down), the other was hidden pretty much instantly.
I'll be honest. It's not a word which I find offensive. That said, the UK and US have different standards for offensiveness and since the majority he are American, I try to remember to apply your cultural standards (as I said, teh twice I used the word were both when I'd lost my temper and completely flipped out). |
Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #25)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 07:37 AM
Squinch (22,510 posts)
48. I don't know if it is different standards for offensiveness, or if it is simply that different
things are offensive. I am guessing that there are words that are offensive in the UK that are culturally less offensive in the US.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:23 PM
Glitterati (3,182 posts)
26. Yawn, yet another
authoritarian trying to justify their behavior of decided FOR adults what they should read, consume and discuss.
I chose the "Pass" Leave DU alone so I can make my own choices to click on which threads I choose to read, click on the X to hide those I find offensive, and move on. Find a different hobby. Please. |
Response to Glitterati (Reply #26)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 07:31 AM
Squinch (22,510 posts)
46. Actually, it is someone asking a question to find out other people's opinions. Not sure how that's
limiting your choices. Unless your choice is that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:25 PM
Paladin (17,901 posts)
27. I don't use that word, and I don't favor it being bantered about regularly on DU, BUT.....
....I don't want any more Rude Pundit columns or Tom Tomorrow cartoons eliminated on account of a very few people getting in a snit over a word or two. I think we're better than that.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:29 PM
orpupilofnature57 (15,472 posts)
29. It's misogynist .
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:32 PM
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (21,109 posts)
30. The operative word here is often.
I don't believe I've seen the c word ever used on DU till the Rude Pundit controversy.
Someone said Anne Coulter was called that by him. Whether one chooses to call her a "cunt", "bitch" or any other derogatory term the fact is she's a rather cruel mean spirited person. Those two words are generally used to describe a woman of that nature. |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:11 PM
scarletwoman (28,864 posts)
32. The phrase is BANDIED ABOUT, not "bantered about".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/banter
ban·ter {ban-ter} noun 1. an exchange of light, playful, teasing remarks; good-natured raillery. verb (used with object) 2. to address with banter; chaff. verb (used without object) 3. to use banter. <snip> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Synonyms 1. badinage, joking, jesting, pleasantry, persiflage. 2. tease, twit; ridicule, deride, mock. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bandied
ban·dy {ban-dee} verb (used with object), ban·died, ban·dy·ing. 1. to pass from one to another or back and forth; give and take; trade; exchange: to bandy blows; to bandy words. 2. to throw or strike to and fro or from side to side, as a ball in tennis. 3. to circulate freely: to bandy gossip. <snip> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Synonyms 1. reciprocate, interchange, swap, barter. So naturally, as someone who feels strongly about language and correct usage, I voted I voted "yes" in your poll, since why should anyone object to good-natured raillery? |
Response to scarletwoman (Reply #32)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:06 PM
polly7 (20,582 posts)
39. LOL!
Got my vote, too. Who doesn't like good-natured bantering.
So tired of authoritarian word police who insist on everyone else ignoring context and abiding by their rules. This is an adult, progressive site, and we're not fucking six year olds. |
Response to scarletwoman (Reply #32)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:04 AM
pleinair (171 posts)
40. thank you
I was going to say the same thing
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:33 PM
bluedigger (15,193 posts)
34. No, but I wouldn't censor it.
If it was directed at a member or group specifically it would be alert worthy, most likely. If a member used it constantly, that would be disruptive behavior to be dealt with by admins. Context is everything, though, and if someone occasionally comes off as too uncivil, I can cope with that easier than arbitrary censorship. I don't see it trending, at any rate.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:55 PM
quinnox (20,600 posts)
35. Yep, "craptacular" should definitely be seen more often here, I think its humorous
I'll be "cocky" and say it!
![]() |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:00 PM
davidpdx (22,000 posts)
36. I'm not big on censorship, but I think the word is offensive
The problem is when someone posts in reference to George Carlin (who was a funny guy) dirty words like the thread that is up right now. In that case it actually causes more problems than it is worth.
I was just on a jury for one of the replies way down thread and haven't seen the outcome yet. |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:22 PM
TreasonousBastard (29,462 posts)
37. Why on earth should anyone care? It's just...
a word.
Yes, it might be used to insult all women, but it seems more commonly used to insult particular women. Pretty much the same way male dangly bits are used to insult particular men, which seems OK around here. Why is it not considered a sign of true equality using equivalent terminology for males and females? Or is there some reason why females require greater consideration, protection even, in public discourse? The simple truth seems to be that referring to nasty bits is crude and not acceptable in polite company. But, if we ignore that social rule for some, why not for all? |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:49 PM
Codeine (19,521 posts)
38. "Class"? Sure, I'd love some intelligent discussion about class.
Change for the better as far as I'm concerned.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:13 AM
Uncle Joe (41,519 posts)
41. I didn't vote but I honestly don't see the need for it on any occasion, D.U. has too many
talented individuals with a good capability to get their message across.
To my way of thinking using that kind of language only serves to debase our discourse and alienate people here that would otherwise totally agree with your point of view. Sometimes the cuss words only get in the way of the message. Thanks for the thread, boston bean. |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
mia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 07:23 AM
Squinch (22,510 posts)
44. The old C word didn't adequately revile women as the garbage cans for men's refuse that we are, so
some DUers have introduced another and are gleefully tossing it around like a badminton birdie. I guess the old c word just didn't convey enough depersonalization and disgust. It just didn't give an accurate picture of how much these men really despise women. And it's really important to them that they be accurate. So now we have to ask, "Which c word?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025127500#post125 Further down the thread, the objection to the characterization of women as objects into which men dump their garbage was that it does not pay sufficient respect to the sanctity of a man's "royal jelly." ha ha ha ha ![]() My guess is that they think they're just nice guys and don't even know they are carrying around that billboard that everyone else can see that says, "I fear and despise women." PS: It appears that conversation survived a jury. |
Response to Squinch (Reply #44)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:59 AM
newcriminal (2,190 posts)
53. I can't believe the crap that has been allowed to be posted on here yesterday.
I have been here for years and have never been so offended as I was yesterday. I definitely have a new view of a lot of members here, I am truly disgusted.
|
Response to newcriminal (Reply #53)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:42 PM
Squinch (22,510 posts)
66. Well, you tried. I'm sorry your efforts didn't work but I, for one, appreciate them.
Response to newcriminal (Reply #53)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:53 PM
theHandpuppet (19,964 posts)
70. +1
Even the gutter would have spat out a lot of those posts.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 07:32 AM
Exposethefrauds (531 posts)
47. No words should be banned
The only speech that should be banned is death threats anything less some thing other then free speech but DU is private and they, the owners, have total say as to what can and cannot be said.
If we want free speech here, you will not find it, you get approved moderated speech only. |
Response to Exposethefrauds (Reply #47)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 02:22 PM
Little Star (16,503 posts)
71. Try yelling fire in a movie theater and see how far you get.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:00 AM
seaglass (7,514 posts)
49. The people supporting the use of and using c*nt are the same people who would use
f*ggot and n*gger here if not for their cowardice. I would not believe their denials.
I just watched briefly George Carlin discussing the word n*gger. He said we shouldn't be concerned about the word itself but instead the racist asshole who uses it. The part he didn't get was the USE of the word by people outside the group targeted in most contexts makes you that racist asshole. If I look at how the word c*nt has been used on DU in the last day or so, it has been used primarily as revenge for a post being hidden (get some perspective people!). That's the context, payback, putting those jury b*tches and alerter in their place. So yeah, my concerns are the sexist assholes. |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:58 AM
ms liberty (5,030 posts)
52. I passed on this poll, because...
This isn't and shouldn't be an either/or issue. I'd go into more depth but I'm on my phone. I'm too slow at it, and my thoughts are just too fast for my one-finger hunting and pecking to keep up with. Especially with my obsession for grammar, spelling, and proper punctuation!
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:37 AM
McCamy Taylor (17,483 posts)
54. If you mean the word cunt, I am a woman and I think women should be able to use it
the same way that Blacks can use a word that I don't use, not being Black. And I think that men should be able to use it only when referring to a part of the female anatomy. And if a man uses it to call another woman a cunt, that man deserves everything he gets. But when a woman uses it to refer to another woman there are so many possible meanings---including a very friendly joke that signifies that the two women are the best of friends who are absolutely comfortable with each other---that you can not take the word away from them.
If you ban the word cunt, you also have to ban dick. So, go ahead, ban both of them. Or neither of them. (Sitting back to see if this post will be banned for the use of the word cunt. This should be interesting). |
Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #54)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:40 AM
boston bean (31,189 posts)
55. I would hope your post isn't alerted on or hidden.
I agree wholeheartedly that discussion of the word itself within that context is not offensive. I'm very consistent with that. I hated to even put the term "c word" in my subject line.
I also mostly agree with what you post. But I differ that a woman can use it at any time for any purpose. I draw the line at was it meant as a slur. |
Response to boston bean (Reply #55)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:58 AM
CTyankee (51,817 posts)
58. I would never use it...too much negative baggage in today's American English.
I am highly sensitized to the relationship of language and culture since I tutor ESOL adult students as a Literacy Volunteer. My students today (I tutor only Intermediate and Advanced students) were both from Taiwan and relatively new to the U.S. They are acutely aware of the importance of having the right cultural awareness when speaking our language. Today we discussed "greetings,compliments, congratulations and condolences." They are eager to learn the "right" way to say things. So this is very much on my mind as I read this thread...
A kind of funny story: I was traveling in Sicily in 2005 and had a non-native English speaking guide at a church in the countryside who referred to the way a certain martyred female saint was traditionally portrayed in paintings of the early Renaissance, "with her tits on a plate." She said this in the presence of the church's priest, and i am certain she just got the translation wrong...she was very serious, not trying at all to be funny. We let it pass but I regret that I didn't speak to her in private about usage of American English slang... |
Response to CTyankee (Reply #58)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:01 PM
boston bean (31,189 posts)
59. I understand your reasoning and agree on many levels.
However, sometimes it is not used as a slur by in groups. Nor is it a slur, in my opinion, when the word is spelled out when discussing the misogynistic meaning and effect it's usage has on society.
I get why and can understand why some people feel the way they do and it is a valid point. |
Response to boston bean (Reply #59)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:35 PM
CTyankee (51,817 posts)
68. Oh, in analysis its usage is fine, I agree...
And I think it should be discussed. I have argued elsewhere that we should have a more finely tuned attentiveness to exactly how it is used and how that is a slur against women.
|
Response to boston bean (Reply #55)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:02 PM
McCamy Taylor (17,483 posts)
60. Applying it to a candidate of your own party running for office is a bit over the top
even if a woman is doing it. But consider this. Every time anyone got in trouble for using the word "cunt" or "pimp" about Hillary---the anti-Hillary people always turned around and blamed Hillary. As if, somehow, she used the power of her laser-beam eyes to stifle their free speech. Everyone in the press who suddenly got a bad case of potty mouth became a martyr.
|
Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #60)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:04 PM
boston bean (31,189 posts)
61. Well, that is the nature of the misogynistic beast and the patriarchy, no?
ie, The bitch made them do it. It was her own fault.
It's not because someone spoke to how misogynistic the comment was. |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:44 AM
deathrind (1,786 posts)
56. Sticks and stones...
Words can only hurt you if you let them.
|
Response to deathrind (Reply #56)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:48 PM
Little Star (16,503 posts)
69. Bullshit. Bigoted language certainly harms.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:13 AM
dembotoz (13,434 posts)
57. good lord we argue about silly shit here
i thought about removing the word shit and replace it with crap
but is kinda like the way silly shit rolls off the tongue not literally of course..... i do attempt to keep what i say here fairly clean and that is perhaps a good rule to follow. i do appreciate that sometimes in a rant from others--whole lines of blue stuff may come out. This is why it is called a rant. If it were all cleaned up and made pure it might be called --an observation. i think reading rants is more fun than reading observations Lets not get carried away here. This is a site of politics and passions lets keep it that way |
Response to dembotoz (Reply #57)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:09 PM
McCamy Taylor (17,483 posts)
63. Context counts. Hillary in 2016 has to exorcise Hillary 2008 and the sexist BS that went
down in the primary. That is the reason we are having a discussion of "language" right now. To set the rules before we get into the primary. Sort of like setting the rules before you start the world series.
|
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:28 PM
Warren Stupidity (48,181 posts)
64. bantered about? no. Used in some contexts? Sure.
Certainly using it as a personal insult is straight out. But that is a specific use case. IMO the word is no different than vagina, which certainly is ok to use, and is no different in substance than dick, which again is ok to use. Since it has been stated here that some of our community find any use of the common Anglo-Saxon word for vagina insulting, it should not be "bantered about". However, if for example somebody is quoting some text that contains the Anglo Saxon word for vagina, and the intent is not simply to insult people here, then what the fuck is the problem?
I was in San Francisco two weeks ago and my brother dragged me to a San Francisco Opera production of the musical Showboat. Right in the first scene of the first act, the N-word gets blurted out twice. There was an audible gasp from the audience. The word is in the original text, and it is there for very good reasons. One of the themes of the show is our racist culture and the lives of African americans in post reconstruction America. Should they have edited the text? What would that accomplish? |
Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #64)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:33 PM
boston bean (31,189 posts)
65. I think maybe you ought to read some of my postings
instead of trying to fit me into some box as someone who just wants to ban words.
If you want to have an actual conversation with me, please let's have one. But these accusations and suppositions you come up with to try and state what it is you believe I feel, when it is in contrast to the truth, really just pisses me off. It makes me not want to respond to you. When you do some reading, just in this little thread, about my thoughts, come back to me with something that resembles the truth to how I actually feel, if you have any doubts or further questioning. I'm not dealing with interrogation.. |
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Post removed