On Correct™ Language

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A year or so ago, it was pointed out to me that "cunt" is an offensive term, no matter how it is used.  It is basically the same as calling women "bitches".  Since I wouldn't want anyone referring to my wife or daughter that way, I guess I really can't go around using terms like that myself, can I?

Problem:  Part of the motivation (not all, but part) of those who correct such terms is control.  So when you agree to the idea that a given term or terms is/are offensive, then control has been partially established.  The next step is for the range of unacceptable terms to be enlarged so that it is always just beyond what the agreeable person has, at any given moment, agreed to.  If the person catches up or even bypasses the controlling person's restricted vocabulary, then control has been lost, as the controller is no longer dictating what is and is not acceptable.

I have heard two objections to the term "Irish-Americans".  One by po'buckers, who think if you have any cultural identity other than that provided by Uncle Sugar, you are insufficiently American.  The other objection has come from the other end, where you can't be Irish if you're American, unless you have a piece of paper that says you are.  By that definition, Native Americans are only True Native Americans if they live on a reservation or have some kind of card on them.

Interestingly enough, this exact same line of thinking has allowed Oregon to maintain the outrageous "legally Black" argument for an absurd and obscene amount of time.  There are, on a moral level, no difference between the two outlooks.

Fact #1:  You don't get to decide who is what.

Fact #2:  You shouldn't WANT to decide that sort of thing.

The only thing achieved by the politics of exclusion is exclusion.  This suits some people, because they can't feel special unless they're "fighting for the rights of" <insert group here>, or - in other cases - unless they have a monopoly on the status of "persecuted".  Both behaviors are indulgence.

I expect this sort of behavior from a good chunk of the population.  I do not expect it from Discordians, at least as *I* understand Discordianism, because we're supposed to be teaching ourselves how to THINK, and how to inculcate that subversive activity into others.  Stress that last part.  "Everyone is a Discordian", after all, and the idea is to get as many people INSIDE the tent pissing OUT as possible, rather than sitting in a tent full of piss feeling all romantic about the whole thing.

And if a mere word drives you berserk, then you ought to examine your filters, because you are allowing other people to dictate your behavior.

Now, this isn't all leading up to some epiphany towards me suddenly deciding that terms like "cunt" are okay again.  They aren't, and the reasons they aren't haven't changed.  And it's not saying that people who get riled up over politically incorrect language are all zealots or bad people or anything.  They aren't.  But the deliberate push to zealotry is puzzling in people who ought to know better, and depressingly normal in the nation in which I live.

And I've had just about enough normal for a lifetime, thank you very much.

Or Kill Me.

[LMNO]

Very well stated, you Cornish bastard.

And since control is a kind of power, would entitlement and privilege work their way in here?

[P3nT4gR4m]

A year or so ago, it was pointed out to me that "cunt" is an offensive term, no matter how it is used.  It is basically the same as calling women "bitches".  Since I wouldn't want anyone referring to my wife or daughter that way, I guess I really can't go around using terms like that myself, can I?

Problem:  Part of the motivation (not all, but part) of those who correct such terms is control.  So when you agree to the idea that a given term or terms is/are offensive, then control has been partially established.  The next step is for the range of unacceptable terms to be enlarged so that it is always just beyond what the agreeable person has, at any given moment, agreed to.  If the person catches up or even bypasses the controlling person's restricted vocabulary, then control has been lost, as the controller is no longer dictating what is and is not acceptable.

I have heard two objections to the term "Irish-Americans".  One by po'buckers, who think if you have any cultural identity other than that provided by Uncle Sugar, you are insufficiently American.  The other objection has come from the other end, where you can't be Irish if you're American, unless you have a piece of paper that says you are.  By that definition, Native Americans are only True Native Americans if they live on a reservation or have some kind of card on them.

Interestingly enough, this exact same line of thinking has allowed Oregon to maintain the outrageous "legally Black" argument for an absurd and obscene amount of time.  There are, on a moral level, no difference between the two outlooks.

Fact #1:  You don't get to decide who is what.

Fact #2:  You shouldn't WANT to decide that sort of thing.

The only thing achieved by the politics of exclusion is exclusion.  This suits some people, because they can't feel special unless they're "fighting for the rights of" <insert group here>, or - in other cases - unless they have a monopoly on the status of "persecuted".  Both behaviors are indulgence.

I expect this sort of behavior from a good chunk of the population.  I do not expect it from Discordians, at least as *I* understand Discordianism, because we're supposed to be teaching ourselves how to THINK, and how to inculcate that subversive activity into others.  Stress that last part.  "Everyone is a Discordian", after all, and the idea is to get as many people INSIDE the tent pissing OUT as possible, rather than sitting in a tent full of piss feeling all romantic about the whole thing.

And if a mere word drives you berserk, then you ought to examine your filters, because you are allowing other people to dictate your behavior.

Now, this isn't all leading up to some epiphany towards me suddenly deciding that terms like "cunt" are okay again.  They aren't, and the reasons they aren't haven't changed.  And it's not saying that people who get riled up over politically incorrect language are all zealots or bad people or anything.  They aren't.  But the deliberate push to zealotry is puzzling in people who ought to know better, and depressingly normal in the nation in which I live.

And I've had just about enough normal for a lifetime, thank you very much.

Or Kill Me.

FTR: I'll continue to use the word "cunt" whenever I fucking well feel like it, on account of it's a part of my day to day vocabulary. If you can't deal with that and it makes you curl up into a little ball and try to chew your own ears off ... cool!

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I see what you're saying. My having an Irish born parent does not make me less Irish than having been born in Ireland, nor more Irish than having great-grandparents emigrate from there.

[Junkenstein]

The only thing achieved by the politics of exclusion is exclusion.  This suits some people, because they can't feel special unless they're "fighting for the rights of" <insert group here>, or - in other cases - unless they have a monopoly on the status of "persecuted".  Both behaviors are indulgence.

Oh this.

I try to avoid labels as much as possible. It seems that there will always be a background argument about what everything on the map should be called rather than exploring.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A year or so ago, it was pointed out to me that "cunt" is an offensive term, no matter how it is used.  It is basically the same as calling women "bitches".  Since I wouldn't want anyone referring to my wife or daughter that way, I guess I really can't go around using terms like that myself, can I?

Problem:  Part of the motivation (not all, but part) of those who correct such terms is control.  So when you agree to the idea that a given term or terms is/are offensive, then control has been partially established.  The next step is for the range of unacceptable terms to be enlarged so that it is always just beyond what the agreeable person has, at any given moment, agreed to.  If the person catches up or even bypasses the controlling person's restricted vocabulary, then control has been lost, as the controller is no longer dictating what is and is not acceptable.

I have heard two objections to the term "Irish-Americans".  One by po'buckers, who think if you have any cultural identity other than that provided by Uncle Sugar, you are insufficiently American.  The other objection has come from the other end, where you can't be Irish if you're American, unless you have a piece of paper that says you are.  By that definition, Native Americans are only True Native Americans if they live on a reservation or have some kind of card on them.

Interestingly enough, this exact same line of thinking has allowed Oregon to maintain the outrageous "legally Black" argument for an absurd and obscene amount of time.  There are, on a moral level, no difference between the two outlooks.

Fact #1:  You don't get to decide who is what.

Fact #2:  You shouldn't WANT to decide that sort of thing.

The only thing achieved by the politics of exclusion is exclusion.  This suits some people, because they can't feel special unless they're "fighting for the rights of" <insert group here>, or - in other cases - unless they have a monopoly on the status of "persecuted".  Both behaviors are indulgence.

I expect this sort of behavior from a good chunk of the population.  I do not expect it from Discordians, at least as *I* understand Discordianism, because we're supposed to be teaching ourselves how to THINK, and how to inculcate that subversive activity into others.  Stress that last part.  "Everyone is a Discordian", after all, and the idea is to get as many people INSIDE the tent pissing OUT as possible, rather than sitting in a tent full of piss feeling all romantic about the whole thing.

And if a mere word drives you berserk, then you ought to examine your filters, because you are allowing other people to dictate your behavior.

Now, this isn't all leading up to some epiphany towards me suddenly deciding that terms like "cunt" are okay again.  They aren't, and the reasons they aren't haven't changed.  And it's not saying that people who get riled up over politically incorrect language are all zealots or bad people or anything.  They aren't.  But the deliberate push to zealotry is puzzling in people who ought to know better, and depressingly normal in the nation in which I live.

And I've had just about enough normal for a lifetime, thank you very much.

Or Kill Me.

FTR: I'll continue to use the word "cunt" whenever I fucking well feel like it, on account of it's a part of my day to day vocabulary. If you can't deal with that and it makes you curl up into a little ball and try to chew your own ears off ... cool!

I don't care if you say "cunt" all day long.  I won't say it.  I cannot and would not (if I could) control what you say.

That was kind of my point.  I have decided that the word is offensive to me.  I won't use it.

You have to make your own decisions as to what is or is not offensive.

ETA:  I COULD do it for you, but I'll be sending an invoice.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Very well stated, you Cornish bastard.

And since control is a kind of power, would entitlement and privilege work their way in here?

Naw, not really.

Privilege is something that happens to you.
Entitlement is how you perceive your privilege.
Control is something you do.

[LMNO]

Very well stated, you Cornish bastard.

And since control is a kind of power, would entitlement and privilege work their way in here?

Naw, not really.

Privilege is something that happens to you.
Entitlement is how you perceive your privilege.
Control is something you do.

Hm.  The way I was looking at it, your genetic stock and place of birth is something that happens to you, and controlling the terms around that creates a Special Class of people, which could treated as privilege.

So, perhaps ersatz entitlement. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

FTR: I'll continue to use the word "cunt" whenever I fucking well feel like it, on account of it's a part of my day to day vocabulary. If you can't deal with that and it makes you curl up into a little ball and try to chew your own ears off ... cool!

I don't care if you say "cunt" all day long.  I won't say it.  I cannot and would not (if I could) control what you say.

That was kind of my point.  I have decided that the word is offensive to me.  I won't use it.

You have to make your own decisions as to what is or is not offensive.

ETA:  I COULD do it for you, but I'll be sending an invoice.

Yup! And I respect you for it. Ask me nicely to stop and I won't even ask your reasons. Launch into some tirade about how I'm what's wrong the the world with a side order of suppressed female lecture and I'll just call you a cunt and walk away.

[Pergamos]

I try to call people what they would prefer to be called.  I do get pissy about one piece of PC speech and that is African-American.  Usually a hyphenated American implies an immigrant, rather than descent.  I think that's why Pixie was objecting to the use of Irish-American.  Pretending that for some reason calling someone African-American rather than Black is more respectful (without actually asking the person in question) seems to point at the need to periodically change the word being used because there is something wrong with the person it refers to.  After all, we've gone through Negro, Colored, Black, and now African-American.  None of those terms was intended as offensive to begin with, but you call a Black person a Negro or Colored nowadays and you are absolutely being offensive.  The only other area that we see a need to keep changing the term is dealing with metal deficiency.

And I use the word cunt as slang for a vagina, I don't think I've ever used it to refer to a person.  Is calling a guy a dick as bad? Cause I do that a lot.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Is calling a guy a dick as bad? Cause I do that a lot.

Negative - men aren't a suppressed minority.

[EK WAFFLR]

Bloody great writing, Roger.

And if a mere word drives you berserk, then you ought to examine your filters, because you are allowing other people to dictate your behavior.

This need to be hammered into great big slabs of concrete in major cities.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I try to call people what they would prefer to be called.  I do get pissy about one piece of PC speech and that is African-American.  Usually a hyphenated American implies an immigrant, rather than descent.  I think that's why Pixie was objecting to the use of Irish-American.  Pretending that for some reason calling someone African-American rather than Black is more respectful (without actually asking the person in question) seems to point at the need to periodically change the word being used because there is something wrong with the person it refers to.  After all, we've gone through Negro, Colored, Black, and now African-American.  None of those terms was intended as offensive to begin with, but you call a Black person a Negro or Colored nowadays and you are absolutely being offensive.  The only other area that we see a need to keep changing the term is dealing with metal deficiency.

And I use the word cunt as slang for a vagina, I don't think I've ever used it to refer to a person.  Is calling a guy a dick as bad? Cause I do that a lot.

I always saw it as a indicator of ethnicity combined with country of origin. In that way I can be considered an Irish-American, but I prefer to think of them as two different things. I am Irish, and I am American. But I wouldn't be offended if one called me an Irish-American. I just feel that it's slapping two equally applicable labels to me at once, but why? When I play guitar, I don't think of myself as either. When I'm in line for my flight, I don't think of myself as a guitarist. It's a largely situational thing. Unless I am doing something that is unique to being both Irish and American, it would be one, or the other, or neither.

[Elder Iptuous]

Is calling a guy a dick as bad? Cause I do that a lot.

Negative - men aren't a suppressed minority.

it's just a synecdochic dysphemistic euphemism. no big deal.

(i just wanted to use those words.)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Is calling a guy a dick as bad? Cause I do that a lot.

Negative - men aren't a suppressed minority.

Why would that even matter?  Of course it's just as bad.

"Asshole" is nice and neutral, don't you think?