General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf I call someone an ass hat
I don't really think I can wear them on my head. I don't really think they're a hat.
Corporate whore, same. The conjunction of the words changes the meaning, obviously.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,835 posts)i wonder if there is such a thing as a ass hat trick ??
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,362 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,835 posts)if we're talking about the Republican Party!
Javaman
(62,532 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)There's no agreement.
Is it gendered? Is "nurse" gendered? If we're not supposed to say gendered, sexists things, should we keep talking about needing a "woman president"? Do we say "woman doctor" or "woman accountant"? Should first year college students be called "Freshmen"? It goes on and on into the postmodern navel-gazing subject of semiotics. You'll never get anywhere.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)sexist slurs. As someone who, many years ago, was in the first class at my college to be referred to as "first-year students," I'm wondering if you can explain how talking about language means we'll never get anywhere.
Don't get me wrong; you're asking good questions. Why, indeed, worry about having a "woman president" if we shouldn't say sexist things? Because we live in a sexist society, so we have to have those conversations. Having a woman president moves toward us having just "a president," much as allowing women into fire departments helped us move to "firefighters" and away from "firemen."
Orrex
(63,219 posts)Sounds like a reasonable point to me.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)It's also still a highly gendered term.
Orrex
(63,219 posts)Shocking to imagine, I know. But is there any way, across the far reaches of the universe, that two different people could use the same term while somehow packing entirely different connotative baggage?
Do we, as a species, aspire to such lofty heights that we grasp that more than one intent can be conveyed by a single word?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)the other is to be a lazy speaker -- or a very, very canny one.
Orrex
(63,219 posts)I don't believe that anyone suggested that word "couldn't possibly mean the other" definition, but instead it has been correctly pointed out that reasonable context also requires the listener not to be a fool about it.
If a man introduces himself by saying "Hi, my name is Dick," then I imagine that a foolish listener could indeed deliberately misconstrue that ("Ha-ha! He said his name is penis." So, yes, it's often possible to misread a speaker's or writer's meaning, but the sole responsibility doesn't rest on them. It's fair to require the reader/listener to perform reasonable contextual analysis before hitting the panic button.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Other contexts, such as emotional political battles, aren't so much, making it doubly important to watch your words carefully.
I do hope you don't think I'm hitting the panic button. I don't have that kind of energy. But when I read the transcript, here's how my stream of consciousness went: "Powerful words, unfortunate imagery, bad judgment. I hate it when my side says something stupid. Could have said it better. My opinion drops. It's nice that these everyday nonprofit exec and biotech c-level leader types can speak, but Christ, who screened that?"
I do appreciate that Paul Song apologized, uncompromisingly, for his words.
Orrex
(63,219 posts)If my boss tells me that I'm fired, I can reasonably be expected to infer that he's not going to immolate me.
If my friend tells me that she's broke, it's fair to require me to understand that she doesn't mean "damaged beyond functionality."
If my cousin tells me that he drives a piece of shit... Well, you get the idea.
My point is that the speaker/writer is free to use whatever words she considers appropriate to the context of the discussion, and it is reasonable to expect the listener/reader to engage the material with the goal of understanding--rather than misreading--the intent.
You are arguing that a speaker/writer must self-censor in order to avoid words that some people might misconstrue.
But if that's not what you're arguing, then is it my fault for misreading you, or your fault for failing to make it clear?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)might misconstrue."
Believe me, I've been "self-censoring" as fast as I can on this thread to ensure I'm as clear as possible. And perhaps that's my problem -- I assume others have given the same thought to their words as I do mine, and so when I hear a gendered slur used in a rally meant to engage my support for a candidate by an educated and considered person, I assume it's at least somewhat deliberate or that the educated and considered person isn't as savvy as I first though. Either way, a disappointment.
Further, you reveal your limited and egocentric vision. Is it not possible that a speaker/writer puts considerable thought into her words and simply reaches a conclusion that's different from yours?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)Is Hillary a quid pro quo politician who will favor corporate-friendly legislation for campaign and foundation contributions, because it sure looks like it. Has anything she's ever proposed been more favorable to the underprivileged than to the very privileged. It's too bad the speaker wasn't elegant and refined enough for the delicate sensibilities of some.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)A person can make a point, or a person can feint and then deny.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)and denying that the words could be construed in a political sense rather than a misogynist sense, too.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)If I had a nickel for every time I was told my annoyed objection was "outrage," and that my emotion was "faux"...