posted
Mucus, that link is intended as commentary on the sexual slur. Essentially saying that they are going to embrace the slur because they don't care what childish insults their detractors throw at them, ultimately it's about what they believe and what they're fighting for.
Not exactly a confirmation of your claim that the term originated with the tea party.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whether you refer to it as a sexual practice or position, it still carries a sexual meaning.
I think most people would find it offensive regardless if someone was calling themselves by the name. It doesn't make it ok.
Geraine, Wurden Sie mir bitte sage, welche English worter kein sexuale Bedeutung haben? Wenn fast jedes Wort ein sexuales Zweideutigkeit biete, Wer soll sich richtig beleidigt sein? Er der unbewusst etwas sexual sagt, oder Er der bewusst dreht alles zu ein sexuale Beleidigung?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, not only does teabag have a sexual connotation, but back when the Tea Party first hit the scene there were a number of very mature journalists who mixed in related sexual innuendo all throughout their coverage of the Tea Party.
It was pretty repugnant. Or hilarious, I suppose, if you're a stoner in your 20s.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, practice, not position, whatever. I know what it is, I'm just not saying it for the obvious reasons. Still, people saying it tend to be using it with that in mind, regardless of who used it first.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think most people would find it offensive regardless if someone was calling themselves by the name. It doesn't make it ok.
I'm not responding about what "most people" think. I'm responding on the idea of why "the reason the term exists" which is a question of history.
AFAIK, if I recall Dan Savage correctly, the term originated about homosexuals who tea bagged each other and wasn't supposed to be insulting.
Later on, the term was seized upon by heterosexuals who used it as an insulting term for each other (because minority practices are perceived as insulting).
And later on, the term was coincidentally used by Tea Partiers to refer to themselves.
So the term wasn't only used because of the sexual innuendo, but because of the sexual innuendo AND because it was used by tea partiers themselves.
Incidentally, this means that the term isn't inherently insulting and can be used by a number of groups without insult including:
a) People who perform the sexual practice and don't want to give up the term simply because someone else co-opted it b) People who want to stand in solidarity with conservatives who want to use the term without shame (and note that implying that they inherently cannot is kinda offensive for those in group a))
So it seems to me, whether you're conservative or progressive (and wish to remove the negative stigma associated with the practice), you can use the term without being offensive.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the term "tea-bagging" became a slur when 16 year old boys found that certain moves in some popular video games visually resembled the practice, usually with the victor dancing on the fragged victims corpse.
It became worse that a slur. It became a juvenile internet meme--l33t Play3rz would T-bag the newbies.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: It's no big deal you just accidentally walked into a mine field. I promise you though from the moment they started using the moniker "Tea Party" journalists and comedians started dropping the phrase "tea bagger" and giggling, especially when early on tea partiers thought they were getting media recognition when they read the phrase and started using it to describe themselves, much to the glee of their opposition.
If they ever co-opt the phrase like Americans did with Yankee Doodle, good for them, but right now that phrase is like Yankee Doodle in that only the mocking British use it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The entire point, which you have missed, is that the term is a kind of sexual position, and was used to refer to tea-partiers specifically because of that.
Well, to be fair, the first "Tea Partiers" I ever met -- my mother included -- actually referred to themselves as "tea baggers" until someone explained the innuendo (or at least that there was innuendo to be perceived.) If I formed a pro-Atkins Diet group called (in all innocence) the Salad Tossers, with a motto that said "Toss Your Salad" and a gimmick that asked members to bring small side salads (for throwing) to meetings, people might be forgiven if, even two or three years later, even after I have done my best to ensure that everyone involved now calls themselves "Salad Throwers," vegetarians still call us "Salad Tossers" with a smirk.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Randian objectivism is a very real term and you can find plenty of people who self-identify by that exact terminology.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Reported! Reported! You are so reported!
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm completely puzzled why anyone would be upset to be characterized as 'Randian.' When someone holds a view derived from the ideas of a particular philosopher, the normal thing is to name the view after that philosopher.
Marxist, Humean, Cartesian, Thomist, Aristotelian, Platonist -- I have colleagues who call themselves by these names and think nothing of it. Why should it be insulting to call someone an adherent of Ayn Rand's views in the same way?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the teabag thing, I admit to finding it funny back when Tea Partiers referred to themselves by that term, either on their own initiative or by being tricked into it. Mainly because it underscored how out of touch the movement was with mainstream youth culture (by "youth" I mean "under 40"). I'd never call someone a teabagger these days, mostly because the joke has long since gone stale.
Also, if I may quibble, calling "teabagging" a sexual term isn't quite right. It's only sexual in the sense that mooning or flashing someone is also "sexual" (which I'd say is a misnomer). Sex organs are involved, but in a degrading rather than lewd way.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer: Tea bagging while a degrading act, is also done in a sexual context between consenting partners.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why should I look it up? I'm not the one making the odd claim.
It's not odd, it's true. But I'm starting to have serious doubts that you're even able to acknowledge that fact.
I take it you're really salty over having being called a Randian in the past. Or, for that matter, that title being fairly forthright and accurate.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Destineer: Tea bagging while a degrading act, is also done in a sexual context between consenting partners.
Huh. I guess people do all sorts of things for fun. I'd only heard about it in the context of hazing rituals, or as something to do to your bro when he's passed out.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: As for the teabag thing, I admit to finding it funny back when Tea Partiers referred to themselves by that term, either on their own initiative or by being tricked into it.
I was actually pretty astounded by that. And it lasted quite a while. I kept saying 'uh hey do you know what that means'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Dont you people know what tea bagging even is? Its when after killing someone in Halo or another FPS you go over their corpse before they respawn and rapidly hit the crouch key so you are constantly crouching over their face.
IP: Logged |
posted
That description has already been covered in a previous post, which is now retroactively insulting you.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Lets lay off the disparaging comments about the wits of nits.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Because I think its a misnomer since there is nothing "objective" about Ayn Rand's philosophy.
As Destineer noted, it's the rule not the exception to name philosophies after philosophers and adding "ian"to the philosophers name is the most common way to do it. If Humean, Cartesian, Aristotelian, Kantian, and Hegelian are not perjoratives, why would you get het up about Randian philosophy.
Oh, and your utter guile of calling me a nitwit, in the same sentence where your are insisting I use a respectful term to describe a philosophy you adhere to, disgusts me.
Oh, and the using the name of the leader of my religion as a perjority while asking for respect of "Objectivists",
[ December 03, 2010, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'm completely puzzled why anyone would be upset to be characterized as 'Randian.' When someone holds a view derived from the ideas of a particular philosopher, the normal thing is to name the view after that philosopher.
Marxist, Humean, Cartesian, Thomist, Aristotelian, Platonist -- I have colleagues who call themselves by these names and think nothing of it. Why should it be insulting to call someone an adherent of Ayn Rand's views in the same way?
It hasn't become a fun pasttime to dig up personal idiosyncrancies of Marx or Descartes and use them fallaciously to try and defame their philosophies. That's not the case with Ayn Rand. "Randian" implies someone who agrees with her about her personal opinions as well as her formulated philosophy, the latter being called Objectivism.
In addition, "Randian" implies a kind of cult of personality. Do I need to post links to all of the various screeds online where people make that claim?
And again, why do you suppose Muslims have a problem with being called Mohammedans?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Jesus. How about Objectivist, you nitwit.
Lets lay off the disparaging comments about the wits of nits.
Really? If she objects to "nitwit", I'll be happy to stop calling her that. As soon as she's willing to quit the "Randian" nonsense. I assume that's okay with you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh, and your utter guile of calling me a nitwit, in the same sentence where your are insisting I use a respectful term to describe a philosophy you adhere to, disgusts me.
Guile. I don't think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you were looking for "hypocrisy", but that'd be wrong as well, since I did it intentionally to see if you were as blithe about perogatives when they were directed at you as you are when they spew out of your mouth.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh, and the using the name of the leader of my religion as a perjority while asking for respect of "Objectivists",
Oops. I forgot you were a Jesusist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Really? If she objects to "nitwit", I'll be happy to stop calling her that. As soon as she's willing to quit the "Randian" nonsense. I assume that's okay with you.
I suppose it's too much to ask that you just exhibit the self control to not call people names when told not to, nor compare those names irrelevantly to things which are not inherently insults!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Really? If she objects to "nitwit", I'll be happy to stop calling her that. As soon as she's willing to quit the "Randian" nonsense. I assume that's okay with you.
I suppose it's too much to ask that you just exhibit the self control to not call people names when told not to, nor compare those names irrelevantly to things which are not inherently insults!
Anything that a person knows will offend that they say anyway is an insult.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is ridiculous. Rabbit as far as I can tell was completely unaware that using the terms Tea Bagger or Randian could be construed to mean something pejorative.
Lisa asking that the term "Objectivist" be used doesn't seem all that different from LDS folks occasionally asking that they not be called Mormons. I know the reasoning is slightly different, but it's not a terrible practice to refer to people by the term they find acceptable as opposed to the one they do not.
Not calling people names is a pretty basic tenet of simple conversation to say nothing of posting here, so adhere to it please. I don't care if there was a reason for it, but in this case of trying to slap somebody back because they offended you it's hardly one I'd consider useful in any context.
Please stop this back and forth.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Anything that a person knows will offend that they say anyway is an insult.
Ummmm ... given the wide variety of things people can take offence to, this seems like a dubious principle.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I can state from personal experience that even the neutral terms cannot shake off the accusation of the cult of personality moniker if the starter of said philosophy actually had one either intentionally or no.
Such as Maoist.
Look Randian is definately a neutral uninsulting terms, the difference here is we say it in the same inflection and one the same way McCarthy would hiss "Communist" despite it also not being an insulting term on its own, it's all about context.
Randian is the proper terms and if it seems to have connoctations of a CoP then maybe you should think twice as to why that is.
When I think Randian I think "Taxes is Theft" brand of Objectivism.
When I think Objectivist I think Bioshock.
IP: Logged |
quote: Lisa asking that the term "Objectivist" be used doesn't seem all that different from LDS folks occasionally asking that they not be called Mormons. I know the reasoning is slightly different, but it's not a terrible practice to refer to people by the term they find acceptable as opposed to the one they do not.
I'd say that they're similar in that it's respectful and polite to use the term that people have chosen for themselves, but I'd hardly call it rude or insulting to use the more common (non-pejorative) term.
This is pretty different from calling people, for example, "anti-choice" or "pro-death".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Anything that a person knows will offend that they say anyway is an insult.
Nope! A descriptive term remains a descriptive term. A hypersensitive person who takes offense to nominally non-offensive descriptive terms does not change this. It's just a 'I get to decide that you are insulting me' cop-out card by someone who is intent on creating an inherent insulting context in their own head.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course it did. Here's the relevant section of Article 6:
quote:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
You don't know what "ratify" means. Look it up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with JanitorBlade's maxim that you don't call somebody names they don't want to be called. But I do think it deserves pointing out that Lisa is under a misconception regarding the connotations of 'Randian.'
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It hasn't become a fun pasttime to dig up personal idiosyncrancies of Marx or Descartes and use them fallaciously to try and defame their philosophies. That's not the case with Ayn Rand.
You don't think Marx has been the target of similar character assassinations? He probably deserves it, as does Rand to my mind, but my point is that you can't say she's unique in this regard. And yet there are many proud, self-described Marxists.
quote:"Randian" implies someone who agrees with her about her personal opinions as well as her formulated philosophy, the latter being called Objectivism.
You're simply mistaken about this. I've heard the word used, in classrooms and seminars, only to describe Rand's philosophical beliefs. For instance, a philosopher will refer to "the Randian rejection of collectivism" or "the Randian view that X, Y and Z."
In describing Peikoff as a Randian, one definitely does not mean to imply that he thinks rape is a great way to start a relationship, or some such. One means only that his political philosophy is derived quite directly from Rand's.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I've actually never seen someone use the term "Randian" to imply anything but that someone subscribes to Rand's version of Objectivism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Lisa asking that the term "Objectivist" be used doesn't seem all that different from LDS folks occasionally asking that they not be called Mormons. I know the reasoning is slightly different, but it's not a terrible practice to refer to people by the term they find acceptable as opposed to the one they do not.
I'd say that they're similar in that it's respectful and polite to use the term that people have chosen for themselves, but I'd hardly call it rude or insulting to use the more common (non-pejorative) term.
This is pretty different from calling people, for example, "anti-choice" or "pro-death".
I think part of the problem is that people generally choose terms for themselves that are unrealistically positive and terms for their opponents which are negative caricatures. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are excellent examples of this phenomenon on the one side. So are "Objectivist" and "Latter-Day-Saint". "Anti-life" and "Anti-choice" show the opposite side.
If someone doesn't want to call me "LDS" because they think its inappropriate to call me a saint and arrogant of me to ask, I'm certainly not going to make a stink about it. I'd rather having them calling me a Mormon than smirking every time they think "saint".
No one should expect their opposition to use the unrealistically positive names they've chosen for themselves.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with JanitorBlade's maxim that you don't call somebody names they don't want to be called. But I do think it deserves pointing out that Lisa is under a misconception regarding the connotations of 'Randian.'
It should also be pointed out that no one here has called Lisa, or anyone else here, a Randian. That term was apply to the "Ayn Rand Institute" and the video Blayne linked in the OP.
To the best of my recollection, the only person here who has called anyone else here a derogatory name, is Lisa herself.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: not ratified by the constitution
The constitution does not ratify. In any way.
Of course it did. Here's the relevant section of Article 6:
quote:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
You don't know what "ratify" means. Look it up.
1. to confirm by expressing consent, approval, or formal sanction: to ratify a constitutional amendment. 2. to confirm (something done or arranged by an agent or by representatives) by such action.
quote:IE in context, the Constitution approved the NW Ordinance.
Blayne, while you are correct about the meaning of ratify, you are incorrect about this. The NW Ordinance was not one of the Debts and Engagements which was considered validated by the Constitution as evidenced by the fact that it was felt necessary for Congress to re-institute it (with some minimal changes) shortly after ratification of the Constitution.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
People and agents ratify. Documents do not. Except maybe the Maurader's Map, which is really just acting as an agent in such a case.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: People and agents ratify. Documents do not. Except maybe the Maurader's Map, which is really just acting as an agent in such a case.
Katharina, in case you read this post, I need you to email me through the forums. You do not have an email I can contact through the forums. I needed to get a hold of you.
posted
yassir, thissun steam-powered forum arci-tecture is state o the art in some ways, now, we may not have anny o them new fangled things like 'private messages' or 'de-velloper support' but
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
