Bigoted language

[andrewducker]

I was questioned, through email, as to why it was worse to use sexist language to attack someone than it was to simply attack someone.

And the answer is that sexist language reinforces norms that say it's ok to nasty to women. And racist argument reinforces norms that say it's ok to be nasty to people that look different. And homophobic (or heterophobic - is there a combined term?) language reinforces norms that say it's ok to be nasty to people that find people attractive of the same (or different) gender.

It's one thing to say "I hate this person, and I will say nasty things about them." and another to say "I hate this person, and I will say nasty things about them in such a way as to indicate that all people like them should be treated as less than entirely human."

Norms matter. The social atmosphere matters. If you want to call someone an idiot, feel free - it's a free country, and you're entitled to your opinion. Bigoted language is far more insidious.

Comments

[davesangel.livejournal.com]

Very well said. I've seen too many examples in recent months of men referring to women as either baby-making machines or as an object to have sex with. And ok, they might say that it was merely a bit of fun (it wasn't, I know when people are joking and when they're being serious and this was the latter in every case) but regardless, the ease with which women are degraded in this way shows a total lack of respect for women and that it's totally ok to put women down in every situation...

[heron61.livejournal.com]

It's one thing to say "I hate this person, and I will say nasty things about them." and another to say "I hate this person, and I will say nasty things about them in such a way as to indicate that all people like them should be treated as less than entirely human."

It both annoys and surprises me that this distinction is largely unknown (or at least considered unimportant) by a large number of people. Of course, such attitudes are usually evidence of white male privilege in action.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

usually evidence of white male privilege in action.

It's one thing to say "I hate this person, and I will say nasty things about them." and another to say "I hate this person, and I will say nasty things about them in such a way as to indicate that all people like them should be treated as less than entirely human."

Norms matter. The social atmosphere matters. If you want to call someone an idiot, feel free - it's a free country, and you're entitled to your opinion. Bigoted language is far more insidious.

[nameandnature]

I see what you did there, but I'm afraid you don't understand how this game works. heron61 can't be using bigoted language because they are defending people with less privilege than you, so they automatically have the moral high ground.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

So you are suggesting that insulting white males in the basis of their sex or race is acceptable or morally correct? This "game" is an exchange of opinions and ideas of what we consider to be morally correct. While you are entitled to an opinion, I am more than happy to point out how utterly hypocritical your last 2 sentences were, as well as Heron61's closing sentence.

[nameandnature]

Nope, I am in fact being sarcastic. The admonition to "check you privilege" is often the seen as the trump card in debates like this. I find it about as convincing as Christians telling me I'm blinded by sin (q.v. my previous thoughts on the subject).

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Yes, this.

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

who on earth asked you that? what an eejit! well done with explaining!

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

I agree in theory, but I sometimes find it difficult to define "sexist language", because there's a broad range of opinion on the subject. It's easier to recognise it when it's used than to provide hard-and-fast definitions, I guess.

(I may be protesting too much, but I really don't want to take all the swear words out of my vocabulary :->, and I've seen people call more or less all swear words sexist in some way or other.)

[andrewducker]

I'm with you on not wanting to lose all the swear words in my vocabulary. But I'd no more put up with this than I would with someone using the word 'nigger' as an insult. I'm willing to put up with a lot though :->

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

I wasn't questioning you per se. Nor did I ask you that, but I'm sure now that you've made your point, everyone can congratulate you on how well you answered an unasked question.

I was using a rhetorical question to illustrate a point I've tried to make several times. I'm well aware how you feel about this,. But now I realise you honestly can't understand what I'm saying because you see things so utterly differently. Reading this post is like reading an answer to a question that I didn't ask because it's not relevant to anything I've said unless you didn't understand it at all.

I'm not going to comment on any further posts you make about these kind of issues again, I tried quite hard to illustrate my point but, as I think we discussed about two weeks ago, with issues like this, people can't separate the larger picture from the emotive narrow issue, and that's where the problem lies.

For me, the narrow issue is an arrow pointing inexorably towards the larger picture and the horror that can be seen when you see it at that scale. For you, the larger picture is simply a map to zoom in on the narrower issues so that you can't see the rest.

This is, I suppose, like a very devout religious person with a strong belief in the miraculous trying to argue with a very firmly convinced atheist. We can argue all day, but since we both are convinced of our own rightness and see things in different terms, there's no real point.

[andrewducker]

I wasn't questioning you per se.
That's not what your email says.

Nor did I ask you that
That's not what your email says.

I never named you. I was happily discussing this over email - and replied there. To come out in public and say that that your email never said something which I can see right in front of me strikes me as particularly unfair - because you know that I won't quote a private email in a public forum without permission.

For me, the narrow issue is an arrow pointing inexorably towards the larger picture
Me too - where the larger picture is general bigotry. A point I've made repeatedly, and you've completely failed to engage with, preferring to accuse me of zooming into the narrowest details, when I don't believe I'm doing any such thing - but every time I point out how I'm not doing this, you simply accuse me again.

[andrewducker]

Oh - and in case it was a component of things - I didn't post this publically in order to parade anything you said in the court of public opinion. You said something, and it triggered a post I wanted to write. There's whole swathes of stuff in the emails we were exchanging that aren't here, and I left your name off of the post for a very good reason - it wasn't about _you_ - it was about a particular attitude to things. Which, clearly, you don't feel you have. Although you did assume it was your email that triggered it, which is interesting, as I'm exchanging emails with about six people about the posts of the last few days, so it didn't have to be you.

I do feel that we are clearly thinking in some magically different way, because when you say "But now I realise you honestly can't understand what I'm saying because you see things so utterly differently." there must be _something_ I'm not getting. You seem to be saying that I'm not seeing things in their wider context, and I very much think I am, so either there's a wider context that I'm not seeing, or there's no wider context but you're seeing it anyway.

In an attempt at a summary of my position:
To me, there's people being bad to each other - and a specific kind of badness - bigotry - causes knock-on effects, that make it more likely for bad things to happen later. I therefore feel this particular kind of badness is worth singling out over and above "regular" badness, as it's a cause of badness, not just badness itself. I'm still unsure as to whether this is something you agree with, don't agree with, or feel is entirely tangential to your point, which is therefore about some other badness or even larger supercontext which you're not explaining in ways I can understand.

[meico.livejournal.com]

Edit:
It's one thing to say "I hate this person, and I will say nasty things about them." and another to say "I hate this person, and I will say nasty things about them in such a way as to indicate that all people like them in one particular and utterly irrelevant way should be treated as less than entirely human."

[chuma.livejournal.com]

"I was questioned, through email, as to why it was worse to use sexist language to attack someone than it was to simply attack someone."

Define "simply attack someone" as both in my eyes and the eyes of the law, verbally assauting someone is far less terrible than punching and kicking someone.

Devils Advocate

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

And yet I've seen you take (jokingly) anti-semetic comments without a blink of an eye. Surely you should have barely been able to contain your outrage for jewish people everywhere?

Re: Devils Advocate

[andrewducker]

Three points:
1) I seem to be getting more sensitive with age.
2) I've been feeling more and more uncomfortable about them for about two years.
3) I do feel there's a huge difference between hate speech and joking - and it's mostly in the intent of the speaker and the level of understanding of the listeners. I'm comfortable with a certain level of sexist joke, racist joke, etc. - so long as the people involved really don't mean them, and they're towards the "teasing" end of the scale rather than the total vitriol end. Or so over-the-top that they're clearly meant as satire. A lot of it comes down to context, knowing the audience, etc. (much like the "talking about sex" stuff from the discussions a couple of weeks ago). I'm definitely less comfortable than I used to be though.

[0olong.livejournal.com]

If you want to call someone an idiot, feel free - it's a free country, and you're entitled to your opinion.

That's... that's smartist that is! What makes it okay to be nasty to people who have the misfortune of possessing a less-than-genious intellect?