Rock Against Racism '08

[Martin Dust]

Saying that the use of male genitalia as an insult is equal to using 'cunt' for the same purpose is not very intelligent.

Please post up this rule book you're working from cos I'm interested in reading it.

 

[aMinadaB]

The words in that sentence make sense but because of the way you've written it it's almost as if you think that the bit after the "but" has some relevance to the bit before.
This is exactly the kind of lazy nonsense I'm talking about "women get raped therefore you can't say cunt - simple". You missed out the argument.

No one said "you can't use X word," or that some words are inherently, by virtue of their assemblage of syllables, objectionable (I mean!), they simply said, if you use certain words, you may be reinforcing certain structures in society that are unequal or objectionable. Jonesy did not say, "women are raped, therefore you can't use the word 'cunt' " (his post deserved a better reading that your misrepresentation, to be honest), he simply pointed to the blindingly obvious fact that words have social and historical meanings, effects, and weight quite apart from their dictionary entry ... not "you can't say the word 'cunt', but: 'if you do use the word 'cunt', especially in certain public venues, you can expect for some people to find it objectionable." This makes perfect sense to me, but you so clearly objected to it, that I would like to try to understand where you are coming from. I don't say this sarcastically, I am genuinely curious.

I take it from your response that you find Jonesy's post to be in error (since you called it 'lazy' and said that he's "missed the argument")? I am trying to extrapolate your own view from this, so here's an attempt: You, IdleRich, don't think that people should choose words according to those words' current social implications or associations or possible effects on others, the important point is that 'so long as my personal intention is not sexist, the word has no sexist effect' ? Is that the direction you are going in? I'm making an honest attempt to see what you are actually proposing....

 

[Mr. Tea]

... not "you can't say the word 'cunt', but: 'if you do use the word 'cunt', especially in certain public venues, you can expect for some people to find it objectionable."

But there are "certain public venues" where people will find all sorts of words or usages "objectionable". Words like 'shit' and 'fuck' are deemed unsuitable in 'polite society' (the House of Commons; News At Ten; in front of your gran) because they are simply 'obscene', not because they denigrate or discriminate against any particular group of people. And there are "certain public venues" where people will take offence at, for example, "Oh for God's sake" or "Come on you Reds!" or "Up the Provvos!" or whatever.

 

[IdleRich]

"he simply pointed to the blindingly obvious fact that words have social and historical meanings, effects, and weight quite apart from their dictionary entry ..."

No-one is disagreeing with that though, the question is what the historical meanings of a particular word are, what its effects are and how much weight one person's view of it as offensive or otherwise should carry.

"'if you do use the word 'cunt', especially in certain public venues, you can expect for some people to find it objectionable." This makes perfect sense to me, but you so clearly objected to it, that I would like to try to understand where you are coming from. I don't say this sarcastically, I am genuinely curious."

Sure, I didn't think you were being sarcastic. Obviously some people find some words offensive but does that automatically mean that they are offensive? I probably wouldn't use any swearwords in front of my mum and I don't tend to use words like "cunt" on dissensus because people will probably be offended, that doesn't mean that in either case the words I refrain from using are actually offensive in themselves or that I think the people who would be offended would be acting rationally.

"since you called it 'lazy' and said that he's "missed the argument""

I said he's "missed OUT the argument" not "missed it" ie I do not mean that he missed the point of what I was saying, I meant that what he said was just some stuff with no coherent argument or, in fact, point to it.

"You, IdleRich, don't think that people should choose words according to those words' current social implications or associations or possible effects on others, the important point is that 'so long as my personal intention is not sexist, the word has no sexist effect'?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. Obviously when considering whether or not a word is sexist or offensive or whatever you have weigh up a number of things. One thing to consider is whether anyone finds it offensive - obviously that's not the whole story though because really anybody could choose to find anything offensive and that wouldn't get us anywhere. I would say though that ofen a greater number of people finding something offensive tends to give credence to the offensiveness of that word (though again not always). Another thing to consider is the usage of the word, both historically and present and whether someone who does find it offensive is acting reasonably in finding that word offensive taking into account all of this and also the context - obviously here we differ. Basically I don't think it makes sense to say that somebody using that word is sexist.

 

[swears]

Back on topic:

Isn't it a bit dogmatic to have a concert against racism? Sure, personally I find racism distasteful, but isn't this event saying that the opinions of bigots aren't valid? That's just their truth, just because our truth is different doesn't give us the right to impose our views.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Back on topic:

Isn't it a bit dogmatic to have a concert against racism? Sure, personally I find racism distasteful, but isn't this event saying that the opinions of bigots aren't valid? That's just their truth, just because our truth is different doesn't give us the right to impose our views.

 

[Jonesy]

The words in that sentence make sense but because of the way you've written it it's almost as if you think that the bit after the "but" has some relevance to the bit before.
This is exactly the kind of lazy nonsense I'm talking about "women get raped therefore you can't say cunt - simple". You missed out the argument.

You've taken what I said and reduced it down, adding "simple" at the end. My point was that men and women have some very different things to face in life (those stats I quoted being just one illustration). Our use of certain words is not without consequence and adds to a culture that clearly favours one gender over another.

I suspect that some get a juvenile thrill from using the word 'cunt' on an anonymous messageboard and winding up a few liberal types and that this is all a waste of breath.

 

[crackerjack]

Back on topic:

Isn't it a bit dogmatic to have a concert against racism? Sure, personally I find racism distasteful, but isn't this event saying that the opinions of bigots aren't valid? That's just their truth, just because our truth is different doesn't give us the right to impose our views.

Then three cheers for dogma. This post is a textbook example of what happens when you get so used to relativising everything, you abandon all thought, all morality.

Are you seriously suggesting councils and other public bodies shouldn't promote community cohesion?

 

[swears]

lol, jus' kiddin' guyz.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Are you seriously suggesting councils and other public bodies shouldn't promote community cohesion?

Come on crackerjack, he's clearly trying to wind people up (and succeeding, by the look of it), hence my troll picture.

 

[hucks]

Come on crackerjack, he's clearly trying to wind people up (and succeeding, by the look of it), hence my troll picture.

I was really wondering why someone was putting up pictures of Orcs...Back in my teenage Warhammer days I'd have got that straight away.

 

[crackerjack]

Come on crackerjack, he's clearly trying to wind people up (and succeeding, by the look of it), hence my troll picture.

Whoops, told you before i don't go for that Hobbity shit. Wondered what you were on about.

Back to work.

 

[noel emits]

Cradle of Filth’s rubbish song "Jesus is a Cunt" was clearly bullshit and bogus. Jesus was many things but the last thing he was, was a cunt. Look into THE MODERN ANTIQUARIAN (Ch. 4.34), and you will see clearly stated the language roots of the word ‘cunt’. Cunt is a word of the Goddess, and alludes to birth and the bringing forth of life, ideas, etc; hence its relationship with the modern ‘conduit’, its lingering tainting of the female word ‘cunning’, and the reason for Hinduism having a Goddess named Kunti.

Jesus Christ was a patriarchal prophet as anti-female as we can imagine, so, contrary to Cradle of Filth’s determined assertion, Jesus was certainly not a cunt.

Mohammed also was not a cunt.

Neither was Moses a cunt, nor was Zarathustra a cunt.

However, from evidence in The Norse Myths, it can certainly be asserted that Odin in his earliest guise was definitely a cunt, as were (of course) Freyja and Frigg, from whom he seems to have learned a great deal. One of the main reasons I claim to be Odinist is because of his roots as a powerful God steeped in the female traditions. This manifests in his position as bringer of the poem or Ode, and in his clandestine practise of the female magic known as seething.

Many modern artists could be said to be conduits or ‘cunts’, dependent on how we view their roots. I would claim, for example, that the very patriarchal and compassionless artist Damien Hirst is clearly not a cunt, whereas Tracey Emin surely is. Nick Cave is in no way a cunt, whilst I clearly am a real cunt. The Stooges were never cunts but the MC5 were cunts every one (even changing the lyrical content of some of their songs because women found them unrighteous).

That should put the pussy among the pigeons.

 

[swears]

Come on crackerjack, he's clearly trying to wind people up (and succeeding, by the look of it), hence my troll picture.

I was inspired by a remark Bill O' Reilly made during a "debate" he was having with Richard Dawkin. Dawkin asks something along the lines of: "Well, if your Roman Catholicism is right, are all the other Christians wrong?" O' Reilly replies with "Oh no, because that's just my truth, that might not be your truth..." I was all like "OMG, conservative pundit in pomo relativist shocker!"

 

[vimothy]

 

[stelfox]

the reason that "c*nt" is such an awesome, fantastic expletive has very little to do with gender dynamics at all. it's almost purely down to the fact that it is a single-syllable word comprised of two hard consonants: the "k" and the "t". it is my single favourite word in the entire english language. and when i say english, i mean english. it sounds absurd when said by anyone with a north american accent. it might well be wrong in all manner of ways, but liberal and repeated profanity is something that i am not prepared to give up in the name of politics.

 

[vimothy]

In my experience, American's aren't very good at swearing.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I was inspired by a remark Bill O' Reilly made during a "debate" he was having with Richard Dawkin. Dawkin asks something along the lines of: "Well, if your Roman Catholicism is right, are all the other Christians wrong?" O' Reilly replies with "Oh no, because that's just my truth, that might not be your truth..." I was all like "OMG, conservative pundit in pomo relativist shocker!"

Haha, really? What a twat.

 

[Mr. Tea]

In my experience, American's aren't very good at swearing.

On the whole I'd agree, but 'douchebag' is awesome.

 

[vimothy]

On the whole I'd agree, but 'douchebag' is awesome.

No, no it isn't.