|
|
|
March 07, 2007
A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics?
It isn't offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays. It's a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss. On the Hannity and Colmes show recently, Ann Coulter maintained repeatedly that she was joking, did not mean to insult gays, and that the word "faggot" means something else: ...what they say about me, they literally misinterpret a joke. Liberals like Kerry get caught calling our troops dumb and then go back and say, oh, I botched a joke. No, I didn't botch a joke, and I didn't use an insulting word. I used a schoolyard word about a married man with children, 28th billionth time, and the audience knew that. I mean, the joke wouldn't have worked if I had inserted the name of a gay Democrat. Any other Democrat, the name could have been inserted. It could have been Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton, because it's a schoolyard taunt meaning wuss, meaning nerd, meaning...This new definition (which I could not find in any of the various conventional online dictionaries, nor even in the urban dictionary) comes as news to me, but I'll try to parse it out logically to the extent I can. The new definition carries with it Ann Coulter's recognition that the word is insulting if it is directed towards gays, and as she conceded, it was used wrongly by Isaiah Washington. But if directed towards someone who isn't gay, it becomes just a schoolyard taunt, and a not very insulting one. This sounded a bit counterintuitive to me, almost in defiance of common sense. Ann Coulter elaborates: COLMES: Was Isaiah Washington wrong to use that word to -- when he used it to describe T.R. Knight?Regular readers will remember that I cannot stand John Dean. I would never insult the millions of decent, tax paying gay citizens by stating or implying that he was gay -- even if I thought he was. In fact, even if hypothetically I knew that John Dean was gay, I would probably not say anything about it, because I think the man is so morally abhorrent that I wouldn't want to give ammo to the people who hate homosexuals. At any event, it would seem that Ann Coulter is urging upon us the following, very novel definition of "faggot." While I guess I should be glad that Ann Coulter has taken it upon herself to unburden homosexuals from the yoke of this rather unpleasant word (as well as change the word's gender), there's that stubborn common-sense part of me that just doesn't quite understand. I'm wondering whether her audience understands the new meaning. I mean, if the language has evolved and she is right, then there ought to be no more objection to being called a "faggot" than to being called a "wuss" or (I suppose) even a "bitch." Or even a "cunt." After all, it's quite apparent that Edwards is not a woman. Honestly, I was just kidding around when I uploaded the photo of him in drag (it involved my temporary Marcotte's Syndrome exacerbated by the fuss over Giuliani's drag). The problem with my thinking here is that because I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with unmanly men, I tend not to see this taunting in the same way that others might. Is Ann Coulter breaking new barriers for tolerance and understanding in this regard? I'd like to hope so. But I just wonder -- especially about the people who cheered her on. There was a time not that long ago when calling a heterosexual man a faggot was the worst insult you could bestow on him. It was considerably worse than calling him a "wuss," and that's because not all wusses are homosexuals. According to the popular stereotype prevalent at the time, however, all homosexuals were wusses. So, if you called someone a faggot, it carried extra weight. Now we are told it no longer does, because the word "faggot" does not carry the imputation of homosexuality. It only means "wuss" -- and the "wuss" factor is completely detached from the gay factor. If calling a heterosexual a faggot is no longer insulting for the additional reason that there's nothing wrong with being gay, I am delighted, because that means prejudice against homosexuals has disappeared. I want to believe her. Should I? What then, am I to make of her earlier "Bill Clinton may not be gay, but Al Gore is a total fag" remark? If "fag" is a schoolyard taunt meaning "wuss," then I'm confused. But then she said it was a joke. But what was the joke? The idea that "gay" and "fag" might be mistakenly seen as synonyms? Or was it a joke for her to suggest that Al Gore is a wuss? No, that can't be it, for had she stated that Al Gore was a wuss, she would have been serious, and would not be backing off the remark. For it is her contention that "pretty much every Democratic politician" is a "faggot" meaning "wuss." Maybe what I'm missing is that it's serious to call Democrats wusses, but that it's a joke if you call them "faggots" and you mean "wusses." Hey, I'm trying to be serious here. What I'm still trying to figure out is why I found it funnier when Howard Stern used the same word. I guess it was because he always made it clear that above all, he liked the "homos" he'd gently rib, but that his real goal was to ridicule the word. He'd put his gay co-workers on the air, that sort of thing. Is there some reason why Ann can't do that? Is she personally anti-gay? I have no idea, really. But sources as widely divergent as Ace and Counterpunch have examined this and don't seem to think she is. I think what will matter most is what the ordinary voters remember about this after the Republicans stop fighting each other about it and the dust settles. Will this resonate as Republicans-think-it's-funny-to-call-people-faggots? With emotional issues like this I'm not sure nuanced arguments will matter. If I'm having trouble getting to the truth after years of blogging about such things, I think it would be unreasonable to expect the same thing of ordinary voters. Again, I think Rand Simberg got it right when he said she was fragging her own troops. Whether she meant to do that is a much more complicated question. MORE: Sean Kinsell has analyzed the Coulter phenomenon, and is not offended: I never figured Coulter was anti-gay*. I have friends who've seen her out having drinks or dinner with prominent artfags, for one thing. And for another...well, generally speaking, a lot of loudmouthed, high-strung, unmarried urban professional women are fag hags. I'm pretty sure she's against gay marriage and abolishing the DADT policy in the military, but those are specific policy positions, not overarching attitudes. Not that I gave it much thought.For those who don't click links, Sean is referring to this very thoughtful post by Connie (yes, she's best known by her sinister non-spinster name of Mrs. du Toit): people need to get over the name calling thing. Yes, all the usual can be said about it, bad manners, rude, and crude, but the counter balance to it of "... but names can never hurt me" needs to be brought back into the lexicon.The whole post is a must-read, and there's also this: Words cannot harm anyone. They aren't magic spells. They don't have any power besides the power we've decided they have. They can't harm you UNLESS you choose to allow them to harm you--you CHOOSE to be hurt/offended by them. That is a very bad thing and a very unhealthy thing for a supposedly sophisticated and civilized society.This is all true. The only thing I would add to that is that if you don't like the language someone uses, it's perfectly legitimate to criticize it, and ask for a clarification. If someone uses a word I don't use, I might not be hurt, but I might want to ask how he meant that. If the explanation is "because I hate all --------s and don't mind saying so," then there's still a choice to be made. It's tough to disagree with someone's taste in people, but hating all members of a group does constitute bigotry. While that bigotry might be justifiable (a good example is "I hate all Nazis"), I don't think there is anything wrong with not wanting to associate with people who are bigoted against entire groups of people some of whom you might like. If someone tells me he hates Mexicans, I can't dispute that, but I might not want to hang out with him. And if he uses the word "spic," I might choose not to be offended, but I might (if it was clear he meant ill by that remark) consider choosing a different friend. I don't think this reduces itself to a game of "BINGO! YOU JUST USED A WORD ON THE FORBIDDEN WORD LIST, SO YOU'RE A CERTIFIED BIGOT!" but I do think common sense is involved. UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, IowaHawk has a lesson in civility from Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. The funny thing is, I thought the remarks were well-deserved by each. The whole thing is a must-read, but if I may summarize briefly, Ann is an "anorexic Nazi whore," a "skeletal Nazi-felcher," and an "emaciated Eva Braun sideshow freak," while Bill is a "syphillitic commie scumnozzle," a "repulsive Godless pederast," a "hideous crotch-rotted abortionist midget," and a "venereal diseased, dwarf-penis pinko fag." While it just kills me to be judgmental, it's tough not to agree with "Bill's" assessment of Ann on one point: ...a typical Ann Coulter comment is good for 10 minutes of monologue and $2 million for the DNC.As I said, I think she's conspiring with the Democrats to circumvent McCain-Feingold. UPDATE (03/10/07): I don't know whether Dave Kopel will have the last word on this affair, but I think he should. In a very thoughtful editorial, he compares Ann Coulter to Paul Campos (a law professor who smeared Glenn Reynolds as a murdering fascist), and argues that the technique they're using is "insulting upward": ...pick somebody more famous than you. Vilify the person in some outrageous way. Ideally, the target gets upset and responds, and the press covers your public argument. By engaging in a public fight with you, the target has implicitly raised you to his own level of importance.I think Kopel is absolutely right, and I also agree with his conclusion that they are both demeaning themselves and degrading our civic culture: In person, Campos/Coulter are likable, pleasant people. (I've known Campos since 2000, and Coulter since 1988; she spoke at the Independence Institute's annual dinner last year.) Yet in their public personas, they play mean-spirited, shrill characters.I think insulting people is just wrong -- whether it's insulting upward or insulting downward. I will defend the First Amendment right to hurl insults as long as I draw breath, but I think insults like these insult everyone's intelligence. MORE: The fact that there's a right to use a word does not make it a virtue to use it, nor does it make its use a victory for free speech -- any more than a right to an abortion would make an abortion a good thing. (And no, I did not compare Coulter to "baby killers"!) posted by Eric on 03.07.07 at 02:44 PM
Comments
From the Historical Dictionary of American Slang (Lighter) faggot n 2.a. an effeminate, weak, or cowardly fellow,--usu. used tontemptuously; (also) a male homosexual. I don't have the W volume to cite for "wuss," but it is essentially the same as faggot. jlmc · March 7, 2007 07:28 PM Eric, isn't the real issue the audience response to Coulter's use of the word faggot? Substitute the "k" word for Jew, and would they have applauded? She knew she could get away with it because she knows the conservative base. CPAC should have gone all the way and invited Michael Savage. What the Republican Party needs right now is something or someone to run against, since they have all but abandoned their core principles. It's so pathetic to watch them flail about in the sewer of bigotry.
Frank · March 8, 2007 02:46 AM I'll admit my confusion at all this. Coulter has been saying crazy, offensive shit for a decade or so, and all of a sudden it is too much, seemingly, for everyone. I don't really understand, but, needless to say, I condemn her (and have for some time). Jon Thompson · March 8, 2007 04:04 AM Frank: Putting words in someone's mouth--kike--isn't a winning argument--it just means you have a vivid imagination. It's called projection--keep it to yourself. I don't know where or when any of you grew up, but of course "faggot" is a school yard taunt, used by children long before they know anything about homosexuality or gays. This whole kerfuffle is so silly. And it's no different from one boy calling another a "girl." They both have the same meaning as "sissy." Wuss is a put down used by adults--with the same meaning. And certainly such word choice is juvenile when used by adults, but don't feign a pose of a new puritanism--of virginal ears never exposed to trash-talking athletes, vulgar hip-hop lyrics, radio "shock" jocks, and truck drivers. Selective defense of free speech is pure hypocrisy. Cheers. Forbes · March 8, 2007 05:15 PM I try not to be terribly selective in my defense of free speech. There's a free speech right to call people anything. The use of the word faggot, though, is nearly always vulgar and rude, and nothing changes that. Nor does anything change it's common meaning. Anyone who uses language like that can expect criticism. I repeatedly criticized Andrew Sullivan for using the word "Christianist" (a word I don't use), and I try to be consistent. But this is a blog discussion, where anything can be said. Something said in a political event with reporters and VIPs present can expect to have predictable political consequences, and it remains to be seen whether any of this will resonate with ordinary voters. (I suspect the activists will agitate constantly about how "the Republicans" publicly call gays "faggots." And Ann Coulter will continue to be in the news.) I'm getting a bit tired of the shrillness all around. Eric Scheie · March 8, 2007 06:01 PM Forbes: I grew up in and around U.C. Berkeley in the '60s. Nothing could shock me after the Free Speech Movement, Mario Savio et al. So please tell me how she differs in method from her mentors on the left? And do you remember how that decade ended with riots and rampages? She has not an original idea in her brain. She's adopted a political "shock and awe" to gain what? More book sales? Certainly not an advancement of conservative values, unless you think that bigotry is a part of it. (I fear that it is becomming a part of the conservative agenda with the inclusion of so many Dixicrats.) Every afternoon on my one hour commute home from work, I listen to Michael Savage on KSTE 650 AM from Sacramento, California. His bigoted rants have built a nationwide following. He's actually considering a presidential run. Couldn't possibly get elected could he? No of course not, given current conditions. But who knows if we are nuked and chaos follows. Coulter is helping to lay the groundwork for acceptance of such a candidate.
Frank · March 9, 2007 12:00 AM Forbes: I'm not buying it. Coulter is not a child; she's an adult with a law degree who knows full well that, whatever happen on the playground among pre-pubescents, grown-ups use "faggot" to mean "homo." Mind you, I believe her when she says that she herself meant no insult to gays and just wanted to imply that John Edwards is namby-pamby. What I'm not convinced by is the line her supporters are taking that, well, of course it wasn't an anti-homosexual slur and that you have to be odd in the head to believe that it might have been. Sean Kinsell · March 9, 2007 12:50 AM Well, Coulter's juvenile remarks are a "dog bites man story". If anyone's selling books for her, it's folks with their over the top outrage and expression of being offended--equally juvenile behavior. People are responsible for their own feelings, Coulter's not. (Or perhaps some are just easily manipulated.) For all I care, you can use "faggot" to mean "homo" all you want. But then if you mean homo, why don't you use the word homo? You're not going to argue that homo is even more rude and vulgar than faggot, are you? Coulter used a common rhetorical technique to associate a recent tabloid event--an actor going to rehab over speech--with a reluctance to speak on a topic, so as not to suffer the same fate at the hands of the PC-speech police. Folks complaining have proved her point. Congratulations. Maybe it's too subtle for some, but the use of any other word would've been pointless, for no rhetorical association would've resulted because the reference to the tabloid event would've been lost. So it's not a slur on Edwards, and it's not an expression of bigotry, it's a critique of PC-speech police. When the only tool available is a hammer, pretty much everything looks like a nail that needs to be pounded. Here's a suggestion: try a different tool--you might get better results. I'm not defending Coulter, I'm defending speech. There will be no free speech when the PC-speech police win this argument, for the only thing that won't be disagreeable or offensive will be Hallmark greeting cards. I don't care to live in that world. Cheers. Forbes · March 9, 2007 07:53 PM "There will be no free speech when the PC-speech police win this argument" What argument is that? The one here? While it's fine to contrast free speech with the PC-speech police, that's not what's going on here -- any more than it's a "PC-speech police" argument to disagree with Andrew Sullivan's use of the word "Christianist." What I think is going on with Coulter is she has simply offered a very contrived definition for a vulgar insulting word to get herself off the hook. Not that there's anything worthy of censorship there, but I see no reason not to call her on it. Ironically, her invocation of Isaiah Washington makes it quite clear that she was in fact contemplating the traditional definition, as well as the traditional use of the word. Considering that during his rampage Washington reportedly assaulted a heterosexual member of his cast who had objected, I think it's disingenuous to characterize this incident as simply one of "an actor going to rehab over speech" -- much less to champion him as a victim who suffered a "fate at the hands of the PC-speech police" for speaking on a "topic." http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/isaiah_washingt.html As to Frank, well, I don't normally weigh in by interpreting commenters, but Frank... Aren't you being a little coy? It won't work, because I have figured out your little play on words joke! I find it tough to believe that you're really "forgetting" to tell us what you meant to insinuate with the "k" word. I don't think I am putting words in your mouth here, because I am 99% sure you realize that Ann Coulter is trying to have her cake and eat it too. Doubtless you were making fun of her slippery style when you pronounced the word "cake" with a Cockney accent. Come on, now, let us in on your joke! You can't expect that everyone will get it. Eric Scheie · March 10, 2007 08:39 AM Well Eric, I think the only argument I see is one that says the word faggot is a vulgar, insulting and rude word, a word that should not be uttered in public, and those who let it pass across their lips are to be condemned in no uncertain terms. (I hope I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth.) Someone should tell George Carlin that his list of 7 words you cannot say has a new addition. (That's my speech police allusion.) As to your update, I'm struggling with this little gem: "I will defend the First Amendment right to hurl insults as long as I draw breath, but I think insults like these insult everyone's intelligence." Is this a rule stating: "Clever insults, only"? I think it will be hard to enforce. Though, I do laud your efforts at civility, none the less, it does seem to hearken back to a prior, non-existent period of placid rhetoric, as if muck-raking journalists and 19th century newspapers were models of decorum. I will grant that I am not as informed of the details of actor Isiah Washington's story as you appear to be--these gossipy tabloid entertainment stories hold little sway over my feeble mind. As to my ingenuity, I do as best I can with the NYPost and Page Six, so perhaps the deeper meaning behind Washington's story is that he is a cad. "It is not he who gives abuse that affronts, but the view that we take of it as insulting; so that when one provokes you it is your own opinion which is provoking."--Epictetus Cheers. Forbes · March 11, 2007 08:09 PM Enforce? Rule? Words you cannot say? I think if you familiarize yourself with this blog, you'll see that I'm not much enamored with enforcement of any kind of rules. I'd lift the ban on Carlin's 7 dirty words (whether I'd say them or not) so your suggestion I'd add a word to the list is ridiculous. I just think what I think, and if I disagree, I say so. I think Ann Coulter was wrong to use the word as she did, and I've criticized countless people (mostly on the left) for using insulting language. There's a right to insult people, and to use the seven dirty words, derogatory epithets, whatever. That doesn't mean it's good. (If Ann Coulter had used the word "cocksucker" I'd feel pretty much the same way, even if she made clear it was just her way of expressing contempt and didn't mean Edwards literally engaged in oral intercourse with men.) I speak for myself, and what I write at this blog, of course, and enforce nothing. Whether you think my not-always-successful avoidance of vulgarity "hearkens back to a prior, non-existent period of placid rhetoric, as if muck-raking journalists and 19th century newspapers were models of decorum" is about as relevant as if you said it hearkened back to the 1950s. It's my own standard, and I don't see why it matters what time frame (existent or not) might be attached to it. Eric Scheie · March 11, 2007 11:07 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Growth
• Making Headway • Cheney takes fall for Soros? • The anti Anti-choice choice? • Pulp secrets from Victorian virgins! (and other pressing issues I ignore) • Gasoline Prices To Jump 26% • "Can Coco come out and play?" • Must Thermopylae be Fallujah? • UN Wants To Fight Hizballah • imitation is the sincerest form of fraud
Links
Site Credits
|
|
A girl at a school in Santa Rosa, CA said "That's so gay" in response to an insult she recieved and has already undergone rehab and has now filed suit to get the suspension taken off her records.
This is the insult she responded to:
SANTA ROSA, Calif. - When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, "Do you have 10 moms?" she shot back: "That's so gay."
I guess Mormons aren't a protected class. Too bad. I'd like a couple of extra wives. Let two of them fight it out while the third and I go off to do something useful or exciting.
The British ruled an Empire with tactics like that.