Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Fucking P3nt apologized.  He continues to get shat on. 

Excuse me?  Trying to make a cogent point is shitting on someone?  Fuck you, Roger, that's god damn hurtful.

Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

Why are you being like this at me?

Well, I can approach it in a different way.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

No, actually, it wasn't a jab at you. It was a joke intended to make fun of how silly an idea it is that singling people out based on gender is always an insult or sexist. The quote I corrupted is, in fact, used both by men to insult women and by women to claim feminine ownership of wrath. So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.

[Freeky]

Vex makes a joke.  We can't have that, this is SRS BSNAZZ.

It was a jab at me and what I was trying to say.  And shit, if no one takes me seriously ANYWAY, I might as well act like a complete psycho bitch, because LOL it's just Freeky, how silly!   

No, actually, it wasn't a jab at you. It was a joke intended to make fun of how silly an idea it is that singling people out based on gender is always an insult or sexist. The quote I corrupted is, in fact, used both by men to insult women and by women to claim feminine ownership of wrath. So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.

Sorry about that, v3x.  I take it back. 

[Juana]

I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females. It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

1. Stubborn and inconvenient and annoying be associated with the vagina and therefore anyone who owns one/women.

2. Even if it's affectionate, it's still a bit demeaning because you're using a crude, somewhat demeaning, term for a female/feminine body part to make a person lesser.
(I am possibly not explaining this one well)

3. Agreed that it's not good and I acknowledge that that example is directly associating a gender with negative thing.


Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?

So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.

In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"? (context: unwilling to do something potentially embarrassing)

eta context

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females.

Really?  Because when I hear the word "cunt", I don't think about women at all.  I think about stripped bolts, broken welds, and shit that SHOULD fit together, but doesn't.  I am utterly unable to see how this contributes to femmephobia.  I can see that it contributes to the aims and goals of Luddites, I suppose.

It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

Okay, but then we're ALSO gonna have to eliminate all male-based cursewords, or any cursewords that could be used to demean either.

We lose:

Bugger.
Son of a bitch.
Son of a gun.
Fucker.
Bastard.
Dickhead.
Dick.
Cocksucker.

Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?

Well, what it MEANS is that when I burn myself with a piece of hot steel, I have to say "dog-gonnit" like my boss does.  Until Pita comes along and takes THAT away from me.  I do not get the release that a string of hideous profanity brings in such a situation.  I will be reduced to this horrible thing that passively looks at the blisters forming in the burn and says, "well, THAT was less than optimal".

[P3nT4gR4m]

I just found Vex's post funny for the same reason I found the great Chicago debate about replacing "manhole" with "personhole" funny, back in 1997.

In any case, swearing is a personal thing.  It's like prayer, in some ways.  Provided that it isn't directed at a person, I fail to see what the problem is.  Even if it IS directed at a person, if it is used as a pronoun instead of a slam on perceived traits, I still don't see a problem.

Examples:

1.  This clutch plate is being a cunt.  <--- I do it all the time.

2.  That dickhole over there is the guy with whom you need to speak.  <--- no problem.

3.  You drive like a girl.  <--- Not good.

The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females. It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

1. Stubborn and inconvenient and annoying be associated with the vagina and therefore anyone who owns one/women.

2. Even if it's affectionate, it's still a bit demeaning because you're using a crude, somewhat demeaning, term for a female/feminine body part to make a person lesser.
(I am possibly not explaining this one well)

3. Agreed that it's not good and I acknowledge that that example is directly associating a gender with negative thing.


Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?

So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.

In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"?

Try to think of it in the abstract, that's how (I think) most of us do. Pussy is an abstract phrase meaning cowardly or not macho enough. neither of these are things that even vaguely apply to reproductive organs. Yes, if one were to over-analyse it, it probably comes from centuries of repressed mommy issues but, in this day and age, it's not really about that, unless you choose to see it as such. At least not for most of the guys I've heard using it.

Likewise calling someone a dick doesn't mean someone hates men. Or does it?

[Juana]

That's kind of like saying (in American English) "fag" can be abstractly separated from homosexual men. It doesn't really work that way.

I fully admit I use "dick" to refer to things and people who are inconvenient or unpleasant. I should probably stop, although I'm going to first point out that men have never been associated with weakness, nor their body parts. Women and females have, in both cases.

The problem I have with that is that it continues to associate negative things with women and females.

Really?  Because when I hear the word "cunt", I don't think about women at all.  I think about stripped bolts, broken welds, and shit that SHOULD fit together, but doesn't.  I am utterly unable to see how this contributes to femmephobia.  I can see that it contributes to the aims and goals of Luddites, I suppose.

Okay, but what's the word a noun for? The vagina. (ftr, I have no problem with the word when used to actually refer to the vagina). That's where the association comes from.

It's still contributing to femmephobia (which I am not accusing you of. It's something that a lot of people have internalized and our entire culture needs to deal with). There's not a lot, really, that's different in any of your examples, because in all cases thing that are negative are being associated with women/females.

Okay, but then we're ALSO gonna have to eliminate all male-based cursewords, or any cursewords that could be used to demean either.

We lose:

Bugger.
Son of a bitch.
Son of a gun.
Fucker.
Bastard.
Dickhead.
Dick.
Cocksucker.

Sure. That one's homophobic, too, since "buggery" only recently started to refer to bestiality and was traditionally associated with male sodomy.
Sure.
Sure
I have no problem with gender neutral insults and fucking is something anyone can do.
Sure.
Sure
Sure (I use this one, I admit. Perhaps I need to stop).
Anyone can suck cock. Gender-neutral is a-okay. (related: why would would gender-neutral insults need to be eliminated?)

Could you explain to me why you think that swearing being personal separates it from my argument?

Well, what it MEANS is that when I burn myself with a piece of hot steel, I have to say "dog-gonnit" like my boss does.  Until Pita comes along and takes THAT away from me.  I do not get the release that a string of hideous profanity brings in such a situation.  I will be reduced to this horrible thing that passively looks at the blisters forming in the burn and says, "well, THAT was less than optimal".

Check your privilege, please. "I am not going to change my arsenal of swearwords, some of which are negatively associating women/females with things that are unpleasant, because they are less colorful and don't make me feel better about maiming myself on machinery."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Check your privilege, please. "I am not going to change my arsenal of swearwords, some of which are negatively associating women/females with things that are unpleasant, because they are less colorful and don't make me feel better about maiming myself on machinery."

Well, it's not really so much privilege...Given that God gets a good bashing, too (and I am not an atheist), so much as it is the need to say horribly rotten shit on account of a bad burn or smashed hand.  Mark Twain once remarked that profanity (which by definition is vulgar) affords a release denied even by prayer.

Also, there's the fact that EVERYONE gets some.  I am fairly pan-catagorical (which I do not believe is actually a word, but should be) in my vulgarity, at least when pain or frustration are involved.

When I am swearing AT someone, I typically stick with "asshole", regardless of whom they may be.

I could very well be in the wrong on this (I AM omnifallible, of course, being a Holy Man™), but it seems to me that when addressing a balky piece of equipment, none of the associated meanings or values of the word have any relevance.

[Juana]

No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

God is not germaine to this discussion, nor is religion in general (considering the general reception of nontheists in America (I all but lost a job because I acknowledged that I was an atheist), let's not get into that discussion here).

Ditto.

I have already explained why I disagree like three times, so I'm disinclined to explain it again.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

So my point was that words themselves cannot be considered "good" or "bad" without considering the context and intent.

In relation to this, what's your response to "that person is being a pussy"? (context: unwilling to do something potentially embarrassing)

I don't associate the insult "pussy" with the slang for female parts, though they are the same word. Probably because I don't often use either one, but I can't think of a situation where context might be confusing as to which meaning someone intends to use. Granted, in general usage, "pussy" is more insulting to men than to women (and it's rarely used in that sense in reference to a woman), and that insult is grounded in the unspoken assumption that being feminine is equal to being scared or weak. For that reason I understand the word's inflammatory nature and how it perpetuates that unspoken assumption to the detriment of women, and why it might be offensive even when it's used in a context that has nothing to do with women per se.

Having said that I think there's a problem with trying to eliminate all aspects of language that are rooted in offensive history. Many words, like "pussy," retain their offensive edge even after the initial culture which gave it that edge has faded. The intended offense of calling someone a "pussy," which is to call them weak simply because you are calling them weak, can be distinguished easily from the historical offense, which was to call them weak by equating them with women. The insult is understood and most reactions to the statement "You're a pussy," do not include anything like "NO I'M NOT I HAVE A PENIS LOL." And, if someone did respond in that way, they'd be dismissed and probably called "A double-pussified pussycat pussy," or something, and then the two or so people engaging in this conversation would be sent to the Principal's office or held inside without recess.

Anyway, my point is that if I call someone a "pussy," it is understood that I mean "weak" and "fearful," and nobody would reasonably assume I was accusing anyone of being "a woman."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, it's privilege. You're a man who is unwilling to change his swearwords to stop insulting women and females because it's inconvenient.

Well, there's that.   

I can't think of a decent counterargument, so I'm gonna have to say that I was - as I said was possible - in the wrong.

And as far as theism/atheism goes, I think my reputation here is solid on the subject.  I don't understand why I would be lumped in with some asshole who fired you for atheism (I was fired once for not being a theist or enough of a theist by my boss's standards).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, having been wrong, I must now perform the "proven wrong" ritual.

GRRRRR!  I HATE YUO GUISE!  YUO ARE THE CANCER THAT IS KILLING PD!  OOOOOOOK!

Dour,
Always willing to observe the proper forms & rituals.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think there is a big difference between changing a behavior that actively demeans a group and changing a behavior because some people within a group might choose to take offense. The former seems to fit with the idea of 'privilege', the latter seems to be a lot more fuzzy.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, we need to invent a new catalog of swear words. Resolved, then.

We still have

Shit
Fuck
Damn
Cocksucker
Motherfucker (assuming strapons are available)

Now, what about using terms in a positive light?  As in "This new reverse F wrench design is the tits"?