Bachmann on Piers Morgan

[Ziggurat]

These feminists did it by choice. Limbaugh smears people when they say something he doesn't like.

The entire premise of the Slut Walk is that women should have no shame in being sluts. But if that were actually true, if we were to actually adopt the position advocated by those feminists (conceding that they don't represent all feminists), then logically Rush's use of the term must cease to be an insult as well. We cannot simultaneously consider slut to be both an insult and not an insult. They are mutually contradictory positions. Someone has to be wrong. So who is right? The women on the slut walk, or the women enraged by Rush Limbaugh's statements? You can pick either answer, but you can't logically pick both.

 

[johnny karate]

The entire premise of the Slut Walk is that women should have no shame in being sluts. But if that were actually true, if we were to actually adopt the position advocated by those feminists (conceding that they don't represent all feminists), then logically Rush's use of the term must cease to be an insult as well. We cannot simultaneously consider slut to be both an insult and not an insult. They are mutually contradictory positions. Someone has to be wrong. So who is right? The women on the slut walk, or the women enraged by Rush Limbaugh's statements? You can pick either answer, but you can't logically pick both.

Incorrect.

If you disagree, feel free to make this same argument regarding the n-word. Just make sure there are plenty of black people around to hear it. Report back and let us know how it goes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Incorrect.

I see nothing there that conflicts with what I said. In fact, it seems to rather support my point. You're claiming that the emphasis is on linguistics. Fine. But the problem remains: either "slut" is an insult, or it is not. So which is it to be?

If you disagree, feel free to make this same argument regarding the n-word. Just make sure there are plenty of black people around to hear it. Report back and let us know how it goes.

I'll be more than happy to say that I don't think it's at all logical to both try to reappropriate the word to deprive it of its offensiveness AND take great offense at the use of the word (thus preventing true reappropriation), and I'll say that to anyone. And I'm hardly alone in that. Plenty of black people have said the same thing, and regularly decry the use of the n-word within the black community. So again, you're hardly contradicting my point.

 

[johnny karate]

I see nothing there that conflicts with what I said. In fact, it seems to rather support my point. You're claiming that the emphasis is on linguistics. Fine. But the problem remains: either "slut" is an insult, or it is not. So which is it to be?

Human communication doesn't simply boil down to the definitions of the words we use. It's how we use them. An insulting term directed at you by a friend in jest takes on a whole different meaning than the same term directed at you in anger by a total stranger.

And by the way:

The entire premise of the Slut Walk is that women should have no shame in being sluts.

I let that go before, but it couldn't be more wrong. Or more insulting.

I'll be more than happy to say that I don't think it's at all logical to both try to reappropriate the word to deprive it of its offensiveness AND take great offense at the use of the word (thus preventing true reappropriation), and I'll say that to anyone. And I'm hardly alone in that. Plenty of black people have said the same thing, and regularly decry the use of the n-word within the black community. So again, you're hardly contradicting my point.

I actually perfectly contradicted your point. You're suggesting that tone and context have no relevance here, when clearly they do. And I think you know that.

 

[A'isha]

There's no contradiction whatsoever between wanting a specific word to stop being used as a slur, and getting angry and upset when that specific word is used as a slur.

It's not Rush's use of the word that's the problem. It's how he used the word that's the problem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But the problem remains: either "slut" is an insult, or it is not.

I disagree completely. The way Rush used it, it was meant as an insult. The way it's used in the Slut Walk is meant to be empowering.

Even words such as "fag" and "queer" that started as insults and were reclaimed as empowering by the gay community can still be used as insults.

I don't think there's any rule that says a word must either always be an insult or always not an insult. That's a false dichotomy.

And here is the principle at work :

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The entire premise of the Slut Walk is that women should have no shame in being sluts.

But only if "sluts" here is being used as an assertion of a woman's right to dress any way she wants without being raped or otherwise victimized. (Or at least without the way she dresses being a defense or an excuse for rape or other sorts of victimization.)

Do you seriously think that's what Rush meant?

Indeed, what Rush said is very similar to the kind of statement the Slut Walk protests were a reaction against. (It was a police officer suggesting that women would be safer from rapists if they avoided "dressing like sluts".)

 

[Ziggurat]

Human communication doesn't simply boil down to the definitions of the words we use. It's how we use them. An insulting term directed at you by a friend in jest takes on a whole different meaning than the same term directed at you in anger by a total stranger.

The point of the Slut Walk isn't to make it safe for friends to call other firends "slut" in jest. We can already do that, and its use in such contexts is frequently predicated precisely on its general insulting meaning.

I let that go before, but it couldn't be more wrong. Or more insulting.

If you think I couldn't be more insulting (when I haven't actually insulted anyone), then you really have no imagination.

I actually perfectly contradicted your point. You're suggesting that tone and context have no relevance here, when clearly they do. And I think you know that.

I have suggested nothing of the sort. But the context-dependent usage you referred to at the beginning of this post isn't re-appropriation. The whole point of re-appropriation is to make it impossible to insult with the term by making the term not insulting. That's what's happened with "gay", for the most part. If I say someone is gay, now that's basically just a statement of fact, of no more real significance than if I say that they're tall. And that's what the Slut Walk folks want to do. But you can't do that if you take umbrage at the use of the term. If you're offended by Rush saying that Fluke is a slut, then that means that you think being a slut is a bad thing. Because if it's not a bad thing, then it's not an insult. And that's exactly what the Slut Walk people are fighting against: the idea that being a slut is a bad thing.

You cannot have it both ways. You can try, but it won't work: reappropriation will always be impossible as long as we continue to take offense.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's no contradiction whatsoever between wanting a specific word to stop being used as a slur, and getting angry and upset when that specific word is used as a slur.

Indeed, those are compatible if you want people to simply stop using the slur altogether. But that's not reappropriation, and that's not what the Slut Walk people are trying to do.

It's not Rush's use of the word that's the problem. It's how he used the word that's the problem.

Really? You think he could have called her a slut in a way that didn't provoke outrage? You think he could have called her something like "smart" in a way that would have provoked outrage?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[Upchurch]

Really? You think he could have called her a slut in a way that didn't provoke outrage? You think he could have called her something like "smart" in a way that would have provoked outrage?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Of course, you don't. Why would you buy a straw man you constructed of your opponent's argument?

 

[A'isha]

Indeed, those are compatible if you want people to simply stop using the slur altogether. But that's not reappropriation, and that's not what the Slut Walk people are trying to do.

They want the word "slut" to stop being used as a demeaning, insulting slur. Rush used it as a demeaning, insulting slur. Ergo, they naturally want him to stop doing that and never do it again.

Here's specifically what the organizers of the original SlutWalk said about what they were trying to change about the word: "[W]hether dished out as a serious indictment of one's character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we're taking it back."

Rush's use of the slur and his intent in using it is exactly the sort of thing the SlutWalk people want to erase.

Really? You think he could have called her a slut in a way that didn't provoke outrage? You think he could have called her something like "smart" in a way that would have provoked outrage?

Something like this, maybe? And if you don't like that site's politics, you can also read all about it at Forbes.

 

[johnny karate]

The point of the Slut Walk isn't to make it safe for friends to call other firends "slut" in jest.

I don't recall claiming that it was. You seem to be conflating two separate examples I've given that words can take on different meanings depending on the context.

We can already do that, and its use in such contexts is frequently predicated precisely on its general insulting meaning.

Of course it is. But what it's not meant to be is the literal meaning of the word.

Here's another term that might help you understand the nuances of human communication.

If you think I couldn't be more insulting (when I haven't actually insulted anyone), then you really have no imagination.

The irony of you taking my words literally in a discussion about the pitfalls of doing just that aside, to suggest that a protest against blaming rape victims is really about women just wanting to be sluts is most certainly insulting.

I have suggested nothing of the sort. But the context-dependent usage you referred to at the beginning of this post isn't re-appropriation. The whole point of re-appropriation is to make it impossible to insult with the term by making the term not insulting.

Which doesn't mean that a reappropriated term can't still be used in an insulting context.

That's what's happened with "gay", for the most part. If I say someone is gay, now that's basically just a statement of fact, of no more real significance than if I say that they're tall.

The term "gay" can still be used as a slur.

If I say Elton John is gay, I'm stating a fact.

If I say Elton John's music is gay, I'm being insulting.

And that's what the Slut Walk folks want to do.

SlutWalk is a protest against the term "slut" being used derogatorily against rape victims. For the purposes of the protest, they reappropriated it ironically. Or do you honestly believe that the women who take part do so to make a literal proclamation that they have loose sexual morals?

But you can't do that if you take umbrage at the use of the term. If you're offended by Rush saying that Fluke is a slut, then that means that you think being a slut is a bad thing. Because if it's not a bad thing, then it's not an insult.

Context determines the insult. Again, I refer you to the example of what a friend says in jest vs. what a stranger says in anger.

And that's exactly what the Slut Walk people are fighting against: the idea that being a slut is a bad thing.

No, they're not.

You cannot have it both ways. You can try, but it won't work: reappropriation will always be impossible as long as we continue to take offense.

There's no rule that says that. Reappropriation can occur in context or in degrees. It's not necessarily the zero-sum game you make it out to be.

 

[johnny karate]

Really? You think he could have called her a slut in a way that didn't provoke outrage? You think he could have called her something like "smart" in a way that would have provoked outrage?

If Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke were friends and he called her a "slut" in a joking, light-hearted manner, it might not be offensive.

If Rush Limbaugh was making a sarcastic impugnment of Sandra Fluke's intelligence and called her "smart", it might be offensive.

Context is everything.

 

[Ziggurat]

The term "gay" can still be used as a slur.

If I say Elton John is gay, I'm stating a fact.

If I say Elton John's music is gay, I'm being insulting.

Note that you needed to call a thing gay in order for it to be an insult. It is no longer much of an insult when used for a person. Reappropriation worked.

SlutWalk is a protest against the term "slut" being used derogatorily against rape victims. For the purposes of the protest, they reappropriated it ironically. Or do you honestly believe that the women who take part do so to make a literal proclamation that they have loose sexual morals?

I think that their explicit position is that there is nothing wrong with being an actual slut with loose sexual morals.

No, they're not.

Yes, they are.
"We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work."

They're saying that there's nothing wrong with actually being a slut, and they're saying that pretty damned explicitly. Do you agree or disagree with them?

There's no rule that says that. Reappropriation can occur in context or in degrees. It's not necessarily the sum zero game you make it out to be.

Yeah, good luck with that. But first, figure out whether or not it's a bad thing to be a slut.

 

[A'isha]

I think that their explicit position is that there is nothing wrong with being an actual slut with loose sexual morals.

Yes, they are.
"We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work."

They're saying that there's nothing wrong with actually being a slut, and they're saying that pretty damned explicitly. Do you agree or disagree with them?

No, they're saying that they're tired of being demeaned and subject to slurs regardless of their sexual proclivities, because the "myth and stereotype of the slut" has created the fear among victims of sexual assault that they will be blamed for the assault because they're being judged, for whatever reason, as "sluts", because "eing assaulted isn't about what you wear; it's not even about sex; but using a perjorative term to rationalize inexcusable behavior creates an environment in which it's easy to blame the victim."

If they're against being judged by their sexuality and being subject to a perjorative term said with the intent to wound, and Rush Limbaugh was judging Sandra Fluke by her sexuality and subjecting her to a perjorative term said with the intent to wound, then why on Earth would you think that they would be okay with Rush Limbaugh's comments?!

 

[Ziggurat]

No, they're saying that they're tired of being demeaned and subject to slurs regardless of their sexual proclivities, because the "myth and stereotype of the slut" has created the fear among victims of sexual assault that they will be blamed for the assault because they're being judged, for whatever reason, as "sluts", because "eing assaulted isn't about what you wear; it's not even about sex; but using a perjorative term to rationalize inexcusable behavior creates an environment in which it's easy to blame the victim."

In other words, the victims of sexual assault should not be blamed for their own sexual behavior. Which is... another way of saying that there's nothing wrong with being a slut.

Do you honestly think that the Slut Walk activists think that there's anything wrong with being a slut? Do you think there's anything wrong with being a slut?

 

[A'isha]

In other words, the victims of sexual assault should not be blamed for their own sexual behavior.

Seriously?

*********** seriously!?

Do you honestly think that the Slut Walk activists think that there's anything wrong with being a slut? Do you think there's anything wrong with being a slut?

Both the SlutWalk activists and I don't think that just because a woman has sex on her own terms more times than you deem appropriate for a young lady of upstanding morals (or even if you just assume that's what she's doing because of the way she's dressed), then whatever you do to her doesn't count as sexual assault, regardless of what she might say or do at the time, because hey, that's just the consequence of her sexual behavior.

 

[cwalner]

Why is there so much focus on the slut comment, when Rush also called her a prostitute (I am actually surprised that he did not just use whore).

To my mind, that was the more defamatory word and the more egregious display of incivility.

 

[Ziggurat]

Seriously?

*********** seriously!?

What part of "We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality" do you not understand?

Do you honestly think that the Slut Walk activists think that there's anything wrong with being a slut?

Do you think there's anything wrong with being a slut?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What part of "We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality" do you not understand?

Again, based on this, the Slut Walk was exactly against the sort of usage Rush employed.

You're simply not going to win the argument that these are the same usages.