Looks like Megatron has a new face. (I hope I got that right.)
---
In language news, I'd assert that just because meaning is fluid, it does not follow that change is meaningless. Similarly, just because a meaning is contextually defined, it does not necessarily follow that it does not exist.
In other news, I've taken to calling everyone who I find charming "TomDavidson." It may lead to confusion, but it will be a charming confusion.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In language news, I'd assert that just because meaning is fluid, it does not follow that change is meaningless. Similarly, just because a meaning is contextually defined, it does not necessarily follow that it does not exist.
My concern is this: by insisting on a given meaning in this sort of situation, what we're really saying is "we will not tolerate loose attitudes towards X." It's the same kind of defense you see people make of the word "marriage" when applied to same-sex unions; they fear even the possibility that the word, through evolution, might reflect an evolution of attitudes towards the underlying concept. And vice versa.
But if there's one virtue we have, it's change.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: In other news, TomDavidson Punjabeed my ClaudiaTherese.
Heavens! Heavens! My emotional disorder has led to a most fetching sartorial disorder as well -- I can feel my bodice slipping as we speak.
--
Who wants to take bets on how long before someone brings up Derrida (other than this, mind you)? I go for 15 more posts.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose, for me, it's a matter of wariness. I'm deeply suspicious of the tyranny of the sacred, that by declaring things sacrosanct we've implied -- with or without cause -- that some things are unconscionable, that certain limits on human action must be imposed regardless of rationality.
One can argue that PUNJABEE should not use the word "rape" casually because it offends specific people on the forum whose friendship he wishes to foster or retain; one should not argue, IMO, that the word "rape" should not be used casually because it (or the underlying meaning) is somehow too important to cheapen.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's the same kind of defense you see people make of the word "marriage" when applied to same-sex unions; they fear even the possibility that the word, through evolution, might reflect an evolution of attitudes towards the underlying concept. And vice versa.
Of course! And they're right! The evolution of the word "marriage" absolutely does reflect an evolution of our attitude toward it!
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Tom, I think the fear is that if "rape" loses some of that power as a word, two things will be more likely to happen. First, the incidence of false accusations of rape will go up, as people become more willing to attach that word to less heinous acts, and second, victims of rape will be more likely to either be disbelieved or have their suffering dismissed, while those who commit the crimes will be less likely to be punished severely. Word drift reflects our attitudes, and the trivializing of the word "rape," I believe, parallels a corresponding trivialization of the act. Words are symbols for what they represent or mean to us, and so I don't think you can divorce the power of the word from the intensity of our attitude toward what it represents. If it were possible, you would have concepts and feelings for which there were simply no words, because the cheapened words no longer would fit the concepts.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:It's all hyperbole. Sometimes it's humorous hyperbole, and sometimes it treads the line. But when we try to etch that line in stone and say, "THIS is sacred. THIS you do not joke about," I believe we're attempting to circumscribe something far more important and far, far more sacred.
As Rakeesh noted earlier, mostly I haven't seen anyone etching a line in stone, but simply asking someone to change their own language out of consideration for those who find his choice tacky. There hasn't been any censorship here. Mostly, some people have simply said, "I personally find this in poor taste, and I wish you would change it."
And by changing it to be in much *poorer* taste for those people, PUNJABEE has clarified for me exactly what kind of person he is.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My concern is this: by insisting on a given meaning in this sort of situation, what we're really saying is "we will not tolerate loose attitudes towards X." It's the same kind of defense you see people make of the word "marriage" when applied to same-sex unions; they fear even the possibility that the word, through evolution, might reflect an evolution of attitudes towards the underlying concept. And vice versa.
But if there's one virtue we have, it's change.
I do think I understand your objection, and I can see why the analogy could be compelling. I also, like you (I think), find that the wording is disclosing a sentiment I object to, rather [much moreso] than the wording itself. ElJay has delineated that sentiment quite nicely.
My posts have not been about or to PUNJABEE, other than an initiation expression of discomfort. This requires a certain level of restraint on my part, as I am still piecing through just what it is that I find problematic about this whole situation.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Of course! And they're right! The evolution of the word "marriage" absolutely does reflect an evolution of our attitude toward it!
(TomDavidson! )
---
MightyCow, this morning I am wearing a fine lawn chemise, now lightly dampened with the perspiration of my rising excitement. A few crumbs of my berry tartlet have fallen into my lap. O Sweet Crumpets! I am a dirty, dirty girl.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky, I'll freely concede that it does reflect a change in attitude. What I'm arguing is that defending against a change in attitude is itself highly dangerous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thought I've had is that there seems to be a tendency, particularly with complex and emotionally charged topics such as this, for people to go a little wonky, for lack of a better word.
We feel terribly strongly about something, particularly when it applies to some primal need of safety or belonging or survival, and we react. Perhaps we are unable to clearly understand something which affects us so deeply, at so base a level, so we err on the side of safety.
I imagine that this tendency plays a not insignificant part in debates about the meaning of the word marriage, or the proper use of the word rape. It is not so much the word itself that we care about, but the idea that we could lose any ground, any ground whatsoever in the realm of something so desperately important to our safety, that we cannot possibly let it pass.
If this is the case, it goes towards explaining why in this case in particular, men are not reacting as strongly toward the use of the word rape. Men can be raped, but it is not such a primal, instinctive fear that we are as moved by the thought of it in such a way that we need to have control over it in such a degree that even the word must be kept safely penned, must not even for a moment show us its teeth so that our instincts must need react to it simply to survive.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Icky, I'll freely concede that it does reflect a change in attitude. What I'm arguing is that defending against a change in attitude is itself highly dangerous.
I'm not conviced. I think it could be, in some circumstances, but not in others. Not all changes in attitude are for the better. (I confess that I suspect I'm totally missing some nuance you are going for.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If this is the case, it goes towards explaining why in this case in particular, men are not reacting as strongly toward the use of the word rape. Men can be raped, but it is not such a primal, instinctive fear that we are as moved by the thought of it in such a way that we need to have control over it in such a degree that even the word must be kept safely penned, must not even for a moment show us its teeth so that our instincts must need react to it simply to survive.
I think I have an exceptionally strong reaction to the concept of rape as regards childhood, for reasons I went into in the prior thread. It is certainly an emotionally loaded topic for me, and this discussion has revealed a lever of triggerability in myself that I didn't know I had.
---
Edited to add: I'm still struck by the applicability of "transformation" to all of the topics in the original discussion. How cool!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it can be, yeah. But, then, I'm Chaotic Good.
The thing is that attitudinal change carries with it a certain sort of social pressure; you can build walls against it, you can try to redirect it, you can manipulate it as if it were some kind of force -- but, at the end of the day, like any kind of energy, it has to go somewhere or do something or else explodes. And when these attitudes "explode," it usually results in either violence or enormous quantities of society-wide stupidity. Preventing the build-up of pressure by just permitting society to flow in a given direction is usually the better course.
Now, the problem is that our society is not perfectly fluid, and our laws are themselves bulwarks against these attitudes; someone who thought slavery was wrong, someone who thought slavery was a good thing, and an actual slave all had pressures to overcome, and there was no way to accede to one without sentencing the other to Sartre's "hell." I think, to be honest, that this is the primary function of law: to play the Devil, to adjudicate the Hell that is other people.
It's when we start pulling out other axioms and refusing to move them that we run into trouble. And sometimes the trouble is worth it; often I suspect that it isn't. But it wouldn't be the Tao if it made sense.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my, you are a dirty girl. I think I have something in my pants that will take care of that. Yes, here's a linen handkerchief in my pocket, you simply must clean up. Heaven forbid we should have such a messy tart.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Alas, my virgin effort has found legs of its own, having attracted enough of the brilliant ones that it is able to stand upright without the sacrifice of my prudery.
But thank you for the handkerchief. Being frequently soiled myself, I am sure it will come in handy. *eyes twinkling
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Mighty Cow said:
quote:I'd rather get back to talking about the bodice.
I misread the poster's name and thought this post was from m_p_h. I very nearly had an aneurysm.
No doubt.
The word "prude" has been thrown around really fast and loose today. I find it funny that so far it hasn't been used to describe the one person around here who really is a prude -- me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My intention was to make Miss ClaudiaTherese's heart go pitter-patter, but I suppose nearly giving El JT de Sprang an aneurysm is pretty close.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TomDavidson: Icky, I'll freely concede that it does reflect a change in attitude. What I'm arguing is that defending against a change in attitude is itself highly dangerous. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not conviced. I think it could be, in some circumstances, but not in others. Not all changes in attitude are for the better. (I confess that I suspect I'm totally missing some nuance you are going for.)
I think Tom is trying to say that defense of something solely because it is labeled somehow sacred is misguided and dangerous. If it's not, that's the reading of his meaning that I'm agreeing with. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mean to pollute this thread by carrying over, but the thread was locked while I was typing this response, and I don't feel it contributes negatively to what was said.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think you're misunderstanding SaraSasse's words here. It appears to me (I could be mistaken) that she is replying in response to your question, "Why 'kill' and not 'rape'?" by saying, "Because the flow of culture, history, and language has led to it being different." For a host of reasons, discussed elsewhere at great length.
I understand that, and it's a vague, generalized answer that's true of our use of ALL words. I'm looking for something more specific.
quote:But even back in the day, grunt and hoot at your fellow primate in the wrong way, you might catch a pointy rock to the skull. Is arbitrarily expanding the defintion of an arbitrarily defined word worth upsetting people that much?
No, I don't think so. Likewise, is insisting on your own narrower definition worth being upset over?
quote:I can't really explain my objections to this. I feel like you couldn't have been paying attention if you thought they were obtuse objections. They were pretty darn straightforward to me, even the one from SaraSasse blowed up with lotsa five-dollar words.
I think my use of "deliberately obtuse" was, in retrospect, unfounded with regard to CT's answer, because I don't think I was clear enough about what I was looking for in a response.
quote:Why exactly is what ElJay said 'infuriatingly ignorant' and unmeriting of a civil response?
I explained this in the post you quoted in this response.
To further explain: I don't think what ElJay said is unmeriting of a civil response. What was in doubt was my ability to provide one.
quote:Why pick this one?
Why not? You pointed out something like that earlier in this thread, after all. Does that reasoning only apply to others, and not to you?
I responded to CT and Zeugma's comments about being uncomfortable with rape; they picked it, not me.
quote:Anyway, women clearly have reason to be more concerned, as a practical matter, about rape than men do. Thus concerns about diluting the word's meaning and its impact is of greater practical concern to women than men, being more likely by a major percentage to be the victims of rape than men. Isn't this pretty obvious?
I think you may have missed an entire section of my response, because I explained why I think this is unfair, and prefaced it by indicating that this was why I was ignoring a portion of what ElJay said.
I will never claim to understand the physical, emotional and psychological fear of rape, nor the consequences thereof, since it has never happened to me, nor to any man I know personally, and isn't likely to. Likewise, I don't appreciate that our society has arbitrarily decided that the resulting fear and potential for life-ruination that a man can face because of the heightened awareness we've prescribed is automatically less valid. The two are incomparable. Rape is not a crime with a one-gender demographic of victims.
quote:
quote:We don't get to pick and choose words to call our own. If a non-black person uses the word "nigger" the way a black person typically does, in a way that is not a pejorative, dimunitive and does not imply supremacy on the part of the speaker, how are they deserving of wrath?
Because depending on who says them, words have a different meaning and impact. This is a basic foundation of communication amongst people, man. For instance, let's say that you're...I don't know, you lost a leg somehow. I've known you all my life, we've been friends for decades. We rely and trust each other to an enormous extent. I routinely make jokes about your injury, which-from me-don't bother you. "You foot the bill. On your foot! What do you do when you've got your foot in your mouth, just lay on your ass?" Or something. You know what I'm getting at.
Your example isn't analogous, but I do know what you're getting at.
quote:Why exactly are your intentions behind the use of historically offensive and troubling words for the sake of humor more importan than the responses from many people when you use it?
'For the sake of comedy!' isn't a very potent rallying cry, to be honest. You've spent a great deal of time explaining why using 'rape' casually isn't so bad, but really all it boils down to is "I don't mean it in a bad way."
What will you do if and when you have children, and they attempt to apply this reasoning to the profanity of their culture? Dropping frequent and casual f-bombs can be defended on precisely the same grounds as you're doing with 'rape'. Do you then drop the f-bomb throughout your day, in whatever company? After all, your intentions are what matter, right?
quote:Posted by TomDavidson: The INSULT matters. The OFFENSE matters. The word does not.
When people complain about the use of the word "rape" in a non-sexual context (i.e. Pope), what they're saying is "I'm offended by your casual mention of something that I personally associate with misogynistic assault." And that's fine. But rather than drawing the conclusion that the speaker is making light of misogynistic assault, it would be easier and less painful for everyone concerned to assume that the speaker does not inherently associate all uses of the word "rape" with that sort of assault.
The idea that people might consciously work to ENFORCE that particular meaning of the word "rape" is both baffling and worrisome to me. Why are we making certain words -- and their underlying meanings -- sacrosanct? Are certain types of thought so sacred that it's necessary to build walls around them?
quote:
quote:See, I think we've been trained to do the exact opposite; over time, more and more sexual assault situations get called rape. I think that this is, overall, a good thing.
What exactly do you mean by 'overall' here? Given your defense of the word's casual usage, I find that qualifier a little troubling to be honest. And just because progress marches on does not mean it's done. There is still a great deal of work to be done, as evidenced by the very effort being made to advance this particular cause-increasing public awareness of rape.
I think that it has negative side effects, as explained later in my post. I think these negative side effects are a price to pay for the overall good, and it's a price I pay gladly.
quote:Where exactly is this vagueness you're worried about? I can understand being worried about being accused of rape. False accusations occurr all the time, after all. But fear that something you did with a woman might actually be sexual assault with your being able to be sure about it?
I don't know, man. I find that difficult to believe, I'll be honest, because it's really very simple. If a refusal is given, or consent is not able to be given...then you have to be sure.
What does and does not constitute consent is primarily what's becoming more vague. The girl saying "yes" frequently no longer qualifies.
quote:How exactly do you know they were falsely accused? Since you brought it up, that's why I asked such a blunt question. But let's say they were all falsely accused. How many women do you suppose you know on a daily, personal level who have been raped in their lives?
Most of the cases I mentioned follow the example of the one I explained in detail: that the woman in question took advantage of our heightened sensitivity to the idea of rape.
Again, I'll re-emphasize, for the sake of preemptive defense: this is a price I pay gladly for a proactive solution to a terrible crime.
As to the number of women I know on a personal level who have been raped in their lives; I couldn't give you an exact figure, but the number is much greater than one.
quote:It's a good thing no one has insinuated this, then. People have stated plainly that it is a more serious matter for women than for men. Do you disagree with that?
Yes.
quote:
quote:I haven't argued anything, Rakeesh. I've been asking questions.
Dude, you know just as well as I do that asking a question can also be making an argument.
It can be, and wasn't. I think my questions were largely value-neutral.
quote:Yes, you are simply 'asking questions'. But your questions are rather pointed, and pointed at one side. That's where the argument part comes in.
I strongly disagree, especially since I do not maintain the stance that I've been associated with, but at least now I have a better idea of where the objections arose from.
Thanks.
-------
quote:Posted by ClaudiaTherese: Careful consideration leads me to conclude that I am not and will not be in a position to do what you have asked, Demonstrocity. This reflects a certain lack of creativity, patience, and faith on my part, and for that I apologize.
I appreciate the effort, and want to apologize again for whatever it was that made you so upset. The one point I'd like to address again:
quote: Lastly, I cannot emphasize enough how much deliberately acting in visible "good faith" can be. Such conversations as these are often fraught with hidden agendas, subtle point-games, and such, and making one's intentions as clear as possible by doing rather than merely saying goes a long, long way. (I do not mean to cast aspersions on your particular motives in this case, Demonstrocity, but simply to point out the weight of baggage that comes with such conversations in general.)
My response is now gone with the thread (I'm glad I got this much out beforehand...!), but my first response specifically concluded with me emphasizing that I was after an honest response and was not trying to provoke anyone or be deliberately offensive. I felt that this was a sufficient indicator of my desire to have a discussion in good faith; since it apparently was not, I again apologize.
Edit to add: Rakeesh, I abbreviated the quotes-within-quotes in an effort to keep the post to a less-than-epic length, and then the thread was deleted; had I been thinking, I would have quoted a few levels deeper. Sorry!
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, dear me Demonstrocity. I think I may have spilled a little bit of my punch on your blouse.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
