So congratulations to you on picking up on the fact that humans are sympathetic to each other and are aware that some words are more powerful than others at different times.
Is it just me, or do these two statements contradict themselves?
How so?
edited 7th Jun '12 5:22:31 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartBasically, point one says that being greatly offended by a word is somewhat your own fault. Then, point two says that some words are inherently more powerful than others. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but the point that he and Drunk seemed to be agreeing on was that words lose their power when not aimed at a particular epithet.
But that's kind of circular logic. The entire point to a word is that it has power within context. You don't have to create context to give those words power—by what the very word means, "nigger" is going to be more powerful when said to a black person and "cunt" or "whore" when said to a woman. From what I gather, they said these words will lose power when said to many different types of people (such as using "nigger" for whites or "whore/cunt" for men), which I question. Likewise, if you tell a "Yo Mama" joke to someone whose mother just died in the hospital, it doesn't matter how many times it's been used in the past or to how many people: within that context, the victim might just fuck you up.
edited 7th Jun '12 5:30:42 AM by KingZeal
So anyway, we've got people who think using a word with strong implications of "...like a woman" as a derogatory term is sexist and the strongest counter argument is that it's not sexist because basically "quit being so thin skinned, suck it up and cope when I insult you."
Then we've got the "Insults are insulting" camp, who seem to think they're bringing some kind of new information to the table. This just in: The sky is blue and two plus two is four.
Did I miss anything?
edited 7th Jun '12 7:34:01 AM by Paul3
What's you're essentially advocating is Appeal to Popularity, wherein a majority of people would get to define which sorts of statements justify violence in retaliation and which don't. This is a form of implicit censorship.
2. Would you say the same for someone of a minority saying "cracker" or "honky"?
edited 7th Jun '12 8:29:12 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartI still don't get why some "censorship" gets people so het up. Enforcing socially responsible behaviour and views isn't censorship if you do it right and ensure lawful checks and balances.
You'd think it was a dirty word, or something. It's like "monarchy" gets some people frothy at the mouth. Or "socialism".
It's how you do something that counts, not the name of it. Libertarianism that harms a significant proportion of the population and squashes their opinions however indirectly ain't liberal, for example.
Assuming that they're repeatable and have observable patterns? Because that's how laws are supposed to work in the first place.
Touching, however, does constitute an "uncomfortable", "unsafe" or "hostile" environment, depending on context.
Violence is never completely justified by law. There are still limitations to it. However, this is also placing culpability on the person who incites violence and not merely the one who initiates it.
edited 7th Jun '12 8:59:41 AM by KingZeal
Hell, even the war on drugs doesn't make excuses for violence against all who criticize it.
Hell, even the war on drugs doesn't make excuses for violence against all who criticize it.
Yeah, bad laws are bad. That doesn't mean you don't make laws.
Even in current law, your freedoms are severely limited if there's determined to be a good reason to do so. For example, Westboro Baptist Church not being allowed to picket a person's funeral and shout that they got what they deserved because they supported LGBTQ rights. That's not just exercising free speech, that's manipulating someone's emotions to incite a response. You can't behind freedom of speech for that kind of bullshit.
Not necessarily. See above. It's just as contextual. For example, no one would hold it against you for touching someone familiarly at a dance club (unless you refused to stop), but it would highly inappropriate for an office.
Once again, depends on the context, or to quote Wikipedia "...a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large."
Even if someone actually totaled your car and you called them a "foul-smelling, greasy-skinned, big-lipped nigger", you don't get the excuse of saying you were angry.
edited 7th Jun '12 10:38:58 AM by KingZeal
@Matt: Pointing out that other people have buttons you really shouldn't knowingly push as you might, e.g. lose a tooth, is not inciting violence. It's pointing out possible, predictable consequences. Telling people that it's fine, if not appropriate, to go totally ape on any one who has the temerity to push your buttons as they deserve what they get? Is, indeed, inciting violence.
It's a distinction, but an important one.
Guys, I completely agree about not letting shit bother you and that we shouldn't be censoring insulting words. However, when insulting someone, you might have the presence of mind to not try to lob a verbal grenade, instead using a sniper.
If I call someone a "shithead" or "asshole" there are few other people who are going to be offended. The target might or might not be, but other people aren't going to feel like I insulted them.
If I call someone a "nigger" then it will likely insult every black person who hears it. Say I'm hanging out with Zeal, and a black person annoys me. I use the n-word on him, and Zeal gets mad too. This isn't what I wanted.
Therefore, the question about whether "bitch" is sexist is still relevant. It's not a matter of "you're insulting someone, of course you're going to go for the throat and hit them with everything you've got" it's a matter of not pissing everyone else off.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.Actually, it's more along the lines of "don't use this word if you are of a certain race." A black person can get away with using the n-word, a white person who so much as quotes their use of the word can get in a world of trouble for it. This double standard is bad enough without being backed up by the law.
Besides, when the majority of a community does that, they can still get away with it. All your laws would do is let society use its own double standards, logic be damned.
And stuff like "number of people offended" is a severely utilitarian approach. What if it's the majority of people who are in the wrong?
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartI was talking more if you're simply sitting there, sputtering with anger. Perhaps a better example would have been if you stubbed your toe or dropped something on your foot.
Not to mention, If I called someone that, then I would sure as hell expect to be punched in the face.
It just seems.. bizarre to me that anyone would be surprised that an insult is insulting. Yes, bitch is an insult. Is it sexist? Probably. I doubt anyone's going to try to dispute that. I'm just wondering why we're still discussing it.

Well, thank you.
If a black person should be prepared to be called a nigger and a woman should be prepared to be called a whore, one making these insults should be prepared to get punched.