Good points, Nomad. The difficulty here is that we're not really talking about personalised semantics, but the stated policies and practices of a particular politician, a politician who has actively allowed herself to be appropriated by the patriarchal hegemony of US capitalism. Her policies are fundamentally anti-feminist, racist, sexist, and ruthlessly authorize the continuing mass murder of numerous women (and others of course), in Iraq, in Palestine, in Afghanistan (while further undermining the rights of working class women in the US via the support of corporate welfare and the further abolition of citizen welfare).
[What's also revealing about someone like Clinton is yet further evidence of how feminism has largely been hijacked by upper-middle class women (a process that began in the 1970s; Leni Riefenstahl, for instance, suddenly became a 'feminist icon', as opposed to a Nazi one, to such women during that decade) for purely self-serving, ego-maniacal, and ultimately patriarchy-reaffirming classist purposes. Such figures as Clinton re-appropriate feminist struggles away from a universalist concern with progressive struggle for emancipation to being an ideological tool of the upper-middle classes to assert their superiority over the "patriarchal and intolerant" lower and working classes. That is to say, Clinton is an example of just how (her) classism (and class antagonism) explains why the feminist struggle was appropriated by upper classes, a classism that sees no inconsistency in the mass slaughter of poor Iraqi women nor in the support of oppressively misogynistic regimes like that of Saudi Arabia, nor in the forceful eviction of working class women from their homes in New Orleans. And on and on.]
What is utterly disgusting and disingenuous about a (denying-he's-a-right-wing) poster like Tate and his ilk is his pretence that he has any concern about such disturbing matters, when his true 'concern' is actually to discredit - via his pathological pedantry - those who draw attention to this, so completely depoliticising these issues, reducing all politics to mere matters of the properly verbalized 'opinion', the real concrete effects (ie Clinton's authorization of mass murder) of no consequence, as with this scurrulous insinuation:
When hmlt repeatedly uses "slut," "dirtly little slut," "prostitute", "psycho bitch" and more to describe a female politican with whom he disagrees ...
Oh how clever! Neutralize, spirit away, the murderous and racist policies of Clinton by reducing the entire matter to just "a female politican with whom he disagrees. " In Tate's thoroughly immoral, post-political and psychotic world, being a mass murdering politician is perfectly acceptable, reasonable, and to be defended (the whole purpose of his posts here), but anyone who condemns such horrors using descriptive language to match the visceral criminality of such horrors is instead condemned, so yet again, as already pointed out above, deflecting the discussion away from the outrageous crimes of this political slut onto the appropriateness of the language used by the whistleblower. Being a political criminal is okay as long as your decorum and your manners are acceptable by the Big Other. Just like US party politics, in fact.
I'll not be engaging in any further discussion of this reactionary 'Tate' scumbag (as anyone who uses such cynical tactics to defend Clinton's policies undoubtedly is; and whom I will continue labelling a scumbag until he either apologizes or fucks off; ditto the insufferable, self-publicizing gliberal bore, 'mos dan'), someone who not even EVER takes any of Vimothy's views to task (largely because he ACTUALLY agrees with most of them. And its interesting that the only active Dissensus mod who has ever taken Vimothy's - and his supporters' - 'views' to task is Sufi, who in posts here has pleaded with him to stop his racist diatribes, but to no avail; yet we have the likes of John Eden recently shutting down a thread because posters there
DARED to question Vimothy's sickening views during his most-welcome absence), but who chooses instead to attack those who expose his demented, dogmatic ravings, someone who hides behind vacuously pompous rhetoric as a substitute for any real insight. But then I'm not at all surprised: most of the posters who come here do so largely for the music, a form increasingly dominated by the most conservative forces in society. Dissensus is no longer any different to the mainstream, increasingly a consensus/status quo-reinforcing
News of the World tabloid irrelevance.
