TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Sexism

Go To

sveni Since: Apr, 2011
#76: Jun 7th 2012 at 1:31:20 AM

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.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#77: Jun 7th 2012 at 4:37:29 AM

This is why I hate when the black community, or any community, tries to call words "their own" or claim "N-Word Privileges, " because you're essentially not only building your own kryptonite, but telling the world all about it, how to make it yourself, and how to easily apply it to where it hurts.

If someone calls me a cracker and tries to verbally offend me somehow, then I call them an asshole, whore, or something that I know will hurt them.

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?

HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#78: Jun 7th 2012 at 5:22:01 AM

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.
Sheesh. So much for the principle of non-violence...

[up] 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 Stewart
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#79: Jun 7th 2012 at 5:30:02 AM

Basically, 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

sveni Since: Apr, 2011
#80: Jun 7th 2012 at 5:33:27 AM

A principle of non-violence doesn't mean shit if it allows verbal violence.

HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#81: Jun 7th 2012 at 6:26:07 AM

A principle of non-violence doesn't mean shit if it allows verbal violence.
Then who gets to say what counts as "verbal violence?"

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#82: Jun 7th 2012 at 6:50:26 AM

Ideally, informed lawmakers.

sveni Since: Apr, 2011
#83: Jun 7th 2012 at 6:55:05 AM

Everybody. Just like society as a whole do define what is physical violence. (touching isn't, hitting is, pushing depends)

Paul3 Since: May, 2012
#84: Jun 7th 2012 at 7:33:15 AM

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

Wicked223 from Death Star in the forest Since: Apr, 2009
#85: Jun 7th 2012 at 8:01:20 AM

Did I miss anything?

Don't forget all the white people deciding how nonwhite people should react to slurs that aren't aimed at them

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#86: Jun 7th 2012 at 8:26:40 AM

Ideally, informed lawmakers.
And who "informed" them of what? Why should the perspectives that are assumed true at this point in time get to entrench themselves further?

Just like society as a whole do define what is physical violence. (touching isn't, hitting is, pushing depends)
And hitting and hard pushing are clearly more likely to result in physical harm than touching. So yeah, there's that.

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.

So anyway, we've got people who think using a word with strong implications of "...like a woman"
Implications aren't inherent in a word.

This just in: The sky is blue
Actually, where I live right now, the sky, or at least as much of it as I can see from my window, is grey. o.o

Don't forget all the white people deciding how nonwhite people should react to slurs that aren't aimed at them
1. Then why would being white necessarily give less validity on this, then?

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 Stewart
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#87: Jun 7th 2012 at 8:46:52 AM

I 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". tongue 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.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#88: Jun 7th 2012 at 8:57:45 AM

And who "informed" them of what? Why should the perspectives that are assumed true at this point in time get to entrench themselves further?

Assuming that they're repeatable and have observable patterns? Because that's how laws are supposed to work in the first place.

And hitting and hard pushing are clearly more likely to result in physical harm than touching. So yeah, there's that.

Touching, however, does constitute an "uncomfortable", "unsafe" or "hostile" environment, depending on context.

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.

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

Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#89: Jun 7th 2012 at 9:46:35 AM

Reposting a couple of articles by the Southern Poverty Law Centre on the American Men's Rights movement, exploring their murky underside and refuting some of their claims about rape, physical violence, and custody disputes.

What's precedent ever done for us?
HeavyDDR Who's Vergo-san. from Central Texas Since: Jul, 2009
Who's Vergo-san.
#90: Jun 7th 2012 at 9:57:37 AM
Thumped: Wow. That was rude. Too many of this kind of thump will bring a suspension. Please keep it civil.
I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#91: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:05:08 AM

@Laculus: is that actually on topic here?

A brighter future for a darker age.
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#92: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:17:24 AM

Assuming that they're repeatable and have observable patterns? Because that's how laws are supposed to work in the first place.
In theory, maybe. In practice, we get laws that are obviously based on willful ignorance to observable patterns, like the war on drugs.

Hell, even the war on drugs doesn't make excuses for violence against all who criticize it.

Touching, however, does constitute an "uncomfortable", "unsafe" or "hostile" environment, depending on context.
Based on standards of privacy, yes. Keeping your hands to yourself unless the other person is okay with it is different from keeping your words limited to ones those who would resort to violence would approve of.

However, this is also placing culpability on the person who incites violence and not merely the one who initiates it.
There's nothing inherently violent about using the word "bitch." The ones who say things like "one making these insults should be prepared to get punched" are the ones inciting violence here.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#93: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:23:53 AM

is that actually on topic here?

In a thread on sexism? Why not?

What's precedent ever done for us?
Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#94: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:34:49 AM

So, from now on, when I insult someone, which politically appropriate insult should I use?

Just so I can avoid demeaning any people when I start swearing because someone nearly totaled my car.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#95: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:37:08 AM

In theory, maybe. In practice, we get laws that are obviously based on willful ignorance to observable patterns, like the war on drugs.

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.

Based on standards of privacy, yes. Keeping your hands to yourself unless the other person is okay with it is different from keeping your words limited to ones those who would resort to violence would approve of.

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.

There's nothing inherently violent about using the word "bitch." The ones who say things like "one making these insults should be prepared to get punched" are the ones inciting violence here.

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."

Just so I can avoid demeaning any people when I start swearing because someone nearly totaled my car.

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

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#96: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:39:30 AM

@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.

Vericrat Like this, but brown. from .0000001 seconds ago Since: Oct, 2011
Like this, but brown.
#97: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:50:19 AM

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.
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#98: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:52:31 AM

Yeah, bad laws are bad. That doesn't mean you don't make laws.
No, but it also means there need to be guidelines on what kinds of laws we can make. Ones that deny them a right just to use certain words should be out of the question.

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.

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.
Even that doesn't tell them not to say that at all, just not to do so too close to the funeral, as a pre-emptive measure against harassment of those walking to it. And even that is pushing it as it is.

That's not just exercising free speech, that's manipulating someone's emotions to incite a response.
So is trolling, yet we don't see people being locked up for it.

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.

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.
Yes, and that's related both to privacy and to consent.

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 Stewart
Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#99: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:55:29 AM

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.

I 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.

Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#100: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:59:34 AM

@Iaculus: Ah, I thought you were bringing them up to make a point in the current discussion, in which they made little sense.

It was, rather, to introduce a new topic of discussion?

A brighter future for a darker age.

Total posts: 9,965
Top