Look out! He's got a knife!

I blogged this quote a while back:

“There is nothing either fundamentally good, nor anything fundamentally evil; everything is relative, relative to our point of view. This point once established, it is extremely possible that something, perfectly indifferent in itself, may be indeed distasteful in your eyes, but may be most delicious in mine; and immediately I find it pleasing, immediately I find it amusing, regardless of our inability to agree in assigning a character to it, should I not be a fool to deprive myself of it merely because you condemn it?” –Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom

I'm juggling chainsaws next to your baby, but I haven't dropping one yet -- why should I stop?

I'm talking about taking your puppy, breadcrumbing it and deep-frying it while it's still alive; I appear to be deadly serious, but I haven't actually done it yet, so that's okay, right?

I appear to be trying to normalize a word which you believe increases the likelyhood that you'll be viewed purely as an object, and thus makes you feel less safe (because you believe it's easier for people so inclined to attack you if they view you as an object). But the I'm using the word in an intentionally ironic fashion, so that means you automatically feel safe, right?

Okay, I might be competing with Pearce for the whole farical thing. And you could set up an argument that the Neo-nazi is offended by the interacial couple because he afraid for the destiny of his race, or something. But it does seem to me that promoting people's right to make others feel unsafe, for example, doesn't feel right.

I don't know. I think agree that you don't have an intrinsic right not to be offended, but I also think there may be a social... obligation? responsibility? not to go out of your way to offend people unless there's a reason; it's not a "you must", but a "you should". Maybe it's something to do with there being enough crappiness in the world by default? Dunno.

Svend: I think your first two examples are spurious. Child endangerment and threats to puppies are very likely to be considered offensive, but I really don't think it's their offensiveness per se that makes them objectionable.

As for the third point, about "normalizing" the word: does banning the c-word in any way change the attitudes of people who are likely to view women as an object, or does it merely make these people harder to spot?

What exactly is it about the c-word that makes some woman think it causes them to be objectified? Does the word "pussy" cause the same fears? If the headline had said "Too Many Vaginas" would it have been any less offensive? Why/why not?

Isn't this all indicative of a bigger issue? Wouldn't it be better to open discussion and work towards identifying (and hopefully solving) the actual problem rather than just putting ointment on the symptoms?

I agree with your final point, which I sum up as: before you do something rash, maybe you should consider the likely consequences.

More: There's an advertising term called "2 Cs in a K." It means "Two c**ts in a kitchen."

Is this offensive because the c-word is involved, or because it objectifies women by implying that the only part of them that "matters" is their genitals - by linguistically reducing them?

You could say "both" I suppose, but then we'd have to return to "why exactly is the c-word offensive?"

I actually think a good reason to reclaim the c-word is because there's nothing offensive about a woman's genitalia. There is no word for a man's genitals that causes the same level of offence. Is anyone reading this seriously going to argue that a penis is less offensive than a vagina? Of course not. What gives the word the power to objectify a woman? I'd argue that the knowledge that it will cause offence is a prime factor!

Sorry, I'm right up on my hobby horse now. What I really want is for people to look beyond the words into what they signify, and recognise that the same word in a different context will have completely different significance. Even if that word is "cunt".

I guess my point with the first two examples was simply that actually causing harm isn't the only criteria that you could consider; stopping something that could potentially cause harm (or you think will potentially cause harm) is worthwhile, too. I'll admit that it was at a slight tangent to your point; I was more interested in the "making people feel threatened isn't necessarily good, either".

I don't actually agree with the objection to the "cunt" word; but I don't think that it's unreasonable for me to change my behaviour if someone else is offended by it.

Also -- I can look beyond words into what they signify, and I can see the universe in a single grain of sand. But most of the time, I'm quickly skim-reading blogs when I should be working, or making a cup of tea and discussing what Michael Bay has done to the design of the Transformers. Because I have a limited amount of mental energy, and I enjoy frittering some of it away.

And I guess my main point is that some people's insistence that nothing should exist that offends them causes more harm than it fixes.

my penis story

Buy Viagra. Generic Viagra. Order Viagra Online

Buy Viagra. Generic Viagra. Order Viagra Online

hello

hello

hello

hello

Viagra Online. Buy Viagra Online

Viagra Online. Buy Viagra Online

hello