Is it okay to call a woman a ****?

[jasmine]

Just wondering whether or not you think it's okay to call a woman a ****.

[Dimentio]

What are wrong with vaginas? Why are we using female and male genitalia as cuss-words against idiots? I mean, the sexual act is not something unnatural or something to be ashamed of.

[Janus]

Well, when it is used to refer to a woman then yes it is considered quite derogatory and offensive.

[jasmine]

Well, when it is used to refer to a woman then yes it is considered quite derogatory and offensive

Well done janus, it's 'quite' derogatory and offensive.

And yet you allow it without censure. Why is that?

[Guerrilla22]

So would you like this thread to be deleated? What are you trying to prove here?

[Dimentio]

Well, it is quite unprofessional to allow ad hominem-insults in the first place, whether from ordinary users or moderators. ^^

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:20 pm
Well, it is quite unprofessional to allow ad hominem-insults in the first place, whether from ordinary users or moderators. ^^
Of course, who used it though?

[Sentinel]

One word: context. While censuring words or posts isn't generally a good option except on special occasions, like if sensitive/private information is posted publicly without permission etc, sexism certainly is an at least warnable offense on here.

So if you feel the word has been used in a sexist manner against a member somewhere on RL, please give us a link, or either PM a mod or use the report post function.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+December 30, 2006 10:28 pm--> (Guerrilla22 @ December 30, 2006 10:28 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2006 10:20 pm
Well, it is quite unprofessional to allow ad hominem-insults in the first place, whether from ordinary users or moderators. ^^
Of course, who used it though? [/b]
I am sad to say it, but I have seen ad hominem insults carried out by CC-members and unrestricted members here, like "you are an idiot", which is both an ad hominem and outrightly counter-productive to state.

[Banned]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 30, 2006 10:33 pm--> (Serpent @ December 30, 2006 10:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:28 pm

[email protected] 30, 2006 10:20 pm
Well, it is quite unprofessional to allow ad hominem-insults in the first place, whether from ordinary users or moderators. ^^
Of course, who used it though?
I am sad to say it, but I have seen ad hominem insults carried out by CC-members and unrestricted members here, like "you are an idiot", which is both an ad hominem and outrightly counter-productive to state. [/b]
You say that almost like you are suprised!

[Janus]

And yet you allow it without censure. Why is that?
If it's used in a flame or in some other derogatory sense than a warn should be in order. Of course, mods can't spot everything so if you see it used in that way, you need to report it.


One word: context.
If it's used against a women then it is most likely condescending and derogatory.


I am sad to say it, but I have seen ad hominem insults carried out by CC-members and unrestricted members here, like "you are an idiot", which is both an ad hominem and outrightly counter-productive to state.
Yeah, people flame and if it's serious enough then they are warned. There's really no way we can somehow totally end flaming.

[Guerrilla22]

If someone refered to Jasmine as a "****" then she should PM a mod or administrator and they should take the appropriate measures.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I think that flaming restricted members is NOT a warnable offense on RevLeft.

oh and people really over react to that word. Its kind of irrational.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 12:19 am
I think that flaming restricted members is NOT a warnable offense on RevLeft.

oh and people really over react to that world. Its kind of irrational.
Even restricted members should be treated with respect.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

well yes, and far and away most do. Remember, revleft is an internet forum, and compared to many other ones ive been too, has a very high degree of respect between members, especially considering the wide scope of political differences.

That said however, regular members who are learning and using revleft to broaden their knowledge of revolutionary leftism need to be able to use revleft to that end without being flamed or attacked.

Very few OI'ers use revleft for this. They're normally just here for the odd "communism is 4 teh losers!1"

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 12:32 am
well yes, and far and away most do. Remember, revleft is an internet forum, and compared to many other ones ive been too, has a very high degree of respect between members, especially considering the wide scope of political differences.

That said however, regular members who are learning and using revleft to broaden their knowledge of revolutionary leftism need to be able to use revleft to that end without being flamed or attacked.

Very few OI'ers use revleft for this. They're normally just here for the odd "communism is 4 teh losers!1"
Yes, so why prove that communists are irrational by flameing them?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 30, 2006 10:33 pm--> (Serpent @ December 30, 2006 10:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:28 pm

[email protected] 30, 2006 10:20 pm
Well, it is quite unprofessional to allow ad hominem-insults in the first place, whether from ordinary users or moderators. ^^
Of course, who used it though?
I am sad to say it, but I have seen ad hominem insults carried out by CC-members and unrestricted members here, like "you are an idiot", which is both an ad hominem and outrightly counter-productive to state. [/b]
But some people really are idiots... :(

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 07:37 am
Yes, so why prove that communists are irrational by flameing them?
maybe it's not proving that communists are irrational, they're flamed just because oftenly they keep talking out of their ass... :P

[RevMARKSman]

"****" can be used to refer to women derogatorily, reducing them only to sex toys. (Example: "Get back in the kitchen, ****." "Dick" can be used in the same way against men, but seldom is.) BUT it can also be used as simply a general insult. Again, it's all about context.

[Dimentio]

Then that is enough to prove that. Rule nr 1, never get angry.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 07:42 am
Then that is enough to prove that. Rule nr 1, never get angry.
what? i think it's not an anger by the way,i.e when Jazzratt debating some restricted member,i think maybe he just want to show them the "right thing."

it's not an anger,no one angry....does anyone angry?no! it's just a debate between two people with different ideologies. ;)

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by knight of cydonia+December 31, 2006 12:48 am--> (knight of cydonia @ December 31, 2006 12:48 am)
[email protected] 31, 2006 07:42 am
Then that is enough to prove that. Rule nr 1, never get angry.
what? i think it's not an anger by the way,i.e when Jazzratt debating some restricted member,i think maybe he just want to show them the "right thing."

it's not an anger,no one angry....does anyone angry?no! it's just a debate between two people with different ideologies. ;) [/b]
It is not "debate" to call another user retarded, idiot and ****. It is first demeaning to the one who lashes out, and second, it is misuse of positions of hierarchy. On the OI, every user should be treated equally. It is possible to crush an opponent without ad hominems.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 31, 2006 07:52 am--> (Serpent @ December 31, 2006 07:52 am)
Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 31, 2006 12:48 am

[email protected] 31, 2006 07:42 am
Then that is enough to prove that. Rule nr 1, never get angry.
what? i think it's not an anger by the way,i.e when Jazzratt debating some restricted member,i think maybe he just want to show them the "right thing."

it's not an anger,no one angry....does anyone angry?no! it's just a debate between two people with different ideologies. ;)
It is not "debate" to call another user retarded, idiot and ****. It is first demeaning to the one who lashes out, and second, it is misuse of positions of hierarchy. On the OI, every user should be treated equally. It is possible to crush an opponent without ad hominems. [/b]
right,every user in OI should be treated equally,and yes it is possible to crush opponent just like what u said.

but .... what if the opponent keep saying bullshit and keep thinking that his/her ideologies and visions was always right.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 09:58 pm
Well, when it is used to refer to a woman then yes it is considered quite derogatory and offensive.
Well isn't that the whole point in calling someone a ****?

"Excuse me love, you're a ****... no offense of course." :huh:

[Morag]

At home in Canada, the term is considered the most repulsive thing you could say to someone, male or female. It took me ages to figure out what people were talking about when they would say 'Your such a c-word!' Yes, we don't even say it... But in Britain, it's just like any other insult, very common, said without any more venom then any other term. Someone called me it today when I beat them in a game of darts, and I just laughed and bought him a drink, whereas in Canada I would have broken his jaw. I think the weight of the term is more cultural then contextual, or that within different cultures it will be seen in a different context. In Canada (and probably most of North America) it will almost always be said in the rudest way imaginable, while in other parts of the world, it's just an insult. That probably explains why it is treated like more run of the mill insults, like dick, ass, ect, here on RevLeft. Though I could be completely off base.

[chimx]

The word "****" comes from a pre-greek word thousands of years old to describe creation, or possibly specifically women. It only became offensive in recent times, while in some places in the world, "****" is considered a complimentary term.

As is the case with all words, vulgarity is based on context. Some feminists jump on the chance to describe their vagina's as ****s (see the Vagina Monologues). On the other hand, one time I called my mother a **** when I was in high school and she smacked me upside the head.

Its all about context.

[Janus]

Well isn't that the whole point in calling someone a ****?
When used against a women then yes but when it's used to refer to a man and depending on the context it's generally not very offensive and not even considered an insult in some places.

[Sentinel]

We must indeed keep in mind that the underlying meaning of words varies greatly from an area to another. For instance the finnish word for ****, vittu, is the easily most common curseword in my language, used like 'fuck' or perhaps even 'damn' is in english by both males and females.

It has been quite undramatised in itself. However, using it referring to another person is of course another thing and is offending, and can be derogatory, depending on who says it to whom..

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 01:42 am
We must indeed keep in mind that the underlying meaning of words varies greatly from an area to another. For instance the finnish word for ****, vittu, is the easily most common curseword in my language, used like 'fuck' or perhaps even 'damn' is in english by both males and females.

It has been quite undramatised in itself. However, using it referring to another person is of course another thing and is offending, and can be derogatory, depending on who says it to whom..
Finnish has some fucking beautiful swearing :D

Suksi vittuun, tuhkamuna! :D (I think that's right?)

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by Comrade J+December 31, 2006 12:18 pm--> (Comrade J @ December 31, 2006 12:18 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2006 01:42 am
We must indeed keep in mind that the underlying meaning of words varies greatly from an area to another. For instance the finnish word for ****, vittu, is the easily most common curseword in my language, used like 'fuck' or perhaps even 'damn' is in english by both males and females.

It has been quite undramatised in itself. However, using it referring to another person is of course another thing and is offending, and can be derogatory, depending on who says it to whom..
Finnish has some fucking beautiful swearing :D

Suksi vittuun, tuhkamuna! :D (I think that's right?) [/b]
indonesian have this word:

Anjing...perek!!!!

[Jazzratt]

There appear to be two main threads of thought in here:

One is that any form of abuse is an ad hominiem, it isn't. An ad hominem is only ever commited when somone makes a statement about the other person as a way of proving their argument.
i.e "You're wrong, because you're a stupid piece of shit." Is an ad hominem.

BUT

"You're wrong because x (where x is a statement in support of the argument.), you stupid little ****" or "You're wrong and therfore stupid". Are not ad hominems.

Secondly is this strange assumpution that because the word '****' refers to female genetalia it must automatically be more offensive than the word dick. For a start it is, somwhat oddly, considered more vulgar - as if a vagina was more vulgar than a penis. When you are insulting someone using a word lick 'dick' or '****' the gender of the recipient does not enter into it.

So yes, it's absolutley fucking fine.

[for those of you who may have an interest in such things, there is a christmas card I've pinned to my wall in pride of place emblazoned with the words "MERRY CHRISTMAS, YOU ****".]

[jasmine]

In answer to someone who asked why I started this thread - just wondering what people think generally.

I'm not saying I never use words like 'fuck' etc. but I think generally sexual terminology used as abuse demeans us.

Our sexuality is an important part of us and quite a delicate easily damaged aspect of the psyche - look at the trauma suffered by victims of sexual abuse or attack. And yet sex is an endless source of jokes and abusive words.

That this is so is a symptom of how brutalising our so-called civilisation still is.

[Dimentio]

Jazzratt (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm)

Jasmine (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/innocenceabused.htm)

Sorry, I could'nt resist.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 02:55 pm
In answer to someone who asked why I started this thread - just wondering what people think generally.

I'm not saying I never use words like 'fuck' etc. but I think generally sexual terminology used as abuse demeans us.

Our sexuality is an important part of us and quite a delicate easily damaged aspect of the psyche - look at the trauma suffered by victims of sexual abuse or attack. And yet sex is an endless source of jokes and abusive words.
I think this rests on a strange assumptution often made by the PC "clutchy-throat" left that usage of words somehow changes your attitude toward something or acts to oppress people. This is, of course, a load of bollocks. The problem with sex is mainly it's mystification, the "behind closed doors" attitude, the other - major - problem is the one you touched on, its use as a weapon; rape, [needless to say, sexual] abuse and so on. None of this, of course, has anything to do with whether or not someone uses the word "****".

If I, for example, describe someone -as a PC psuedoleftist twat, I do not think that vaginas are inherently 'disgusting', or here where twat could be substituted with "idiot" (as is the intention) I am not implying that vaginas or women are stupid. The words are not magical words which cause a voodo process in my head that mystically causes me to have a lower opinion of vaginas or women, or sex.

Another example is where I described this argument as 'bollocks'. I do not believe that testicles are 'wrong' or that men are inferior or any other such ridiculous idiocies. Using 'bollocks' as a synonym for 'false' does not damage anyone's psyche.

What does is the pompous attatchment of 'sacred' status to sexuality, such that any mention of it causes strong feelings. It's stupid that such a simple biological function has such a massive effect on otherwise rational people.


That this is so is a symptom of how brutalising our so-called civilisation still is. I really don't think it is. I think it is an example of how opposition to our current civilasation (something I quite proudly engage in) is unfourtunatley marred by attempts to attatch greater than necessary importance to various things which have no buissness being on the pedastals upon which they are balanced.

Oh and Serpent, would I be the big dog or the me too?

[jasmine]

I think this rests on a strange assumptution often made by the PC "clutchy-throat" left that usage of words somehow changes your attitude toward something or acts to oppress people.

I'm not sure who these people are exactly but I do not mean that the use of words changes your attitude to something - of course it can under certain circumstances but this is not my argument here.

I'm saying that the use of words is symptomatic of deeper attitudes. Why don't we for example use car components as terms of abuse? You could call me a steering wheel or a rear axle or a driver's seat. It just doesn't have the same ring about it does it?

You accept that sex can be used as a weapon - if it's just a 'simple biological function' how is it that the weapon can be so devastating?

You describe someone as a 'twat' rather as a 'garden chair' because the word has some significance for you and, you assume, for the person it is aimed at. Obviously this is culturally determined but my question is, why is it that terms of abuse are so often derived from our sexuality?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 04:37 pm

I think this rests on a strange assumptution often made by the PC "clutchy-throat" left that usage of words somehow changes your attitude toward something or acts to oppress people.

I'm not sure who these people are exactly
The kind of person that gets terribly offended at things that really aren't offensive and over anylases the cause for their offence in an attempt to justify it. The 'clutchy throat" refering to the way they grab at their throat when they here an example of 'offensive' talk.


but I do not mean that the use of words changes your attitude to something - of course it can under certain circumstances but this is not my argument here.

I'm saying that the use of words is symptomatic of deeper attitudes. Why don't we for example use car components as terms of abuse? You could call me a steering wheel or a rear axle or a driver's seat. It just doesn't have the same ring about it does it? The reason that it doesn't have the same ring is not because it refers to a nonsexual item, but because none of those examples are vulgar slang. I do not call you a 'vagina' for exactly the same reason. For the most part any normal word that refers to a normal and inoffesnive objects, like penises, vaginas, armchairs, hatstands and anything else you care to name do not have an insulting ring to them.


You accept that sex can be used as a weapon - if it's just a 'simple biological function' how is it that the weapon can be so devastating? For the same reason that the simple biological function of defecation would become a weapon if I shat in your face.


You describe someone as a 'twat' rather as a 'garden chair' because the word has some significance for you and, you assume, for the person it is aimed at. Obviously this is culturally determined but my question is, why is it that terms of abuse are so often derived from our sexuality? Simple. The way we msytified sexuality for years created a taboo around it and when something is 'rude' it can soon be used insultingly. The fact that sex is "programmed" into us as a desire means that our odd and perverse attitude to it is actually quite devastating. Therfore we have created an entire system of euphamisms, slang and so on.

[gilhyle]

Yea its all about context...but lets not get into this 'respect' thing for everyone's sake. Its the death of many an internet board.

NO people dont 'deserve' respect...the discourse of respect is a discourse of power. Its an excuse for censorship and pretending that everything is relative when it isnt.

What we need is the minimum level of order to facilitate people continuing to debate in a constructive way with people whom they often dont (and even shouldnt) respect.

[jasmine]

The way we msytified sexuality for years created a taboo around it and when something is 'rude' it can soon be used insultingly. The fact that sex is "programmed" into us as a desire means that our odd and perverse attitude to it is actually quite devastating.

I agree that sex has been mystified and the taboos around sex are cultural. The cultural taboos, the idea that sex is somehow dirty or disgusting, creates the circumstances in which vulgar slang is derived from our sexuality. This is why I say the use of sexually derived terms of abuse is a sympton of our attitudes to our own sexuality. The underlying subtext, sex is dirty, we are dirty, gives the slang its power. Of course this is usually not a conscious attitude.


For the same reason that the simple biological function of defecation would become a weapon if I shat in your face.

Unpleasant as that would obviously be, I doubt it would be a traumatic experience. One of the symptoms of an abuse victim is that he/she bloodlets (often from the wrists, not suicidally) to let out the filth.

[jasmine]

Yea its all about context...but lets not get into this 'respect' thing for everyone's sake.

I don't think there's much chance of that on this board.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 05:19 pm

The way we msytified sexuality for years created a taboo around it and when something is 'rude' it can soon be used insultingly. The fact that sex is "programmed" into us as a desire means that our odd and perverse attitude to it is actually quite devastating.

I agree that sex has been mystified and the taboos around sex are cultural. The cultural taboos, the idea that sex is somehow dirty or disgusting, creates the circumstances in which vulgar slang is derived from our sexuality. This is why I say the use of sexually derived terms of abuse is a sympton of our attitudes to our own sexuality. The underlying subtext, sex is dirty, we are dirty, gives the slang its power. Of course this is usually not a conscious attitude.
I've always had a problem with the idea of "unconscious" prejuidice and so on. It implies that a human is unable to understand its own thoughts. One is never uncomsciously opposed to anything, no one is ever uncounsiously a proponent of anything. An underlying meaning that most people are unaware of is an utter irrelavance of interest only to the ivory tower dwellers who attempt to moralise all speech. It's interesting to know where these things come from but it is not relevent to claims such as "Everyone thinks sex is dirty" - the way you can tell if someone believes sex to be dirty is actually a fuck of a lot more simple, they say that it is dirty.



For the same reason that the simple biological function of defecation would become a weapon if I shat in your face.

Unpleasant as that would obviously be, I doubt it would be a traumatic experience. One of the symptoms of an abuse victim is that he/she bloodlets (often from the wrists, not suicidally) to let out the filth. You doubt that my shitting on you would be traumatic - for what reasons? I already knew that paticular symptom, but could you please enlighten me as to its relevance.

[jasmine]

I've always had a problem with the idea of "unconscious" prejuidice and so on. It implies that a human is unable to understand its own thoughts. One is never uncomsciously opposed to anything, no one is ever uncounsiously a proponent of anything. An underlying meaning that most people are unaware of is an utter irrelavance of interest only to the ivory tower dwellers who attempt to moralise all speech. It's interesting to know where these things come from but it is not relevent to claims such as "Everyone thinks sex is dirty" - the way you can tell if someone believes sex to be dirty is actually a fuck of a lot more simple, they say that it is dirty.

The idea of the unconscious mind comes originally, I think, from Freud. There was a guy called Mesmer (who practised hypnosis and probably created a new verb) from whom Freud derived some of his ideas. Anyway, rightly or wongly, the idea of the conscious and unconscious (or subconscious) is accepted in many schools of psychiatry and psychology. Of course, there is no definitive proof that it is correct.

My own life experience tells me that very often we are not aware of why we do or think something. Often ideas or attitudes do exist beneath the surface of our conscious awareness.

I do believe that people who undergo distressing experiences often drive these experiences from their conscious minds. They forget because it's too painful to live with.

It's quite possible that someone will tell themselves sex is just great whilst feeling an underlying sense of self-disgust.


You doubt that my shitting on you would be traumatic - for what reasons?

Because it's not a violation. If someone spits in my face I would find it disgusting but I would be over it in a short period of time. It would take me a little longer to get past being shat on but I'd do it. You haven't actually entered my body.


I already knew that paticular symptom, but could you please enlighten me as to its relevance.

It's not easy to draw your own blood. It signifies that the sense of violation is very deep, so deep it can only be released by slicing open your own body.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 06:33 pm

You doubt that my shitting on you would be traumatic - for what reasons?

Because it's not a violation. If someone spits in my face I would find it disgusting but I would be over it in a short period of time. It would take me a little longer to get past being shat on but I'd do it. You haven't actually entered my body.
:blink: So it is impossble to be traumatised unless you are entered? I'd consider it a violation to be shat upon - but then maybe I'm some sort of freak.



I already knew that paticular symptom, but could you please enlighten me as to its relevance.

It's not easy to draw your own blood. False. It's remarkably easy, trust me.
It signifies that the sense of violation is very deep, so deep it can only be released by slicing open your own body. This still doesn't inform as to why this is relevant to an argument about the use of the word ****.

[jasmine]

So it is impossble to be traumatised unless you are entered? I'd consider it a violation to be shat upon - but then maybe I'm some sort of freak.

You know the difference between insult and rape.


False. It's remarkably easy, trust me.

Easy for you.


This still doesn't inform as to why this is relevant to an argument about the use of the word ****.

Why is **** a vitrioic term of abuse for you?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 07:57 pm

So it is impossble to be traumatised unless you are entered? I'd consider it a violation to be shat upon - but then maybe I'm some sort of freak.

You know the difference between insult and rape.
Yes.
I also know that being shat upon is neither.




False. It's remarkably easy, trust me.

Easy for you. <_< For me and me alone? I seriously doubt that.



This still doesn&#39;t inform as to why this is relevant to an argument about the use of the word ****.

Why is **** a vitrioic term of abuse for you?
Why does it matter? For the same reason that most words that are abusive that I use have always been taught to me as offfensive - you can call me unenlightened for that if you want, not that it matters.

You also assume that the only time I use &#39;****&#39; is when I want to be abusive. This is a flase assumption.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 04:56 pm
The kind of person that gets terribly offended at things that really aren&#39;t offensive and over anylases the cause for their offence in an attempt to justify it.
You mean conservatives who throw fits about people saying "happy holidays"?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Morpheus+December 31, 2006 11:38 pm--> (Morpheus @ December 31, 2006 11:38 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2006 04:56 pm
The kind of person that gets terribly offended at things that really aren&#39;t offensive and over anylases the cause for their offence in an attempt to justify it.
You mean conservatives who throw fits about people saying "happy holidays"? [/b]
Nope. They&#39;re a different species of imbecile, that share many of the same qualities.

[C_Rasmussen]

@ The author of this thread: You come to a revolutionary leftist site, where racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and so forth comments are frowned upon/sometimes bannable and you ask if calling a woman a **** is an ok thing? Are you high by chance?

But to answer, no its not.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:39 pm
@ The author of this thread: You come to a revolutionary leftist site, where racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and so forth comments are frowned upon/sometimes bannable and you ask if calling a woman a **** is an ok thing? Are you high by chance?

But to answer, no its not.
Did you miss the debate or something? It&#39;s not as open and shut as that.

Could you explain why you think the clutchy throat crowd are right?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 04, 2007 01:01 pm--> (Jazzratt @ January 04, 2007 01:01 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 06:39 pm
@ The author of this thread: You come to a revolutionary leftist site, where racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and so forth comments are frowned upon/sometimes bannable and you ask if calling a woman a **** is an ok thing? Are you high by chance?

But to answer, no its not.
Did you miss the debate or something? It&#39;s not as open and shut as that.

Could you explain why you think the clutchy throat crowd are right? [/b]
First off, whats the "clutchy throat crowd"? o.O

Secondly, yeah I read the "debate". There was little debate going on and more arguing instead. From the debating that I DID collect, the word **** is offensive based on context. Like if you say to a female "fuck you, ****" (most basic example (that I still wouldn&#39;t use)) then yeah that could be considered but if you say "well that soccer team plays like a bunch of ****s" then that can be up in the air, so to speak, but probably still isn&#39;t a good thing to say on here due to some people that take great offense to it compared to others.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+January 04, 2007 07:14 pm--> (C_Rasmussen @ January 04, 2007 07:14 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:01 pm

[email protected] 04, 2007 06:39 pm
@ The author of this thread: You come to a revolutionary leftist site, where racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and so forth comments are frowned upon/sometimes bannable and you ask if calling a woman a **** is an ok thing? Are you high by chance?

But to answer, no its not.
Did you miss the debate or something? It&#39;s not as open and shut as that.

Could you explain why you think the clutchy throat crowd are right?
First off, whats the "clutchy throat crowd"? o.O [/b]
The kind of person that gets terribly offended at things that really aren&#39;t offensive and over anylases the cause for their offence in an attempt to justify it. The &#39;clutchy throat" refering to the way they grab at their throat when they hear an example of &#39;offensive&#39; talk.


Secondly, yeah I read the "debate". There was little debate going on and more arguing instead. Pure fucking semantics.

From the debating that I DID collect, the word **** is offensive based on context. Like if you say to a female "fuck you, ****" (most basic example (that I still wouldn&#39;t use)) then yeah that could be considered but if you say "well that soccer team plays like a bunch of ****s" then that can be up in the air, so to speak, but probably still isn&#39;t a good thing to say on here due to some people that take great offense to it compared to others. THat&#39;s a fuckload of stupid bollocks as far as I&#39;m concerned. calling a woman a **** is no better or worse than calling a bloke a prick, and no one is arguing that we shouldn&#39;t use the word prick. Personally I don&#39;t think it&#39;s the word that we should worry about, it&#39;s more the sentiment. It&#39;s fine to say to someone:
"Oh fuck off you ****", regardless of their gender. But to say "Get back into the kitchen, ****, and make me a fucking sandwhich" is unacceptable. This isn&#39;t because of the word &#39;****&#39; though.

[The Anti-Red]

A single word is only offensive if you hold it to be offensive. If no one was offended by the word ****, **** would, by definition, cease to be an offensive word. By making it out to be a bad word and telling people they&#39;re wrong for using it, you&#39;re only making it worse. So yes, it is okay to call a woman a ****. It is also okay to call a man a ****. It is also okay to call a child a ****, or an animal a ****, or an inanimate object a ****.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 04, 2007 01:43 pm--> (Jazzratt @ January 04, 2007 01:43 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:14 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:01 pm

[email protected] 04, 2007 06:39 pm
@ The author of this thread: You come to a revolutionary leftist site, where racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and so forth comments are frowned upon/sometimes bannable and you ask if calling a woman a **** is an ok thing? Are you high by chance?

But to answer, no its not.
Did you miss the debate or something? It&#39;s not as open and shut as that.

Could you explain why you think the clutchy throat crowd are right?
First off, whats the "clutchy throat crowd"? o.O
The kind of person that gets terribly offended at things that really aren&#39;t offensive and over anylases the cause for their offence in an attempt to justify it. The &#39;clutchy throat" refering to the way they grab at their throat when they hear an example of &#39;offensive&#39; talk.


Secondly, yeah I read the "debate". There was little debate going on and more arguing instead. Pure fucking semantics.

From the debating that I DID collect, the word **** is offensive based on context. Like if you say to a female "fuck you, ****" (most basic example (that I still wouldn&#39;t use)) then yeah that could be considered but if you say "well that soccer team plays like a bunch of ****s" then that can be up in the air, so to speak, but probably still isn&#39;t a good thing to say on here due to some people that take great offense to it compared to others. THat&#39;s a fuckload of stupid bollocks as far as I&#39;m concerned. calling a woman a **** is no better or worse than calling a bloke a prick, and no one is arguing that we shouldn&#39;t use the word prick. Personally I don&#39;t think it&#39;s the word that we should worry about, it&#39;s more the sentiment. It&#39;s fine to say to someone:
"Oh fuck off you ****", regardless of their gender. But to say "Get back into the kitchen, ****, and make me a fucking sandwhich" is unacceptable. This isn&#39;t because of the word &#39;****&#39; though. [/b]
Yeah true. I can see where you&#39;re coming from now on how its used. I just thought that no matter what context its used on here the clutchy throat crew would come by and shoot the person with a warning point or w/e, ya know?

[Sadena Meti]

I&#39;m not bothering reading the whole thread, just going to throw in my two cents.

It is not acceptable to use part of a woman&#39;s sexual anatomy as the foulest insult in the realm. Sexual organs form sexual identity (which is something that we need to do away with) but until we eliminate sexual identity, we shouldn&#39;t exploit it.

"You fucking bicept&#33;" It doesn&#39;t carry the same emotive value as "****."

I am anti-PC and pro-vulgarity, but "****" crosses the line. Though if you call a man a ****, technically that is OK.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by rev&#045;[email protected] 06, 2007 09:02 pm
It is not acceptable to use part of a woman&#39;s sexual anatomy as the foulest insult in the realm.
You&#39;re right, we should stop treating &#39;****&#39; as the worst word anyone can say.


"You fucking bicept&#33;" It doesn&#39;t carry the same emotive value as "****." "You fucking vagina" doesn&#39;t either. Nor, strangley does "you twat" it&#39;s simply a connotation we have added to the word through our fear of using it. It&#39;s never really discussed wether we should call a man a dick, prick or cock but it is exactly the fucking same.


I am anti-PC and pro-vulgarity, but "****" crosses the line. Why? Because it offends your specific sensabilities? Isn&#39;t the whole point of being anti-PC and pro-vulgarity that you put up with things like that even if they get to your specific sensabilities? Or is it fine to be as fucking vulgar as desired until it&#39;s you that&#39;s offeneded?

Though if you call a man a ****, technically that is OK. Oh why thank you for that concession oh benevolant one. I&#39;ll call whoever I fucking like a ****.

You ****.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

I believe in equality of the sexes and I&#39;ve called guys ****s. So in my opinion its quite alright. I guess you could also say that if I also rape a man I could rape a female. But I don&#39;t think calling someone a **** is that unacceptable if they are being a ****.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Chris [email protected] 06, 2007 10:33 pm
I believe in equality of the sexes and I&#39;ve called guys ****s. So in my opinion its quite alright. I guess you could also say that if I also rape a man I could rape a female. But I don&#39;t think calling someone a **** is that unacceptable if they are being a ****.
Have you ever met anyone stupidest enough to draw a parralell between rape and insult?

[Fawkes]

I just did.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:00 pm
I just did.
You disgusting sexist pig :lol:

[Fawkes]

Well when you think about it, they are both just as damaging to someone&#39;s psyche. (totally kidding by the way)

[EwokUtopia]

I do find calling women ****s offensive. I also find calling unagressive men "pussy&#39;s" equally offensive. **** was never a word I was quite fond of, it has a very sharp, hard, and nasty ring to it, not the word I would use for what it is describing.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:35 am
I do find calling women ****s offensive. I also find calling unagressive men "pussy&#39;s" equally offensive.
Fair enough. Should other people, who don&#39;t, be prevented from using that type of language? I agree with you on the &#39;pussy&#39; thing though, but I don&#39;t think I&#39;d make a point of mentioning it.


**** was never a word I was quite fond of, it has a very sharp, hard, and nasty ring to it, That sharp, hard & nasty ring is precisly why I love the word.

not the word I would use for what it is describing.I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever used the word &#39;****&#39; to refer to a vagina - so you&#39;re probably right in not doing so yourself.

[Raisa]

DOnt ever call me or my pussy a ****.
What an ugly word&#33;

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:01 am
DOnt ever call me or my pussy a ****.
What an ugly word&#33;
Fair enough, just don&#39;t expect me not to call you one if you&#39;re being one.

[Purple]

It is funny how long a discussion about wether or not objectifying women into a body part, and a mere "thing" for sexual pleasures is wrong can be.

[colonelguppy]

is it ok? only if you don&#39;t plan on having sex with her

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:18 pm
is it ok? only if you don&#39;t plan on having sex with her
oh yeah?&#33;&#33;&#33;
well i say that word a lot to some ***** that i&#39;ve never ever ever want to have sex with..then..hm....yeah it&#39;s ok...

do you ever planned to have sex with some one that appearingly seem to be your enemy????? :huh:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:48 am
It is funny how long a discussion about wether or not objectifying women into a body part, and a mere "thing" for sexual pleasures is wrong can be.
<_< Care to point me to where this discussion is being had? You know full well that alling a woman a **** is not an atempt to &#39;[objectify] women into a body part, and a mere "thing" for sexual pleasures&#39;.

If we have to stop calling women ****s, then surely I shouldn&#39;t be able to call a bloke a prick.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by knight of cydonia+January 13, 2007 02:36 am--> (knight of cydonia @ January 13, 2007 02:36 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:18 pm
is it ok? only if you don&#39;t plan on having sex with her
oh yeah?&#33;&#33;&#33;
well i say that word a lot to some ***** that i&#39;ve never ever ever want to have sex with..then..hm....yeah it&#39;s ok...

do you ever planned to have sex with some one that appearingly seem to be your enemy????? :huh: [/b]
i meant that most women despise the word and will immediately think you&#39;re disgusting.

[Rasta Sapian]

Ha Ha, this thread is hilarious, I think that Rev Left has sunk to a new all time low :D

So, Is the word **** offensive? humm, let me think. . . :huh: Hell yes&#33;

I&#39;ll tell you all this much, I have been called both a **** and a PUSSY before, and I did not appreciate it, that is for damm sure. But to call a women a ****, we better get ready for a slap on your face for that one&#33;

All I know is this about ****S, they have alway been and will continue to get fucked by DICKS, and as far as ASSHOLES go, Ah, no way, I won&#39;t even go there.

p.s. The word pussy is ok to use during sex, but only when you are reffering to the body part, same as dick.

[wtfm8lol]

I&#39;ll tell you all this much, I have been called both a **** and a PUSSY before, and I did not appreciate it, that is for damm sure.

If you were offended by being called a word such as **** or pussy, I think they were perfectly justified in calling you one.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 20, 2007 10:44 pm
Ha Ha, this thread is hilarious, I think that Rev Left has sunk to a new all time low :D
Who the fuck are you?


So, Is the word **** offensive? humm, let me think. . . :huh: Hell yes&#33; Offensive or not makes no odds as to whether it should or should not be said. There is a secondary argument as well as to whether or not it is sexist.


I&#39;ll tell you all this much, I have been called both a **** and a PUSSY before, and I did not appreciate it, that is for damm sure. I&#39;m fairly sure you didn&#39;t, it&#39;s an insult after all and there is no fucking point in insulting someone if they appreciate it.
But to call a women a ****, we better get ready for a slap on your face for that one&#33; I&#39;ve thus far managed to avoid being slapped in the face for calling a woman a ****, but regardless wether or not someone will slap you for using an offensive word is again irrelevent to whether or not it should be said (personally I think it should be said, because there is no fucking thing as words that &#39;shouldn&#39;t be said&#39;) and also to whether or not a word is sexist (**** is about as sexist as the word dick.).


All I know is this about ****S, they have alway been and will continue to get fucked by DICKS, and as far as ASSHOLES go, Ah, no way, I won&#39;t even go there. Are you not going there because, in your infinite benevolence you have decided to spare us a rehash of the poorest and most peurile of the jokes in team america or are you choosing not to go there because the joke is complete and you want to spare us the detials of anal sex, despite our being adults. (By the way I didn&#39;t mean to read too far into that, I just wanted to point out how shit that was as a joke the first time around and the first time they marionettes.)


p.s. The word pussy is ok to use during sex, but only when you are reffering to the body part, same as dick. Oh great&#33; I&#39;ve finally found the authority on words I can use during sex, I always needed to consult them. Can you take time out of your busy schedule to perhaps tell me if I can use any of the following words or phrases (I assume you do phrases, if that&#39;s someone elses department do say) during sex:

Troglodyte, Marx, Ostensibly, Vagina, Horse, Pineapple, "not there", Craig (when that is not my partners name), children, Material, whip, "Could you do the shopping this week?", eggs, glandular, nanotechnology, "Noel Edmonds" STD, conduicive, scrotum, wasps, "could your sister join in too?", palpatations, leg, beer, chips, primitivist, "Did I leave the oven on?", tea, klingon, Rachmaninov, "Onward comrades, to the revolution&#33;", school, Lisbon, "could your mother join in too?", socks, "and your dad", hang, Cydonia, martian, rationalism, "Have you read my essay on Cyborg Theory Feminism?", grunt, "I was once the Grand Wizard of the KKK, you know" bourgeoise, leprechaun, angst, fertile, "Deal or no Deal?", garage, loan, doorstep, "could MY siter join in too?", peurile, list, bannana, sponge, "you&#39;re not as arousing as I first thought", wizard, communism, gaseous, delectable, clunge, colony, "borgeoise decadence", lobster and "you&#39;re not as good as that other bloke".

Thank you in advance, oh great one.

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:19 pm

I&#39;ll tell you all this much, I have been called both a **** and a PUSSY before, and I did not appreciate it, that is for damm sure.

If you were offended by being called a word such as **** or pussy, I think they were perfectly justified in calling you one.
Hey thanks for defining what I would classify as a ****&#39;s remark&#33;

p.s. Jazzrat, U R A Hillarious MF&#33;

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 22, 2007 10:02 pm
p.s. Jazzrat, U R A Hillarious MF&#33;
:lol: Cheers.

I take it you&#39;r not going to go through the list then :P

[wtfm8lol]

Hey thanks for defining what I would classify as a ****&#39;s remark&#33;

any time, pussy