There is a strange online meme called ‘tone-trolling’, whereby some people who are rude and abusive to you will complain if you ask them to be polite. Now there is a new turbo-charged version called ‘sea-lioning’, whereby they will also complain that you are being persistently polite yourself.
It is as if some people want to reverse the evolution of civilisation, to make being rude and abusive something to be proud of, and being polite and civil something to be ashamed of. Also, they want to remain unaccountable for their unethical smearing of other people.
This new meme has recently been popularised by a cartoon by David Malki ! titled The Terrible Sea Lion. It is part of his very funny cartoon series called Wondermark, that I would recommend to anyone with a quirky sense of humour and a respect for 19th century woodcuts and engravings.
As far as I can make out, the meme is meant to convey that politely persisting in asking questions might be considered to be harassment. Which indeed it might be, if the topic is trivial, or was introduced by the person asking the questions. But, as with everything, context matters.
Malki !’s Terrible Sea Lion
Satire can delightfully undermine claims that are silly or unsupported by evidence. But satire depends on a shared set of underlying assumptions, mental shortcuts and stereotypes. Without that shared starting-point, the same joke can reinforce opposing beliefs in different people.
The Terrible Sea Lion is very funny in a ludicrous way, but the moral message depends on your starting point. If you come to the cartoon cold, and if you dislike prejudice and arrogance and cowardice, and if you like civility and reason and accountability, then the sea lion is clearly the goodie, seeming to represent minority groups who are victims of prejudice by the baddies in the car.
The Terrible Sea Lion overhears a prejudiced comment about its group, and asks the person to justify their prejudice. In the terminology of PZ Myers and friends, the Sea Lion is ‘calling out’ a prejudiced couple, who respond by ‘doubling down’ and trying to ignore the consequences of publicly expressing their prejudice.
The Terrible Sea Lion may be criticised for being excessively persistent, by following the prejudiced couple into their house, so maybe that is where its terribleness comes in. Maybe the Sea Lion should just accept that some people are unreformably prejudiced, and allow them to remain so, as long as they restrict their prejudice to the privacy of their homes.
Malki !’s Old Dog, Oldest Trick
Malki ! also published another recent cartoon that shows how, without shared assumptions, the same joke can reinforce opposing beliefs in different people.
In Old Dog, Oldest trick, a man complains that he cannot talk as he normally would, using invective and slurs, without the objects of his invective and slurs feeling belittled and dehumanised. He complains that he is tacitly discouraged from stomping about disregarding the humanity of others. What is the world coming to, he asks?
I can imagine PZ Myers and some of his commenters identifying themselves as the targets of this hypothetical archetype’s invective and slurs. And in some cases, that is true. Some of them have been subject to many unjust personal smears, and I have defended them against those smears.
But some of them seem not to recognise that they are on both sides of this cartoon. Some of them also spread invective and slurs, and belittle and dehumanise others, as they metaphorically stomp about through the posts and comment sections of certain blogs.
PZ has accused separate named people of seeming to have developed a callous indifference to the sexual abuse of children, of being a lying fuckhead, and of defending and providing a haven for rapists. He has said that a shopkeeper who apologised for an offensive sign should be fucked to the ground. He has described Robin Williams’ suicide as the death of a wealthy white man dragging us away from news about brown people.
His commenters may have moved on from telling people to put a three week old decaying porcupine dipped in tar and broken glass up their arse sideways. But some of them still label named people, with no justification for the substance never mind the language, as a racist misogynist piece of shit, or a horrible slimy little man oozing misogyny from every pore.
Mick The Sea Lion
Yesterday’s new anonymously-authored Mick The Sea Lion twitter account parodies me for being politely persistent, despite slightly undermining itself by using all-caps shouting. That’s funny if you think being politely persistent is a wrong response to being smeared as a defender of rapists, and strange if you think the opposite. That is, if it isn’t a Poe.
It misses even the most benign interpretation of the Malki ! cartoon. Imagine if Malki !’s cartoon began with the couple alleging that a named individual was defending rapists, and the target of that smear was then asking them to substantiate or withdraw that smear, and they persistently refuse to do either. In that case, a very different dynamic ensues.
It is interesting that Ophelia Benson likes this account. She has favourited one of its tweets, despite it using an epithet and a photoshopped image, both of which behaviours she has previously complained about when directed at herself.
Ophelia’s recent joint statement with Richard Dawkins said that “It should go without saying” that there should be “no photoshopping people into demeaning images, no vulgar epithets.”
Ophelia later clarified in a comment on PZ’s blog that:
“I chose “vulgar” in order to avoid more contested or loaded adjectives. Of course I don’t consider “fuckwit” to be vulgar. But seriously, the word is “epithets” – that’s the important part.”
Well, “Mick the Sea Lion” is an epithet, and photoshopping my head onto the body of a sea lion is demeaning. Personally, I don’t mind either, but by Ophelia’s own standards it seems strange that she would favourite it.
Summary
For absolute clarity, the cartoonist David Malki ! does not engage in any of the vulgar and abusive behaviour I have described in this post. He produces a very funny and thought-provoking cartoon series, as well as various other creative artistic ventures.
But those who do use the memes of ‘tone-trolling’ and ‘sea-lioning’ as ways to try to reverse the evolution of civilisation, should be aware that they will face polite and persistent resistance from those of us who want to build an ethical world based on empathy, compassion, cooperation, reciprocity, fairness and justice.
{ 382 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6jiNMg1PAk
This video from Pat Condell really puts the spotlight on how Nugent has been misrepresented, and also why.
Yes, yes, I don’t agree with Condell on everything. But he’s an insightful critic of modern “social justice” liberalism, which seems to bear little in common with classical liberalism and the spirit of free inquiry.
In particular, the part of the video where he talks about how (SJW) liberals will twist what you said because they always believe they know what you “really meant.” And of course, what you “really meant” is something you did not say, but is instead some horrible, monstrous, mustache-twirling, cartoon villain example of misogyny, racism and anti-whateverism.
So then that becomes the Official Narrative within their hugbox re: you, and even though you never said such a thing, the FTB clergy has interpreted your words in the spirit of Peezus Christ and forever branded you a sinner who must repent.
‘Earhole’ might be useful rather than ‘earlobe’.
That’s the term Paul Willis substituted for ‘arsehole’ in his book Learning to Labour
You could use modifiers to add emphasis, like ‘hairy ear hole’ or ‘gaping ear hole’.
Steersman: What an eye socket!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but earlobe, earhole, eye-socket have as much chance of coming into general use as esperanto. It’s the taboo that makes the swear-word. No taboo, no fun, perverts!
Ariel @188:
BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA….omg, that’s awesome. Now they just say anyone who posts at the pit is a rapist (which PZ did say) and is evil. If you post at the pit, even if you have never, ever talked to them on twitter, (and other than ~5 messages to PZ, I’ve not. I do my best to remove that lot from any convo on twitter I’m a part of, because they do not wish to talk to me, and I certainly do not wish to talk to them), you still end up on their block bot.
Oh, and not hurting people day after day? When Canuck went after Mallorie Nasrallah, she had to beg him to alter his post because FTB had enough juice that when people searched for her name, it was in the top ten hits, and she’s a friggin’ photographer.
You know what her great “crime” was? she had said “hey, hey, don’t be telling guys to not flirt at conventions. Not all women hate that. I rather like it, and if it goes to far, I, as a functional adult, am capable of handling it.”
Yeah. For that, Canuck went after her ass, and she had to plead with him to fix the post (and it was astoundingly demeaning. Funny how he’ll attack the shit out of any woman who disagrees with him) because it was messing with her life for a huge amount of time after the post.
Now tell me how their shit doesn’t affect the people they attack. They don’t go after people year after year? I bet Dawkins (Witch of the Week since 2011!) and Grothe have a different point of view on that. So would skep tickle. So would Mykeru (whom they not only doxxed, but they doxxed wrong, and because they couldn’t be arsed to verify the address, made completely innocent people potential targets.)
You are astoundingly bad at whatever it is you’re doing.
You still haven’t answered the questions. You simply played a bad game of “TU QUOQUE” and figured I wouldn’t notice.
And I actually do think that’s why you can’t use Photoshop. Because “Gaussian Blur” doesn’t change its functionality to suit you.
Piero:
While you’re right about the taboo, I think your comments about earhole etc kind of misses the point. Not really seriously trying to promote those as epithets, just using those as analogous cases to highlight the silliness of splash-damage in general – as well as where it comes from, what causes it.
Piero: what a douchebrobucket!
Tina,
Gosh, gee, thanks.
Am I doin it rite?
I’ll practice over the weekend.
How many instances of rape, sexual assault or harassment at a/s events have there been in the last two years? Must be thousands and thousands.
@Steersman:
Yes, I know. I was just failing to be funny
@Tina:
Now, douchebrobucket, that definitely has potential in a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious way!
Hell, now I failed to choose the right emoticon. I wanted a sad face, not an angry one. Damn internets!
Shatterface (#250):
That looks rather self-serving at best. Consider:
And note that “a” denotes “a single but unspecified person or thing”. While I’ll concede that “too many niggers” probably qualifies as racist, the question is whether calling one black person that so qualifies; on the basis of that definition I’d say it doesn’t, and any others who are offended are probably guilty of misplaced and unwarranted identification. If I call Fred a prick, are you likely to be offended because you, presumably, possess the same attribute?
As for “too many twats”, consider also:
So that statement means, clearly, “too many women”. Just as sexist as “too many niggers” is racist.
But the point is that calling one individual a twat or a nigger isn’t necessarily either. Insulting & rude – no doubt; but not sexist or racist.
OK, eyesight fail, No need to comment, thanks.
Steersman @244
On my phone so will keep it brief
theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物) @119,
You said the following, in regards to using the word “twat” (or other sexist language) or linking/referencing other websites that use it:
Given your criticism of Nugent for linking to a website wherein the word “twat” is used, combined with your belief that “it should bother everyone,” I think we are all very curious to hear your thoughts on the following February 10, 2014 blog post from Ophelia Benson, titled “Bowling for abortion access.” (emphasis added for your convenience; link omitted so as not to offend further)
Were you aware that both Sarah Moglia and Ophelia Benson used the term “twat” like this? If so, have you criticized either or both of them as you have criticized Nugent? If not, why not? If so, would you be willing to link to your comment(s) where you communicated said criticism to them?
If you were not aware of their use of this term until now – are you going to let them know that you don’t approve now that you have been made aware? If not, why not? If so, would you be willing to link to your comment(s) when and where you communicate said criticism to them?
I believe it has been pointed out that “twat” came to be used as an insult in much the same way as prick, dick, turd and so on; that is, its potential for insult derives from its relationship with sexual and excretory taboos. “Nigger,” on the other hand, has no such redeeming qualities: save between black people, the word is only used with the intention of giving offence. It has no other connotations, as shown by the fact that one would not call a white man a “nigger” (what could that mean?), whereas “twat” is often (or even mainly) addressed to men.
I love it when we awake the Steers. He simply says all that we mean, in great detail, and at some length (a length I can happily tolerate). Keep it up, lad!
(screwtape has approved this message)
Steersman,
That you say the following to Shatterface suggests to me that you can see the difference
@piero
I understand that and agree. But I am not claiming twat is unacceptable or nigger acceptable.
I have no issue with gendered slurs of this type (twat, cock etc) and find the arguments made for their unacceptability baseless.
Noelplum99 (#265):
Good question. But Theophontes started the ball rolling with this in #119:
Which you took a swing at in #133 by arguing that it was a gendered insult but not a sexist one – which I essentially agree with. But Theophontes’ argument “begets” the question of why it should be considered sexist. And, as near as I can figure, the actual mechanism and motivation behind the argument is one of splash-damage, of identification due to mirror-neurons. Consider the definitions for “sexism” and “stereotyping”, the latter being an umbrella term that includes “sexism” and “racism”:
So it would seem then that sexism is essentially the judging of all individuals of a class or group on the basis of the attributes of some subset of them – i.e., discrimination.
So Theo’s argument is then, apparently, that calling one woman a twat is judging all women to be twats because they share the same type of physiological feature, the one denoted by the insult. Likewise with “nigger”.
Kind of misses my point about mirror neurons & identification. I know neither definition refers to the group. But the point is that people other than the individual specifically targeted infer – because of a common feature – that they also are being targeted. If that was really the case, that they were targeted – as in “too many twats”, “too many niggers” – then that is clearly sexism & racism. But if not then they are inappropriately identifying with the target and condemning the source for a crime for which there is no evidence – largely the point that James Caruthers made above (#251).
And people *have* different coloured skin; they are not their skins. You might pay close attention to how you define words – what their connotations, denotation, referents, and implications are. It is, apparently, a rather obscure and convoluted process, but one I think we have to give some attention to. And analogies are, as the Wikipedia article argues, a rather important part of understanding that.
If you were actually whinging, and were a bastard, and were petty then why would you object to being labelled as such along with Fred? And if you’re none of those then why get your knickers in a twist, and into the same dustup that Fred might wind up in? My point is the question of identification again: sharing some subset of a group of supposedly pejorative attributes shouldn’t necessarily lead us to take offense, particularly if the target is egregiously guilty of the charge, and we are not.
Dave Allen (#163):
I’ll agree that there may be some differences in reasons for the different pejorative associations. But the essence of analogies (1) is that there are both similarities and differences in the sets or objects or situations being compared – as when OB compared TAM & Nazi Germany. And in this case, the relevant similarity is, I think, the fact that a body part has acquired those negative associations which then, by the mechanism of synecdoche, are thought to apply to either the specific individual addressed, or to those who also possess the same body part.
@John Greg
So, aside from your grammar fail, do you actually think defending someone not yet proven to be guilty of a crime is wrong? What Orwellian nightmare did you crawl out from under?
Apologies for the grammar – English isn’t my first language.
When your “defense” hurts victims then you need to rethink what you believe is defense. Michael has taken sides. How does Michael know named person is innocent? Why does Michael feel he needs to play a role of lawyer defending people who may or may not be innocent from smears (when he doesnt feel the need to play detective or journalist?). Why does he believe that named victim is not telling the truth?
Also is the following statement true
There exists an allegation of rape , by a named person against another named person (imagine that I actually specified the names here)
It does not state whether named person is guilty or innocent.
So what reason do you have for not actually naming them ? There is no problem stating facts, right? Which is what Myers did initially that started this whole thing – it still caused lot of heartburn with your lot , didn’t it?
So before you go about throwing words like Orwellian – think about which side is saying let the facts be known and let the names be named and which side is saying suppress the name! – my grammar may be poor but your understanding of words suck. Between the two I’ll take poor grammar.
@Dave allen
A lot of people other than Michael find it distinctly “off” that an attempt seems to be being made to impose the social cost of being considered a criminal on those who have not been formally accused of a crime.
But why is the social cost to the victim ignored in these calculations? How is that you can be so concerned about the alleged rapist and show no concern to the victim? How is it that everything Michael says(and a good number of the commenters) or does related to this topic, favors the alleged rapist? How is it so easy to ignore the other witness who testifies to picking up victim , crying , outside alleged rapists room immediately after the event? How is it so easy to ignore that a couple of other victims have spoken about creepy behavior by the same alleged rapist? How is it easy to ignore what famed magician , founder of famed skeptic organization had to say about this matter? How is easy to ignore alleged rapists three different stories?
Deepak,
For the love of all that is holy, do you truly not understand that if a person is merely accused, then it has not yet been established that there actually is a victim? If the one is merely an alleged rapist, then we don’t yet know if there actually was a victim or not.
If you have any desire to be intellectually honest and to be taken seriously, you should be using the terms “alleged rapist” and “accuser” as opposed to “rapist” and “victim.”
Please acknowledge whether this computes or not; thanks in advance.
And note that “a” denotes “a single but unspecified person or thing”. While I’ll concede that “too many niggers” probably qualifies as racist, the question is whether calling one black person that so qualifies; on the basis of that definition I’d say it doesn’t, and any others who are offended are probably guilty of misplaced and unwarranted identification. If I call Fred a prick, are you likely to be offended because you, presumably, possess the same attribute?
It doesn’t matter if you replace plurals with a singular. If someone said he wouldn’t go to a bar because some ‘nigger’ went there I’d assume he was being racist; if he said it was because some ‘twat’ went there I’d assume he was talking about an annoying person.
There’s a difference between the colloquial use of the word ‘twat’ and an esoteric use of the word ‘nigger’. That’s because I use language to communicate, not to play stupid word games.
Deepak Shetty
When your “defense” hurts victims then you need to rethink what you believe is defense.
For fuck’s sake, you fell at the first hurdle: if the person you are defending is innocent there’s no fucking victim. You have to establish there was a fucking crime. No crime, no victim, no perpetrator.
Michael has taken sides. How does Michael know named person is innocent? Why does Michael feel he needs to play a role of lawyer defending people who may or may not be innocent from smears (when he doesnt feel the need to play detective or journalist?). Why does he believe that named victim is not telling the truth?
See my previous response.
And answer my previous questions: do you approve of Gitmo? Do you think locking up people suspected of terrorist offences, without charge, is legitimate? Do you think drone strikes are legitimate if they take out innocent people just so long as, occasionally, they hit a guilty one just on the law of averages?
But why is the social cost to the victim ignored in these calculations? How is that you can be so concerned about the alleged rapist and show no concern to the victim?
I’m not going to give you a free pass just because English is your second language – there are others in this thread who aren’t native speakers who have no problem understanding that a victim is only a victim if there has been an offence – slipping ‘alleged’ in there is meaningless as long as you continue to assert that the victim is, indeed, a victim.
How is it easy to ignore what famed magician , founder of famed skeptic organization had to say about this matter?
You tell us, because at no point has this magician pronounce the accused person guilty of rape.
How is easy to ignore alleged rapists three different stories?
As I understand it the alleged rapist has stuck to the same story – that he didn’t do it – while FTB have gone from a single act of rape to serial rape of women and now ‘men and women’. That’s three different stories.
Someone says ‘you are a rapist’. Therefore you are a rapist. What does the J in SJW stand for again?
Anyway Deepak, I call you a willful idiot. Therefore you are an idiot. And everyone else on this board can now call you an idiot. It will not be an insult when they call you an idiot, it will be a fact.
Deepak Shetty said:
OK, cool. I won’t disparage your poor grammar or diction anymore.
.
Supposition and opinion; no facts.
I do believe it is related to something that higher intellects created called, innocent until proven guilty, aka, something about Habeus Corpus, which that arch supporter of human rights and justice for all, Ms. A. Marcotte, wants to abolish. Habeus Corpus protects us all; innocent and guilty, from human rights and legal violations. And anyway, how the fuck do you and almost all of Skepchick and FTB “know” he’s guilty? There is no incontrovertible evidence or proof or, for that matter, any actual evidence of any kind whatsoever that he is guilty.
WTF?!? Lawyer? WTF!?! So, smears are good; smears do not need defending; smears make us alive?
Jesus, you people are a broken fucking broken record on endless replay. It is not about not believing that the so-called victims are not telling the truth. It is about the simple FACT of not having any gawdamned evidence and actual proofs that they are telling the truth. Hearsay is not proof. He said/she said is not proof. Why the flaming fuck can you not get that through your thick skull?
1. The so-called allegation has not been stated as an allegation; it has been stated as a supposed fact; something that actually happened, and in healthy societies one does not make claims of fact for something that is only supposition.
2. It is not a court of law, and claiming someone did something when there is no legal proof is fallacious at best, slander and libel at worst.
3. Because claims of this nature can, will, and do harm the innocent far, far, far more than they prove the guilty or protect the putative victims.
We do not have any facts. We have anecdote, hearsay, and gossip.
Jesus. I, mean, really, what can one do against such idiocy? PZ did not state or post facts; he posted hearsay, anecdote, gossip, and opinion.
You flaming fucking slow person! It is “our side” demanding facts, and your side saying, No, all we need is anecdote. Asking for facts is slut shaming, misogynist, evil, mean, wicked, and nasty.
Deepak Shetty said:
OK, cool. I won’t disparage your poor grammar or diction anymore.
.
Supposition and opinion; no facts.
I do believe it is related to something that higher intellects created called, innocent until proven guilty, aka, something about Habeus Corpus, which that arch supporter of human rights and justice for all, Ms. A. Marcotte, wants to abolish. Habeus Corpus protects us all; innocent and guilty, from human rights and legal violations. And anyway, how the fuck do you and almost all of Skepchick and FTB “know” he’s guilty? There is no incontrovertible evidence or proof or, for that matter, any actual evidence of any kind whatsoever that he is guilty.
WTF?!? Lawyer? WTF!?! So, smears are good; smears do not need defending; smears make us alive?
Jesus, you people are a broken fucking broken record on endless replay. It is not about not believing that the so-called victims are not telling the truth. It is about the simple FACT of not having any gawdamned evidence and actual proofs that they are telling the truth. Hearsay is not proof. He said/she said is not proof. Why the flaming fuck can you not get that through your thick skull?
1. The so-called allegation has not been stated as an allegation; it has been stated as a supposed fact; something that actually happened, and in healthy societies one does not make claims of fact for something that is only supposition.
2. It is not a court of law, and claiming someone did something when there is no legal proof is fallacious at best, slander and libel at worst.
3. Because claims of this nature can, will, and do harm the innocent far, far, far more than they prove the guilty or protect the putative victims.
We do not have any facts. We have anecdote, hearsay, and gossip.
Jesus. I, mean, really, what can one do against such idiocy? PZ did not state or post facts; he posted hearsay, anecdote, gossip, and opinion.
You flaming fucking slow person you! It is “our side” demanding facts, and your side saying, No, all we need is anecdote. Asking for facts is slut shaming, misogynist, evil, mean, wicked, and nasty.
Whoopseedoodle! Sorry about that double post. I really do not have any idea how that happened. Sticky fingers I guess. Deepak gets me all excited.
Michael, if you are interested and have the time, please feel free to edit my post so that it does not repeat itself, and you can also, if you get there, remove those oddball periods.
Weird.
I realize that “stooping to their level” is not the right thing to do, and I’m not in any way suggesting that’s what should happen. But it really seems like the only way people like Deepak will get it is when they become a victim of a false and/or unproven allegation themselves.
Should that ever happen, you can bet they would do a 180 on this whole “believe the victim” nonsense faster that Myers can say “grenade.” Is there anything else that can penetrate the SJW-bubble they seem to be inhabiting?
@Deepak
And if you say anything like “what do you mean I’m an idiot, how dare you call me idiot, I’m not an idiot”, remember, my allegation proved you are an idiot, and only an idiot would say he is not an idiot after he has been proven to be an idiot. Checkmate idiot!
DEEPAK
There exists an allegation of rape , by a named person against another named person (imagine that I actually specified the names here)
CARR
No, PZ Myers has pronounced this person guilty and expects this verdict to be honoured by everybody. Because if PZ says somebody is a rapist, then his verdict is final.
Don’t you know what a fatwa is? PZ has issued a fatwa, and a fatwa remains in force for the lifetime of the person who issued it.
In fact, PZ Myers has pronounced that a whole blog is a ‘haven for rapists’, and gave as evidence the fact that some people commented there also commented on another forum.
Myers is simply a vigilante. He sits behind his computer and pronounces people guilty or innocent.
JOHN GREG
There is no incontrovertible evidence or proof or, for that matter, any actual evidence of any kind whatsoever that he is guilty.
CARR
The only actual evidence of any kind that I have seen is a picture of the alleged victim posing for publicity pictures of herself, her boyfriend and the alleged rapist, two months after this alleged rape.
She then put said picture on her blog, describing what a ‘lovely’ time she had spent with the man she years later claimed had raped her.
Now I have never seen a rapist pose for publicity pictures with his alleged victim. Normally a raped woman is a little wary of being with her rapist in future, and often avoids close contact.
They say a criminal always returns to the scene of his crime, but how often does a criminal return to the scene of his crime, pose for publicity pictures and then approve of the pictures being posted on the Internet?
@ Steersman
I will lay off the blockquotes, I seem to keep messing them up on my phone. You wrote:
“So Theo’s argument is then, apparently, that calling one woman a twat is judging all women to be twats because they share the same type of physiological feature, the one denoted by the insult. Likewise with “nigger”.”
This is some bizarre equivocation between the two meanings you pull here. When we call someone a twat their twattishness is unrelated to their having a twat. The situation with the word nigger could not be more different.
I think we fundamentally disagree with what the sjw’s are claiming by their splash damage.
From everything that I have seen them write on the subject my understanding is that by claiming negative characteristics to twattishness we are saying twats are inherently negative themselves, as twats, and that this reflects on those who have twats.
If you are claiming their argument is other than this then that will clearly lead us to framing our arguments at odds with each other.
What I would request is that when you quote me you don’t insert words in the quotation.
I wrote:
“Sure “twat” has another meaning beyond the literal meaning of a vulva but that is true of every word i could use to insult you. The point is that other meaning doesn’t refer to the group it is claimed is on the receiving end of the splash, ie women”
This is how you quoted me:
“The point is that [the] other meaning [“a woman or girl”] doesn’t refer to the group it is claimed is on the receiving end of the splash, ie women.”
Why did you insert “woman or girl” in there? I wouldn’t mind so much but one thing we had already agreed upon was that the other meaning was “a person considered obnoxious or stupid”.
Why are you now including a third definition and adding it to my own words when you (mis)quote me?
Lastly,
“My point is the question of identification again: sharing some subset of a group of supposedly pejorative attributes shouldn’t necessarily lead us to take offense, particularly if the target is egregiously guilty of the charge, and we are not.”
Tell that to your pitfellows who have been insulted that Myers linked pit membership with rape. As long as they are not rapists themselves they should, according to you, see nothing to take umbrage with regarding his remark.
We’ve had that “slurs” talk many times before at the Pit, and we don’t seem to have advanced one bit on the subject. My own view is that it really depends on who, how, where and when a slur is used. Now, it should also be kept in mind that a slur is usually, but not always, meant to insult. So it is absolutely none of my concern if the targeted person is offended. In fact, that’s the whole damn point!
Of course, a slur is not the same as a smear. Calling someone a “twat” is infinitely more harmless than calling someone a “rapist”, for obvious reasons that I hope don’t need to be explained.
Dawkins is not using a taboo, so it look like an improvement here Crackity, I don’t think he is bullying. But it is a bit of a stretch to imply Rees is collaborating with an enemy occupying force, which will eventually send many atheists to death-camps. Could we agree that Dawkins is exaggerating for effect here? Reminds me of Ron Lindsay linking Rebecca Watson to North Korea, for which he later recanted.
Phil, I agree with everything you said at #288, with one minor adjustment. The Pit is not a person. It has no conscience, and cannot improve in an intellectual or moral sense. Only the people who frequent it can do that.
I try not worry too much about the behaviour of other people, unless they start stepping on my toes. With Pogsurf it is personal, or it is nothing. Myers and Benson started to imply that atheists of my ilk were unwelcome at conferences. I saw that Justin Vacula was being smeared in the most appalling way. So I hopped on a plane and attended the second day of the Empowering Women Through Secularism conference, Dublin 2013. Myers and Benson were both there.
I had been exploring what feminism was as movement. I didn’t know then if I was a feminist or not. In Myers’ terms I was an anti-feminist. That’s just silly, I was just like any other idealogical-agnostic, not able to commit until I understood what I was committing to.
One year later I am happy to declare as a feminist. Not the mealy-mouthed idiotic bulling and harrying type for whom Myers is the patron saint, but the gentle, compassionate and caring type which Michael represents. It remains the case that the only human I am trying to improve is me.
@Phil:
Hello, Phil. I’m Deepak. I don’t understand. You’re wrong.
@FishCakes:
But it has happened, and they did exactly what you said. See post #224.
Noelplum99 (#):
That seems a rather untenable position to be taking. Most of the definitions I’ve seen rather clearly include a reference to “female genitals” – do take a look at these (1) for examples. That has been the basis of PZ’s argument from square one (if I’m not mistaken): calling one woman a twat, or a c*nt, implies – in their view – an assertion that those who possess the underlying feature are all equally odious. Can’t really repudiate or defeat the argument unless one can understand the basis on which it is advanced. Which, as mentioned, seems predicated on the linguistic and neurological mechanisms of synecdoche and mirror-neurons.
I’ll agree that this process of interpretation of meaning, of various connotations is very complex and intricate – and obscure and confusing. Part of the problem, I think, is failing to differentiate between the physiological features themselves, and the words used to refer to them: as some philosopher put it, “the map is not the territory”.
But I think the stumbling block, the problematic aspect, is that each of those physiological features – genitalia, skin colour, excretory structures, etc – come with a range of attributes that span the positive and negative. When they are used as the basis for insults then of course the negative, frequently Anglo-Saxon & pithy, terms are used; when they are used as descriptive terms – for medical discussions, for example – then frequently the Latin words are used: penis, vagina, etc.
So, the physiological features themselves are, obviously, not intrinsically good or bad, or commendable or odious; the insults refer to or suggest the negative aspects, and it is untenable to argue that linking those to one individual means that one is linking them to all those who happen to possess the physiological feature itself.
As a case in point, you might consider the following comment from Sally Strange some time back. She had called me an asshole to which I had responded by calling her cunt – tit-for-tat, one good turn deserves another. But her response (2) – quite clever and amusing and I would have said so and used it as a point of departure in a fruitful discussion if PZ hadn’t dropped the banhammer on me – illustrates one alternate, positive interpretation of the word:
So I think you – and PZ and most of the Horde – are failing to differentiate between the pejorative, insulting, negative aspects, and the more positive or innocuous ones.
Sorry if that derailed the conversation. But the “the” seemed to be missing. And I thought it important to emphasize that it seemed that the underlying referent is to female genitalia, and that several definitions for both that word and “cunt” stipulate that they are “disparaging term(s) for a woman” (3). Seems to muddy the waters to consider the process by which the words encompass males as well – particularly as PZ has argued, if I’m not mistaken, that the use of such gendered epithets supposedly insults all women but not all men because of that referent.
I think the two cases under discussion there – the one of me calling Fred a “whinging pommie bastard” with you taking offense due to splash damage because you have the same nationality, and the other with PZ implying Pitters were rapists – aren’t really the same type.
But I think you’re misinterpreting their responses, though I haven’t taken any type of a survey so can’t be sure. Seems to me that they are, in general, less insulted by the accusation they are rapists than peeved that PZ should be so hypocritical as to charge Michael for creating a “haven for rapists” when there’s more evidence that that is precisely what he is doing – something that even Stephanie Zvan accepted although I think she too is guilty of some problematic misinterpretations. But I at least kind of think he and the Horde are to be commended for doing so – at least in the case under discussion. And in light of that fact I find it rather laughable that he’s accusing Michael of the same thing – and with diddly squat in the way of evidence to back it up.
—-
1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/twat”;
2) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/21/not-as-much-fun-as-it-sounds/comment-page-1/#comment-272115”;
3) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cunt”;
John Greg (#280):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg3uZRX2R_0
Piero @289:
Sir Terry Pratchett once said:
“A European says: I can’t understand this, what’s wrong with me? An American says: I can’t understand this, what’s wrong with him?”
Pretty apt, it seems.
The Steersman awakes! Thanks for the breakfast giggles, guys — Theo managed to set quite a ball rolling there. For what it’s worth I do not consider body parts, or gendered slurs, to be offensive at all. In fact, in many places they are used interchangeably as both insults and terms of affection. It’s the context that counts. In the case of the cartoon, “twat” is an ancient word which has morphed slightly through the centuries and is often used in a semi-affectionate manner. The lady in question using the term actually gave the cartoon an added twist of humour. “twit” is okay too, of course, but to some it might be considered “ableist”.
Satire depends on all kinds of nuance and should not cause real harm. Smears however do cause real harm. If we are going to make a serious allegation about someone, we should always be ready to support our claims with real evidence, not just hearsay and supposition.
Rape is a particularly difficult area because every non-sociopath, non-psychopath in the West agrees that it is wrong and yet it is such a difficult crime to prove. There are serious hurdles for a true victim, just by the very nature of the crime; it is so often impossible to prove and is upsetting for the victim to re-visit. However, authorites these days are generally more sympathetic towards such allegations and will try to be helpful. If a victim comes forward quickly enough, evidence can be gathered including her (or his) physical and mental condition. For instance it can be verified that a traumatic incident occurred, and DNA can be collected.
There is a difficult area, however, when we consider some “grey” areas of sexual activity. Time can make a huge difference, not only to the collecting of evidence but also to how the victim remembers the event or how she or he feels about it. There are too many cases where an alleged victim says that she didn’t realise that it was rape until someone else told her that it was. In such cases, it is reasonable to feel dubious about the claim. We have heard a lot about False Memory Syndrome, and of course we know about “morning after” remorse (not just when alcohol is involved). There is also the possibility that some claimants are being vindictive towards their target; there have been a few cases recently of women who have been proved to have done exactly that and have ruined the alleged perpetrator’s lives before themselves being found out.
“Believe the victim” is all very well, but what it should actually read and mean is “take the alleged victim’s claims seriously and investigate honestly”.
It is the “believe the victim” mentality that caused the whole terrible nonsense of the “Satanic abuse” cases in the 1980s and ’90s in Orkney etc which destroyed so many families and which have since been totally debunked. It has caused the current witchunt in England over historic abuse accusations (interestingly against Old Rich White Men) where there can be no real evidence, when the authorities could have concentrated their efforts on current child sex rings with actual evidence. The latter is more difficult for the authorities of course because the rings happen to be run by brown immigrant men. We do not live in a “rape culture”, my goodness we don’t. We live in an era of hyper-sensitivity to sexual mores, alongside hyper-sensitivity to racial and cultural offence, which makes talking about almost anything in a nuanced way almost impossible.
Just to put this all in perspective, those of us who were young adults in the 1960s and ’70s grew up in an era of casual sexism, and we knew how to deal with unwanted moves; we didn’t think about it, we got on with life. We are now old people who watch in dismay, wondering if some damaged female might pop out of nowhere to accuse our husbands of patting their bottoms back in 1975 or so, putting us all through a year or more of nightmare. That is how seriously the authorities in the UK take accusations of sexual assault, this is not the mark of a “rape culture”, and accusing someone of defending rapists and of providing a haven for them is making a very serious claim. It might seem like nothing in the US, I don’t know, but on this side of the pond it means a great deal, it is not just a small slur.
I suppose that I shall now be labelled a “rape apologist” because I don’t see everything in stark black-and-white. Oh well.
… within given communities.
So if you’re saying “that’s probably how the likes of OB see it”, yes – I could well agree.
It’s maybe beg the question of whether such a view is fringe enough to accept or deny as general principle.
And I’d suggest no, on account of it seeming to me to add a degree of oppression to women (in my community) rather than relieve it.
You can make anything “oppressive”. I’m ready to bet that if I were to declare the sky being blue is somewhat oppressive to X category of the population, I’d get quite a good following.
It still doesn’t make the sky being blue oppressive. That’s how religions work, usually.
Deepak
As others have said – alleged victim.
I don’t have a clue how to solve the general problem of people who don’t feel they have had legal redress.
All I would observe is that in the case we are discussing I don’t feel that either the alleged victim nor alleged perpetrator have been served well through disseminating rumors via a controversial blog with a growing reputation of spurious scurrilous shenanigans.
Alleged victim.
I cannot show serious concern to someone who had and has recourse to serious channels, but who prefers to operate via a scurrilous click-bait blog.
You’ll have to ask him. In my opinion the nature of being an “alleged” criminal that hard conclusions cannot be fairly drawn.
I won’t suspend the need for due process because someone cried in a corridor.
This is circumstantial evidence, of a distinctly silly sort.
There’s also a body of circumstantial evidence from the other side. Post-facto invitations to join in on panels, post-facto group photographs and so on.
None of which means anything.
More circumstantial evidence. This is borderline Kafkatrapping.
What’s more some of the stuff mentioned just doesn’t even strike me as credibly creepy. Topping up a glass of wine? What is that evidence of exactly?
And even if I were convinced of the alleged criminal being a creep, there is a difference between creep and criminal.
Beyond Randi finding the alleged perpetrator too much of a hot potato what do you mean?
As for Randi finding him a hot potato – that isn’t evidence of criminality. Randi may just not like the aforementioned creepiness, or he might not have the energy or patience for a controversy-ridden cat-fight with the outrage junkies.
I find it lacking in credibility – but it’s not evidence of criminality.
Really? So you are just ignoring the universally accepted fact that the word nigger basically means black person and that it is used as an insult (in modern usage). The fact that you have to have to invoke transference, rope in mirror neurons and various assumptions to equate nigger to twat should tell you that they are not analogous.
Steers, why is it that you have this habit of equating two things because you can find one way in which they are similar and ignore the twenty ways in which they aren’t?
Myers is a documented serial killer. See for yourselves, use the internet. Myers is a serial killer.
Anything wrong with that statement?
Well, as a matter of fact, yes, there’s a lot wrong. It boils down to who, how, where and when the accusation was made.
It is a fact that Michael Myers (the movie character from the Halloween franchise, not the funny actor) is indeed a serial killer.
Me posting this accusation at this time, on this blog, is a clear indication that some nefarious purpose was intended. And that’s exactly what Paul Zachary Myers did with his “grenade” post and his “haven” tweets.
Or was that “twaats”?
But I think the stumbling block, the problematic aspect, is that each of those physiological features – genitalia, skin colour, excretory structures, etc – come with a range of attributes that span the positive and negative.
The stumbling block is your refusal to use English as a means of communication. It really doesn’t matter how you rephrase this; you aren’t using English the way real people do in real life. The rest of us seem to recognise this.
‘Twat’ is clearly ambiguous. The most common use is for a ‘stupid person’. If I call David Cameron a ‘twat’ everyone in the UK will understand I am calling Cameron an idiot. Everybody. Some might object to the word but every fucking person will understand what I mean.
If I call Obama a ‘nigger’ everybody, every fucking person but you, is going to interpret that as a racist comment, because it is absolutely non-ambiguous.
I base this argument on being a speaker of English.
I don’t give a fuck about the origin of the words.
English isn’t a fucking game I got for Christmas, played once, then stuck on top of the wardrobe because I couldn’t work out the rules; it’s a tool I use everyday.
I’m through with this non-argument.
@Phil:
Very apt. I’m still baffled by Deepak’s disregard of logic. Just in case he’s still lurking, I’ll ask again, this time as a multiple choice question:
Deepak, do you realise that “believe the victim” is nonsense, because it begs the question?
a. Yes.
b. Yes.
c. Yes.
d. Yes.
e. Yes.
To translate the first caption of the cartoon :-
‘I like most people. But I don’t like men. I could do without men.’
Latsot’s latest contribution.
http://lookatthestateofthat.blogspot.ie/2014/11/oh-michael.html?showComment=1415450395268#c8919813269321003435
@steersman
So when i call a person a twat, you are trying to convince me that I am tying that in to them having a vulva? When I call one of my male work colleagues a twat I am referencing their vulva?
Is this a serious conversation we are having here or just baiting?
You move on to this as if it backs up your previous comment. Allow me to rewrite your sentnece in a form I would agree with (I don’t mean agree with the logic but agree it describes their argument)
That has been the basis of PZ’s argument from square one (if I’m not mistaken): calling one PERSON, MALE OR FEMALE POSSESSOR OF TWAT OR NON-POSSESSOR OF TWAT a twat, or a c*nt, implies – in their view – an assertion that those who possess the underlying feature are all equally odious.
That amendment highlights the flaw in your assertion. Hitler does not have to possess a twat for us to use the word twat to describe him because, as I said and you disagreed with:
When we call someone a twat their twattishness is unrelated to their having a twat
the latter part of your description of their argument I totally agree with, specifically
Moving on you wrote:
I agree with that statement. The only thing I would add is that the characteristics we attach to such terms when used as slurs are not just unlinked to the physilogical structure but refer to an entirely abstract notion of a “twat” or “prick” that has little if any relevance to real twats and pricks. Perhaps originally the linkage to ideas of the genitalia being dirty furnished insults that had some relevant carryover but usage patterns have shifted until we effectively have two seperate linguistic land masses now with no “land bridge” between them at all.
I am not really sure how I got that from what I’ve written (or the videos i have done on these insults – to which i commended “tittybollocks” to those who like their purported splash damage to be symmetric)
I had no issue with you correcting the “the” (it is hard for me to spot all such mistakes on my phone). My issue was you inserting a comment which was incorrect. If you wished to emphasise a point then doing so in your own paragraph rather than putting erroneous words in mine (I referred to “obnoxious or stupid”, you inserted “woman or girl”).
Maybe this is a cultural issue but where I live twat is no more likely to be applied to a woman than a man. I understand that in the USA “cunt” is often used specifically to refer to a woman in the same way in which “bitch”may be used, or “pig” used to refer specifically to a man. The discussions we have been having here at no stage indicated that we were referring to such asymmetric usage with respect to the word twat.
@Shatterface
In fact David cameron himself used the term twat on a radio interview. Talking about the dangers of twitter he said “perhaps sometimes too many twits make a twat”
I think it was obvious his reference was in no way asymmetrically singling out only female twitter users there
PS: It has been refreshing having this conversation without some idiot insisting that such words shouldn’t even be spoken/written when discussing their usage
@Ashling:
Latsot should be adopted as Official Jester
In fact David cameron himself used the term twat on a radio interview. Talking about the dangers of twitter he said “perhaps sometimes too many twits make a twat”
Stewart Lee said the past tense of ‘tweet’ is ‘twat’.
Lee is (for the benefit of those outside the UK) a left-wing comedian.
His frequent collaborator, Richard Herring, uses the word ‘cunt’ quite often in his podcasts (his Scooby Doo sketches usually end with ‘And I would have got away with it too if it wasn’t for you pesky cunts!’) but hasn’t had a TV show for a while.
From the sitcom Spaced
Tim: I know. I look like a twat in a jumpsuit.
Daisy: Don’t say that, Tim. That’s a word that hates women.
Tim: What? “Twat”?
Daisy: No, “jumpsuit.”
I have some different idea on what makes a slur or insult. Think of humans as little machines that scuttle about their lives and update each other about what they perceive. Not only do they rely on their own mental machinery to recognize their surroundings, they can also take the information from some other human and compare their perception with their own. The basic principle appears to be matching and sorting things by associative similarity – analogy making. As a human, you want that the inside representation is kept in synchronicity with the outside world, and in synchronicity with what other humans recognize. That’s a very subject matter – to me at least – in particular when you think about that the perceptions of other humans make up the world of text, literary critique et cetera whereas each humans own perceptions are the domain of the empirical.
Think of a little robot who steps outside, recognizes the sun and files it away as “similar enough” to the other day when the sun was also visible. She calls this particular state of the world a “sunny day” which is little more than a category name of similar states. They are meaningless. They only meaning at this point is that it’s similar to that other day. Little robot meets another robot and of course, what all robots do when they meet, they talk about the weather, as a shared reality. Miss Robot sends her state of the world “sunny day!” to the other robot. He compares the state of the world he perceives as well, and with his own categories and finds a match. “Sunny day” is now associated with when the sun is visible on the sky, where he, too, already has several entries of alikeness.
The robots see how everyone is happy, and they add that to the category as well: “Sunny day is when everybody is happy”. Because they have observed, in contrast, that when the world state is “rainy day” nobody is happy.
They do this kind of thing all the time. They meet another robot and the other robot makes a strange gesture and says “hello”. Our robots have seen this before and they make a category of “hello situations” and associate it with meeting some other robot. From now on, they will recognize a “hello situation” and then will produce the gesture and say the word. Quite interesting how the robots conspire to confirm each other’s world state perceptions and kind of “fulfil” what is expected of them, so that it becomes true. The robots have expectations now! Some robots more than others want to comply. Highly advanced robots can see the expectations as well, and the expectation that they conform to expectations and they can deny it. Very interesting, but a digression.
Now there is a situation were robots say nasty things to each other, thereby they compare again situation with situation and again “do their part” and thereby they signalize to the other robot that this is “that kind of situation were one says nasty things”. Since the other robots have build up their own categories with a lot of associations, they also then “know” that these situations is the kind were robots have “visceral” feelings, are angry, or distressed. In other words, they can know from their own machinery, even though subjective, how some other robot must feel.
Where does this lead? When robots invoke a word like “nigger” they aren’t merely saying a word with a clean definition. They open the box were all the “when people say nigger” situations are stored, and together with the associations that are filed away they will recognize that it’s that a certain type of racist robots who typically recognizes such situations, and then updates others that this is a “nigger situation”.
This also gives an idea that the word is not speaker independent. When people of colour say “nigger” to each other, they are already in crucially different situations that do not invoke the same associations as when a white person said it in 19th century Deep South. Thereby, “people of colour who says nigger” can become its own type of category and branch off in the same way, when other people of colour repeat it (think of the hello situation). That is, they have their own category where updating each other that this situation has “nigger quality” can be vastly different from the previous one.
This is perhaps the grain of truth when Social Justice Warriors say that people of colour can’t be racist (oppressed can’t be oppressors et cetera). However, as with almost all tenets and terms of Social Justice Warriorism it’s vastly overstretched and wrong how they are using it (the attitude of racism is in principle independent of the person holding it).
Or to be precise, I haven’t seen a convincing case anywhere and when Social Justice Warriors are being asked, they are outraged and refuse to “educate” someone, pretending their views are well established as the Truth™. The formalisation into a meta-argument is called “JAQing off” – which is updating other people that this is a “troll is just asking questions to harass us” type of situation, and therefore can be dismissed without thinking.
Or “sea lioning” as it is now known. The invention of catchy pigeonholing phrases is a very anti-skeptic and sadly ubiquitous phenomenon. Classifying people and arguments in this way makes it very easy to avoid examining the substance of what they are saying. It is so convenient to pattern match and forget that the match is not exact.
“Sea lioning” seems to me a different “meta argument”: it formalizes situations where some person is attempting to defend themselves and does so by being polite, yet persistent. In retrospect we can say “of course this is a thing now”. Why?
In the arms race of online debate, the Social Justice Warriors went for years with invoking the All My Critics Are Harassers “meta argument”. As a response, the opponents — who felt unfairly attacked — began making a point in being polite and still not harass anyone, just using social media and other channels in a normal fashion (if you look at the individual level).
Social Justice Warriors have reacted, as they always do, by creating a new counter meme, what I call for now “meta argument”, that does not address the subject matter, but instead again goes one step meta and makes a statement about the situation/context/people involved et cetera and use that justify why the other persons statements can be dismissed outright. Pay attention and you know a dozen of similar of such “meta arguments” that meme-evolved for the purpose of shielding their dogmatist views.
The likes of Stephanie Zvan, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson or Jason Thibeault or The Flock™ cannot argue through their nonsense. You can entangle them easily in their double think and double standards and mop the floor with them, hence they depend on all their “meta” shenanigans.
At the moment progressive authoritarianism is big and carries the ideology for a while. But in a few years they won’t be able to keep shutting people down and demonizing everyone.
I expect that the cast of characters has evolved by then, and will hold different views, pretend they always thought that way and the enemies of today are then responsible for having distorted or strawmanned them all all the time. The quarrels of the past (that is of now) are then re-labelled to something personal, whereas currently, they are labelled as purely ideological. I’ll keep a mental note and see how it goes. When people are painted into a corner and aren’t the type for reconsidering, correcting and apologizing, they’ll find rationalisations and that will even out all the rough edges. It will read something like that:
“Look how the world is now more nice to women (the atheist movement is more inviting). This Mick Nugent guy and the evil slymepitters lost as they were on the wrong side of history at all times. And pathetic as they are, they now try to strawman my views from back then”.
As a plus, they can tear down and capitalize on their own strawman making of today. If you invent and cook up a problem, and it “magically goes a way”, you can feel responsible for having improved the situation. I am pretty confident in this prediction, even if PZ Myers and co are no longer considered relevant. Then they’ll keep telling this to themselves.
Yes, seems I missed the differences between the 2 things, but as far as I can tell from all of the different definitions I’ve come across, sea lioning is about insincere civility in questioning opponents. This makes it very closely related to JAQing off.
Steers, you’re reminding me a bit of the anecdotal scientist who, after doing some calculations and discovering bumblebees violate the laws of his model for aerodynamics, concludes that bumblebees cannot actually fly, rather than that there is something wrong with his model.
Aneris:
A “nigger situation,” eh? It’s hard to explain just how (inadvertently?) funny that reads to an American, in a horribly squeamish, taboo kind of way.
I see Myers & co. like Terminators.
They hear a knock on the door and a pop up menu appears from which they can select
tone troll
sea lion
or
fuck you into the ground, asshole.
Ashling O’Brien (#304):
Interesting. Though he seems like an ignorant & dogmatic dickhead (I hope none of the guys here are offended by the allusion
).
Carrie the rape apologist, at post circa 295: excellent comment Carrie. Clear, concise, intelligent, well written. Thank you for that calm and sensible note. I am sure you will now be persona non grata on most of FTB and Skepchick — should you ever try to comment there.
noelplum said:
I warned ya, I did. When it comes to discussing swear words such as those, Steers is more stubborn, dogmatic, and ideologically immovable than a baited bear. Or summat.
Shatterface (#301):
And yours is an inability or unwillingness to consider the underlying mechanisms of how and why we use various words. You know, though apparently you don’t, that linguistics is a well-developed and well-regarded discipline for any number of credible reasons; you might check out the link if you want to reduce your apparent ignorance on the topic.
Yes, I agree that “twat” is ambiguous – in your mind. But the point is that Myers and company seem rather clearly to be certain that it is an explicit reference to female genitalia. The use of which as an insult leads to some very problematic conclusions; seems there’s some benefit in trying to understand how they reach those.
Rather amusing that you’re just as dogmatic about the supposed meaning & implications of “nigger” as Myers is about “twat”. And neither of you actually have much in the way of credible justifications for your “articles of faith”.
“Don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up.”
John Greg (#319):
Maybe a sea lion? ….
Though I quite agree with you about Carrie’s comment.
Latsot, finally reached the final frame of Social Justice Warrior Sea Lion…
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByFMfmMIMAIhEgZ.jpg
I feel left out.
Someone please ban me or block me from something.
Aneris (#322):
LoL. “One man’s freedom-fighter is another man’s terrorist.” Though there are, presumably, real and objective differences. Which are frequently not easily discernable.
In other news, I thinks that latsot should direct his anger against this rape apologist:
[quote]I always keep my office door wide open, and when I’m working with students in the lab, I find excuses to move out and let them work on their own if it turns into a one-on-one event. I just can’t afford the risk. [/quote]
SJW mode on: The gall of this guy! Why does he “always” keeps his office door open? What does he have to fear? If he isn’t doing anything wrong, why is he so concerned about a false accusation? False so exceedingly rare that no sane person would fear them. I’m starting to believe that there might be some skeleton in this dudebro’s closet.
And indeed, there is:
[quote]I had to work fast, because I knew that if it turned into a he-said-she-said story, it wouldn’t matter that she was lying, it could get dragged out into an investigation that would easily destroy my career, no matter that I was innocent.[/quote]
Why is he more concerned with his own career than with the damage he’s doing to rape victims by talking about his allegedly false accusation? He sounds suspiciously persistent about his own innocence. He should focus more on forgiving the accuser, if indeed the accusation was actually fake.
Gerhard (#299):
No, I’m not ignoring the fact that it is an insult. I’m questioning the assumption that its use – or that of the other epithets under discussion – is necessarily racist, or sexist.
Maybe because I think that using analogies are a useful method of understanding any number of issues & phenomena? That the similarities are frequently more illuminating and relevant than the differences? You also might check out the link, a few salient points being the following:
It is those similarities, even if few in number, that frequently give a useful handle on the phenomenon in spite of any differences. For another example, consider two triangles which are analogous: 30-40-50, and 3-4-5. Significant differences in sizes & areas; significant and frequently quite relevant similarities in the included angles and the ratios between the sides.
Steersman, find one person who agrees with you on this, point them out in the night sky and I’ll use my powerful crystal radio set to see if they’ll talk to me too.
JetLagg (#315):
Steers: you’re one very lousy canuck!
Steers: you’re one very lousy twat.
Can you spot the difference?
Shatterface, I’m banned on 11 or so FTB blogs. You want to borrow some?
@Steers:
There’s this thing called reality that follows its own laws, independently of your (or anybody else’s) theoretical model. You may concoct any number of nice theories in order to claim that “nigger” is not necessarily racist, but in practice it is, simply because there is no reason whatsoever for a white person to use that word, except wanting to be offensive. Black people can call each other whatever is acceptable by their community standards, but a white person has no reason to use that word knowing full well it will give offence.
@Aneris:
Dave Allen (#296):
Basically my point, and I’m happy to see someone out in the “firmament” who apparently accepts and understands at least that part of my argument.
I’m not trying to argue that that is a credible way of looking at the phenomenon, only trying to understand why and how they reach that conclusion. Which I don’t think is justifiable at all – because of reasons.
Certainly moot how prevalent it is. Although one might suggest that Noelplum’s example of being offended if I called Fred a “whinging pommie bastard” is clearly a case of the effects of splash damage. Which he apparently accepts in that case, but rejects when PZ & company try to have recourse to the same justification.
But I think that that issue of splash damage is at the heart of the fact that, as Michael recently put it in a tweet, “PZ has been smearing people for years with impunity.” Seems PZ, and many of the other usual FfTB suspects, have wrapped themselves in a flag of some group identity – more like a mob, actually – and see any criticisms or even insults of any putative member as an insult of all. Which they then cynically use to justify various extreme responses.
As for how prevalent that meme or guiding “principle” is in that rather benighted neck of the woods, you might check out these FTB two links (1,2) – among about 500 of them according to a Google search of FTB. You may wish to note or consider that the first is a guest post by one “CaitieCat”, one of the more extreme & obnoxious of PZ’s commentariat and, if I’m not mistaken, a rather dogmatic rad-fem of one sort or another.
—-
1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2014/07/27/guest-post-lets-not-call-people-illiterate/”;
2) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/06/08/you-must-always-be-nice-why-im-not-being-nice-to-dj-grothe/”;
@John Greg:
Pulling rank on us, eh?
Analogies work because of similarities in salient features. Obscure features aren’t salient, they’re distractors.
If you are given a psychometric test and you are asked to complete the following sentence
HAND is to PALM what FOOT is to..?
Most people will say SOLE. That’s an answer based on analogy.
If you answer INCH you haven’t understood the analogy – you’ve been distracted by the double meaning of FOOT.
There isn’t an analogy between ‘twat’ and ‘nigger’. The former is colloquially used for a stupid person irrespective of sex; the latter is only ever directed at black people.
Any waffle about the origin of the words is entirely irrelevant; etymology is a distractor. It’s fuck all to do with how words are actually used.
Shatterface, I’m banned on 11 or so FTB blogs. You want to borrow some?
I’m a wanted man. I have the death sentence in 12 star systems.
I’m probably persona non grata on most FTB blogs.
I have been included in at least one (1) blog post by Benson for stating I thought pandering to SJWs was a mistake.
Matt Cavanaugh has a take on this:
“Ophelia Benson has already revealed how she intends to make use of the joint statement — as a cudgel to silence any opposition. When Slymepit member Phil Giordana
warned on Facebook, that the joint statement would prove to be “another excuse for the mob to do as they please and cast away any semblance of rationality or honesty”, Benson replied, “[s]o people should keep on with death threats, rape threats….?” After Phil, a genuinely civil & even-tempered fellow, reminded Benson that he had never made any such threats, the vindictive Benson flat-out lied: “He’s thinking that because I don’t let him comment on my blog, he’s entitled to punish me with death threats, rape threats….” Utterly despicable behavior by Benson, yet entirely consistent with the Plussers’ penchant for bullying.”
http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/tag/phil-giordana/
And now is probably the time to stop making it all about me.
(1) http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/07/not-getting-it/
Piero (#330):
And, pray tell, why would anyone use any of the gendered epithets, or any others for that matter, unless they wanted to be offensive? Sometimes some people are particularly obnoxious, and the only reasonable response short of nuking them is a verbal insult to indicate serious objections to, and criticisms of, their behaviour. What else do you think that much of the more credible and justifiable photoshopping in the Pit is if not insults and being offensive?
The question is whether the claim of splash damage in the case of “the n-word” holds any water. And I don’t think that it, of necessity, does. And no one here, or in the Pit, has provided any evidence to justify the claim except various ipse dixit pronouncements.
Steers, you (dearly) fuckwit!
you are dealing with yet another category error. That of (argumentatively) naughty body part against racial traits.
You are a fucking toenail, sometimes.
Phil:
Yes, and analogies can be applicable to different categories; they can highlight common elements. Verbs and nouns for examples: clearly different categories, but, presumably, any number of common elements: structures & relationships.
Phil (#329):
The word “canuck” != the word “twat”?
If I put on my FfTB hat (guaranteed to suppress thinking), I would say there’s no difference because, in each case, you’re also clearly insulting all those with vaginas and all those with Canadian citizenship.
But from my own point of view I also see no difference, although for a different reason: I don’t see that you’re also trying to insult both all of those who happen to have vaginas, and all of those with Canadian citizenship.
Kirbmarc quoting unnamed accused rapist:
Well Deepak, see that when I (re)quoted this fellow I used the term “accused” because he wasn’t convicted or even charged with the crime.
He says “no matter that I was innocent” but we all know this is a self serving statement and is not proof of his innocence.
Should I have done it your way “believing the victim” and simply have called him a rapist? It sounds all very suspicious to me, he quickly and effectively silenced the “victim” and apparently was able to stifle an investigation into the matter. If he was innocent what was he worried about?
The thing is Deepak, decent, honest people don’t go throwing around serious accusations like calling people rapists on unproven and/or unprovable anecdotal accusations.
I’m aware you have trouble understanding this, but I hope this example can make it clear to you.
@steersman
STEERSMAN
Certainly moot how prevalent it is. Although one might suggest that Noelplum’s example of being offended if I called Fred a “whinging pommie bastard” is clearly a case of the effects of splash damage. Which he apparently accepts in that case, but rejects when PZ & company try to have recourse to the same justification.
ME
That misrepresents my point.
Calling Fred a “Whinging Pommie” I know is tapping in to an Aussie stereotype that the English are all a bunch of whinging bastards. I am English so I am aware the implication is that the person making the slur regards Englishmen, such as myself, as a whinging bastard.
The argument of Myers et al is that the same holds true of words like twat. I do not have a twat but I have a prick and an asshole. If you call Fred an asshole there is zero, zilch, nada implication that everyone who has an asshole possesses the negative characteristics associated with the remark. There are two reasons for this:
1) As we both agreed, the negatives attributes suggested neither apply to real assholes, nor are intended to.
2) Possessing an asshole is different to being one. I AM a Pommie, so the insinuation that Pommies whinge hits me as a Pommie. Even if Fred’s critic literally thought that assholes (by which I mean anuses) were literally possessing the flaws he claims of Fred the fact remains I am not an asshole, I merely possess one.
The very worst you could claim justifiably from Myers rationale is that twat owners (women) and prick owners (men) possess flawed genitalia.
So i wholly object to your claim that I am being inconsistent in my claims regarding whinging Pommieness whilst decrying Myers claims regarding gendered slurs
PS: In reality I couldn’t give a damn about being called a whinging pom but that is because I am thick- skinned, not because my reasons relating to the arguments I made.
Shatterface (#334):
In your idiosyncratic view for which you haven’t managed to adduce any evidence in support. And largely because you apparently insist on denying the mechanism of splash damage in the case of the former, but on accepting it in the latter.
And that the latter is “directed at black people” is no justification for thinking that if it is directed at one black person then that means that it is necessarily directed at all black people. Except maybe bias or obtuseness or dogmatism.
Steersman,
Just read a couple more comments (your Canuck reply especially) and wanted to add this.
You are a nigger/fag (as an insult) means that to be those things AS A PERSON is a bad thing.
Niggers and fags (and Canucks) ARE people.
You are a twat/prick/asshole means to be those things AS A PERSON is a bad thing.
Twats, pricks and assholes ARE NOT people.
Twats/pricks make for great genitals on women/men but they are wanting as an entire human being.
Assholes are great for shitting out of – I wouldn’t want to be without mine – but they would not cut the mustard as a whole individual person.
Is this differentiation really too obscure for you to grasp or accept as hugely relevant?
I feel totally out my depth in this company.
Only Myers and Christina have banned me from their blogs. Zvan, Benson and Thibeaut hold all my comments in moderation witha view to letting just enough through to make me look an idiot ahould I choose to comment (ie respond to my comment then block my further replies so it looks like I can’t answer their criticisms. Needless to say, this effectively amounts to a ban in reality as there is no way I can post under those conditions.
Noelplum99 (#342):
That is, tentatively at least, a reasonable question. Which I’ll try to address in lieu of responding to your previous comment as I think your later one highlights my objections to it more effectively.
However, while I think that is, tentatively, a reasonable question, I don’t see it as an accurate distinction. For instance, you say “Niggers and fags (and Canucks) ARE people”, but that is manifestly not the case: those are labels and stereotypes which entail or encompass some negative attributes – they may be applicable to some individuals, but not necessarily to all. If someone is accused of being those then why would anyone want to rush in and accept the designation, particularly absent any evidence it’s true? You might wish to take a close look at this example from James Baldwin in the definition (1):
The term entails and manifests a stereotype, albeit a somewhat obscure one. But stereotypes (2), in their nature, generally apply to some segment of an entire population: discrimination and prejudice to insist that all should be so judged; simple logic to realize some can be.
But you might also take a gander at the “Map-territory relation” article (3) from Wikipedia as I think it suggests another differentiation that you’re losing sight of.
—
1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nigger”;
2) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype”;
3) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation”;
@Steersman
The response you have just made to me reads much more like a defence of the argument you are having with others here, that these words are not necessarily slurs, than the bone of contention between you and I which is whether the arguments used to claim words like nigger and fag cause splash damage logically ports across to words like twat and prick.
Noelplum (#347):
Not sure how to parse that. Assuming your “these words” refer to “words like nigger and fag”, I accept that they are slurs and insults. And I might point out that neither the definition for “slur” or “insult” suggests they necessarily apply to entire classes. But I question whether when they are directed at an individual it is justified to say that they are necessarily being directed at all other individuals who share some common elements suggested by the terms themselves.
Noelplum (#347):
Further, I wasn’t and am still not sure about your “port” comment as a synopsis of that “bone of contention, as I think it misconstrues my argument – or at least incorrectly describes it. To emphasize again, I accept that Myers is claiming splash damage with twat and prick at least, although most of the Horde deny it for asshole (Cripdyke [sp?] being a notable exception). But, as mentioned, I think that an unwarranted assumption, at least in most cases, although I can see a mechanism – mirror-neurons – by which they might get that impression.
However, my argument is that the same mechanism that is active in that misinterpretation of twat and prick – which you apparently accept in principle though you haven’t said anything about how the principle might be manifested or implemented – is also active in what appears to me also as cases of splash damage: an insult (fag, nigger) clearly directed at an individual being misinterpreted as applying to all in a class.
Aneris ✻ @313
Christ, what an insightful comment. So convinced am I of its prescience, that I intend to hold onto it and shove it in their faces when, as is almost certain to happen, it proves out.
What you are doing is basically arguing that the meaning of a word (and thus the amount of damage it may or may not create) is ultimately defined by its etymology.
This is an old, discredited linguistic theory that is ultimately based on the “strong Shapiro-Worf hypothesis”, namely that linguistic features such as “etymology” limit and determine cognitive features such as “meaning”.
If the strong Shapiro-Worf hypothesis were right, the SJWs would have a point: using “twat” as an insult would irrevocably shape our perceptions of vaginas as possessing bad qualities, and therefore might give a negative connotation to our concept of women.
The problem is that the strong Shapiro-Worf hypothesis has been completely discredited by several cognitive, statistical and neurological studies. It turns out that thought shapes language much more than language shapes thought.
For example, people who speak a language where there is only a word for all the shades of blue and green (let’s call this word “bleen”) are still able to tell apart blue from green. They’re even able to recognize different shades of blue and green, although they might need some specific qualifiers to name them (i.e. “leaf bleen” or “sky bleen”)
Nowadays most linguists define the cognitive feature of “meaning” from the practical data of “language use”.
In other words, “twat” acquires different meanings according to its use.
The fact that it can be used in a insulting way doesn’t necessarily shape our perception of its other use, i.e. a vulgar term for a female reproductive organ.
It’s much more likely than the opposite thing happened: the religious taboos about openly discussing one’s sexuality and sexual life created the idea that sexual words and words that referred to the human reproductive anatomy carried a negative connotation (a cognitive feature) and therefore could be used to assign as negative connotation to individuals (a linguistic feature).
This hypothesis is supported by the fact that other word that belong to the sphere of reproductive organs sexuality are used as insults or expletives (i.e. “dick”, “fuck”, etc.).
Statistically speaking, “twat” is generally seen as worse insult than “dick”. Different hypotheses could explain this fact: either female genitals were seen as “more dirty” than male genitals, or female sexuality was shamed more frequently than male sexuality, or else there might be a historic development we’re missing.
So it’s possible that the fact that “twat” is more offensive than “dick” have a misogynistic origin. However while this explains the differences in practical meaning between “twat” and “dick” it doesn’t necessary imply that by using “twat” as worse than “dick” our brains are trained to classify vaginas as worse than penises.
In layman’s terms, you don’t become a misogynist or get others to become misogynists simply by using “twat” as an insult because no matter what PZ and the third wave feminists may think most people don’t use “twat” as misogynistic slur, but only as a general insult to both men and women.
The reason why “twat” is a stronger insult than “dick” might be a misogynistic one, but this is mostly irrelevant to its current practical meaning.
Words reflect social concepts, they hardly (if ever) change them.
The LGBT community, for example, successfully changed through continuous use the meaning of word “gay” (which used to mean “happy” and thereofe carry a very positive connotation) into “someone who is sexually attracted to their own sex”.
They probably hoped that some of the positive connotations of “gay” would rub off on the new meaning.
However it’s hard to argue that this change alone significantly reduced the homophobic attitudes of the community at large. Homophobes were quick to attach new negative connotations to word “gay”, which is now sometimes used an insult.
The social attitudes towards the LGBT community improved only through the activism of the community itself. Changing the meaning of “gay” wan’t enough.
The word “nigger”, on the other hand, has had a very different history.
Its connotation was when it was first used was most likely a neutral one: it referred to the differences in skin tone between people of European and of Sub-Saharian ancestry.
However, for a series of historic reasons, “nigger” acquired through use a very precise meaning, namely “a dehumanizing insult directed at people of evident Sub-Saharian ancestry”.
People who have evident Sub-Saharian ancestry use the word with a different meaning, namely “a neutral or even endearing term to refer to a member of my ethnic group, but only when used by members of my ethnic group”.
Since, once again, the meaning of a word is defined only through use, “nigger” is a racist slur because most people perceive it as a racist slur, unless it’s used by member of a specific community to refer to themselves or other members of the same community.
Every argument based on linguistic features, such as the etymology of a word, falls flat when confronted with the reality of language use.
Language is an ever-changing tool used for communication, whose rules change when society changes, and very rarely (if ever) vice versa.
Most people do not perceive “twat” as a sexist slur, therefore it’s not a sexist slur. Most people do perceive “nigger” as a racist slur, therefore it’s a racist slur. It’s as simple as that.
Thing may change in the future, and they may change through the SJW activism which might get people to see “twat” as a sexist slur.
But there is no “inherently sexist” meaning in the word “twat”, because words have no “inherent” meaning. If you could get enough people to agree with you could change the meaning of a word overnight.
This is why the SJWs are so hell-bent about saying that “twat” is a sexist slur. They hope that if they repeat this concept enough times and shame others for using it eventually most people will agree with them.
Kirbmarc (#351):
Interesting observations and useful information; quite agree with your comment about SJW’s being “hell-bent”.
However, I tend to disagree with this:
That we used to “think”, “to perceive”, the sun revolving around the earth doesn’t mean that that is particularly accurate or a useful way of looking at things. That they “perceive” those epithets those ways doesn’t mean that that is what they are. Necessary, I think, to consider what is happening underneath the hood – synecdoche & mirror-neurons being the best candidates that I can think of.
Also, you said:
Seems to me your definition of “nigger” relies on etymology – “the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time”.
Maybe I’m doing so to some extent, but the general connotations of words seems to depend on those historical connections & contexts about which we can generally do little, but which we must take into consideration. How we interpret them, what conclusions we draw from their use, is something that should be amendable to some degree through reason & analysis.
If you believe that merely uttering or hearing “twat” turned you into a raging misogynist, then you have to believe that somehow, the US was a bastion of racial harmony between white folks and black folks until someone said “nigger” and then it all went to hell.
This is of course, stupid, and completely unsupported by any form of fact.
By the same token you would expect that through the practice of effectively banning the use of the word “nigger” in most situations that there should have been a radical lessening of racism in this country towards black people, and that race relations in the US are at an all time high. Similarly, because of the conversion of “fag(got)” into “f-word” homophobia is at an all time low.
Nope, again, stupid and unsupported.
The humor of the thing is that as several famous and famous-ish folks in this country who are black have pointed out, racist assholes simply performed a rather neat pivot and so now, instead of “nigger” they use “thug”.
Same shit, different word.
So now what, “thug” becomes the “t-word”? And then the racist assholes pivot again and find another word and the SJWs all run in a fucking perpetual circle trying to ban word after word until our entire vocabulary consists of tonal variations on 26 fucking words: a-word, b-word, etc.
Banning words does nothing, not a *thing* to make a misogynist less misogynistic, or a racist less racist. They’ll just change the word they use, but not their behavior.
The entire thing, the entire thing is “harmony theater” where, instead of doing the hard, long work to see why people cling to racism, etc. so goddamned hard, we say “YOU CAN’T USE THAT WORD” and then pat ourselves on the back for being so bloody helpful, and the only thing that changes is the arm we use to perform our little social justice circle jerk.
Steers, that’s a bit of a bad analogy. The orbit of the sun and the earth are actual things. They don’t change their basic function based on who is talking about them. You’re either referencing them correctly (heliocentric) or you are not (everything that is not heliocentric.)
The “slur-ness” of a word is based on the attitude and worldview of the sender and the recipient(s). If neither consider it a slur, then it isn’t. if one does but not the other, then it is only a slur to that one person. if it is a slur to all sides, then it’s a slur. Within that specific group.
For example, I’m not offended by words in and of themselves, so barring one I’ve never heard being so completely horrible that I cannot abide by it, there’s not a word out there you can use as an effective slur against me when it comes to my reaction to it.
If you call me an asslicking dogfucker, I might be impressed that you took more time than usual to come up with something less trite than your average stevedore, but I’m not going to be offended by it. So it’s only a slur to you, and possibly others in range. But i’d not be able to call it that, I just don’t interpret it that way.
So there’s no bright shiny line, there’s no objective truth, no one true opinion. People who travel to non-western european countries are shocked to find Mein Kampf for sale right in the open without anyone calling it evil. Because as it turns out, for much of the world, Hitler is something that (literally) happened to someone else. So they aren’t going to react to it the same.
I’m pretty sure the people of Israel don’t have the same reaction to the Japan of WWII as the people of Korea and China do. But then, having your grandmother forced to be a whore for the japanese army will give you a vastly different opinion than reading about “Comfort Women” in a history book about a place on the other side of the world.
Over and over we see that. Conflicts that have no real impact here are huge issues in the places where they are happening, and vice-versa.
This is something theophontes et al refuse, and I am convinced it is deliberate, to acknowledge: that offense, and lack thereof are personal issues. They are not like the color blue in an RGB or CYMK color model. They are not hard facts that are true for all.
Which is probably 99% of the problem in the end.
This isn’t a particularly accurate or useful analogy. Unlike physical entities such as the sun, language is a social tool which is, to a large degree, socially constructed.
While the general structure of languages (what is technically called “syntax”) depends on the physical properties of the human brain, the cognitive features associated to language, or in layman’s terms the “meaning of words”, are almost entirely socially constructed, either through the natural evolution of social trends or, especially in recent times, through the deliberate action of some social groups.
Humans cannot alter the orbit of the earth with their social abilities, however they can change the meaning of a word through repeated use, peer pressure, censorship, moralizing or other social tactics.
The example of the word “gay” springs to mind.
The concept of “racial slur” as something different from a mere insult is clearly a social construct. It is therefore a vain enterprise to try to find out which words are “real” slurs on theoretical basis, because the answer is simply that insults are slurs if a specific society believes they’re slurs and enforces laws or unwritten rules against their use on the basis of what the SJW call “splash damage”.
Not at all. The current meaning of a words are defined by its current use, not by their history. Etymology is useful to understand WHY a certain word acquired a certain meaning, but it is not necessary to understand its meaning.
In my post I made this clear when talking about the word “twat”. Its etymology might reveal some previous misogynistic reasons behind its current meaning, but the current use of the word is divorced by its history.
(I was less clear when talking about the word “nigger”, for which I apologize)
“Twat” isn’t a slur because it isn’t used as a slur, i.e. to identify and demean a specific subset of society. While its negative connotation might have misogynistic reasons behind it (although that’s far from certain), the fact that it is used against both men and women shows that in its current use it has no longer a sexist connotation.
@ Steersman
With regard to the term “nigger”, you say
This hits the nail on the head, apart from the assertion that “nigger” is in some way an obscure sterotype.
You go on to say,
The article you quote says, “Stereotype content refers to the attributes that people think characterize a group.” This is the salient point. When the word “nigger” is used by a white person, it is insulting and racist because the implication is that the target is inferior by virtue of belonging to the class of people (i.e. black) characterized by certain stereotypical attributes. (I’m excluding the use of the word, between black individuals where no such stereotypical attributes are implied). It’s not possible to refer to someone as a “nigger” without invoking these implied attributes, in effect tarring all black people with the same brush. The word has no other semantic content. By the same token, it is not possible for one white person to refer to another as a “nigger” apart from in some metaphorical sense such as “Woman is the nigger of the world”
As Kirbmarc points out, common usage is what determines semantic content. Etymology is of historic interest. If you are in any doubt, why not pop up to Harlem or your local black neighbourhood and start using the word nigger? Good luck with your attempts to argue that it’s not meant as a racist slur.
Count me among those many who consider Justin Vacula a true friend and ally. Justin is out there fighting day-in & day-out for church-state separation, for equal rights for atheists, against state-sponsored prayer.
By all accounts, and by my impression, Justin is an intelligent, polite, personable, dedicated young man, someone I’m proud to have representing secularists.
Justin was vilified by the Plussers for “stalking” (sic) them to the 2013 Empowering Women Through Secularism conference. Yet Justin’s daily reports on the proceedings were lucid & informative, and eagerly followed by many. While there, Justin conducted, in an highly professional manner, two interviews with guest speakers: Flemish parliamentarian Ann Brusseel, and AI member Catherine O’Brien. (I was honored to transcribe the O’Brien interview, and came out very impressed with both Justin’s interviewing skills, and especially with Catherine’s reason and clarity of vision.)
http://justinvacula.com/2013/06/30/ann-brusseel-disagreement-with-sinead-kennedy-ewts2013/
http://justinvacula.com/2013/07/07/transcript-of-catherine-obrien-interview/
I find it absolutely atrocious that the misanthropic, do-nothing slackivist, Stephanie Svan, has engaged in a protracted vendetta against Justin of the most vile nature. The Plusser smears against Justin are no less vindictive or mendacious than any of their countless others.
A/S activism in the US is, in many ways, stuck in a rut by the side of the road. Earnest, motivated young activists like Justin Vacula offer a chance to reinvigorate the cause. Yet the SJW zealots seek to hamstring them at every turn.
@ John Welch #353 Spot on. Changing or banning certain words does not, in and of itself, change social attitudes. However, I do think it can contribute to raising awareness.
@Kirbmarc
Exactly!
BTW can anyone think of a sexist word that can be applied to all women comparable to “nigger” for black people? I can’t
Steersman (addressing me)
In your idiosyncratic view for which you haven’t managed to adduce any evidence in support. And largely because you apparently insist on denying the mechanism of splash damage in the case of the former, but on accepting it in the latter.
Do you actually know what the word ‘idiosyncratic’ means? It means specific to one person. That’s pretty much the definition of your word games.
Absolutely nobody but you uses the word ‘nigger’ as a synechdoche for skin colour when addressing one individual black person in the expectation other black people would think ‘Hey, it’s okay – he’s just talking about Joe’. No-fucking-body uses the word that way; you are unique on the universe.
Language is a means of communication. Communication implies more than one person. What you are doing is not ‘language’ because it doesn’t involve other people; it’s just going on in your head.
If nobody uses words in the sense you do those words have no meaning beyond you. If you need a word that serves the purpose of ‘nigger’ according to your uses of the word you might as well use ‘wibble’ so that nobody who overhears you accidentally interprets the word ‘nigger’ the way every other speaker of English would.
Even the bizarre contortions Myers’ baboons put words through means something to them – even if it’s garbage to outsiders.
And you are using ‘mirror neurons’ the way Deepak Chopra uses ‘quantum healing’. ‘Mirror neurons’ activate when you witness an action being performed by somebody else and since your language use is idiosyncratic it’s doubtful mirror neurons are involved.
Slurs aren’t like the orbit of the sun; they’re like currency.
The Earth orbiting the Sun is a brute fact; the fact that money has exchange value is a social fact.
If people stop believing the Earth orbits the sun the Earth continues to orbit the sun; if they cease to believe in the exchange value of money, money ceases to have value. We know this because it happens.
Same with slurs; so long as people take them as slurs they still have ‘currency’. It’s possible to devalue a slur by overusing it – the way Myers is doing with ‘rape apologist’, etc. or undermining the reinvest it with new meaning like gay activists did by taking back ‘queer’ – but you can no more change the value unilaterally than you can unilaterally declare there’s only 50p to the pound.
john welch in #353 & #354: Yes. This. You hit the nail on the head, IMO.
And Shatterface in #360: Now that’s an analogy that works for this topic (again, IMO).
Steersman, many of us know this topic (& your line of argument) is one that’s near & dear to your heart…or at least one that you can be reliably drawn into
– however it doesn’t look like you’re finding converts to your position. Maybe give it a rest until it comes up in another venue, perhaps with a new crop of folks to try it out on? 
Anyone who watched this weeks QI – and there’s never an excuse for missing it – would have heard Rev. Richard Coles use the word ‘twat’ twice to comic effect.
Yes, that’s right: Reverend Richard Coles, the openly gay and frequently amusing Church of England Priest, used the word ‘twat’ twice on Britain’s brainiest comedy show.
And Shatterface in #360: Now that’s an analogy that works for this topic (again, IMO).
Thanks. The words ‘undermining the’ should have been edited out though.
Shatterface (#360):
Of course the first is a brute fact. But my point was that erroneous perceptions and interpretations led to a conclusion, a social fact, that didn’t correspond to that.
Skep tickle (#362):
Shatterface (#359):
Actually, the definition (1) says “peculiar to an individual or a group”. Which in this case and in your words are those who argue “There isn’t an analogy between ‘twat’ and ‘n*gger’” as that was the point under discussion.
I’ll concede it’s a bit of a conjecture, an unproven hypothesis, although I wonder what you in your great wisdom would offer as an alternate hypothesis. But the article (2) I linked to earlier – and which you apparently didn’t bother to even glance at – makes these salient and relevant points:
While mirror-neurons may not be the whole story underlying the phenomenon of empathy, I would say that that is rather clearly the basis for the identification by many “feminists” when they see a woman called a twat, and by many black people when they see a black person called “the n-word”. And for much of the resulting rather problematic “identity politics”.
—-
1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idiosyncratic”;
2) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron”;
Steersman #366
Are you referring to the current feud here (& elsewhere) about the origin, meaning, and hierarchy of various insulting terms, or are you referring to the larger freethought/”freethought” feud? It gets so hard to tell – sometimes I feel like a feud map would be a handy guide.
Those interested in etymology & evolution of word use/meaning over time may be interested in this post on “words you didn’t know were rude”, including tidbits such as:
a) sycophant being (in origin, at least) a “powerfully obscene term” understood in ancient Greece to imply (figuratively, at least) showing the vulva, and
b) occupy having “[fallen] from polite usage entirely” in the 16th, 17th, & possibly 18th centuries, as remarked by Shakespeare in Henry IV, Part 2; the fall of that word from grace was due to a “now obsolete vulgar” meaning it had acquired starting in the 15th century, which has been lost in modern usage
Interesting stuff.
Skep tickle (#368):
Sorry I wasn’t more clear – what I had in mind was “The Great Rift”, much of which seems motivated by problematic and dogmatic branches of “feminism” which, in turn, seems partly motivated by a sociological insistence on “The Blank Slate”.
But maybe part of all that is the issue of gendered insults and the claim, made with some justification, that their overuse or prevalence is a reflection of some highly questionable sexism.
John Welch (#354):
Generally agree with all of that. But I think the point in all of it is the question of whether people should be necessarily getting their knickers in twists if someone else is insulted by a term that references an attribute or bodily feature that they share with the person insulted. Really seems a question of identity politics, and that those who insist on that response are little more than rabble-rousers & demagogues.
Actually, the definition (1) says “peculiar to an individual or a group”.
You aren’t part of a group.
Unless you and a twin grew up in a cellar entirely cut off from other English speakers and you developed your own pidgin language between you this meaning of the word ‘nigger’ is entirely unique to you. It’s an idiosyncratic use of the word ‘nigger’ that has no basis in shared language.
The relationship between the sounds or symbols of a word and the meaning is a matter of convention . There’s no conventional meaning between the sounds and symbols of ‘nigger’ and the meaning you are attributing to it.
You aren’t using it as language.
John Greg @ 319
Thank you thank you *bows deeply and falls over own self-importance* Luckily for me I have never felt the slightest urge to step into that den of sniping weasels (my apologies to all decent weasels for the comparison). I realise that I am just a rookie though, amongst all you banhammered (and mealy-moderated) veterans. Signed, Carrie “the Rape Apologist”.
Thanks also to Steersman. I agree with your basic point here:
Yes, I am of the opinion that, for instance, Theo simply dropped his post in here so as to add another twig to the SJWs’ “Michael Fawkes” bonfire and, possibly, to obscure the real message of Michael’s post.
John Welch 354
Yes! This, absolutely. And nobody has the right to not be offended and to squash the offending words.
Shatterface @ 363Yes! I laughed more than usual at that QI; the Rev.Richard Coles’ words seemed so very apropos.
Skep tickle, fascinating etymological link, thanks! Just to add a dig to the “naughty words” feud, I used to have a golliwog that I loved dearly; it never occurred to me that it was any kind of a racial object. It just happened to be black, not purple or pink or grey or brown. I lived at the time in a place full of brown-skinned and “black”-skinned people, and none of them seemed to take offence at this white girl playing with a black cuddly toy. A jam jar had a golly on its label back then (IIRC you could collect them for a prize) and the Noddy books had naughty golliwogs. All of that has been whitewashed over of course. So are “golly” (which can mean other things too) and “golliwog” Bad Werdz? Are they even used in today’s world? Am I too archaic to actually be alive?
Shatterface @ 363Yes! I laughed more than usual at that QI; the Rev.Richard Coles’ words seemed so very apropos.
I love QI: it’s intellectual but rude, and atheists like Fry can interact with progressive Vicars like Coles without condescension, and the whole premise of the show is we don’t know as much as we think we do but it would be interesting to find out the truth.
It’s the antithesis of everything that’s going on in FTB.
Shatterface:
Didn’t say that I was. What I said was “In your [i.e., Shatterface’s] idiosyncratic view for which you [i.e., Shatterface] haven’t managed to adduce ….” If you’re going to be picky you might want to pay a bit more attention to what is actually being said and to whom.
Yes, I quite agree. But what I’m trying to do is to point out that some conventions don’t hold much water – you might take a gander at the Wikipedia article on “Conventional wisdom”, a term popularized by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1).
And, more particularly, I had wanted to point out that the efforts of Myers and company to establish the idea that calling one woman a twat is sexist because it calls all women that – the “Myers Doctrine ™” as a convention – aren’t particularly credible. Which a number of people here have also rejected (e.g., Kirbmarc, #351). But I had also wanted to argue that that case is analogous (2) to the self-serving umbrage and misplaced loyalty people tend to have when someone else is insulted with an ethnic slur of one sort or another.
—-
1) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom”;
2) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy”;
milesnagopaleen @ 358
I’m not sure that banning words raises awareness. pointing out to people that a word can be highly offensive to a group of people for and that maybe one should think twice before using the word would have the same effect, (raising awareness) without the inherent silliness that arises from banning:
Seriously, that banning crap doesn’t do anything good, it just makes everyone sound stupid.
@John Welch #358
I agree entirely. I was not advocating the banning of words.
was exactly what I meant to say, John. Of course, that does not mean that the word has to be expunged from the language.
There was a discussion on the radio a while ago in which someone was arguing that the works of Mark Twain should not be allowed in schools on the grounds that Twain was a racist for using the N-word in his books. This, of course, is idiocy and the speaker obviously knew nothing about Mark Twain or his works.
it’s even greater idiocy since in that case, Twain’s use of the word “Nigger” and showing how inhumanely people treated former slaves was deliberately meant to bluntly call out that behavior. He knew the word was offensive, that’s why he used it. To show how offensively people were behaving.
“Any waffle about the origin of the words is entirely irrelevant; etymology is a distractor. It’s fuck all to do with how words are actually used.”
In fact logicians have a name for this irrelevance, it’s called the ‘genetic fallacy’. Words mean what they are used to mean now and nothing else.
In fact logicians have a name for this irrelevance, it’s called the ‘genetic fallacy’. Words mean what they are used to mean now and nothing else.
There’s also ‘arguments from authority’ like random references to economists, linked to Wikipedia articles nobody is going follow because they’re irrelevant.
Yes, I quite agree. But what I’m trying to do is to point out that some conventions don’t hold much water – you might take a gander at the Wikipedia article on “Conventional wisdom”, a term popularized by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1).
All words are conventional. All of them. But words don’t work as words unless there’s some agreement about what they mean. You don’t agree with everyone else about the word ‘nigger’. I get that. Everybody fucking gets it. It doesn’t matter a shit.
Now go explain your theory to a bunch of black guys.
Shatterface (#380):
Everyone in your group who thinks that way, “gets it” that way – idiosyncratically. But virtually all dictionaries disagree with that argument. You might note – although I expect you won’t bother as you seem rather narrow-minded – that the “n-word” definition refers to a single solitary individual. As is the case for “gendered” epithets. For elaboration, you might check out this comment and conversation (1) in the Pit.
—-
1) “_http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=234522#p234522”;
If you only follow the definitions of meaning written in a dictionary you’re leaving out the very important social context in which words are used. Basically what you’re saying is that the whole field of pragmatics (1) is invalid.
This link (2) should be interesting to you. It’s a linguistic analysis of slurs, from a contextual/pragmatic point of view.
Quote from the link:
Slurs are derogatory epithets directed at entire classes of people. Slurs may target groups on the basis of race (‘nigger’ or ‘honky’), nationality (‘paki’), religion (‘kike’), gender (‘ho’), sexual orientation (‘faggot’), immigrant status (‘wetback’), culinary preferences (‘beaner’), or any other feature deemed salient.
Also worthy of interest is this linguistic observation:
There’s a discussion in the paper about whether slurs directly contain the meaning “person who ought to be subject to such-and-such discriminatory practices for having such-and- such stereotypical properties all because of belonging to such-and-such group” and their non-slur use from members of “such-and-such” group is ironical or whether slurs are simply deictic referents (i.e. they encode features of the context) and the implication that they’re offensive arises from the social context inhabited by the speakers and the hearers.
However no serious linguist would ever argue that the interpretation of the meaning of slurs should be confined to their dictionary definition and that the social context they’re used into is irrelevant. Language doesn’t work this way.
“Twat” or “cunt” aren’t slurs because no matter their original semantic meaning or their derogatory connotation, because they’re not used as slurs.
The offensiveness of “twat” and “cunt” doesn’t exceed the scope of the sentence they’re a part of. “Twat” and “cunt” are functionally embedded, since their offensiveness can be negated by logical operations such as negation.
For example, the sentence “John is a twat/cunt” is perceived as offensive towards John, while the sentence “John is not a twat/cunt” isn’t.
The offensiveness of “twat” and “cunt” also doesn’t exceed the scope of direct quotation. If Alice utters the sentence “Bob thinks that John is a twat/cunt”, the derogatory attitude towards John is attributed to Bob, not to Alice.
The offensiveness of “twat” and “cunt” also doesn’t infect morphologically similar words whose etymology and meaning are unrelated. Nobody is going to get offended from the use of “twattle” (an archaic dialectal English form of “twaddle”, idle talk) or Scunthorpe (a town in North Lincolnshire, England). Some people may snicker at these word, but nobody protests they use.
The fact that PZ Myers and the the Social Justicel League have decided to treat the words “twat” and “cunt” as if they were slur doesn’t make them slurs. They have to get the rest of the English-speaking world to agree with them first. Good luck with that.
__
(1)”_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics”;
(2)”_”http://www.academia.edu/7177806/On_the_Pragmatics_of_Slurs_Derogatory_Epithets_as_Instances_of_Social_Deixis;”
← Previous Comments