My Fellow Americans - Dissensian roadtrip

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

@ HMLT - For someone so sensitive to being 'slandered' you sure do dish it out. If you're going to put words in people's mouths so you can proceed to call them 'scumbags' and tell them to go fuck themselves, then maybe you shouldn't bother posting here anymore (again). I/we have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt the last few months. At your best, you're one of the most informed and eloquent posters on this forum. ).

I'm sorry to have to inform you, but anyone who systematically defends those who engage in and promote mass murder is accurately so described. Perhaps you've a 'better' suggestion for the proper use of such a term ... Shouldn't you now be eagerly inviting Vimothy back so he can continue his virulent agenda (not that you ever intervened to question it, much less ever suggested that he not bother posting here anymore)?

Listen, Nomos, I called tate a scumbag for a very specific and justifiable reason, a reason that in your post here you suitably choose to ignore and censure: he chose to slander me with his hysterical allegation of being 'sexist' in accurately describing Clinton as a political slut. Why didn't you intervene there and take HIM to task, with the suggestion that "maybe he shouldn't bother posting here anymore"?? I await his apology ...

But, as you've demonstrated in this thread, you often seem more interested in bilious diatribes and name calling than real discussion (by which I mean honest dialogue/debate/argument, not normative standards of politically correct consensus/exchanges of pleasantries as you've argued in the past

I really don't require dishonest flattery to be quickly followed by twisted insult. If you really make an effort here, and actually consult the previous posts on this thread, you might surmise that tate began this 'name calling' by calling me 'sexist' for referring to a mass murderer as a 'political slut'.

It is he you need to be taking to task here, or don't tell me that you too are a Clinton supporter?

And frankly, I find nothing whatsoever honest about the majority of the responses I've received on this thread, first completely evading Clinton's actual policies to engage in hopelessly displaced, personalised 'sexist' allegations, and now, through you, resorting via startling intimidation to try and silence me.

Are you sure YOU should be 'bothering' to post here, Nomos?

Because I'm treating this latest post of your's as a direct threat to my legitimacy as a poster here ... [but let's have loads more pro-Bell Curve white-supremicist threads! They're sooo polite! Unlike those nasty people who complain about them!]

[How more right-wing can a forum get?]

 

[nomos]

How you manage to remain self-righteous at this stage is beyond me HMLT. You exposed the bankruptcy of your "feminism" when you went on your "shut up bitch I've been a feminist since you were in diapers" tirade. All because you can't admit your error, your giving-in to the lure of using misogynist language to describe a female politician, just like a hundred million sad little neo-con bloggers with an unhealthy fixation on HC. Yet somehow it's the people who call you on the inconsistency of your "feminism," without professing any affection for Clinton, who are somehow more in league with the neo-cons. Well played, sir. If nothing else you've got a firm grip on irony. I know, your defense is that it's metaphor. And that's about as convincing as the many convoluted ways rappers have justified using the word "bitch" to drive home a point and remind everyone who's boss. Does your approach to metaphor justify the use of racial epithets as well? What if we were talking about Obama? If your feminist politics are as up-to-date as you profess you'd understand that the politics of race and gender are too intimately linked to have standards for each.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

How you manage to remain self-righteous at this stage is beyond me HMLT.

It is tate, mos dan, ripley and now yourself who are being smugly self-righteous. Have you even bothered to read the earlier posts on this thread, as earlier suggested?

Your and the others self-righteousness is not only mind-bogglingly blinkered but extremely revealing of your classist prejudices and fundamental misunderstanding of feminism.

You exposed the bankruptcy of your "feminism" when you went on your "shut up bitch I've been a feminist since you were in diapers" tirade.

You might at least have the decency to quote me accurately instead of resorting to inventing fantasy quotes and then attributing them to the gross strawman you've constructed. What has been exposed on this thread is just how widespread (especially here) is the liberal support for Clinton's racist, war-mongering foreign policies, appropriating feminist tropes in order to make such racism, classism, sexism, and war crimes 'respectable', giving them a friendly, 'feminine' and 'caring' facade (much as Condoleeza Rice, another racist mass-murderer, was brought in to the neo-con regime to 'soften up' the image of that most vile and reactionary administration).

All because you can't admit your error, your giving-in to the lure of using misogynist language to describe a female politician, just like a hundred million sad little neo-con bloggers with an unhealthy fixation on HC.

On the contrary, you are gravely in error here, resorting to slanderous and laughable allegations of 'sexism' to hide your support for a classist politician who repeatedly authorizes war crimes and whose policies are indistinguishable from the neo-cons. I called this racist mass murderer a 'political slut' in the same way as I would call that other war criminal, Bush, a 'prick'. This is rudimentary (the use of supposedly sexist language for progressive - and feminist - purposes), and should need no further elaboration. Both of them, as with many others, should be hauled before the Hague Court to answer for such horrendous crimes, crimes which we now clearly realise that YOU apparently support, showing your ultimate contempt for even the most elementary notions of human rights and dignity, especially when it comes to oppressed minorities or even entire societies. Your cluelessly classist-based support, as with the others here, for Clinton exposes you as a potential fellow traveller in her odious policies.

Yet somehow it's the people who call you on the inconsistency of your "feminism,"

Nobody has 'called' me on anything; they have simply confirmed their own classist anti-feminism in defending Clinton, who is about as 'feminist' as her husband.

without professing any affection for Clinton, who are somehow more in league with the neo-cons.

They, and you, are by OBVIOUS implication defending her policies by resorting to the very tactics of such groups as the neo-cons and the zionists, deflecting from her documented criminal policies by hurling farcical smears at those who draw attention to and rightly condemn such policies (eg zionists smearing critics of Israeli treatment of Palestinians as being 'anti-semitic' because many zionists and Israelis are Jewish). That, frankly, is how low you've sunk here. And you don't even understand why ...

Does your approach to metaphor justify the use of racial epithets as well? What if we were talking about Obama? If your feminist politics are as up-to-date as you profess you'd understand that the politics of race and gender are too intimately linked to have standards for each.

Interesting that Obama is forever distancing himself from race matters ("This isn't about race! This isn't about race!"), and that he has joined the war-mongerers in voting for the indefinite continuation of the illegal Iraq occupation.

But you forget that racial and gender issues are overdetermined by class issues, which is why someone like the upper-middle class Clinton - and Condi Rice - can so effortlessly adopt the most appallingly racist and sexist policies via their top-down class war, all funded by a corporate elite.


Merry Christmas ...

 

[noel emits]

Imagine if someone like you ever got into power, you'd try to have everyone else executed for being fascists because they don't agree with everything you say, or even because they do, it doesn't seem to make any difference. Because you are paranoid in the worst way. You appear to constantly see only what your belief system insists that you must see - evidence that you are the only politically correct person left, lest the teetering edifice of your personality come tumbling down. You claim to see this when it's obvious to everyone else that it is not there.

You profess to be educated in the fields of psychology and politics but it's clear that you have actually learned little of real value in these matters and instead come across as a kind of sophisticated simpleton. Bitter and vindictive too, maybe because at some level you know this to be true. The levels of projection and lack of self insight you exhibit is almost comedic at times. Your lack of genuine understanding of how your fellow human beings work negates all of your avowed good intentions and political posturing.

Sort yourself out before you start trying to sort out the world - you are doing no-one any favours and no-one here is fooled.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Imagine if someone like you ever got into power, you'd try to have everyone else executed for being fascists because they don't agree with everything you say, or even because they do, it doesn't seem to make any difference. Because you are paranoid in the worst way. You appear to constantly see only what your belief system insists that you must see - evidence that you are the only politically correct person left, lest the teetering edifice of your personality come tumbling down. You claim to see this when it's obvious to everyone else that it is not there.

You profess to be educated in the fields of psychology and politics but it's clear that you have actually learned little of real value in these matters and instead come across as a kind of sophisticated simpleton. Bitter and vindictive too, maybe because at some level you know this to be true. The levels of projection and lack of self insight you exhibit is almost comedic at times. Your lack of genuine understanding of how your fellow human beings work negates all of your avowed good intentions and political posturing.

Sort yourself out before you start trying to sort out the world - you are doing no-one any favours and no-one here is fooled.

A thumbnail summary of Vimothy and his supporters.

[Now was there something of substance you actually were struggling to say about Hillary Clinton's policies, other than your thinly-veiled support - via the slandering of her critics - for them?].

Or are you just stoned?

 

[polystyle]

Hey Mos Dan

Good luck on the trip cross country ,
will be in Japan otherwise would check you in NYC.
As Nomado said, watch those roads in snow !

 

[heroesandvillains]

HMLT....i think the solution is really you just need to get laid...




loosen up.

 

[crackerjack]

You really are the Ignatius J Reilly of uber-left anti-imperialism, aren't you.

Get a fucking grip before it's too late. Start by moving out of your mum's house and try making some, y'know, friends.

Edit: of course, like Reilly you may be the brilliant invention of a comedy genius, in which case well done, it's time to take a well-earned rest.

 

[Mr. Tea]

You really are the Ignatius J Reilly of uber-left anti-imperialism, aren't you.

I see him more as

 

[mos dan]

Hey Mos Dan

Good luck on the trip cross country ,
will be in Japan otherwise would check you in NYC.
As Nomado said, watch those roads in snow !

thanks!

lol, by the way, at my own naivete in posting this in 'misc', and therefore thinking it would be a fairly quiet and benign my fellow americans promo thread. merry christmas dissensus

 

[subvert47]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whore

whore (plural whores)

1. A prostitute.
2. (pejorative) A person who is considered to be sexually promiscuous.
3. A person who is unscrupulous, especially one who compromises their principles for gain.

and slut is synonymous with whore

whether or not definition 3 is applicable to Hilary Clinton I don't know (I've not followed her political career from here in the UK), but if it is then slut seems perfectly valid usage — sexism has nothing to do with it.

I was going to say that it also applied to Tony Blair, but he never had any principles to begin with.

 

[tate]

and slut is synonymous with whorewhether or not definition 3 is applicable to Hilary Clinton I don't know (I've not followed her political career from here in the UK), but if it is then slut seems perfectly valid usage — sexism has nothing to do with it.I was going to say that it also applied to Tony Blair, but he never had any principles to begin with.

Frankly, Statto, I'm very surprised by your response. Did you read the thread in its entirety?

First of all, the words "slut" and "whore" are not synonymous, as has been discussed above in some detail.

Second, the study of linguistic usage and its semantic fields, effects, and political meanings is thankfully not based on the wikipedia entry for the word "whore."

Third, your post gives the impression of taking the side of someone who has told us that using the words "slut" and "psycho bitch" are "valuable" for the cause of political liberation, for political discussion -- an intellectual-ethical farce, joke, and lunatic position for someone honestly interested in political liberation.

He didn't just use the word "slut", but, after being taken to task for it, replied in typical name-calling fashion by telling us how useful the term is. This, from the hysterical fellow who tells everyone who is and is not a racist, and who perpetrates the now-obvious hoax that he has learned something from critical theory.

Let me repeat: as has been amply attested in the thread, the fellow did not just use the word "slut," he told us how valuable "slut," "prostitute", and "psycho bitch" are for his political debate.

So, by this logic, we'll use racist language to characterize blacks with whom we disagree (Clarence Thomas), we'll use anti-gay slurs to discuss conservative gay politicians with whom we disagree.* Right?* Sound like a model for political efficacity? Brilliant.

Let me just reiterate what Ripley said above in far more eloquent fashion: there are many sexist words such as "slut" which are based, first and foremost, and fundamentally, on a flawed, moralizing, metaphysical, unjust, and idiotic worldview that is to its core not only sexist but just plain false: "slut" is a pejorative term for a woman who is sexually promiscuous. A "psycho bitch" would be a term for a woman based on the notion of a PSYCHOTIC FEMALE DOG.

These are not, by any stretch of the imagination, terms that one should ADVOCATE using in political discussion.* And to hear them come from one of the most vocal, shrill, name-calling posters who professes to be interested in linguistic usage and the struggle against racism, is a total and complete hypocritical joke.

It's not only about linguistic usage, but also about the utterly ridiculous argument that this poster has advocated: we'll make political progress by calling women sluts, prostitutes, psycho bitches, and others. On this model, we'll apply racist langauge to Clarence Thomas, anti-gay slurs to argue against Andrew Sullivan, and ... then we'll refer to everyone who opposes us "linguistic Fascists."

 

[nomadologist]

The point I was trying to make was that what Hillary Clinton does is far worse than what any prostitute or slut does, but there's a sort of analogy insofar as she sells her political views to the highest bidder consistently.

I certainly know prostitutes who owe the world less than Hillary Clinton does. All they have to show for their work is pelvic inflammatory disease, HPV, and lots of antibiotics (and other) injections-sites. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is going to help the U.S. fall further into WWIII mongering.

Slut might not be the word for her, but I can't think of anything "worse" that makes any sense.

 

[nomadologist]

Clarence Thomas? ha. His career speaks for itself as well.

 

[mistersloane]

I used to VJ in this (mixed) fuck club and was asked by the (female) owner to take off one of my video slogans ('Good evening slags') and replace it with 'Good evening sluts'. She thought that slag was much less offensive than slut. I never quite understood that.

Do you have slags in America? I've always liked it as a word, especially when said in a London accent, there's a really heavy accent on the a which produces an elongated 'slaaaaaaaaaaag' which is lovely to hear.

 

[nomadologist]

I used to VJ in this (mixed) fuck club and was asked by the (female) owner to take off one of my video slogans ('Good evening slags') and replace it with 'Good evening sluts'. She thought that slag was much less offensive than slut. I never quite understood that.

Do you have slags in America? I've always liked it as a word, especially when said in a London accent, there's a really heavy accent on the a which produces an elongated 'slaaaaaaaaaaag' which is lovely to hear.

No I have only ever heard 'slag' on TV. I don't even know a any feminists anymore who believe that saying "slut" really = calling someone something sexist so this discussion is kinda interesting...

Most feminists I know hold like theme nights (i guess? fantasy role playing? i don't know) where you're encouraged to become a "whore" or "slut" or whatever and do whatever "transgressive" thing you can think of.

 

[mistersloane]

I was involved in the early reclaiming of the word 'queer' in activist groups, but I always argued for 'faggot' instead of queer if they were gonna have to go down that route. My background is early 70s feminism but I kinda stopped after Paglia ruined all the fun. I still read alot of feminist film theory. I'm veeeery slow today lol, long Xmas day. I should go back to bed.

 

[gek-opel]

Been reading this thread with interest. To be fair this has been the most entertaining thing this Christmas (sad I know, but rather than shaking my head in shame I find an HMLT/Tate smackdown fest to be quite a bracing proposition). HMLT's fundamental point before the pedantry is undoubtedly correct, Hilary Clinton is a reprehensible politician and the US elections are little more than a showbiz distraction from whence no genuine change is possible to come. However it seems more accurate to describe her as a political prostitute (ie one who sells their principles for power) than a slut, which has unfortunate connotations a has been made clear in the ensuing debate. "Slut" doesn't really appear a useful term in any debate around Hilary Clinton, indeed it would be best to not personalise it at all, the problem resting not on her morality (sexual or political) but rather with the structure which she is merely symptomatic of. So whilst it is totally accurate to declaim how utterly wretched she is, "slut" is a discursively distracting epithet to lob in her direction (and plays too easily into the kinds of language used by her right wing detractors).

Although in some ways he has a valid point in that people are debating something which is itself over determined by class, his own inability to admit a minor error (an error of passion perhaps) has actually led his more interesting points to be obscured. And for all HMLT's talk of non-facialization and non-personalizing debate (ie- merely assessing what is argued, rather than imagining anything about the person making the argument) he frequently lapses into an almost identical personalization based around presumption...

Tate himself frequently fails to make clear his own position outside of a critique of others, which can be infuriating perhaps but which does not in itself indicate that he is a neo-con or whatever (I'd be fucking surprised if he was actually...) His critiques whilst often annoyingly pedantic yes are always quite precise in their diagnostics of the flaws in your/mine whoever's position, and if we are to be genuinely de-personalized and assess him only on the content of his postings there is little which can lead us to the presumption that he is any sense a Hilary supporter (except perhaps his choice to focus on sexist language rather than the more substantive points HMLT makes, tho this could be for the reason that he agrees or views them as being obvious enough as to not need further debate...?)

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

and slut is synonymous with whore

whether or not definition 3 is applicable to Hilary Clinton I don't know (I've not followed her political career from here in the UK), but if it is then slut seems perfectly valid usage — sexism has nothing to do with it.

I was going to say that it also applied to Tony Blair, but he never had any principles to begin with.

Yes, there are a lot of political opportunists ('sluts') in party politics, and quite a few on this board, particularly Tate, who has only ever engaged in 'discussion' with me on political-related matters purely in order to hurl hysterical verbal abuse in my direction, with no attempt to address the topic under discussion.

What is most revelatory here, though not for the first time, is to witness the obscene underside of the 'liberal' mindset/universe, the total political and moral bankruptcy of the like of Tate and his supporters. The pro-Clinton/pro-Dem 'liberals' here feel betrayed because the Dems have been exposed as ideologically no different to the Reps, because Clinton is just as reactionary and as pro-war as Bush: Third Way politics, as with Blair - neo-conservative fundamentalist capitalism, but with a Friendly Face. It doesn't matter to Tate and his ilk what Clinton's actual policies are or how inherently corrupt she is, just so long as she adopts the right 'let me feel your pain' pose. But rather than admit or come to terms with this reality, Tate just responds like a spoilt, tantrum-throwing infant, throwing all of his rattlers out of his cot, accusing anyone of being 'sexist' for condeming a war-mongering, opportunist politician just because she happens to be female (while remaining completely ignorant of Clinton's abject, classist contempt for the majority of women in society).

Nomad mentioned Ann Coulter earlier; yes, ironically, Clinton is actually no different politically to Coulter, just a more 'polite' version. Coulter, for instance, would want to aggressively and instantly abolish all social welfare systems (one immediate effect of which is to force more women into prostitution, BTW) and criminalize the poor, whereas the cynical, passive-aggressive Clinton will do so quietly, surrepticiously, gradually, behind the scenes, so that it goes completely 'unnoticed' by the well-heeled chattering classes, as was the case when Bill Clinton was preznez.

So its quite acceptable to (reactionary) liberals like Tate, with his grab-bag of pseudo-linguistic fundamentalist cliches, to endorse a war criminal like Clinton. All that is required is that she use nice, PC-friendly language.

What's even more depressing with someone like Tate is his psychotic biopolitical fundamentalism, his simple-minded equation of Feminist with Female (all those females who voted for Bush are 'obviously' pro-feminist!), oblivious to the way patriarchy appropriates divisive constructions of both gender and race to perpetuate its power, utilising its constructions of both masculinity and feminity (as well as its racializing and religious hysteria) to completely repress all awareness of the core form of patriarchal dominance under late capitalism (class division).

 

[gek-opel]

Yes, there are a lot of political opportunists ('sluts') in party politics, and quite a few on this board, particularly Tate, who has only ever engaged in 'discussion' with me on political-related matters purely in order to hurl hysterical verbal abuse in my direction, with no attempt to address the topic under discussion.

What is most revelatory here, though not for the first time, is to witness the obscene underside of the 'liberal' mindset/universe, the total political and moral bankruptcy of the like of Tate and his supporters. The pro-Clinton/pro-Dem 'liberals' here feel betrayed because the Dems have been exposed as ideologically no different to the Reps, because Clinton is just as reactionary and as pro-war as Bush: Third Way politics, as with Blair - neo-conservative fundamentalist capitalism, but with a Friendly Face. It doesn't matter to Tate and his ilk what Clinton's actual policies are or how inherently corrupt she is, just so long as she adopts the right 'let me feel your pain' pose. But rather than admit or come to terms with this reality, Tate just responds like a spoilt, tantrum-throwing infant, throwing all of his rattlers out of his cot, accusing anyone of being 'sexist' for condeming a war-mongering, opportunist politician just because she happens to be female (while remaining completely ignorant of Clinton's abject, classist contempt for the majority of women in society).

Nomad mentioned Ann Coulter earlier; yes, ironically, Clinton is actually no different politically to Coulter, just a more 'polite' version. Coulter, for instance, would want to aggressively and instantly abolish all social welfare systems (one immediate effect of which is to force more women into prostitution, BTW) and criminalize the poor, whereas the cynical, passive-aggressive Clinton will do so quietly, surrepticiously, gradually, behind the scenes, so that it goes completely 'unnoticed' by the well-heeled chattering classes, as was the case when Bill Clinton was preznez.

So its quite acceptable to (reactionary) liberals like Tate, with his grab-bag of pseudo-linguistic fundamentalist cliches, to endorse a war criminal like Clinton. All that is required is that she use nice, PC-friendly language.

What's even more depressing with someone like Tate is his psychotic biopolitical fundamentalism, his simple-minded equation of Feminist with Female (all those females who voted for Bush are 'obviously' pro-feminist!), oblivious to the way patriarchy appropriates divisive constructions of both gender and race to perpetuate its power, utilising its constructions of both masculinity and feminity (as well as its racializing and religious hysteria) to completely repress all awareness of the core form of patriarchal dominance under late capitalism (class division).

Isn't this the argument as to why if anything it is better to have a republican in the white house than a Democrat, as both essentially follow the same policy objectives, but the Republicans kick in the door and rile the rest of the world up due to their flagrant obnoxiousness, whereas the Democrats attempt to at least put on a show of niceties, making them all the more insidious....?