Comments on: Comments on 2340

Post number 2340

mlang — Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:04:33 -0800

apparently, i'm a 'navel-gazing twit', but i'm just wondering: when are the developmentally disabled going to get the same degree of respect we afford the niggers, kikes, bitches, wetbacks, and gooks?

By: mlang

mlang — Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:06:15 -0800

I like to use the word retard. It's funny. When I was a little kid...sometimes I'd be late for school just to hear my teacher call me a retard.¹
It sucks to be a retard. Bigtime. If I knew my baby was going to be retarded, I would have it aborted if my wife felt the same way.²
Maybe I'm just a retard.³
Jon Katz. Complete retard. 'nuff said.⁴
mefi user 3859: Amish Retard⁵
...but he sure comes across as a retard expressing it.⁶
bush is a retard.⁷
there's handlers who are afraid to let this retard ramble.⁸
reminds me of what a retard i am.⁹
...which is retarded since...¹⁰

this issue was already discussed some in this mefi thread, but i think it deserves a metatalk post of its own. i'm not advocating 'political correctness', just that posters think carefully before using words that are essentially meaningless in terms of actual discussion... but the use of which perpetuates negative stereotypes and is hurtful (even if no 'pesons with developmental disabilities' actually read the comment, it contributes to a culture of dismissive and mocking behavior towards them) to an entire class of (usually wonderful) people who are not even involved.

By: owillis

owillis — Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:29:53 -0800

Don't disagree with your stance but your post shits all over the thread with its unnecessary language.

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:32:54 -0800

So, what's your point? That using the word "retard" is rude? I don't think anyone would seriously question that. In fact, therein lies the appeal. It's a playground-naughty term that provokes a giggle in those who use it, and if it's popularity is any indication, many of those who read it.

I don't believe I've ever used it on MeFi, but I'd be lying if I said I haven't used it to (hopefully) humorous effect in the real world. My girlfriend and I often refer to each other lovingly as "retard". Are we actually suggesting that the other is developmentally disabled? No. It's just an offhanded, amusingly derogatory term.

Of course, the word can also be used in a hurtful fashion to refer to the developmentally disabled, but I don't believe that's what's happening in the cases you cited.
(And for god's sake, could you have posed the question in a more inflammatory manner? What a retarded way to make a point.)

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:38:55 -0800

It's just an offhanded, amusingly derogatory term.

Like queer, fag, or homo, right?

It's amusing to those who remain ignorant to its true meaning. A couple of my friends referred to me as gay quite often, in the playfully derogatory fashion. "Dude, you're so gay!"

What are we, 12? It's a rude term to use, inappropriate except when used in context, and beneath educated, or even respectful, individuals.

What a retarded way to make a point.

And within your little joke lies the true meaning behind your post.

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:47:54 -0800

Did you see what happened there? I said the r-word, and Mommy sent me to my room. Can I consider my point made?

By: muckster

muckster — Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:53:14 -0800

And for god's sake, could you have posed the question in a more inflammatory manner?

Which goes to show that one man's "playground-naughty, amusingly derogatory term" is another's "inflammatory manner." I think I understand what the word means to you, Optamystic, but that's only part of the story. You're also saying other things every time you use it. mlang's objections should suffice to drop the term. It's hurtful and it's useless. There are plenty of derogatory terms for your enjoyment that don't belittle or stereotype. What's wrong with "fuckwit?"

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:59:59 -0800

fuckwit n, an idiot, a halfwit.

In other words, a less well known, amusingly derogatory term that has, at one time or the other, no doubt been used to describe a developmentally disabled person.

By: evanizer

evanizer — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:04:36 -0800

Who are you, Merriam Webster? As far as I know, "fuckwit" doesn't have an official meaning, and therein lies its appeal. I don't like clamping down on language, but if someone you encounter regularly (like a metafilterarian) tells you that a particular word offends them, be a gent and don't use it. Unless you just want to be a fuckwit.

I do have to take issue with the way you raised this issue however, mlang. There are more pleasant and less puerile ways to do it.

By: muckster

muckster — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:11:35 -0800

When I hear from a bunch of outraged fuckwits, I'll change my ways and look for another word.

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:39:50 -0800

I'm a retard.
I've been known to hang out with niggers, fags and wetbacks, and sometimes, people tell me that I look like a kike.

Also, not once has some word ever hurt me like an action has, only revealed the nature of the speaker, which, in my old age, I have learned is much more often whimsical in nature than truly malicious, ( if only possessed of a different sensibility than mine, a personal evolution unique unto that individual, something I don't waste my time trying to change.)

Point? Grow a pair, you faggot whiners.

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:42:00 -0800

Well, by muckster's standard's, I suppose this thread leaves me no choice but to change my ways and look for another word. (kidding, kidding)

Seriously, though, I know I'm taking the indefensible position on this one. I don't like the word, either, and I agreed at the outset that it was not an ideal word for polite conversation. I just don't think that a particular individual (or even a group's) distaste for the word is going to make it go away anytime soon.

By: jcterminal

jcterminal — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:55:12 -0800

"when are the developmentally disabled going to get the same degree of respect we afford the niggers, kikes, bitches, wetbacks, and gooks?"

the moment they ask me.

or they beat me in a game of chess.

By: inpHilltr8r

inpHilltr8r — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:35:40 -0800

...what a Joey.

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:38:53 -0800

call me a faggot, but that could possibly, finally, be the post that makes me reach out and touch dong.

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:42:19 -0800

The law of the playground.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:20:39 -0800

Gosh, i thought that "tard" was a male version of "tart".

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:30:20 -0800

Fraser, that may be one of the funniest sites I've seen.

By: bingo

bingo — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:35:23 -0800

Congrats to the navel-gazing twit on the unintentionally hilarious post. And this kike thinks Eminem is great, even if he is a tard.

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:38:56 -0800

Miguel is currently going through the rage on another thread.

'the rage'
Only certain children are capable of achieving the rage. It is the state where you are empowered by two silver lines of snot running from your nose to your mouth. Once this bionic power feed is broken, the child will lose their powers and become sullen, sorry, and somewhat confused at the chaos that surrounds them.

By: dotComrade

dotComrade — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 03:59:37 -0800

As far as I know, "fuckwit" doesn't have an official meaning

Actually, Optamystic has a point. If we're going to collectively sit here and whine about sensitive language, fuckwit has to go too. Either that or we get to use fucktard as a retard replacement.

It comes down to context here. Language on it's own isn't hurtful and none of the words used to fuel this flame war are offensive on their own.

Black people calling each other "Nigger" is obviously not directed in a malicious way, but I've heard the "If they can call each other that, why can't we?" argument time and time again. Context.

If you can't understand that much, maybe you shouldn't use such "hurtful" language and leave it to people who understand context.

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 04:45:36 -0800

Is "sped" still ok?

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:16:45 -0800

Is "sped" still ok?

If it's ok for you, have at it. If it's OK for you to say "nigger," have at it. The point mlang is trying to make is that some words have a patently derogatory connotation that adds nothing to a discussion. But, if you find some kernel of humor in the fact that there are people with diminished mental capacity, and you think sharing that "humor" with others adds something to a MetaFilter discussion, well more power to you -- as they say, "it's a free country."

But before you do, do me a favor and read about some of these girls. (I'm particularly fond of this one). You might actually have to think about why you find the concept of "retarded" to be so funny. Then again, maybe you won't.

By: rich

rich — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:28:49 -0800

Sheesh, people..

Retarded as a comment is typically used to infer stupidity on the person you are calling retarded, as in "what are you, retarded?"

It is a reflection on the person they are calling retarded, not people out there that *are* retarded.

What the fuck's difference is it if I said instead "What are you, developmentally disabled?"

It has the same exact context and meaning, and insult purpose and power, but I'm going to make a very very small leap here and assume that for some stupid fucking reason, the latter comment wouldn't raise people's hackles so much.

How about just shortening it to "What are you, stupid?"

Aren't I insulting all those poor people with IQ's under 100 now?

And I do hate to say it, but there are some very accurate 'generalizations' you can make about 'developmentally disabled' people - and I'm not referring to people with learning disabilities, dyslexia, and crap like that, but truly 'retarded'. They are slow in learning complex things. It's a fact. While those other 'derogatory' terms are mean to infer negative things based on nothing more than race or skin color.

Unless you use the word to directly demean someone who is 'developmentally disabled, ' I don't see it as insulting to them. Because any word can be made to do the same thing. Call someone who is slow 'stupid', and it's the same thing as calling them a 'retard' for the purposes of hurting them. Calling someone retarded just to explain they are, however, I don't get as insulting.

So calling someone retarded (who isn't) as an insult I don't see how it insults someone who is.

By: mlang

mlang — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:40:43 -0800

i used such inflammatory language to make a point about just how ignorant the use of 'retard' makes one appear. many people who would never use any of the other words appearing in my post think nothing of joking about the 'short bus' and the 'tards' who ride it.

when one 'normal' person calls another 'normal' person a retard because they're engaging in 'stupid' behavior, it's no different than one white boy saying to another: 'be a good nigger and pick up my pencil' (referring to the task as servile, slave-like behavior). why do we accept the former and condemn the latter?

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:45:23 -0800

Good call there, rich. So if I say to a known heterosexual: "Gee, you walk just like a faggot," that statement does not contain a derogatory reference about gay people? The word "retarded" has obtained a derogatory connotation akin to "nigger" or "kike." The phrase "developmentally disabled" does not have that connotation. (I know, I'm being the "PC police").

If you honestly can't see how calling a "normal" person a "retard" is really a back-handed slap at those with low IQs, you need to put yourself in the position of someone who is retarded or who loves someone who is.

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:46:49 -0800

the moment they ask me.

or they beat me in a game of chess.

What kind of odds are we talking about here?

By: brittney

brittney — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:47:57 -0800

An apropos excerpt from faser's link:

i'm sofa king we tar did
Which, when written on a piece of paper and read out by someone else, sounds quite funny. Technique tried and tested on The Day Today. (Sydney Fung)

By: mlang

mlang — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:56:38 -0800

following rich's logic, i guess 'wetback' is an honest and even-handed way to refer to mexican illegal immigrants. i mean, many of them do arrive by swimming the rio grande.¹

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:00:56 -0800

Don't disagree with your stance but your post shits all over the thread with its unnecessary language.

owillis
writing (or saying) "retard" is unnecessary language too.
I think you're against mlang just because, finally, you got hurt by a word here. Obviously "retard" didn't make you uncomfortable enough, some other word did the trick

You know, friends and relatives of developmentally disabled people, and other people with no special experience of the condition but who are sensitive enough, well all these people are hurt by the word "retard" just like blacks and asians etc are hurt by slurs

Retard is a slur. MeFi is no place for slurs. ALL of them should be banished
I'm with mlang.
Sometimes shock tactics are needed. A wake-up call I'd say. Maybe somebody will notice

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:09:34 -0800

I just don't think that a particular individual (or even a group's) distaste for the word is going to make it go away anytime soon.

Why not? It happens all the time, as evidenced by mlang's words that drew such offense in this link.

I'm surprised to see people try to defend the use of 'tard and retard. They're politically incorrect; pretending they don't have any offensive connotations is bizarre.

By: rich

rich — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:11:16 -0800

pardonyou? - how exactly does a faggot walk?

Then tell me what the IQ cut-off for being classified retarded or developmentally disabled by official, scientific means is.

I think only the latter question can be answered.

By: goneill

goneill — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:20:08 -0800

I wince when I see people saying 'retard' or 'white trash' but I have to take offense, buddy, with your 'call eminem a cocksucker if you like' argument.

What is it about people with cocks? they like them sucked and then they turn 'cocksucker' into an insult. If the world were a little more normal, 'cocksucker' would mean a selfless, generous and giving person.

[on preview: see people saying, that's funny.]

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:33:20 -0800

I'm washing all of your mouthes out with soap. Wait until your father gets home.

By: Yelling At Nothing

Yelling At Nothing — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:34:06 -0800

Is gimp (or gimpy) still okay?

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:40:00 -0800

Now you've brought the discussion to a whole new level, goneill. The question is akin to why "fuck you" is such an insult. It's a pleasurable act, no? I won't even try to figure that out, but the answer to your question, I think, is buried somewhere in this old joke (edited for brevity):

Man on deathbed, discussing his life.
"I was a great athlete in high school. Am I known as Dave the Athlete? No."
"In college, I excelled in all my classes, and double majored in physics and Latin. Do people call me Dave the Scholar? No."
"I made a fortune in business, and gave away thousands to deserving causes. Am I Dave the Tycoon, or Dave the Philanthropist? No and no."
"But you suck one cock ..."

By: ODiV

ODiV — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:43:07 -0800

Yelling: only if you put cocksucking in front of it (or cocksucker behind).

By: Mack Twain

Mack Twain — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:47:51 -0800

I call bullshit on this post. What about 'developmentally disabled' who call themselves Retarded, mlang? Keeping in step with the original post, anyone heard of SLO MO the Rappin' Retard? "Rolling up on the heels of last year's surprise hit, "Supervision (I can't go without)", Slo Mo brings his slow-minded philosophy to a full-length album packed with all-new retard rhymes." "Talented retards like Slo Mo aren't found everyday. We know talent when we hear it -- Slo Mo is fresh" - YPL Records Executive. Political correctness is an oppressive tool that keeps people in closets (heard of Queer America?), plus it is so two years ago.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:49:52 -0800

Mmm, goneill, you're so romantic. [47K WAV]

By: me3dia

me3dia — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:54:42 -0800

I completely agree with mlang that the term is tantamount to calling someone any of the other slurs in his list. One of my brothers has mental disabilities, and "retard" almost always raises my hackles, even when used in jest. It's so offensive to me that the treatment of developentally disabled people in There's Something About Mary ruined the rest of the film for me.

... there are some very accurate 'generalizations' you can make about 'developmentally disabled' people - and I'm not referring to people with learning disabilities, dyslexia, and crap like that, but truly 'retarded'. They are slow in learning complex things. It's a fact.
Actually, people with dyslexia and other learning disabilities often also have trouble with complex concepts.

Rich, using a derogatory term at any time is demeaning, because you're implying that the person your calling an "X" is bad, just like those other Xs. If I say "What are you, a nigger?" what does that tell you? It means I think black people are bad, and that you're acting like a black person. Pretty insulting to black people, isn't it? Well, replace nigger with retard and hopefully you will see my point.

[on preview] Mack, what you're referring to is analogous to black people calling each other nigger. It's a reclamation of the word. If they do it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's OK for you to start using the word freely.

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:59:18 -0800

What is it about people with cocks? they like them sucked and then they turn 'cocksucker' into an insult ... The question is akin to why "fuck you" is such an insult.

It's called misogyny?

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:49:40 -0800

It's one thing to wish (and try) to avoid words and actions that might reasonably be considered offensive or demeaning, except of course in such cases in which it is in fact one's intent to offend or demean (note: one person's reaction does not constitute a reasonable assessment of offensiveness...except to that one person).

It is quite another to assume the right to dictate which words another person may use, and when and how he may use them. Language is not meant to be safe; it's meant to be effective. Everyone must be allowed to use absolutely ANY words they wish to, knowing that other people's reactions to them will vary and may, in some cases, detract or distract from their message or intent, rather than facilitating it, and accepting a measure of the responsibility should this happen.

Freedom of speech > political correctness.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:53:04 -0800

Bad guess, R.J. Reynolds. Calling someone a cocksucker is an assertion of dominance. It's based on the notion that it's much less respectable to give than to receive. Hasn't OZ taught us anything?

By: fishfucker

fishfucker — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:53:36 -0800

it's not the fault of language that you're offensive.

pretending language doesn't exist is a gift to the easily shocked.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:01:51 -0800

It is quite another to assume the right to dictate which words another person may use, and when and how he may use them.

Who, exactly, is doing that in this thread, rushmc?

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:04:31 -0800

If I say "What are you, a nigger?" what does that tell you? It means I think black people are bad, and that you're acting like a black person. Pretty insulting to black people, isn't it?

Exactly why I always steel myself and go into outraged-liberal mode whenever someone says 'that's so gay,' as BlueTrain and pardonyou? touched on.

Most of the occasions I have had these conversations, it's been me sitting in a chatroom full of sixteen-year-old hax0rs who live the stereotype of self-involved, empathy-free teenagerdom to the fullest. The vast majority of the time they aren't intending to be homophobic and just never took the time to think about the inherent homophobia of 'gay' as an all-purpose insult. And the vast majority of the time, they take my objections pretty well, often apologizing, sometimes even following my lead and doing the outraged-liberal consciousness-raising speech on my behalf, if I'm not watching the channel closely enough to be on it first, which is gratifying to see and gives me the small illusion that I'm doing something to make it a kinder, gentler world.

As with all other requests for sensitivity and empathy, reasonable and well-adjusted people will generally comply, whereas others will bend over backwards to whinge about "freedom of speech" in order to prove how very punkrock they are.

By: bingo

bingo — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:14:47 -0800

rcade: Bad guess, R.J. Reynolds. Calling someone a cocksucker is an assertion of dominance. It's based on the notion that it's much less respectable to give than to receive. Hasn't OZ taught us anything?

It's all of a piece. The idea that being on the receiving end is worse is directly tied to the idea that being feminine (in sexual terms, always receiving) is inferior to being masculine. And that goes back to an ancient idea that a woman is born with her femininity, but a man has to construct his masculinity. That's why we have such notions (in western societies, anyway) as "acting like a man," "taking it like a man," etc.

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:21:46 -0800

Everyone must be allowed to use absolutely ANY words they wish

Really?
Really?
Would you like MetaFilter to become like this?
Think about it
Please
All these links are obviously not work safe

By: jcterminal

jcterminal — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:36:25 -0800

if you're offended at the word 'retard' i bet you totally lose your shit when you see anything made out of 'fire-retarded' material right?

words only have the power given to them by the people who hear them, not the people who speak them.

and thank god no one's been offended by the word 'shit-fucker' yet. i wouldn't be able to know what to do.

By: websavvy

websavvy — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:45:08 -0800

I basically agree with mlang's premise. However, I can see a day when I won't be able to call the person who cuts me off on the highway anything.
Calling people stupid works for now, but what happens when the stupid people start crying foul?

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:45:48 -0800

and thank god no one's been offended by the word 'shit-fucker' yet. i wouldn't be able to know what to do.

I ain't saying a word.

Everyone must be allowed to use absolutely ANY words they wish

Really?
Really?
Would you like MetaFilter to become like this?
Think about it
Please
All these links are obviously not work safe

Matteo, as much as I would hate MetaFilter to become a hatefilled space like the ones you linked, I'd also hate for it to become sterile and without any emotion whatsoever. You have to accept some of the namecalling in any group this size.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:50:33 -0800

'fire-retarded'

It's flame-retardant, jcterminal. Something your post isn't.

By: mlang

mlang — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:52:06 -0800

i appreciate the rhetorical value of calling me out for using 'cocksucker' and, admittedly, it was a poor word choice. but this really doesn't have anything to do with the problem of calling someone a 'retard', does it now? except, perhaps, to confirm my original point that we all need to be a little more careful about the words we use and the violence that may be implicit within them.

in any case, the word 'cocksucker' has no more actual implication of fellatio performance than 'motherfucker' does of incest. 'retard', on the other hand, offers a very specific reference.

By: bingo

bingo — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:53:32 -0800

matteo: I think the people whose posts you're linking to would never be comfortable in a MeFi thread, due to their general lack of education and ability to write coherently, whether they choose to use racist terminology or not. In terms of Fred Phelps: as left-leaning kyke from Kansas, I have no love in my heart for that fag-hating retard. He picketed the funerals of some of my friends, in fact. But I do find his directness and honesty refreshing. It's not his hatred of fags that offends me, it's the stupidity that leads him to it. He revels in the fact that people are so offended by the words he uses that they are often too frustrated that he exists to even argue against him effectively.

By: Skot

Skot — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:55:54 -0800

i bet you totally lose your shit when you see anything made out of 'fire-retarded' material right?

Oh my yes, because we're all dumbfucks who are unable to discern context.

Some words are going to piss some people off. Most of the time when we use these words, we generally understand this. It's disingenuous to profess unawareness of the consequences, whether it be online (consequence: people may scream at you and call you other inventive names) or in real life (consequence: people may want to hit you in the face). It's real easy to piously announce that the effect of certain words lies only with the listener until someone comes out and hits you with one that hurts.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:57:39 -0800

As with all other requests for sensitivity and empathy, reasonable and well-adjusted people will generally comply

Meanwhile, it's nuts like you who want to censor Huckleberry Finn.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:00:06 -0800

Really?
Really?
Would you like MetaFilter to become like this?
Think about it
Please
All these links are obviously not work safe

That has nothing to do with what I was saying. It's not the words you use, it's what you do with them. Obviously, there are things that can be done with words that are not appropriate or desired in Metafilter.

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:02:15 -0800

rush. what, the fuck, ever. Mark Twain, you ain't.

are you too dense, really, to understand the difference between people advocating Fascist Censorship and people wishing that assholes like you were somewhat fewer in number, or at least would go someplace and be assholes where being you won't be a bother to the rest of us?

no slur against anyone's asshole intended by the above remark.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:04:17 -0800

Matteo: Oops, I posted too quickly. When I said that "You have to accept some of the namecalling in any group this size." what I meant to say was, "You have to accept that there's going to be some namecalling in any group this size."

You don't--for one single second--have to accept hatred and smallmindedness. In fact, I encourage everyone to stamp it out wherever you get the chance.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:10:32 -0800

Retard actualy comes from the latin word tardus, which translates to "slow". As media3 and JcTerminal pointed out, if something was fire-retardant, it would be slow to catch on fire. If someone is retarded, then they are slow to catch on to a concept or idea.

That's it.

By: goneill

goneill — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:12:54 -0800

mlang, I don't know how to explain this to you; but cocksucker does imply sucking cocks. It is exactly the same thing as retard, it's just not something that you are as sensitive about. Be careful what you assume about words. The implication that one word has to you might be very different than it does to me. That's what this thread is about, no?

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:34:20 -0800

I like my mother's old-fashioned advice: "never call someone something you could have been". Although it's condescending and all that, it's still a good rule and follows the "There, but for the grace of God, go I".

The British and American astounding and never-ending genius for coming up with unique object-based insults that escape this rule - "toe-rag", "big blouse"(UK) "dickwad", "douchebag"(US)and tens of thousands of others - makes it all the more lazy and sad that some people still use racial and sexual epithets that would offend someone who happened to overhear them.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:36:00 -0800

I meant follows the "There, but for the grace of God, go I" line of thought.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:37:31 -0800

My mom always told me "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

And that I better shop around.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:37:53 -0800

"never call someone something you could have been".

So never, ever, call someone a contender.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:44:16 -0800

Miguel, sometimes you really are an unruly boner.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:45:35 -0800

Retard actualy comes from the latin word tardus, which translates to "slow".

And "nigger" comes from "negro," which is Spanish for black. So what? Talking about the origin of the word totally miss the point -- it's the connotation that has been placed on the word that causes the problem.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:48:36 -0800

Ya know, I've been looking, and I can't find any derogatory terms for Dutch ancestry. That can't be right. I feel so...so...left out.

Goneill, right on...never understood how those who want them can conceivably use cocksucker to mean "bad thing".

Also on my list of words that don't make sense to me to use as derogatory: bitch, cunt, breeder, butch and queen.
(Although, many/most of my male friends are gay...which may make me the queen-bitch-breeder goddess of the fag-hag set. heh.)

And on preview, I swear, I should have added Miguel to my list of favorite things on the site. He always makes me laugh.

By: mlang

mlang — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:55:12 -0800

goneill: the more i think about it, the more right you are. when one calls a man a 'cocksucker', one is essentially calling him either a homosexual or a woman... and doing so in a derogatory way implying that to be either of these things (gay or female) is bad and somehow makes him less than someone who doesn't perform fellatio. so, cocksucker does perpetuate negative and untrue stereotypes.

By: adampsyche

adampsyche — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:56:37 -0800

Not only is Miguel occasionally unruly, but quite ferocious as well.

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:07:18 -0800

And "nigger" comes from "negro," which is Spanish for black

Very interesting. Here I thought it split off from "niggardly". Letter three here covers my feelings on such language better than I ever could.

rushmc, are you too dense, really, to understand the difference between people advocating Fascist Censorship and people wishing that assholes like you were somewhat fewer in number

I'll admit to being too dense to perceive the difference between "Facist Censorship" and wishing some people did not have a voice in matters.

By: witchstone

witchstone — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:25:20 -0800

whenever anyone uses the words that have been pointed out it reflects more poorly on them then on the person they are trying to insult.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:32:30 -0800

Ya know, I've been looking, and I can't find any derogatory terms for Dutch ancestry. That can't be right. I feel so...so...left out.

Full of Dutch courage i.e. liquored up.

Dutch treat i.e. no treat at all.

I'm sure there are more. Anyone?

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:34:41 -0800

And "nigger" comes from "negro," which is Spanish for black

Very interesting. Here I thought it split off from "niggardly".

That's a mistake that gets people fired. God bless the ignorant hypersensitive. They know not what they do.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:35:13 -0800

Dutch Boy paint. That stereo type has hounded the poor Dutchies for years.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:36:01 -0800

"Pass the Dutchie" too.

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:39:52 -0800

I can't think of any term more derogatory than Dutch.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:40:25 -0800

The Straight Dope on niggardly.

While searching for that, I also found a column (on cockring.org, of all places) that relates to what we're talking about here, played off a comment by D.C. mayor Anthony Williams a couple years ago.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:42:10 -0800

Dutch uncle: a reproving person.
Double dutch: gibberish.
In dutch: in trouble.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:42:24 -0800

"Dutch ovens." Why can't the Dutch cook inside?

By: me3dia

me3dia — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:43:25 -0800

(Doh! Apparently it was one of Williams' aides, not him. The rest still stands.)

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:54:11 -0800

yerfatma. Who is trying to stop anyone from having a say in anything here? I see nobody saying "that guy who said 'retard' oughtta be banned from ever posting again," or anything of the sort. It's just diversionary bullshit of the rankest sort to make this into an issue of suppression of viewpoint.

Clevershark, and each of us, has every right to be an asshole, though he won't ever be as good at it as rushmc. But that doesn't mean that no one can call him on it when it happens---and *that* sure as hell doesn't mean anybody is violating his Constitutional rights.

So. To review. Be an asshole, go right ahead; just don't be surprised when people object---suck it up as part of the asshole territory; there is no First Amendment protection against the repercussions of rudeness. Or, and this is really revolutionary so pay close attention: if you tire of the objections---try being a little more sensitive in the things you say. Which is all, if I'm not mistaken, mlang was trying to say up there.

By: Dagobert

Dagobert — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:58:20 -0800

Boner? Why has a Growing Pains secondary character been brought up?

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:01:37 -0800

Can't you try to say "bullshit" and "asshole" a few more times in your posts, Sapphireblue? They make you sound so erudite and clever....

By: Dagobert

Dagobert — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:05:20 -0800

As far as the worst insult (in my book), Ronald Reagan was known by the nickname Dutch and as far as I know, our Nederland cousins were never consulted.

Here's a question though; if the country is the Netherlands (English spelling), where the heck did we get "Dutch"? It's not even close

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:07:35 -0800

Its a corruption of "Deutsch" - German. Apparently, we weren't all that sure what they were. Same thing with the "Pennsylvania Dutch" - they all came over from Germany.

By: stifford

stifford — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:18:33 -0800

this link is both totally appropriate and well as totally inappropriate for this thread.

By: inpHilltr8r

inpHilltr8r — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:21:17 -0800

"big blouse"(UK)

That would actually be "big girls blouse", which is ever so slightly less pc. Although it's hardly a strong insult to begin with...

By: jcterminal

jcterminal — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:31:47 -0800

funny how my mistake about something being 'fire-retardant' was seen, but not the rest of the post.

there are none so blind, yes?

By: me3dia

me3dia — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:32:09 -0800

I thought the Dutch were from Denmark. I suppose they should be Danes, then.

But yhbc is right about the Amish. Pennsylvania Dutch, the language, is really middle Deutche, an archaic form of German.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:36:42 -0800

funny how my mistake about something being 'fire-retardant' was seen, but not the rest of the post.

OK, then:

words only have the power given to them by the people who hear them, not the people who speak them.

Would those words be used if they didn't have power? So aren't the people who speak those words using them for their power? Is a hammer a tool only to the nail, not to the one wielding the hammer?

By: rich

rich — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:14:30 -0800

"Actually, people with dyslexia and other learning disabilities often also have trouble with complex concepts." - me3dia

The reason they have problems with complex subjects is not because their IQ is low (and thus classified as 'retarded', clinically) but because they have problems assembling the pieces they need in the first place to create the question or to assemble the answer to to subject. Their IQ can handle it fine, it is the process that causes the problem. Meanwhile clinically retarded will never get the complex subject because it is beyond the grasp of their intelligence. Don't mix your facts together.

And I'll note that pardonyou? completely ignored me after I noted that saying someone walks like a faggot is in no way comparable to calling someone retarded for being stupid.

People wince when they hear someone call someone else retarded usually when they know a friend or family member who is retarded. This, I think, is mainly because they feel sorry for the 'disadvantaged' person. You can say someone who is retarded is retarded, because they are, or you can say they are retarded to be mean.

But I'm still maintaining that 'retarded' refers to an actual fact in intelligence level while all the other insulting and demeaning words people are throwing around infer negative things based on completely unrelated aspects, like race or sexual orientation.

I think the main complaint is that 'developmentally disabled' people are many times unable to defend themselves against the connotations of 'retarded', but still understanding when it is said in a derogatory manner. They may be slow, but they're not stupid.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:33:58 -0800

The term "mentally retarded," like the early "imbecile," "idiot" and "moron," was originally a neutral scientific term. It seems that any euphemism for low intelligence will eventually become an insult and therefore need to be replaced with a new euphemism.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:46:08 -0800

Or we could use an old euphemism. The psychological use of the word "moron" is obsolete. There are no people who call themselves morons (or are called morons) in a non-pejorative sense. Seems like a perfect term for abuse, though I prefer maroon.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:47:25 -0800

And now imbecile, idiot, and moron are acceptable (well as much as any insult can be). I wonder when/if retard will be acceptable. I suppose this goes for the racial/sexual orientation slurs as well.

Hell, someone was trying to re-positivise (um, whatever) the word cunt not too long ago. Which is a different matter, but not entirely unrelated.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:51:36 -0800

rcade: you're kidding right?

Main Entry: 1ma·roon
Pronunciation: m&-'rün
Function: noun
Etymology: French maron, marron, modification of American Spanish cimarrón, from cimarrón wild, savage
Date: 1666
1 capitalized : a fugitive black slave of the West Indies and Guiana in the 17th and 18th centuries; also : a descendant of such a slave
2 : a person who is marooned

By: nath

nath — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:01:27 -0800

I just don't understand the need to use the words in the first place, much less the defense thereof. Is there not a word you could find that would not broadly offend a group of people yet convey the same sentiment?

Of course, at the same time... most, if not all, usages like this would go away if we laid off the ad hominem attacks.

By: mlang

mlang — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:12:37 -0800

i think rcade is kidding, O. there was a minor metatalk blowup a while back about the word 'maroon'.

but then there is the issue of 'what a maroon' in the bugs bunny sense. and what exactly is our favorite wascally wabbit saying when he says 'maroon'? is it a racist reference (since so many of those cartoons are really racist, in the same way that south pacific is really racist) or is it simply a mispronunciation of moron? (bugs has also been known to mispronounce 'imbecile' and other words.)

By: ODiV

ODiV — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:35:50 -0800

Ananova article about racist Bugs cartoons.

Though it doesn't go into details.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:01:56 -0800

Finally waded through this, and for what it's worth, I have this to say : it is, I think, a very American thing to focus on the effect that words have on other people when they are spoken or written. What is forgotten is that the words you choose to deploy also say a great deal about you. If you casually fling around words like 'nigger' and 'kike', without even a hint of irony or self-referential humour, I feel perfectly justified in ignoring you, because, frankly, you're a retard (*note to the developmentally disabled : that was self-referential humour).

This is a pleasantly Darwinian way of dealing with this stuff. Certainly derogatory epithets are to be frowned upon, if only provide positive examples to children (dear god won't someone think of the children), but when people pull out these kinds of words, it is very instructive indeed in allowing one to separate the wheat from the chaff. And ignore the chaff.

So : I say feel free to use these nasty, loaded words, but be aware, for what may be the first time in your life (judging by some of the arguments here) that their use reflects as much or more on yourself as it does on the people you are describing, or your listeners.

It is important, I believe, that people check and control their own behaviour, rather than doing whatever they can possibly get away with, up to an arbitrarily marked barrier that those in positions of 'responsibility' have set them, despite the fact that this is not The American Way.

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:20:45 -0800

Can't you try to say "bullshit" and "asshole" a few more times in your posts, Sapphireblue? They make you sound so erudite and clever....

People must be allowed to say anything they want, rush. You aren't trying to censor me with your Battleax of Jackbooted Oppression, are you? How DARE you stifle my right to an opinion! How DARE you rob me of my Voice!

bullshit asshole.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:34:46 -0800

You aren't trying to censor me with your Battleax of Jackbooted Oppression, are you?

Not at all, but

when people pull out these kinds of words, it is very instructive indeed in allowing one to separate the wheat from the chaff. And ignore the chaff.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:45:18 -0800

I forgot to add this : that when people check and control their own behaviour, they then can and are expected to take responsibility for that behaviour. Responsibility for one's actions and words is systematically being stripped from American culture by creeping victimhood and nannyism. I lament this, and see the one-sidedness I described in my previous comment as a symptom of the rot.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:06:27 -0800

The above was a lot to read, so if my point has already been made, please excuse me.

I believe this all boils down to two things: respect and courtesy for others, whether they are present or not, whether they understand you or not.

Stavros may have been joking, but he is completely correct when he states "...think of the children". I have read enough statements by enough people on this site to believe that most of us would like a better world to live in. It starts with what and how we teach our children. I do my best to avoid saying "retard" or any other negative word, be that around my son or your child, in the hopes that our children will never hear them. This isn't to say that swearing doesn't have its place--there are times when a well-placed "bullshit" or "asshole" are necessary, but I think we should pick and choose the time and place for their use more carefully.

I agree with you, stavros, that accountability for one's actions seems to be on the decline, but that's a subject for another day.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:28:04 -0800

there are times when a well-placed "bullshit" or "asshole" are necessary

I disagree. Satisfying, perhaps, but always self-indulgent (not necessarily a bad thing), and never "necessary."

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:33:59 -0800

A well-placed asshole is always necessary.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:39:55 -0800

I wasn't kidding about maroon. I got it from the Looney Tunes cartoons and have always thought it was simply a comical mispronunciation of moron.

Even though it's clearly a slur in the West Indies and Guiana, I wonder if that connotation ever made it into American culture. My guess is that it was used in the cartoons coincidentally to the racial meaning elsewhere, rather than being an intentional effort by Bugs Bunny to compare his antagonists to black former slaves.

However, it's just a guess though. What seemingly innocuous pejorative will be taken from me next? Rube? Mullethead?

By: ( .)(. )

( .)(. ) — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:33:51 -0800

Late to the party as usual.

Nothing like a good virtual soap before bed.

*Yawn*

Here, kitty kitty kitty, oh there you are, climb in here, oh you're so soft and furry I could hug you for hours...Shit, am I still typing this? Damn.

Anyways, good night to all the east and west coasters and good morning to all of you oversea'ers, that's you Miguel.

By: dg

dg — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:36:29 -0800

I do my best to avoid saying "retard" or any other negative word, be that around my son or your child, in the hopes that our children will never hear them.

Hear hear ashbury.

By: Lynsey

Lynsey — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:50:38 -0800

Thanks crash, you made my day/night!

By: jaden

jaden — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:52:39 -0800

Ah, butt-pimples, you were only 54 minutes late and every time I preview, someone else has posted something. Even if something retards your arrival, you don't have to resort to that kitty poo poo stuff.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:19:56 -0800

Can't you try to say "bullshit" and "asshole" a few more times in your posts, Sapphireblue? They make you sound so erudite and clever....

People must be allowed to say anything they want, rush.

Not to oppress or silence either of you, but when Person A (in this case sapphireblue) has both logically and rhetorically kicked Person B's (in this case rushmc's) ass as thoroughly as has happened here, the ideal behavior is for Person B to slink off and lick his wounds and for Person A to rest on her well-deserved laurels and ignore further attacks.

By: evanizer

evanizer — Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:37:10 -0800

Except that said Person B never knows when to quit.

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:03:26 -0800

Person A can take a hint, and will now go wander off to try to figure out what and where her laurels are.

By: Mick

Mick — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:31:30 -0800

Is gimp still okay?

all those open-source advocates want you to think so but compared to photoshop its abilities are a bit retarded.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:47:23 -0800

when Person A (in this case sapphireblue) has both logically and rhetorically kicked Person B's (in this case rushmc's) ass as thoroughly as has happened here

You miss a lot of what goes on here, don't you? lol

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:52:04 -0800

Person C(yours truly) is savoring the sweet shadenfruede(sp?) of the whole A-B exchange.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:02:06 -0800

I hate algebra.

By: sennoma

sennoma — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:25:28 -0800

[arrant nonsense]
posted by rushmc at 8:47 AM PST on July 11

Shit. I had 10:00am, there's sure to be someone closer than me. I shoulda known he'd reply before work.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:28:01 -0800

I do my best to avoid saying "retard" or any other negative word, be that around my son or your child, in the hopes that our children will never hear them.

Not that this isn't laudable, but who do you think invents and popularizes these derogatory terms in the first place?

By: ashbury

ashbury — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:53:41 -0800

rushmc, what's your point? What's this got to do with me trying to teach my child to be respectful and courteous? I don't expect any children not to hear these words, I just don't want them to hear them from me. It's a lead-by-example thing.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:21:06 -0800

My point is just what I said it was, that while you may well not wish to set the example of using these terms in front of your children--or, conversely, may actively work to set the positive example of expressly choosing not to use them--it seems very unrealistic to not acknowledge that they are in common currency among the slang of their peers. You say now that "I don't expect any children not to hear these words," but that is at variance with your previous post, where you said quite plainly that you "do my best to avoid saying "retard" or any other negative word, be that around my son or your child, in the hopes that our children will never hear them."

By: ashbury

ashbury — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:35:37 -0800

Place the emphasis on "in the hopes." Don't take me as being naive.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:48:28 -0800

I could argue that it is naive in the extreme to "hope" that someone doesn't encounter something that is ubiquitous, but you would probably feel that I was picking on you, so I won't. ;)

By: anildash

anildash — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:55:13 -0800

It's all of a piece. The idea that being on the receiving end is worse is directly tied to the idea that being feminine (in sexual terms, always receiving) is inferior to being masculine.

What about straight guys who suck cock? And, why don't we all consider it engulfment instead of penetration? I don't understand the fixation on seeing women and gay men as "receiving" instead of "permitting" or "accepting".

By: dg

dg — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:10:16 -0800

rushmc, people avoid using words such as these in front of their children mainly so that they will not receive the tacit approval that would be given by the casual use of such derogatory terms if children hear their parents speaking this way. This is done for the same reason that parents (at least most parents) don’t use obscenities in front of their children. Using these words as part of an adult conversation is generally seen as acceptable, but only in certain contexts to make a particular point.

While ashbury may be aiming a bit high in expecting his children not to hear such words, that is a better attitude, in my opinion, than saying “they will hear them anyway, it might as well be from me”, which then makes the words acceptable and the standard of language gradually declines in society, as we now see from the casual use of obscene language in the media.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:04:41 -0800

And, why don't we all consider it engulfment instead of penetration?

"Engulf me, my sweet engulfable you
Engulf me, you irreplaceable you

Don't you be a naughty baby
Come to papa, come to papa do
My sweet engulfable you."

No, sorry, that would never have played in Peoria.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:28:59 -0800

dg, thanks for seeing where I'm coming from. I am aiming high, and why shouldn't I? I don't believe that the world is going to change the minute I say it should, but you have to start somewhere.

rushmc, you are taking me too literally. The "hope" that I speak of is that somehow the world will change to a place that will use respect and courtesy towards each other, where harmful words are used at a minimum. I "hope" that by doing my small part I am helping in making the world a better place. Call me a foolish optimist, if you like, but not an extreme naif.

BTW, if you were to pick on me I wouldn't mind. I'm sure I could pick right back, if need be. Besides, discussion is good, picky or not.

anil, engulfment reminds me of an oil slick or a black hole, or quick sand. These things are not good. I do like permitting and accepting, as well as enjoying, electrifying, arching and joining.

By: jcterminal

jcterminal — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:11:28 -0800

i use these negative words in the high hopes that eventually they will mean nothing.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:19:18 -0800

rushmc, people avoid using words such as these in front of their children mainly so that they will not receive the tacit approval that would be given by the casual use of such derogatory terms if children hear their parents speaking this way.

And I agree with that. I intimated as much in one of my posts to ashbury. I just think it's a huge leap from that to "if I don't say it, my kids won't hear/use it," but apparently that's not what ashbury was saying, so it's all good.

While ashbury may be aiming a bit high in expecting his children not to hear such words, that is a better attitude, in my opinion, than saying “they will hear them anyway, it might as well be from me”

I would prefer a more reasonable attitude of "they are going to be exposed to these words/concepts, so I'd better do my duty as a parent and discuss them with them, as well as the reasons I feel it is inappropriate to use them" to either of the positions you describe, which seem equally irresponsible to me.

By: rcade

rcade — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:48:28 -0800

I love how people have so many strongly-held opinions on how other people's children should be raised. Please go on.

Personally, I don't cuss in front of my kids because I don't want them to drop an F bomb in school and get dragged off to the principal's office.

I know they'll learn the words -- from my occasional lapses into profanity when I drop, spill, or break something and the Tarantino-esque banter in the schoolyard -- but it's important for the little ragamuffins to learn that there's are times when you can tell some M'Fin' A to S your C, and times when you can't.

If you think Ashbury's kids aren't learning the reasons why profanity is inappropriate, you have never heard your four-year-old drop a soda and yell, in a perfect impression of you, "God damn it!"

By: dg

dg — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:09:49 -0800

... they are going to be exposed to these words/concepts, so I'd better do my duty as a parent and discuss them with them, as well as the reasons I feel it is inappropriate to use them ...

True, but that is not the same as using them yourself as part of your own language.

I love how people have so many strongly-held opinions on how other people's children should be raised. Please go on.

I can't speak for others, but I am commenting on how my own children are being raised and discussing with others how they raise theirs. I would never dream of telling someone how to raise their children - dealing with my own is enough for me :-)

... you have never heard your four-year-old drop a soda and yell, in a perfect impression of you, "God damn it!"

Oh, yes I have.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:17:22 -0800

True, but that is not the same as using them yourself as part of your own language.

Who ever suggested doing so? I think I'm slipping off the track of this thread....

By: ashbury

ashbury — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:26:14 -0800

I never said that I wouldn't discuss language with my child. I hope that there is nothing we can't discuss! (I'm such an optimist :> ) When my kid reaches the point that he is learning the swear words, I will very happily pull him to one side and tell him what my mother told me: if you are going to swear, swear; just remember to make sure that there is nobody around who will be upset by your language.

See, there is that respect and courtesy thing again.

By: mlang

mlang — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:17:31 -0800

why don't we all consider it engulfment instead of penetration? I don't understand the fixation on seeing women and gay men as "receiving" instead of "permitting" or "accepting".

anil, that's a cute trick you're trying to pull... but only if it actually were engulfment. your questions ignore the facts of the current power structure. if we lived in a matriarchy, rather than a firmly entrenched patriarchy, one might be able to call it engulfment.

but we're shooting for equality anyway, aren't we? we don't want somebody 'entering' any more than we want somebody being 'consumed/subsumed'. we want 'union' or whatever you choose to call it.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:17:37 -0800

if you are going to swear, swear; just remember to make sure that there is nobody around who will be upset by your language.

I'm just curious, what makes it worse for someone to be upset by your swearing than for someone to be upset by your not swearing (a less likely scenario, certainly, but not an unimaginable one)? Would you also go out of your way to accommodate such a person?

By: nath

nath — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:57:56 -0800

but we're shooting for equality anyway, aren't we? we don't want somebody 'entering' any more than we want somebody being 'consumed/subsumed'. we want 'union' or whatever you choose to call it.

Well, whatever you choose to call it, I could use one.

[/self-effacing comic relief]

By: evanizer

evanizer — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:05:38 -0800

nath, I'll be over in 10 minutes...

By: anildash

anildash — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:32:13 -0800

anil, that's a cute trick you're trying to pull... but only if it actually were engulfment. your questions ignore the facts of the current power structure. if we lived in a matriarchy, rather than a firmly entrenched patriarchy, one might be able to call it engulfment.

I dunno, I've definitely been in relationships where it was engulfment. Just because a lot of people are down with the patriarchy doesn't mean that's how my (or anyone's) life's been lived.

By: bingo

bingo — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 03:45:18 -0800

anildash:What about straight guys who suck cock?

They are stuffed and displayed in a special museum, next to tall short people.

And, why don't we all consider it engulfment instead of penetration? I don't understand the fixation on seeing women and gay men as "receiving" instead of "permitting" or "accepting".

Because "permitting" and "accepting" are descriptors that relate to the state of mind of the person on the receiving end, and "penetration" is a description of the physical event (which does not necessarily imply permitting or accepting). Besides, "permitting" and "accepting" still imply that something active was permitted or accepted, i.e. the penetration. mlang has a valid point about the power structure, but I have a suspicion that even in relationships where the power deferential is fairly even (if there are any such relationships), the person on the inserting end is the more physically active agent, at least at point of contact.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 06:26:04 -0800

rushmc, I think you're playing devil's advocate. I see very few situations where you have to go out of your way to curse or not to curse.

Ultimately, this thread is about what we call each other. I simply wish to teach my child what I believe is appropriate and what is not. I want my son to treat people the way he would like to be treated. Hopefully I have a good moral system in place and can get some of this across to him.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:35:47 -0800

"we want 'union' "

Norma Rae! Norma Rae!

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:09:18 -0800

rushmc, I think you're playing devil's advocate.

Wouldn't be the first time.

By: owillis

owillis — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:21:21 -0800

I actually agreed with mlang, but it seems nobody can read anymore. Fuckwits.

By: anildash

anildash — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:09:02 -0800

anildash:What about straight guys who suck cock?
They are stuffed and displayed in a special museum, next to tall short people.

I guess you could see it as an oxymoron, I just see that more people around me have relatively fluid sexual identities.

"penetration" is a description of the physical event ... well, not always. I'm not going to get too graphic, but I'm sure we can all picture situations where the event would be described differently.

the person on the inserting end is the more physically active agent, at least at point of contact.
Maybe y'all need some more active partners!

By: bingo

bingo — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:06:36 -0800

anildash: I believe in the fluidity of sexual identities. But if you're going to go that route, I don't think it makes sense to even use terms like "straight guys."

penetration" is a description of the physical event ... well, not always. I'm not going to get too graphic, but I'm sure we can all picture situations where the event would be described differently.

There are other ways to describe it, but if tab a is being inserted into slots b, c, or d, it's still penentration. Anuses and vaginas do not generally reach out like the plant in little shop of horrors and ingest penises through their own agency (or the agency of their owners). Mouths, on the other hand, can, which is why we don't typically use the word "penetration" in that case. For that, we have the word "cocksucker." ;)

By: mlang

mlang — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:28:52 -0800

i'm with you on this, bingo... but there are exceptions to every rule. i recall a certain vagina that chased my penis clear to the county line. good thing the general lee could jump over that washed out bridge (cue music). yeeeee-haw indeed.

By: anildash

anildash — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:41:55 -0800

was there a dramatic pause at the peak (!) of your arc over the creek, and a voiceover by Waylon?

By: bingo

bingo — Sat, 13 Jul 2002 02:44:25 -0800

That Daisy is a feisty one.

By: bingo

bingo — Sat, 13 Jul 2002 03:47:19 -0800

By the way, mlang, speaking of fluid sexuality, I only just today saw this.

Hopefully, your eagerly anticipated attraction wasn't contingent on my obesity, as I've lost about 45 lbs. since then. I'm hoping you love me for my mind.

By: mlang

mlang — Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:53:20 -0800

ah, but bingo, do you love me for who i am or are you a mere collector of experiences? would our encounter simply be grist for the mill of filmic storytelling?

By: bingo

bingo — Sun, 14 Jul 2002 01:13:16 -0800

Only if you fail to distinguish yourself from the rest of the tards, darling.

By: mlang

mlang — Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:37:02 -0800

By: ashbury

ashbury — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:28:24 -0800

tsk, tsk, mlang--you're not playing fair.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:08:19 -0800

*jumps in uninvited*

"There are no cocksuckers, only cocksuckings"

*runs away with tail between legs*

By: goneill

goneill — Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:24:33 -0800

yo the voice of lesbian separatism here to lay down some ground rules.

1. Vagina comes from the word 'sheath', ie. sword holder; it's a passive word.

2. Anil is right: bingo and mlang may be missing something in their sex lives.

3. For some reason, men who identify themselves as 'straight' often would like to give oral sex to another man. The are the straight cocksuckers that anil is talking about.

By: bingo

bingo — Wed, 31 Jul 2002 02:48:27 -0800

are you the voice of lesbian separatism, goneill? and how does such a voice know the minds of most straight men?

There is a lot missing from my sex life at present, but cocksucking isn't one of the missing items. I have no moral problems with the act, I'm all for those who want to do it going with the natural direction of their libidos. If I wanted to do it, I would admit it freely, and I would do it. But I don't have the desire. And all the men I know who have expressed the desire to suck cocks, identify themselves as gay.