Skep tickle wrote:
<snip>
Steersman wrote:
However, while I don’t think she is a stupid woman by any manner of means, although I think she has a great many highly questionable premises running around in her cranium, ...
FWIW, it sets my teeth on edge to see "woman" used in this context - modified by an adjective that presumably has nothing to do with the noun it modifes - instead of a noun or noun phrase that's either broader (like "person") or more specific in a relevant area (like "FTB commenter" of "SJW"). Obviously, YMMV.
Yea, I was mulling that over later myself and wondering about the connotations and echoes of that phrase, although I did use it after giving some thought to those aspects. However, not to defend it overmuch, I might point to the following
definition of the word which includes meanings other than “congenital†with its supposed implication of “characteristic of the classâ€:
stu•pid (stpd, sty-)
adj. stu•pid•er, stu•pid•est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Further, the context – at least as suggested by my later references to Zvan, Jadehawk, and Sally Strange and “others in that rather benighted neck of the woods†– was that there are some rather problematic aspects to several schools of sociological thought, and which seem to undergird much of radfem “theologyâ€, that might reasonably be construed to cause its devotees to become rather “dazed, stunned, or stupifiedâ€. And as a case in point, I might direct your attention to a
comment and discussion on one Nugent’s threads that sort of attempts to defend Zvan’s “Dear Dick†letter. This subsequent comment in response provides a rather succinct summary:
D'oh wrote:
When you use gendered insults its harassment and threats. When I use gendered insults it’s perfectly justified, because reasons.
Now I don’t know whether Zvan herself tried to defend the use of that phrase, but I would have say that she would have to have been rather stupid – “obtuse; tending to make poor decisions†– to not realize the implications of her phrasing. And for her and/or others to continue to defend that use implies, to my way of thinking, that they are doubly stupid to think that everyone else is so stupid as to not “get†that it was a pointed gendered insult. People in glass houses and all that.
As for the others, I might also point you to
Jadehawk’s blog discussion of Michael’s dialog – which features a highly questionable comment by Sally Strange as a bonus – where she also attempts to defend several of those same rather problematic sociological concepts I referred to above. And while I agreed with her broaching the subject of emergence and its application to the discussion, I also argued that her understanding of the concept and use of related phrases was highly questionable. Her response? More or less along the lines of the creationist’s “Nyah! Nyah! Can’t hear you!†Stupid is as stupid does.
Skep tickle wrote:And I'm missing the wit in her comments, or it's been awfully diluted by her wall-o'-text and YELLING VIA CAPITAL LETTERS and fuck fuck fucks. But YMMV.
I was sort of thinking along the line of a broader definition to the word, rather than just the humourous one you apparently had in mind, to wit,
wit:
wit 1 (wt)
n.
1. The natural ability to perceive and understand; intelligence.
2.
a. Keenness and quickness of perception or discernment; ingenuity. Often used in the plural: living by one's wits.
b. wits Sound mental faculties; sanity: scared out of my wits.
3.
a. The ability to perceive and express in an ingeniously humorous manner the relationship between seemingly incongruous or disparate things.
As mentioned, I think she makes some quite reasonable arguments that at least seem to hang together except that many of them seem to be predicated on some highly questionable premises – which Zvan is apparently too “obtuse†to recognize. Or the consequences of allowing them to stand. Although I note with some amusement that she did a little bit of “tone policing†relative to LSP’s comments. [/pedant/Steersman-mode ;-) :-) ]
Skep tickle wrote:… it seems to me that the targets of the gratuitous insults are too readily distracted by it, if they really want to accomplish what they say they do.
Indeed. That whole scenario reminds me of having watched some women’s roller-blading contests – many moons ago – in which one contestant had just finished putting an opponent into the upper bleachers with a well-timed, but highly illegal, hip-check for which she was duly penalized. And her response was simply classic, in effect: “Who, me? Surely, you jest! Moi?†Maybe charming in six-year olds, but in adults it is highly questionable – if not actually stupid. And while I generally don’t give a rat’s ass about insults, I get quite peeved at the hypocrisy of allowing some but anathematizing others as it is, I think, self-serving in the extreme. Not to mention seriously constraining and limiting the scope of public discussions on important issues.