babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Semantics. Is 'willfully obtuse' more acceptable? 'Eggregiously steeped in privilege'?
Contempt? No, not contempt but certainly disappointment that there is one policy for some and another for those such as yourself.
Its interesting that rather than defending your transgression, you prefer to deflect and obfuscate. The white folks taking umbrage at being challenged on their less than progressive descent into pejoratives. I'm aware that not all of the participants are white or necessarily privileged but that fact does not make it ok to use language like "whore" or "dreck".
The use of 'blind' is ok because the context of its use is to delineate between the truly ignorant and the blindly superior - whose opinions may not be challenged.
As the reigning privileged peacock of babble, you could embrace humility rather than hubris. I can never attain the superiority you take for granted, but you can attain a sensitivity to the plight of others. If you could only visualise the effect pejoratives have on not those who have the tools to defend themselves but on the vulnerable who feel the sting vicariously when their supposed progressive allies stoop to such antics.
Of course, I may simply be too 'sensitive'.
ever heard of the concept demeaning what they're about actionwise? feminism from my understanding of it- and i don't claim to be one-doesn't mean tolerating the intolerant just cause they're women. or even men.
i learned that much from my mom anyway. if there is a woman out there selling out the cause of social justice and human rights then they deserve to be named for what they are.
mniemöller, I'm a bit confused at your line of argument. I object to "whore" and other anti-feminist and anti-sex work language not because it demeans or dehumanizes the intended target, but because it does so to the socially marginalized groups implicated in the insult. If, as you say, we're to mind "the effect pejoratives have on...the vulnerable (which I agree with), why would we care who gets called "dreck"? Especially if those so named are not vulnerable in the slightest (Kay, Wente, etc.)?
If you are saying that progressives should simply not insult anyone because we should avoid dehumanizing language as a rule, I respect that (although it's not the policy here, nor my own); but you don't seem to be saying that.
dreck is NOT a gender-specific term. Obviously Unionist wasn't saying anything at all about the gender of the drecks. They'd still have BEEN drecks by him if they were men.
I prefer hubris. What can I say? Greek is better than Latin.
Impossible. In your 15 minutes or so of participation in babble, you have figured me out. A peacock. Incurable. Insensitive. You are indeed a genius.
That is so deliciously complex. Are you a mathematician? I admire you. Seeing through people and attacking them after only about 5 minutes on babble. Christ, you are powerful. Would you mind very much if I start a cult in your name? Your Russo-Germanic handle, I mean?
I think we can rule out that hypothesis.
Sorry you feel that way. Is it challenging the use of inappropriate terms nasty or is challenging the babble orthodoxy nasty in your view? From my point of view, I am challenging a double standard that allows some participants the privilege of using inappropriate language, taking umbrage with the challenger and then attempting to play the victim.
Maybe "whore" is inappropriate to you while the use of "dreck" is perfectly acceptable, if used on the right sort of individual. To me, these pejoratives merely demonstrate privilege and superiority over others.
babble only welcomes the 'right sort' of marginalised voices, I suppose. Voices that harmonise with the choir, not voices that sing out of tune.
OK, Mniemoeller...what, for everybody else's information, do YOU see as "the Babble orthodoxy"?
You keep taking this "you all KNOW perfectly well what I'm talking about" tone...but maybe we don't....lay it out for us.
Oh well.... I seem to recall someone just recently making the claim that we never get to play with trolls.
You have a lot of free fucking time on your hands.
And because of the way you spelled it too.
How many ways are there to spell "it"?
Two as far as I know, from having to look 'it' up in the first place.
What an interesting thread. This really stood out:
If there are class enemies worthy of your insults, what other types are out there? Gender, race, political? I think if you follow this logically there isn't much that's "progressive" about epithets in the end.
Back to the F35 discussion.
I guess for a senior ranking person in the Canadian forces, "enemy" means whoever the government defines as such from time to time. So in that sense, the above-quoted question doesn't appear as stupid as it does at first glance. Just a whole lot more menacing.
Ordinary folks who don't have heavy weapons and soldiers to defend their viewpoint sometimes resort to epithets instead. I suppose it would be better for the status quo if they simply shut up, but history doesn't have too many examples of where that happens.
To answer the OP's question:
No, it's not acceptable.
I consider the use of the term "attention whore" or "media whore" or the myriad other ways it's used (against both men and women) to be grounded in misogyny. I consider the use of that phrase the way I consider the phrase "I was raped by the history exam." Anyone want to defend the use of that phrase, in such a context, here on babble?
What do I call Wente? A horrible person, a crappy writer, someone who doesn't know how to do research, someone so drenched in privilege and self-righteousness and it's appalling that she has a platform on Canada's national media, someone who is a waste of oxygen, someone I despise. That's what I call her.
But I'll remember this discussion the next time I use the phrase "those fucking white lefties."
Actually Unionist, I lean toward CDN_FORCES 's position on this.
I said something upthread about the error of labelling someone based on his or her work, or anything else for that matter.
I have kind of gotten used to seeing it done, but frankly I think when we make those kind of assumptions, and think we know everything about a person, we do a disservice to ourselves more than anything.
It's the easiest thing in the world to find enemies, if one is so inclined. Allies? Takes a bit more work.
(edit)
As for insults, I think that is in the eye of the beholder. Any time you go out of your way to try and get that response it is just gratuitous, IMO (sure, I do it and it feels good, but it adds nothing to the discussion).
Now as for speaking one's mind. I think one should always do that. But if anything I think it is more important to do so with those you consider allies, than those you don't have much chance of influencing/
Thx lagatta
If language is important and I believe that is the case then terms that demean those with less than normative abilities both physical and mental need to be banished from our language. Just as saying I gypped someone is a slur on all Romani so to is calling a privileged shill for the 0.01% blind a slur on all people with visual impairments.
Or as I say to people who use the "r" word, "why do you want to use a derogatory word for my son as an insult." Especially when it is used to describe governmental actors who implement policies that are usually hurtful of all marginalized people, especially the less than able bodied who in every race and ethnicity occupy the bottom rung of their respective ladder.
It really IS important to think about language, the words we use, where they come from and how people - especially marginalized people - are affected by them. Of course, we can't all be superhumanly aware of all issues all of the time, but I think it's important that when someone points out to us a word or phrase that is offensive to them or to a group of people who don't have a strong voice in society, that we try to listen and understand and not become so defensive that our position becomes indefensible.
"I was wrong, I'm sorry" has got to be one of the least used phrases in the English language.
And none of those "I am sorry you were offended" diversions either. If you are going to do it, do it right.
Just awesome and way better than his fellow 'kramer' seindfielf alumni
I agree. I'm not a linguist, and don't even play one on TV, but in any given language there are so many words to convey dislike, umbrage, outrage, etc. The motherfucking cocksucking piles of excrement aside, it's all about impact.
Well.... until you have sat through Pulp Fiction a couple of times.
I think this debate is interesting in light of the BC Court of Appeal decision being discussed in another thread. Calling someone a scab is a personal and deliberately dehumanizing insult and I for one will always call a scab a scab. Replacement worker is a term best suited to describing the temp covering someones holidays.
http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/bc-court-prohibits-callin...
Yes, that was an outrageous decision. - one that should be turned over.
I got in shit with some colleagues not too long ago for daring to call a thief a thief. And their dudgeon was no less high because I declined to call the police, they were all threatened as well, and we all knew for a fact the crime was not committed for any physical need.
Of course people who take others' livelihoods away can be called out, and those who are harmed have every right to express it. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone otherwise.
Thing is, the word "scab" is used often enough against people who are not scabs at all. And if you actually want to induce people to change their ways, it might not be the most effective way of going about it, even if it a good outlet for anger.
That may seem like a contradiction, but in fact I am just making a distinction between what allows someone to express anger, and what is likely to be effective.
I think BC's decision should make clear that questions of language are not inane or superficial. More than virtually anything else, language is politics.
Absolutely true.
More importantly, it is also a virus from outer space (seriously).
Ok...do you and Fidel have some kind of a deal worked out?
Aber natuerlich. Wir sind feste freunde.