Amazing. A couple of young men set up Katie Hopkins, going to extreme lengths to get her to accept a bogus award — flying her to Prague, booking a fancy hotel, hiring actors to play members of a committee — an award called the Campaign to Unify the Nation Trophy, and she fell for it. I might fall for such a prank if someone were to pay me to travel, of course, but she was totally thrilled with the award. I was starting to feel sorry for her.
Then she gave her acceptance speech.
Ohmygod.
She deserves every scrap of mockery she gets.
One of the nastiest of the nasty pieces of work that infest the media of Britain, America, Australia. The spawn of Murdoch, whose job is to push public discourse ever further right, so that one was unthinkable becomes commonplace, and that suddenly it ifs the Left which appears extreme.
Mr. Betteridge says no.
Sure, she’s a nasty racist piece-of-work. One small point: she rose to fame in the BBC UK version of The Apprentice. Before she had uttered anything awful about ‘race’ (that wouldn’t be allowed on the BBC) she was so personally obnoxious I’d turn off the TV whenever she appeared on it. Sheer human nastiness isn’t the preserve of the right but it sure can predict racists.
It went too far when it veered into misogyny, yes.
In other recent news, like an hour ago:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51319951
This is comment #6.
She is female Milo.
That’s so cruel and nasty. Why didn’t I think of that?
@4
When did it veer into misogyny?
When there was a brutal murder of a six-year-old girl in Scotland in 2018, Katie Hopkins’ immediate reaction was to blame Muslim immigrants. Without a single shred of evidence or confirmation from the police, she just jumped to the most discriminatory conclusion. The actual killer turned out to be a local, an angry, white, teenage boy. Hopkins is a professional warmonger.
tonybacio @ #8, am I somehow the only one noticing the name of the trophy and the screen behind them?
@9 no but its so much fun just watching silently.
SC@9– I see it too.
I can see it, and I’m not even wearing my glasses. I appreciate a good prank and a good roasting, but the “clever” trophy title is just a bit too far.
@#9, SC (Salty Current)
I don’t watch TV if I can avoid it, so I don’t know — is she one of the people who tries to claim that that term is okay coming from UKsians because it “doesn’t carry that meaning over there”? That would be some delicious irony.
I don’t know for sure, like I don’t have evidence, but she is someone who calls other people snowflakes and insists that they shouldn’t be offended by patently offensive speech, so I wouldn’t be surprised in the least. In fact, I rather expect that she’s one of those persons… though, again, I have no specific quotes/proof at hand.
That said, I still think it’s bad and fucked up to use a misogynistic insult at all, ever. There’s no reason to inflict splash damage on women in general during a well-justified counter-attack on a hate monger like Hopkins.
Yes, there are loads of potential initialisms they could have used that would have reflected on her bad character without splash damage to anyone else.
frex:
Victory in Independent Literary Excellence Reward
Trophy for Wisdom in Independent Thinking
Superb Cognitive Uniqueness Meritorium
Too tired to think of more now, but they had plenty of time and opportunity to game this out.
It’s not a word I have ever used, and I have been out of the country for many years, but I believe that in the UK, the word is merely the most vulgar of the descriptive expletives, regardless of the sex of the target, and is not considered to be especially misogynistic.
Perhaps some other Brits can chime in.
Industrial grade pedantry but it is actually CUTN, or even CTUTN.
See you next Tuesday!
As Tacitus said, it’s the worst expletive in English English but doesn’t carry the same misogynistic connotations as it seems to in American English: Fleabag uses it to describe her step-mother-to-be and it’s because she’s a horrible person, not because she’s a woman. As a Cockney, even as one with an upper middle class accent, I’m quite fond of the way the ‘u’ sound is shifted to an ‘ah’ by Ray Winstone et al when in geezer gangster mode. And in Glaswegian it seems almost affectionate at times.
As a side note, in a recent episode of I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue, in a round based about lame pun-based programme titles, Marcus Brigstocke suggested “Later tonight Piers Morgan and Katie Hopkins discuss the maintenance of small boats in Oxford with the Reverend Spooner, that’s Care of Punts at nine o’clock.”
Poor Katie. First that bogus trophy and then Twitter suspended her account.
Life can be tough.
OK. I apologize briefly for not using asterisks, strategic misspellings or silly things like ‘the c-word’ here. ‘C-u-n-t’ is a very effective vulgar term with undoubtedly misogynistic interpretation in some places. Here in Australia at least, it has long been used to describe horrible people of absolutely any gender variety, and if Ms. Hopkins had been of absolutely any other gender designation, she, he or they, would still be rightly called a c-u-n-t. Sometimes a rose has to be called a rose, and a c-u-n-t, a c-u-n-t. OK?
(e-d-i-t-e-d to get around the I-would-have-thought-unnecessary language censor. Sheesh – Americans)
Routemaster’s comment reminded me of an earlier ISIHAC episode in which, during a round of spoof dictionary definitions, ‘Countryside’ was defined as ‘To kill Piers Morgan’.
UK person here; yes, it’s a common slur over here. It is undoubtedly gendered etymologically, but the usage isn’t; it just means “awful person”. It falls into a common trope along the lines of “Bell-End” or “Prick”, also common British slurs which are gendered. I think it’s broadly used because the hard “c” and “t” are aurally pleasing for the user and harsh for the receiver; it’s very visceral, and in that way it’s the perfect swear-word (especially with a Scottish accent).
It tends not to be considered sexist over here. I personally don’t use it (or many others), but I’m not about to declare all of the people who do sexists.
The guy leading it is from South Africa; interesting fact, the word “kant” (pronounced the same) is the Afrikaans word for “side” (as in “the side of the house” or “the other side of the room”); growing up I always thought it was a play on “backside”, so calling someone a “kant” was like calling them an arsehole. Only learned the true meaning when I moved here.
The guy who set up the award is Joshua Pieters, who is apparently a professional YouTube prankster, i.e., asshole, so the misogyny is both intentional and reflexive.
I have mixed feelings about that. As a POC I thought yeah she deserved that. As a woman I cringed .
British woman here and I can confirm that everything M Smith @22 says is true. My female friends and I use the word a lot, to describe both men and women. It’s a wonderful word to say and while it undoubtedly has misogynistic origins it’s just too good a word to give up. I get that it’s really rude in the US but then again I have to listen to Americans talk in all seriousness about ‘fannies’ so maybe we can both have some acceptance and recognition that some words change their meaning when flying over the Atlantic.
Another UK person here. Just because the term is not applied specifically to women here doesn’t mean it’s not sexist. I used to think the same way until a few years ago when I got educated by PZ and the commentariat here (I miss Caine’s great contributions!). By using the term you saying somebody is bad by comparing them to female genitalia, which makes the assumption that is also bad. That’s sexist whether you intend it or not. Why not use “arsehole” instead? It’s not gendered and shit comes out of it so it’s appropriately insulting. There are plenty of other insults available, just be creative.
The c-word defenders have logged on…
@27 hi :-)
@26 by the same token just because it refers to female anatomy does not make it sexist either.
We have a long history of taboo around our “unspeakables”, those parts of our anatomy that shall not be named, because they’re dirty, icky, yucky things which should only be acknowledged under the darkened sheets of the marriage bed. This makes them perfect when applied to people as slurs, not because of the feminine aspect, but the taboo aspect related to naughty parts. Hence it falls into the same category as arsehole, bellend, prick, dickhead, fanny, knob, minger, cock-womble, boob…
It’s not analogous to e.g. the b word, which I would agree is sexist. That’s unambiguous; the word is, in both theory and practice, reducing women to diminutive, subservient animals.
How it’s used also matters, obviously, but I think in this case I can’t fault it as sexist without really straining.
@23 Ok boomer.
But sure, he must be sexist because he’s a young male youtuber.
Apologies, the youtube link was meant to be to the 2nd video in that playlist, rather than the whole thing… yay links!
M Smith @28
Referring to female anatomy isn’t sexist in itself, but it is when the reference is used to signify something bad or insulting. Just because you’re used to hearing it and using it and don’t consider yourself sexist doesn’t stop it being a sexist use of the term.
Do you think it’s OK to call a man “girly” as an insult if you think they’re being whimpy? If not, why not? It’s all part of that unconscious sexist background assumption that things associated with women are weak or yucky or have less worth. It’s an ingrained part of our culture and it takes an effort to look at these things and change our behaviour.
@30 it occurred to me while writing my comment @28 that “pussy” is probably a good example of what you’re getting at here. In fact it normally means exactly that, “wimpy”.
I do think these are easier to label sexist because they only work in their context by assuming women are weak or powerless; it’s innate in the intent and usage.
I don’t think that’s true of the c word. I think the c word works as a revolt against puritannical cultural standards that render these words dirty by their nature, not the gender associations of the body parts they refer to.
Maybe in the US this word is solely used by misogynists, in which case the sexism is brought about by association with the people who use it and the way they use it, but applying that to British cultures where it’s used by everyone makes no sense.
“who is apparently a professional YouTube prankster, i.e., asshole, so the misogyny is both intentional and reflexive.”
This seems a bit reductive. I mean, I see two possibilities here, and neither is great. One is that you’re attaching a lot of negative value to the YouTube brand, which seems a bit unfair. It’s the most accessible mass media platform out there, basically the only one that offers wide distribution to people who don’t have enormous wealth to back them. Sure, the company is bad in a lot of ways, but if being on Youtube is problematic then we might as well write off the idea of reaching people with leftist media.
Except with comedy, which is uniquely able to render left-wing ideas marketable, and particularly with pranksters. Guys like Chris Morris, or hell, even Sacha Baron Cohen in his more recent work, are able to critique our culture and society very publicly in a way that even other comics would have trouble getting away with. So the other possibility, that you’re labeling all pranksters as misogynistic assholes, seems equally myopic.
Sure there’s a lot of trash on YouTube – that’s what happens in open forums. And sure there’s a lot of shitty pranksters – that’s what happens when a type of media is cheap and easy to produce. But to write off the most accessible forms of media as irredeemably bad because they’re easily accessible by hackish assholes is, well, bad.
She is a nasty piece of work ,she deserves whatever mockery comes her way .
No, it looks like M Smith claiming that a word isn’t sexist didn’t actually make it stop being sexist to anyone who has had to see it used in a sexist way.
So when the sexist use is being downplayed someone, and their objections don’t actually change anything I start to wonder what’s going on. Because that behavior is awfully beneficial to sexists.
@34 and you don’t want god to exist just so you just can have abortions. If you’re going to insinuate that I’m a sexist because I make an argument defending a particular cultural norm against overblown allegations of sexism with an over-analysis of how they’re used and why, at least don’t do it with an argument out of “Apologetics for Rednecks”.
You also switched from critiquing the word itself to the usage of the word. I’m not defending sexist usage of any word, in fact the usage in the video was not sexist, so I’m not sure what you’re even talking about here?
It’s a silly argument. As I said, I don’t use the word (so I gain nothing apart from maybe engaging in a pointless argument in a comment section), but it seems absurd that a word which is ubiquitous in english-speaking cultures outside of America and is obviously not sexist should be demonised because it’s gendered; it particularly seems crass that conversation on such a triumphant mockery of a horrible human being should focus on a dismissal of the person who organised it because he used a naughty word.
Hey, we al know about the British Empire. What do you expect from them?
Hey, the sexism is still there even when M Smith tries to make it about me instead of the fact of people experiencing a sexist use. Just like when the sexist use didn’t disappear when they brought up other uses.
That’s interesting.
And the distinction between use and essence doesn’t make sexist uses disappear either. It’s black lines on a white background to me. That’s what it is. It’s also how people use it.
And it’s “overblown”, the sexism people experience. Whatever that means, there’s no blowing. The fact of people experiencing sexism with that word needs political opposition because blowing, and what words are (which is supposed to not involve their use, someone tell the dictionary publishers).
It’s all so obvious.
There may be some sarcasm above.
@M.Smith
Initially I thought that you were probably simply unaware of why the term is sexist when used as an insult, after all I was in that position myself not long ago. However the more you post the more I’m getting a flavour of free-speech absolutism and I am never wrong that so many atheists fall into. I’m half expecting accusations of “political correctness gone mad!”.
Yeah, so no more patient explanation from me, you’re clearly not interested in learning anything.
Do you use the word to mean “female genitalia”?
Do you use the same word to mean “horrible person”?
Do you not see a problem?
@ M Smith, # 35: You have a good point. I don’t see any misogyny in the use of the word, it’s just used as an insult.
@ # 38 and # 39: If someone called me a prick, I wouldn’t think it was anti-male. And I get called that a lot.
While I’m weighing the ethics of pointing the the language in question at M Smith and christoph as an object lesson I’ll get anatomical.
Now what kind of language is c*nt and di#k? Non-literalisms, since they’re not actually giant genitalia. Interesting. I wonder what the brain does with non-literal language.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120203182623.htm
“Hearing metaphors activates brain regions involved in sensory experience”
“New brain imaging research reveals that a region of the brain important for sensing texture through touch, the parietal operculum, is also activated when someone listens to a sentence with a textural metaphor. The same region is not activated when a similar sentence expressing the meaning of the metaphor is heard.”
You can’t undo the connections to anatomy ignorant incompetents.
@ Brony, SJC: I don’t get your point-it seems you’re contradicting the article you cited with your last sentence. Also, was your last sentence meant to be an insult? It’s a little vague.
@christoph
So contradictions exist because you say so too huh? I guess in your world things just are because you say so, and not because someone might describe the contradiction putatively connected the last sentence.
When I say “something smells fishy” this research suggests. I’m activating your olfactory regions.
“…the parietal operculum, is also activated when someone listens to a sentence with a textural metaphor.”
When I describe the meaning of the metaphor, that some momentarily hard to identify element in our environment makes me suspicious, that research suggests your olfactory regions aren’t activated.
“The same region is not activated when a similar sentence expressing the meaning of the metaphor is heard.”
So if you say or type the meaning associated with cnt you don’t activate anatomical regions, but if you say or type the cunt you activate anatomical regions. And this happens no matter what your feelings are.
If you don’t have a vagina you’re not going to feel it the same. Not everyone with a vagina will feel it the same, and your erasure of people who do feel it is grotesque.
@christoph
So contradictions exist because you say so too huh? I guess in your world things just are because you say so, and not because someone might describe the contradiction putatively connected the last sentence.
When I say “something smells fishy” this research suggests. I’m activating your olfactory regions.
“…the parietal operculum, is also activated when someone listens to a sentence with a textural metaphor.”
When I describe the meaning of the metaphor, that some momentarily hard to identify element in our environment makes me suspicious, that research suggests your olfactory regions aren’t activated.
“The same region is not activated when a similar sentence expressing the meaning of the metaphor is heard.”
So if you say or type the meaning associated with cnt you don’t activate anatomical regions, but if you say or type the cunt you activate anatomical regions. And this happens no matter what your feelings are.
If you don’t have a vagina you’re not going to feel it the same. Not everyone with a vagina will feel it the same, and your erasure of people who do feel it is grotesque.
I’m wondering, do you think everyone telling you about the sexism is lying?
@christoph 42
Am to read your mind and automatically know what you find contradictory?
People often act like ignorant and incompetent are insults instead of characteristics.
I had a longer reply that may have swallowed by moderation. But instead of my guessing I’ll let christoph point to the contradiction they see.
@ M Smith, #31
Oh bullshit. It’s an insult because it comes from a deeply sexist culture that considers being a woman the worst thing ever. Calling someone a crude term for a body part that this same (cis-)sexist culture considers the defining attribute of womanhood is therefore calling them the lowest of the low. That is why it’s the worst insult in the English language, and that is also why it’s an inherently sexist term. It can’t be an insult without being hugely misogynistic, because the misogyny is the whole of what makes it insulting.
What you’re trying to argue is that just because you derisively refer to something as a piece of shit doesn’t mean you’re in any way comparing it to feces. It doesn’t work as an insult without the association to feces- the insult remains inherently scatological even if you’re referring to something that isn’t, in fact, an actual turd. By the same token, referring to people of all genders as “c*nts” doesn’t make it a non-gendered insult.
Using that word as an insult is not “a revolt against puritannical[sic] cultural standards,” it’s an embrace of them.
I’ll put it up before they reply because it’s interesting. Since christoph didn’t tell what my contradiction was I’ll assume that they think that this…
“The same region is not activated when a similar sentence expressing the meaning of the metaphor is heard.”
…is my contradiction. It’s the only thing that looks like it might be inconsistent with the idea that anatomy and language are connected in non-literal language.
The non-literal part of “… having a rough day…” is “rough”. Your day was not actually irregularly textured. Yet the parts of the brain having to with the feel of texture are active even though “it doesn’t have anything to do with skin”.
Giving just the meaning here, having a difficult day, doesn’t activate those regions because the anatomy linked text isn’t present. I would predict that “something smells fishy” activates olfactory regions and “some momentarily hard to identify element in our environment makes me suspicious” does not because it doesn’t include “smells”.
So if you have the anatomy in question or don’t you feel the language differently, different people with the anatomy can feel it differently… we’re networked meat computers and insisting on one true meaning because one feels uncomfortable with a meaning is irrational insulting at best. The connection is there, you cannot make it go away.
And the above is consistent with research into feelings.
https://bigthink.com/a-cartography-of-consciousness-researchers-map-where-subjective-feelings-are-located-in-the-body-2612876996
Our experience of the world is embodied. It’s more like that the anatomy connection is part of the feel of the insult and people don’t want to think about the implications.
What is it with people like this, do they think people are lying about the sexism? I didn’t see any substantial engagement with claims of sexism. I often feel dirty metaphorically rubbing people’s noses in the bioloy when it looks like they are incompetent at accepting that other people with different meat computers have different experiences.
Calling people a name based off the genitalia of both men and women isn’t sexist, it’s just the way humans insult the each other. The usage isn’t an insult to that particular sex organ or the gender it belongs too. It’s not the N word and it’s not used in a misogynistic way. It’s freely interchangeable with asshole, d*ck and the other versions of the words.
I think dumb blonde jokes are misogynistic.
But yeah, after that speech, I agree, she is a cnt, a dck, an ass hole and a saggy scrotum sack!
@Alt-X 49
“…just the way humans insult each other.” and sexism aren’t separate sets just because you say so, there are things that are insulting because they are sexist. And in this case people literally saying they find it sexist is all it takes.
Just because you toss asshole in with the rest doesn’t change the fact that d#ck and c*nt are gendered and people will feel that association reguardless of your feelings.
About 70 years ago three political parties dominated politics. There was the trade union dominated Labour Party, The Liberal Party who were far from liberal and the Country Party of sheep and wheat farmers whose dominance was based on a gerrymander that gave their sheep the vote. In one particularly vigorous exchange in parliament an Country politician who thought his rural status gave him special privileges burst out with “I’m a Country member” to which the Labour party replied “Yes we remember”.
Today the Labour Party is run by lawyers and bean counters and has changed its spelling to Labor to which the working class has responded by saying they no longer give a damn about U. The Liberals and the Country Party have always been partners in crime and today they are the Liberal National Party a.k.a. the Lying Nasty Party although some people do go Godwin’s Law on the Nasty part. They are infiltrated by evangelical Christians and led by a Pentecostal Prime Minister and former advertising executive whose main qualification for leadership is his vast experience at talking in tongues. They govern with the support of extreme right minority fringe parties whose sole agenda seems to be bashing Muslims and other minorities and are so deeply corrupt they almost make the Rethuglicans look good.
2 Brony, several different posts: I see you figured out the contradiction without my having to point it put to you. Looks like you expected an immediate reply from me-sorry, I was busy working and couldn’t provide you with instant gratification.
@ Brony-also, calling someone ignorant and incompetent IS insulting. You’re certainly tossing around a lot of insults today. Do you insult everyone with whom you disagree?
Brony @ # 41: Now what kind of language is c*nt and di#k?
Synedoche.
@christoph 53
So what? It’s also descriptive. You can engage with the features or not.
The subject is an insult. Have you become sensitive all of the sudden? You’re acting like people who experience sexism with c*nt don’t exist. Why is your experience of the word relevant? Do you even have the anatomy in question?
@Pierce R. Butler 54
Thank you. The flavor of non-literal. I’ll.start processing that.
@ Brony
“So what? It’s also descriptive. You can engage with the features or not. The subject is an insult. Have you become sensitive all of the sudden? You’re acting like people who experience sexism with c*nt don’t exist.”
I’m reasonably sensitive. Not over sensitive, as you apparently are. Your points are already vague and ill defined, also overly verbose. If you add insults to try and bolster them, that makes your argument that much lamer. Just saying you should try to be a little nicer, it won’t kill you.
“Why is your experience of the word relevant? Do you even have the anatomy in question?”
You’re asking about my genitalia? You should at least offer to buy me a drink first. Jesus Christ.
@christoph 57
I acknowledge your sensitivity to descriptions of incompetence and ignorance and refuse to avoid using usefully descriptive language. If you don’t know some and you are bad at something that matters.
Humor? Thank you. I like it when people tell me what they have complicated feelings about.
@christoph
How do you justify a sensitivity claim when you’re ignoring sensitivity to people who have experienced sexist use of the word? It’s unsurprising that basic political disagreement over profanity would involve strong feelings.
It’s a consequence of the activity so you will just have to deal with it. I’m not changing my behavior, and you came here to a site with a wide range of cultural experiences.
@ brony, Cenobite wannabe:
What the hell are you talking about? My only point about the “C” word is that it’s not necessarily sexist, although it is vile and insulting. Some women hate hearing it, others are amused by it. I’m not ignoring anyone’s complaint, I’m just not joining the mob mentality of looking for excuses to denounce someone. You seem to be dictating to all women what they have to be offended by. Trying to discuss something with you is like trying to tell a creationist why they’re wrong. There’s a disconnect there, they just tune out what they can’t accept. So do you.
I’m dealing with things fine, and I have no desire to change your behavior. If you want to behave like a smug self righteous spoiled little child, feel free.
@christoph 60
That’s not a point, that’s an assertion. You didn’t say why it was vile and insulting.
And I think “necessarily” applies because it’s as polerized as what you did post. Go back and look at your comment at 40 again.
<
blockquote>@ M Smith, # 35: You have a good point. I don’t see any misogyny in the use of the word, it’s just used as an insult<\u>.<\blockquote>
“Just” implies nothing else. “Necessarily” works in the way you used it. You didn’t show why there is nothing else. You just asserted it.
What does this have to do with me critisizing you? I’m a person not a mob.
<
blockquote>You seem to be dictating to all women what they have to be offended by. Trying to discuss something with you is like trying to tell a creationist why they’re wrong. There’s a disconnect there, they just tune out what they can’t accept. So do you.
<
blockquote>
Interesting. I pointed to the existence of people, and somehow that’s an order for women.
And you quote nothing of course.
I’m going to keep critisizing people who insist that an anatomy based insult isn’t sexist. Your feelings about it aren’t really relevant to me.
Brony:
Heh. I thought it was all about the feelings.
(Or: if their feelings aren’t relevant to you, why should yours be relevant to them?)
—
I am somewhat amused that a discussion about a person being pranked has been overtaken by a discussion about a particular term.
(I recall this being thoroughly discussed on this blog back around 2005)
Christoph, it’s sexist because it a) uses a woman’s genitals as an insult; and in doing so b) implies that having female-coded genitalia, i.e. being a woman is a bad and contemptible thing.
Your insistence otherwise is just bullshit.
@John Morales 62
True. There’s the feelings of each and everyone looking at the word on this board are relevant. And christoph’s feelings aren’t relevant to everyone else’s either. They don’t affect them. And ours aren’t relevant to christoph’s feelings.
Maybe there’s other ways of doing it but this is how I’m going about showing that not only can’t cristoph be right about “just” or “necessary” in this comment section, they didn’t try to show what c*nt “actually” meant.
Of course using “cnt” as an insult is sexist in the UK as it is anywhere else. I won’t repeat Brony’s points, but they are entirely correct. Those who are so anxious to deny it might like to reflect on the fact that while that word is aimed at men as well as women, “prick” is rarely if ever aimed at women (if you dispute this, present some examples). Now, righteous defenders of the right to use “cnt” as an insult, why do you think that is?
Each if us necessarily has a different experience of the word because we’re individuals, and 50% of us automatically gets a different experience because they have the anatomy in question.
On top of that you have the national origin variable, and that variable applies to the blog and commentators separately.
I have to point out that “vile” is utterly unconnected to any features in reality as used. Just putting the word on the screen is useless, why is c*nt bad? What are the bad feelings connected to? Why are they bad?
Profanity and obscenity are deeper than that. I can’t help notice that without definition “vile” does nothing in the mind, leaving the original definition as the only thing with a connection to reality. Deliberate or not it seems like it’s convenient with respect to reinforcement of the original meaning of c*nt.
@ WMDKitty — Survivor, # 63: It’s gender specific, I’ll grant you that. It can be sexist in some circumstances, but not all. Some feminists I know use the word regularly-would you call them sexist or anti feminist? I’ll make the same suggestion I made to Brony-try to be less insulting with your responses. Calling my viewpoint “bullshit” is insulting. And keep in mind I didn’t insult you or your views personally.
Conversely, using “prick” as an insult would imply that having male genitalia is a bad and contemptible thing as well. Considering both words, it might imply that having any genitals at all is a bad thing. Damn, now I’m having flashbacks to Catholic school…
@Christoph 67
You haven’t shown any uses of c*nt that aren’t sexist. I don’t believe they exist.
Ignorant and incompetent are still descriptive, feeling insulted doesn’t change that.
Brony, it’s was commonly used as a generic expletive/intensifier where I live. They exist.
<clickety-click>
Absolute cunt of a car
Brony, it’s was commonly used as a generic expletive/intensifier where I live. They exist.
<clickety-click>
Absolute cunt of a car
Point being, beware the etymological fallacy.
@John Morales 69, 70
Where is the fallacy?
I would ask where the negative feeling in that example comes from.
Brony:
<<That’s not a point, that’s an assertion. You didn’t say why it was vile and insulting.>>
Why would you want me to explain to you something you already agree with? Unless you don’t think it’s vile and insulting, and it’s obvious you do. We just disagree about exactly why.
<>
You’ve made that point-or similar ones, several times. I heard you the first time. Who are you trying to convince-me, or yourself?
<>
See post # 69, above. (Thanks John Morales)
<>
Valid point, actually. It applies to you as well. Point a finger at someone, you still have three pointing back at yourself.
Looks like I used some HTML coder that deleted your original quotes-here’s a revised version.
Brony:
“That’s not a point, that’s an assertion. You didn’t say why it was vile and insulting.”
Why would you want me to explain to you something you already agree with? Unless you don’t think it’s vile and insulting, and it’s obvious you do. We just disagree about exactly why.
“Your feelings about it aren’t really relevant to me.”
You’ve made that point-or similar ones, several times. I heard you the first time. Who are you trying to convince-me, or yourself?
“You haven’t shown any uses of c*nt that aren’t sexist. I don’t believe they exist.”
See post # 69, above. (Thanks John Morales)
“Ignorant and incompetent are still descriptive, feeling insulted doesn’t change that.”
Valid point, actually. It applies to you as well. Point a finger at someone, you still have three pointing back at yourself.
Brony,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
—
Here’s a related example from Oz (different word, same principle):
TV advertisement.
The blocked comments are piling up in my spam folder, and I’m not going to allow them through. If you want to argue that your region of the world has a social custom of ignoring the misogynistic connotations of a certain word, just recognize that this little corner of the internet has a social custom of being conscious of the implications of using women’s features as an insult, and stop doing it here.
I can’t believe I’m seeing this garbage.
@christoph
I’m satisfied that you don’t have a non-sexist definition, if you did you’d have given it by now. I asked you to explain what you meant by “vile” and now you’re going on about my feelings yet again.
If you actually care about your claims feel free to back them up in the comments of my last blog post (linked in my name).
@John Morales
I’m abstracting out a level in deference to PZ. I refuse to accept that a “generic intensifier” is disconnected from the original meaning in your assertion.
I had asked “where does the negative feeling come from?”, now I’ll ask where does the intensity increase come from? What is the affective source? Does the brain make it up?
Or it draw it from what is already connected to the word? You don’t just excise meaning or make it up.out if nowhere…
Finally if you’re going to direct the word “fallacy” at me it will have no meaning with a quote of my fallacy. Clearly we don’t agree.
If your response can’t avoid the concreteness original subject feel free to make it a comment on my blogs last post.
That should say “Finally if you’re going to direct the word “fallacy” at me it will have no meaning WITHOUT a quote of my fallacy.” in my last comment.
Brony:
“I’m satisfied that you don’t have a non-sexist definition, if you did you’d have given it by now. I asked you to explain what you meant by “vile” and now you’re going on about my feelings yet again.”
Is there a time limit on responses?
You know what “vile” means. You can look it up on an online dictionary. You’re wasting time asking what you already know. BTW, I meant “vile” the way it’s defined in the dictionary.
If you want a non-sexist definition of the “C” word, same answer. You can look it up in an online dictionary. I’m not saying “look it up” facetiously-I’d copy and paste it for you, but I’m using a work computer and we’re restricted.
If you’re asking for an instance of the word being used in a sexualized but non-insulting context, watch a few porn movies. You’ll probably hear it used as a crude anatomical description as well as complimentary. You may have to watch more than a few.
You’re the one going on about “feelings.” I just pointed out that if you don’t care about the feelings of others, you have no right to complain about yours. That was a brief statement, it hardly qualifies as “going on.”
[OT]
Brony, you deserve a response, though I am wary of PZ’s wrath.
https://www.academia.edu/22154424/Shifts_in_Taboo_Loading
@John Morales 80
I understand the concern.
“If you want to argue that your region of the world has a social custom of ignoring the misogynistic connotations of a certain word, just recognize that this little corner of the internet has a social custom of being conscious of the implications of using women’s features as an insult, and stop doing it here.”
I don’t see anything about interrogation of reality claims convenient to shitty people. If PZ thinks this will make things more complicated for him I’ll be happy to move this to my blog myself. What I’m doing seems consistent with figuring out if things have gone too far.
I smell a social construct worth dismantling and I’m testing it’s strength. So far christoph is fleeing from his claims. If they care they will move to my blog.
Thank you for the paper. I’ll look at it. I’m also going to point out that like your fallacy link you’ve done nothing to apply the contents to the situation. Fortunately this is terrible activism.
1) Abstract out a level from the word. What is it? I don’t care about dictionary definitions, if it’s not anatomy what is the extra feeling connected to? What is vile?
What is the brain drawing the negative feeling from? The extra feeling can only be coming from the original connection. Where else are you getting it? You put that on object when you do that.
2) sexism and misogyny have no meaning outside of a group interaction context, at least two. If there’s even one witness who experiences the bigotry they will feel that differently and there’s literally two meanings of it. All the readers count here.
Brony:
“I smell a social construct worth dismantling and I’m testing it’s strength. So far christoph is fleeing from his claims. If they care they will move to my blog.”
Fleeing my claims? Okay, I get it now-your questions are just vague and ill defined enough that you can reject any answer I give you. You lack sincerity.
Christoph,
Doesn’t it strike you that men should use as a pejorative the one thing with which the spend their lives most obsessed with?
Oh, look, I wrote a sentence with to many withs.
Here is another link to the paper if anyone wants a version that doesn’t require a sign up to get a PDF.
https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/WPLC/article/view/5122
@John Morales 80
I’m still processing this paper if yours but I have to say I’m disappointed. You link dropped at me. These are your ideas and claims right? You can’t abstract out to a version of this phenomena that doesn’t involve PZ’s concerns?
It’s not looking good for you so far. Did you notice how things get more anatomical as you get into more sensitive things? I don’t even see a hint of concern that the choices of what we consider profane are political?
To me “fuck” is evidence that we’re not mature about sex as a society. It’s got no sting with me at all but it’s looks like a way to mess with how we talk about sex. We collectively suck.
Just wanted to say i’ve changed my mind about the use of the word. A few days ago I saw someone online calling a woman a C. When he got called out on it, his defence was that, in Australia it’s not used as an insult to women. And right then I thought, you’ve just killed my use of that word.
christoph@68,
I would say that in that particular instance their behaviour is sexist and anti-feminist. Are you unable to distinguish between judgements of general characteristics of a person, and of particular instances of their behaviour?
I notice that you don’t deal with the glaring contrast in use of the two insults that I point out in #66. Yes, there’s a level of sex-negativity in the use of both, and of “fuck” as an expletive as Brony points out, but on top of that there is the absolutely obvious misogyny in the way “cunt” is used, which for some bizarre reason you want to deny.
christoph@68,
I would say that in that instance their behaviour is sexist and anti-feminist. Are you unable to distinguish between criticism of personal characteristics and specific instances of behaviour?
I notice you don’t deal with the glaringly obvious difference in the way the two words are used as insults which I pointed out @66. Yes, there is a layer of sex-negativity in the use of both, and of “fuck” as an expletive as Brony points out, but on top of that is the absolutely obvious misogyny in the use of the c-word which for some bizarre reason you want to deny.