Poll: Epithets ("cunt" & "nigger") and Charges

[Steersman]

Considering the very frequent charge that the use of the word "cunt" - as an insult - constitutes an insult of all women and is therefore evidence of misogyny, it seems appropriate to consider several analogous cases as a method of determining the truth of the matter. As Crommunist quite reasonably put it:

Analogy is an excellent method of exposing inconsistencies in logic, which is an important component of refuting bad arguments.

And, as a point of reference, consider the Wikpedia article on the topic which provides this paradigmatic example and helpful note which Ophelia Benson, among others, with her analogy between TAM and Nazi Germany, should have given some thought to:

"Hand is to palm as foot is to sole"

It's important to note that the above analogy is not comparing all the properties between a hand and a foot, but rather comparing the relationship between a hand and its palm to a foot and its sole. While a hand and a foot have many dissimilarities, the analogy is focusing on their similarity in having an inner surface.

In any case, to make the analogy a little broader and detailed, and because of the limitions on the poll question field size, a broader definition of that question is this – for which the same questions apply:

Do you agree that: Calling someone a “cunt” is to a charge of “sexist” or “misogynist” as calling someone a “nigger” is to a charge of “racist”. Or, as calling someone an “asshole” is to a charge of “misanthropist”.

[John Greg]

Or, as calling someone an “asshole” is to a charge of “misanthropist”.

No to that one too.

Christ, Steers, you have the biggest blind-block on this issue I have ever seen. Talk about dogmatic fanatacism and obsession ... sheesh.

[Steersman]

Or, as calling someone an “asshole” is to a charge of “misanthropist”.

No to that one too.

Christ, Steers, you have the biggest blind-block on this issue I have ever seen. Talk about dogmatic fanatacism and obsession ... sheesh.

Certainly seems to me that more than a few do - on both sides of the fence. And, speaking of fences, I'm actually more or less actually on it. Maybe I should have been a little clearer on the question, although I don't think that that is easy to do. But it seems to me that one can still answer "Yes" to the question without that entailing an agreement that "cunt" is "sexist". However, that "yes" in that case means that one doesn't think that "nigger" is "racist". Maybe more succinctly:

Yes means: If "cunt" is sexist then "nigger" is racist. Or, if "cunt" is not sexist then "nigger" is not racist.

That is the real implication of that poll question, even if there's some slight flavour of "do you still beat your wife? (or husband)?"

[DownThunder]

I voted no. My reasons are:

Historical use of the word nigger was to reinforce a social class based on a certain ethnicity, in a particular society. To call someone a nigger who was not of that ethnicity would make no sense. To form an analogy between an ethnic dichotomy and 2 biological sexes is highly flawed in any capacity, but in this instance it is specifically flawed due to the scope of the word cunt, which has a range of connotations ranging from playful ribbing to impugning someone's character, applied to anyone regardless of what genitalia they have. Unless you can regard obnoxious and unpleasant people as a coherent social class, and quality in people that should be tolerated and respected, I dont see this line of equivalency leading anywhere.

From my own experience the unequal response to calling someone a cunt vs calling them a prick, or a dick etc is that the word cunt offends the sanctity imbued upon female genitalia compared to the lack of sanctity imbued upon male genitalia, which I think is reflected in both conservative attitudes about how males and females discuss their own bodies, to more serious repercussions like circumcision of males and violence against male genitalia as a form of humour or degradation or punishment.

Now to go a bit more Steersman on Steersman: "Calling someone a “cunt” is to a charge of “sexist” or “misogynist”"

Cunt -> Sexist: This makes little sense as having a "cunt" is not inherent to having a biological sex, whereas the claim Cunt -> Misogynist at least has the benefit of defining something uniquely female. ie having a "cunt" is inherent to being female (note female, not "woman", since that's all cis-normative like the hipsters say right?"

However one could spin a narrative whereby “cunt” is to a charge of “sexist” if you do not give the insult "dick" or "prick" equal severity.

[DownThunder]

Also nice Richard Carrier approval rating there steers.

[John Greg]

Here is another way to look at it -- and Steers, this points to some of the points I make when I suggest you invest in auditing some linguistic, diction, and etymology course.

The word cunt is, in some sense, like the word kleenex, only in reverse.

Kleenex was initially only a brand name, but over time came to replace, globally, the word tissue -- tissue is still used, but ironically, rarely when referring to small squares of soft paper used to blow one's nose.

Cunt, especially in its Old English variation, cunte, was used, initally, almost exclusively, to refer to the genitals of a woman. Over time, it has come to refer to a wide range of things, arguably mostly negative, but certainly not exclusively so.

[Dick Strawkins]

This poll is being closely monitored by the editors of the Merriam Websters dictionary.
If 'yes' is ahead by Friday, they're changing the current definition.

[rayshul]

Please note: I voted Yes on this because I don't see nigger as racist any more than I see cunt as being misogynist. Sorry, but context matters.

[SPACKlick]

Kleenex was initially only a brand name, but over time came to replace, globally, the word tissue

Not bloody globally, in the UK it's rare to hear someone asking for a kleenex, Hoover or Tannoy would be better examples for us inventors of the tongue.

But anyway, Nigger has not changed in its definition significantly fromt he original usage A black person, oft disparaging. Even when not used as an insult it can still be racist (treating the whole of race x as distinct from the rest of us). That said not all uses of nigger are racist.

Cunt, in my experience of the word is a general insult, differing only in intensity from prick, twat, dickhead, bastard and a hundred other epithets. The fact that it originates from a meaning of vagina makes no odds. If dustbin became a nounal expletive, it wouldn't matter that it had come from dustbin, the two words would be interchangeable.

[Tigzy]

If we're talking analogies here, then what what about synonyms too?

For example, 'twat' is pretty much synonymous with 'cunt' (though in British usage - and possibly others - it can also mean 'to beat some up'), and presumably any analogy which applies to 'cunt' can also be apllied to 'twat', right?

I thought I'd bring it up, as I recall Steersman calling Steffy an 'arrogant fucking fat twat' not so long ago...

[John Greg]

Not bloody globally....

Ah, did not know that. Thanks for the correction.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

1) I don't even think the use of "nigger" is an indicator of racism per se;

2) The most anyone can do is say, 'please don't use that word around me';

3) The PC Thought Police who try to outright ban certain words can go fuck themselves.

[TheMan]

Is 'boy' still considered offensive to black people in certain parts of America? I remember this incident on TV that's left a mark in my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWKyDGG ... ata_player


(Not sure if the link works through Tapatalk )

[LMU]

Please note: I voted Yes on this because I don't see nigger as racist any more than I see cunt as being misogynist. Sorry, but context matters.

I agree. Someone who walks up to you and says, "My nigger, may I borrow five dollars?" is trying to establish familiarity so you'll look favorably on their request, not insult you (probably). In that case it might be synonymous with "brother" or "sister". Words mean whatever the people participating in conversation understand them to mean.

[John Greg]

Please inform me if I am wrong, but I was pretty sure that the bad word is specifically Nigger, and the good word, so to speak, is Nigga (Niggah). Is that not the case?

[LMU]

Please inform me if I am wrong, but I was pretty sure that the bad word is specifically Nigger, and the good word, so to speak, is Nigga (Niggah). Is that not the case?

You are correct in that when I have heard it used in that manner it is pronounced that way. However, I don't consider it to be a separate word (perhaps I am wrong in that?). The people who I've heard use it that way either pronounced many of their words differently from how I would spell them, or were imitating those in the former group (if I try to imitate a particular accent, that might change the meaning you take from my words, you might think I was mocking someone for example, but does that mean I'm actually using different words?).

[Dick Strawkins]

1) I don't even think the use of "nigger" is an indicator of racism per se;

2) The most anyone can do is say, 'please don't use that word around me';

3) The PC Thought Police who try to outright ban certain words can go fuck themselves.

Using the word itself is not a definitive proof of racism.
The question (the original question posed by Steersman) seems to ask whether there are contexts where the use of the words in a similar manner - for example, as an insult against someone, or as a descriptive term to identify one or more individuals in a group - might show differences between the words in terms of their applicability as epithets.
I pointed out in the other thread that the dictionary definition of 'cunt' differs between the accepted meaning in the UK and the accepted meaning in the US (although I gather that there is a variation in the understanding of the meaning in the US.)
A British person saying, 'there is a cunt in that room', is not an indication that they are either referring to a woman, or that they think women in general are worth less than men.
A British person saying 'there is a nigger in that room', is generally an indication that they are talking about a person with black skin, and that they think less of black people compared to white people.
Now there may be some exceptions to this - the use of 'nigger'/'niggah' as a kind of street slang between black people, for example - but I think most of us realize these are specific uses that are not universal. I suspect we have all seen news reports, or comments from some white idiot who thought it was OK to call black people nigger because he heard rappers doing so on a hip-hop track.

[rayshul]

Now there may be some exceptions to this - the use of 'nigger'/'niggah' as a kind of street slang between black people, for example - but I think most of us realize these are specific uses that are not universal. I suspect we have all seen news reports, or comments from some white idiot who thought it was OK to call black people nigger because he heard rappers doing so on a hip-hop track.

See, here's the thing. I can't see how this "idiot" was being offensive. Does this mean that they hate and wish to oppress or condescend to black people? Because the point where I say, Woah, that's racist, is the point where someone is actively expressing the view that one race is superior to another (hence my antipathy to our social justice warrior brethren) or is actively favoring a person because of their race above another person of a different race (and invariably that's their "perceived" race as opposed to their actual race).

Until that occurs I just don't fucking buy it. No. Wait. I just don't fucking care. Why should I? Why should anyone? Use the words you fucking want.

[Dick Strawkins]

Now there may be some exceptions to this - the use of 'nigger'/'niggah' as a kind of street slang between black people, for example - but I think most of us realize these are specific uses that are not universal. I suspect we have all seen news reports, or comments from some white idiot who thought it was OK to call black people nigger because he heard rappers doing so on a hip-hop track.

See, here's the thing. I can't see how this "idiot" was being offensive. Does this mean that they hate and wish to oppress or condescend to black people? Because the point where I say, Woah, that's racist, is the point where someone is actively expressing the view that one race is superior to another (hence my antipathy to our social justice warrior brethren) or is actively favoring a person because of their race above another person of a different race (and invariably that's their "perceived" race as opposed to their actual race).

Until that occurs I just don't fucking buy it. No. Wait. I just don't fucking care. Why should I? Why should anyone? Use the words you fucking want.

That particular example is probably more accurately an example of someone being ignorant rather than racist.
It would be similar to someone welcoming a group of arabs by saying "It's great that you ragheads came today".
As I said in my post, that particular example of a white guy calling black people 'nigger' was an example of an exception to how the word was generally used, rather than how it is viewed in the majority of cases - especially when used as an epithet or slur.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

It's important to remember that these words are indeed "epithets": just words, not incantations. While the intent behind their use may be to insult, demean or offend; insulting, demeaning and offending are not crimes (at least not in free societies). Discretion & politeness should be the sole guideline of whether & where one uses any language.

I reject the very concept that certain words are unutterable, like YHWH. In any case, the frequent, hypocritical use of "nigger"and "cunt" (even if *-laden) by those attempting to ban them, belies their alleged ju ju power.

The attempt by the PC police to ban certain words altogether is less about opposing racism or sexism than it is about fascism and thought control.

[John Greg]

I cannot provide any evidence to back up my supposition, but I am pretty sure that I have heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that there is a sub-culturally perceived difference between Nigger and Niggah.

As to non-black people using it, one example I do have is here in Western Canada, where young Japanese (and white) gang kids refer to each other as Niggah. Seriously. It's pretty damned funny too, to see these short little people referring to each other as "Hey ma Niggah; wha's up my man".

[Steersman]

I cannot provide any evidence to back up my supposition, but I am pretty sure that I have heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that there is a sub-culturally perceived difference between Nigger and Niggah.

As to non-black people using it, one example I do have is here in Western Canada, where young Japanese (and white) gang kids refer to each other as Niggah. Seriously. It's pretty damned funny too, to see these short little people referring to each other as "Hey ma Niggah; wha's up my man".

I don’t know how long you’ve been in Vancouver or BC but if you were here some 30 years ago you might remember the case of a Ukranian who wanted to open a restaurant in, I think, the West End that he was going to call “Hunky Bill’s” – the “hunky” being a perjorative epithet for Ukranians. And of course some human rights commission – led by, I think, Mary Woo Sims who is now an NDP MLA – was all-up-in-arms, panties in a twist, over the supposedly implicit – in their narrow minds anyway – racism.

So, lots of cases where various subsections of society have “gentrified” or redeemed the various epithets that have been directed at them. But my point – which very few seem to have gotten, much less agreed with – is that even in cases where those words are explicitly used as insults the question is whether they are intrinsically racist or sexist, whether they intrinsically apply to all members of the group. And my argument, the essence of my poll-question, is that because the words appear to have similar definitions and mechanisms of application – a put-down based on a physiological or behavioural attribute – one should argue that if one word is necessarily sexist or racist or behaviourist then all of them are. And that if one isn’t necessarily so then none of them necessarily are. Anything else seems to be rather hypocritical.

But, as an example or case in point of that argument, you might be interested in or amused by this comment by “Crip Dyke”, who is at least being consistent, on EBW’s blog:

I *hate* using asshole as an insult to people, b/c of exactly what you said: it encourages misanthropy.

Further evidence, I think, of a whole raft of contradictions in FfTB-land that are quite likely to cause the whole thing to come apart at the seams.

[John Greg]

Steers, I lived in Vancouver from late '79 to late '06. I remember Hunky Bill's, in the West End, very well. I ate there several times, but no, I do not remember the controversy -- I was fairly apolitical back in those days. And Hunky as pejorative against Ukes? HAHAHA. What silliness. I hope your memory is flawed and it was not Sims; I did not think she was such a weeney, but you never know.

I don't think anyone has forgotten or not seen your point.

... the question is whether they are intrinsically racist or sexist, whether they intrinsically apply to all members of the group.

My response is no, they are not intrinsically racist; no they are not intrinsically sexist. Intent and context may not be magic, but they are essential, and fundamentally important.

And no, the word asshole does not by any means encourage misanthropy; that's just plain silly. All god's mammals got assholes. Crip Dyke is a moron.

[Steersman]

Steers, I lived in Vancouver from late '79 to late '06. I remember Hunky Bill's, in the West End, very well. I ate there several times, but no, I do not remember the controversy -- I was fairly apolitical back in those days. And Hunky as pejorative against Ukes? HAHAHA. What silliness. I hope your memory is flawed and it was not Sims; I did not think she was such a weeney, but you never know.

I don't think anyone has forgotten or not seen your point.

... the question is whether they are intrinsically racist or sexist, whether they intrinsically apply to all members of the group.

My response is no, they are not intrinsically racist; no they are not intrinsically sexist. Intent and context may not be magic, but they are essential, and fundamentally important.

And no, the word asshole does not by any means encourage misanthropy; that's just plain silly. All god's mammals got assholes. Crip Dyke is a moron.

Sorry, don’t think so:

Mary-Woo Sims is a Canadian politician and social justice activist. Best known as a former chief commissioner of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission ….

Although I could be wrong about her being there for that case, but I note she was fired from that position for some controversial opinions on some other cases.

But maybe she’s mellowed somewhat since then – happens to the best of us …. ;-)

[Nec_V20]

Would calling someone such as David Gregory a right-wing buttsnorkeler make one homophobic?

[TiBo]

"Do you agree that: “Cunt” is to a charge of “misogynist” as “nigger” is to a charge of “racist”." ?

Too generalised. Context is everything.

- A label only works as an insult, if the recipient understands it to be degrading. Since the intent of the enunciator is not to express genuine thought, but to degrade the recipient, any word which serves the purpose can (and will) be used to achieve that goal. The mere use of a label is not indicative of the enunciator's general mindset, but only of his specific intent to degrade and his willingness to overcome his scrouples doing so.

- When enunciating genuine thought, the use of a certain word can be indicative of a certain mindset, if the general use of the word is limited to a group which is known to hold a particular mindset. But only in that case.

Put into practice:
"Cunt" and "nigger" have really nothing in common. "Nigger" was always a reference to real people, either through connotations of slavery, and/or through connotations of "non-civilised" personal qualities (violent/savage/retarded,etc..).

"Cunt" is not, and has never been, a reference to an actual group of people. It's a metaphor, declaring someone to be a "dirt body part". "Cunt" and "Dick" can be used as qualifiers to properly attribute the targeted individual as male/female, but there's nothing in the qualifier itself that goes beyond the meaning of "asshole", aka "generally bad person".

However, the deliberate use of a false qualifier is an -additional insult-, degrading people by assigning qualities to them which they "should not" have, according to the actually existing gender-binary mindset of (any) society. No male wants to have feminine qualities, and no female wants to be seen as having male qualities - but exactly because the label is used as an insult, it's not actually indicative of a sexist mindset, only of the intent to degrade.

So No, these 2 words aren't really the same in any meaningful way.