| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 03/30/2007 : 21:57:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote]
I also think that cunt is in a different category. It is valid to find it offensive and also to think that because some people may do so it should be avoided, but it is a separate issue because it does not describe a type of person (well...) and thus is not demeaning. For this reason I think it is also valid to not think it should be avoided, despite its offending some people.
You would probably feel differently were you American, where the term "silly cunt" is not generally used. To us it only has one meaning, only one connotation: the offensive one.
Perhaps...but not everyone considers it some truly horrible curseword that's the worst thing in the world you could possibly call someone. It's no worse than calling someone any other bad words.
Maybe not to you, and those differences are what make hoss races, but I remember having a discussion with some friends -- all Americans -- at a dinner party last summer, eight or ten people, and at one point we were trying to come up with the vilest word we could imagine. [I tried "Bush" at first, but I must not have gotten the point.]
This one was finally chosen, especially when used against a female. [Even Al Pacino shocks us when he uses it near the end of GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, but he's talking about Kevin Spacey, which mitigates it slightly, yet it's still uniquely pungent even after two hours of nonstop cursing!]
This is not to say that everybody feels this way, just that I can assure you more than one person does. I'll bet if we took a nationwide poll [no Brits allowed, because they use the word much more casually], this would come near or at the top.
Of course I don't know how "dirty" the British equivalent, "fanny," actually is, because I'm not part of that culture. I only discovered it's the equivalent from an ep of the Brit OFFICE. |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 22:51:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
"I'm not looking for a debate on offensive reviews."
--Yukon, at the beginning of this thread six pages ago.
 That's because whenever someone raises the issue of 'offense' they're guaranteed at least seven pages as everyone re-writes and re-states their points from the last thread on the topic. It happens pretty regularly, the only surprise this time is that the last one was only a couple of months ago. |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 22:53:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
I just want to say that I am one of those people who is really sensitive to certain material. It has no place in my life or my home and yet I do not rant about the reviews on this site or the way any of you choose to talk. Am I still offensive to you?
I interpreted that as "I don't use certain words and I don't allow my kids to use them, the rest of you can go ahead and use them but you should know I personally don't like it."
That sort of attitude is as far away from offensive as you can possibly get, Tori.  |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 22:53:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
I just want to say that I am one of those people who is really sensitive to certain material. It has no place in my life or my home and yet I do not rant about the reviews on this site or the way any of you choose to talk. Am I still offensive to you?
Sure aren't, and your tolerance is admirable. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 22:54:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
I just want to say that I am one of those people who is really sensitive to certain material. It has no place in my life or my home and yet I do not rant about the reviews on this site or the way any of you choose to talk. Am I still offensive to you?
I can't imagine you offending anyone.  |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 01:05:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
But I'm not sure why you brought this up? The discussion was about the words used to name 'groups' of people and the response of those groups.
Only as a point of interest in passing, since we were talking about people's response to that word. I was clear that I think the word is fine to use in practice for people who have been in a place the longest. Indeed, this is the only sense in which it can be used usefully, since as we've said only some Africans are indigenous to anywhere. Further, it would actually be better if people did not associate indigenous rights with people's very long history in a place. Being the first settlers is far more important a characteristic. For example, should the Aborigines have any more rights than the Maoris? I don't think so (apart from in places where they subjugated other people). Indeed, as I've said, I think even the Chagossians should be treated on essentially the same basis. But beyond even peoples, the strongest rights come from where one is born (although I would extend this to where one should have been born had one's parents or forefathers not been forced elsewhere). For example, I haven't the slightest clue how long my family has been in Britain and I think it makes no difference.
When it comes to the rights of aboriginal people everywhere there is a common theme - oppression, lack of respect for culture and language, and associated poverty and dysfunction in modern societies that don't want to acknowledge them. Yes, even the 'indigenous' African groups are marginilised in their countries. Your comments deny indigenous people everywhere the right to say 'you invaded our land and you treated us like shit - now help us save what's left of what you tried to destroy'.
Aboriginal people in Australia have the longest, uninterrupted cultural connection to the land in the world. There was no-one on the land before them. After the first movement of humans south and onto the land, earthquakes separated the 'island' and apart from some trading off the north coast with Macassans, and visits by exploring Chinese and others, there has been no other major influence on Aboriginal culture until the Brits turned up. There were hundreds of different tribes and languages spread right through the country. They didn't 'invade' anybody - but boy were they invaded.
Indigenous African cultures are not as old. There is not a direct correlation between 'epicentre of evolution' and 'indigenous'.
I agree with Whippersnapper's interpreration of 'culture' being at the core of being identified as 'indigenous'. It is. They are cultures much more connected to place than yours or mine, though, and they are living oral cultures. In Australia, cultures will have changed in 50,000 years, sure. Especially since there was movement down the continent over that period of time and more groups separated and created their own identities - based on the land they lived on. There are stories that tell of geological events, such as earthquakes, which have been passed on orally for thousands of years. These are the kind of things people use to classify 'indigenous', not first settlement.
And just my personal aside - when the 'first settlers' arrived in Australia they weren't the first, were they? In this country the terrible lie of Terra Nullius (no man's land) reaped havoc on the Aboriginal people. The aboriginal people in North America had similar experiences, although not backed by law. Your suggestion that the Chagossians are indigenous is something I would not agree with (whatever race they were). I believe the plight of slave ancestors worldwide is a different issue. My view is that the cultures came with the displaced people and they tried to maintain that. The Chagossians certainly have the right to claim prior settlement, and they were treated horrendously and deserve compensation for that.
I respect that you are putting forward your opinion on how you would classify indigenous, but it is flawed when I look at my experience, and I think a bit academic/dehumanised for that reason. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 21:07:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote]
I also think that cunt is in a different category. It is valid to find it offensive and also to think that because some people may do so it should be avoided, but it is a separate issue because it does not describe a type of person (well...) and thus is not demeaning. For this reason I think it is also valid to not think it should be avoided, despite its offending some people.
You would probably feel differently were you American, where the term "silly cunt" is not generally used. To us it only has one meaning, only one connotation: the offensive one.
Sorry - I didn't mean that it isn't (necessarily) an extremely rude word to use. I just meant that it was different to rudeness that is based on categorising people. While some people may feel that the latter is no worse or even not as bad, I cannot really relate to that. This doesn't mean that I swear much myself - indeed, I do so sufficiently rarely that people tend to assume I am against it. The truth is that I am just indifferent - except to terms which are demeaning. This doesn't mean that I think it is reasonable to use other terms, that may happen to offend people, for no good reason. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 21:18:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I don't care if that word offends someone, the joke is solid.
This falls back on the oft-repeated, but never backed up, idea here that humour is a separate thing, not part of normal life or language.
Not sure what you're trying to say I'm saying, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't actually say that.
Hhmmm, I think you did. You said that the humour justified offending someone.
quote:
Rest assured, there is no separation between my jokes and my normal life and language; I use terms like cunt, fag, dyke, and spic whenever I feel it is appropriate. It's all in the intent, I say; usually I use them as friendly terms.
This is still a separation, though. In jokes, you are using the term despite its being offensive. At other times, you are doing so in this claimed 'friendly' way. I don't actually agree that the latter is truly valid, though. Those words have meanings which do not just evaporate because your supposed intent is to be friendly. napper will no doubt bang on about me trying to dictate language here, but I am not. I am describing it. Words come with nuances and consequences. Thoughts do not pass through the ether by magic. We have been through all this a hundred times, but I'll do it again if need be.
quote:
Besides which, a keystone of humor is the violation of taboos. I happen to know the difference between a good joke and a repulsive expression of hatred.
You talk as though the first is a given (i.e. that everyone considers this acceptable) and as though the latter is a black-and-white issue. If you use terms about groups of people (to which you do not belong) that have demeaning origins, then you are being demeaning - maybe not to a high degree, but still.
quote:
I'm saying that so-called taboo words can be used for reasons besides demeaning categories of existence etc etc.
No they cannot - not by people outside those groups anyway. By this I don't mean that you cannot have any other meaning in addition, but the demeaning meaning is there and cannot be eradicated by you. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/31/2007 21:20:34 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 21:37:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
I respect that you are putting forward your opinion on how you would classify indigenous, but it is flawed when I look at my experience, and I think a bit academic/dehumanised for that reason.
No, definitely not. I mentioned the technical meaning as a point of interest only and clearly stated that it is fine to in practice use it to mean whoever was there first. Indeed, it is important to recognise that we are using it in the latter sense, in order to have any real understanding of the issue in question.
All this got combined with the separate area of where one's rights come from, and I maintain that by far the most important thing with regard to rights is one's own life. Otherwise, we get into the mentality that there are two types of people in the world - indigenous and non-indigenous. In reality, there are just people. What about all the people who are not indigenous to anywhere? What land do they get? None, that's what. (Please don't misinterpret this as being similar to a racist attitude of "Why should those good-for-nothings get any land?"!) When it comes down to the hard facts, what mystical right does anyone have to any land? (To be honest, without being too communist, I'm not sure that inheritance is really a philosophically viable concept at all.) The problem with the who-was-there-first notion is cases like Northern Ireland and Israel etc. etc. Some people were there first and then some other people were there. They were both there just the same. It's no one's fault what their forefathers did. So yes, there are some extreme cases like the Aborigines and Eskimos [N.B. I am intentionally not using Inuit], where there is a lot of land and their cultures should be able to be protected without too many problems. (Australia just has a very bad attitude to native languages - and also to understanding what it does and doesn't own viz. Norfolk Island.) But most other cases are far harder. My personal culture has just existed for me from when I was born and it is the same for everyone else. Sure, people's history can be important to them if they like, but a person's culture stretching back a long way does not make it more important than for an individual whose culture doesn't. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 22:28:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote]
I also think that cunt is in a different category. It is valid to find it offensive and also to think that because some people may do so it should be avoided, but it is a separate issue because it does not describe a type of person (well...) and thus is not demeaning. For this reason I think it is also valid to not think it should be avoided, despite its offending some people.
You would probably feel differently were you American, where the term "silly cunt" is not generally used. To us it only has one meaning, only one connotation: the offensive one.
Sorry - I didn't mean that it isn't (necessarily) an extremely rude word to use. I just meant that it was different to rudeness that is based on categorising people. While some people may feel that the latter is no worse or even not as bad, I cannot really relate to that. This doesn't mean that I swear much myself - indeed, I do so sufficiently rarely that people tend to assume I am against it. The truth is that I am just indifferent - except to terms which are demeaning. This doesn't mean that I think it is reasonable to use other terms, that may happen to offend people, for no good reason.
Huh? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 23:45:24
|
Sorry if I wasn't clear. All I mean is that it is nothing to do with different cultures. I just think that terms which demean groups of people (other than groups defined by people's choices) are by definition worse than any other terms. This doesn't mean that I think those other terms are just dandy to use on any old occasion, but there are definitely occasions when they are a justifiable outlet for anger or in which they would not be offensive. In the latter case, this would be when none of the participants are offended by them. The terms which refer to groups of people demeaningly are offensive even when none of the participants themselves are offended by them.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 00:05:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The terms which refer to groups of people demeaningly are offensive even when none of the participants themselves are offended by them.
Offensive even if nobody's offended? So, even though nobody is offended, it's still offensive?
I think 2+2=4, not 7.37856  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 00:12:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The terms which refer to groups of people demeaningly are offensive even when none of the participants themselves are offended by them.
Offensive even if nobody's offended? So, even though nobody is offended, it's still offensive?
Yes, because it involves an offensive opinion. People of course should have the freedom to have offensive opinions, but the opinions are still wrong. Thus, if some mysogenistic men in private say to each other "Women are not as good as men", that is still offensive, both in theory and in practice (they are cementing ideas which will affect their behaviour elsewhere). Exactly the same goes for offensive terminology. |
|
|
|
roger_thornhill 
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 06:00:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The terms which refer to groups of people demeaningly are offensive even when none of the participants themselves are offended by them.
Offensive even if nobody's offended? So, even though nobody is offended, it's still offensive?
Yes, because it involves an offensive opinion. People of course should have the freedom to have offensive opinions, but the opinions are still wrong. Thus, if some mysogenistic men in private say to each other "Women are not as good as men", that is still offensive, both in theory and in practice (they are cementing ideas which will affect their behaviour elsewhere). Exactly the same goes for offensive terminology.
I agree with Salopian 100%. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 11:40:54
|
Yep, me too. People with ignorant or incorrect or 'nasty' beliefs are still ignorant or incorrect or nasty whether they vocalise their beliefs or not.
So does this mean that everyone finally agrees about everything?  |
Edited by - Sean on 04/02/2007 00:12:22 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Calling a spade a spade
