Philosophical Discussions

Howdy all

I’ve been contemplating a bunch of political things for a while now, and I’d like to discuss them. I think this is a good forum for that sort of thing because I have a lot of friends with a large variety of opinions, hence I’m going to start putting up a question for discussion every now and then.

Since I’m going to touch upon some topics that will likely prompt heated discussion, here are some ground rules. First, I’m going to hide the question behind a cut. If you’re not interested in politics, don’t look. Second, I will chastise anyone who uses ad hominem attacks. Attack someone else’s argument all you want, but don’t attack them as individuals.

OK, time for the first topic.

Why is it acceptable for people to place a derogatory label on some groups while it is not for others? For example, there was a goodly amount of outcry on the news when Bristol Palin used the term “faggot” on her Facebook account and yet I do not see any outcry on MSNBC or CNN or NBC about the term “teabagger.” In fact, I have heard and seen commentators on those channels use the term itself.

I have heard the excuse that many people who use the term “teabagger” do not know the crude sexual reference of the term. That excuse does not work for me, because the term is clearly used in a derogatory sense. That the term is more hateful than was originally intended does not, to me, excuse the fact that using “teabagger” was intended to be derogatory in the first place.

I have heard the excuse that people in the Tea Party have used the term to apply to themselves. Again, I do not think that this argument is acceptable because it is one thing to be self-deprecating or self-derogatory, and it is another thing to negatively label someone else. For example, it would be horribly inappropriate if I was to walk up to a black person and use the n-word, even if I heard them refer to other black people with that term or if they’re listening to a song that uses the term.

I find this a particularly interesting question because I keep hearing how Republicans, Tea Partiers, and others on the right are people who spread hate. For example, a recent fund-raising email from the Executive Director of the NGLTF said: “But groups like the Tea Party… [are] raising millions to finance their campaigns of discrimination and hate.”

Yet the language used by many Democrats, liberals, and those on the left seems just as vindictive, if not more so. The term “teabagger” is a term of discrimination and hate and accusing the Tea Party of having “hate” without specific references are two examples of such language.

Hence, back to my original question. Why is it acceptable for some terms to be used and not others?

55 thoughts on “Philosophical Discussions”

  1. The term “teabagger” is such a laugh-riot for some people because the use of the term, despite it’s Pauly Shore pop-culture reference to a sexual act, illustrates the “out of touch with modern culture” demographic that makes up the party, in their minds.
    “OMG”, they say, “Can you believe how ignorant these people are that they don’t even know what that MEANS?”
    As far as the rest… you’re asking questions I’ve been asking for a while.

  2. Derogatory terms

    It is not acceptable to use derogatory terms in intelligent debate regardless of the political stripe. Unfortunately it is practiced by both sides because it works.

    It has been so for a long time and it will continue to be done so until the rapture.

    All we can do is control our own language and not get sucked in by low level arguments or language by others.

    1. Re: Derogatory terms

      I agree with Larm. I do my utmost to use terms that respect all people, even those I disagree vehemently with. I refer only to actual Nazis as Nazis. Only real Communists are Communists. Only real Socialists are Socialists. These are not generic derogatory terms to toss at people you don’t like.

      I somehow cling to my idealistic view that if we treated each other like rational human beings, maybe we’d all rise to the challenge. One can have hope, even it’s a very faint hope 🙂

      I also suspect the liberal vindictiveness stems from having the word “Liberal” turned into such a negative epithet by right-wing elements. They’re getting back in kind.

      The emotion I see the most in Tea Partiers isn’t hate (there are a few nutbars in the mix who are true haters, but most aren’t). It’s anger. Along with a good, hefty dose of fear (some of it rooted in ignorance, but some of it quite genuine–I mean, there are a lot of jobs that just aren’t coming back.)

      I say this despite my own political views (socially liberal, moderately fiscally conservative in the classic sense). We’ve got to get back to finding the people behind the labels, and that’s probably what I personally fear the most: that all will be reduced to black and white with no room for the grey.

      1. Re: Derogatory terms

        This.

        As for why it is acceptable, because there is a double standard, and there always will be. My friends and I are just being clever, you are being rude/mean/stupid/take your pick.

        Of course, that doesn’t mean the question still shouldn’t be asked occasionally. But we also have to watch our speech for older, more ingrained insults, like paddy-wagon or Chinese fire drill.

        1. Double Standard

          Duncan, I think you’ve hit it on the nose. “We’re clever; You’re rude.” Yep, that just about sums it up.

          Interestingly – since I’m a Christian – I’m reminded of Jesus’ hyperbolic illustration on the topic: Remove the plank in your own eye before trying to remove the speck in someone else’s.

      2. Re: Derogatory terms

        I agree with most of your points, but I would also say that conservative vindictiveness stems from having the word “Conservative” turned into such a negative epithet by left-wing elements.

  3. Two different cents

    Political party affiliation /= race or sexual orientation.

    It is one thing to refer to me as “an overgrown ninny playing dressup” and quite another to refer to me as a “c**t” — even though both could be said to be true. One I chose to do, the other is what I got handed at birth.

    1. Re: Two different cents

      This.

      (And because it works, both for self-referral and for mockery.)

      In my mind, it’s ‘fair’ – if not polite, civil, or constructive – to label a person or group in a derogatory manner for something that is a personal choice. Political affiliation is a personal choice.

      Race, sex, height, sexual orientation, disability… in my opinion, those are not personal choices. They’re something pretty much handed to you when you’re born. Therefore, it’s not an acceptable basis for insulting someone – it’s not something that person chose.

      (Things like religion may fall under personal choice, or not… but I figure most if not all adults have a choice regarding religious beliefs and practices [or lack thereof].)

      1. Re: Two different cents

        Sooo….

        Your argument suggests that you’re comfortable coming up to me and saying: “well since you believe in small government and fiscal restraint, you should have someone dip their testicles in your mouth?”

        I realize I’m switching from your generalization to the specifics of this question, but that is, in fact, what we’re asking here.

        1. Re: Two different cents

          Sooo….

          Your argument suggests that you’re comfortable coming up to me and saying: “well since you believe in equal pay for equal work, you should murder 12 million civilians, wear a swastika, break treaties, and try to conquer Europe?”

          I realize that you see a real slur in “teabagger.” I am pointing out that it is more congruent to “feminazi” than it is to “faggot.”

          But that was not your original question. Your original question was, Why is it acceptable for some terms to be used and not others?

          And my answer is, that IMO terms that mock someone’s political beliefs are substantively different from, and less offensive than, terms that mock someone’s biological traits. YMMV, obviously.

          If that is not your question, if your question in fact is, why won’t people stop calling me a teabagger? — I can’t help you there.

          1. Re: Two different cents

            I actually despise feminazi far more than either faggot or teabagger for that same reason. The idea that anyone in the American political system advocates killing millions of people is unacceptable until and unless a person actually says that they advocate that position.

            I should point out that a feminist is different than a person who believes that women should have superior rights, which is what those people who are using the term feminazi are usually trying to imply.

            Oh, and don’t worry, some feminist questions will come up later, but please not now because it’s its own topic.

        2. Re: Two different cents

          *chuckle*
          Actually, I would have presumed that the teabagger was the one doing the dipping.
          That being said, I also tend to have a vision of a kids table, and feather boas and huge hats when you say tea-party. It may have something to do with the fact that the Tea Party candidates around here came across as off their rockers and complete hypocrites.
          Actually, the correct term should be Teas or Tea-ers, just to be consistent, unless it’s the tea party party.

          I can certainly see what you mean about the term being objectionable. I don’t hear it much actually.

  4. Explain to me why it is socially acceptable to use hateful derogatory commentary to ones own class, first. When did this become OK socially? I know that my grandmother would have washed my mouth out with soap if I had used any of the many insults for American Indians as a kid, even though I am as much that as I am white.

    I would present the arguement that it became “OK” to insult others freely, when it became socially acceptable to insult oneself, as a sign of Coolness.

    1. Good point. What I was trying to say is that it is one thing to insult someone else and another to insult yourself.

      I have always despised the use of n-word by rappers, etc., but I do think that self-deprecation, as opposed to self-derogation, is a positive thing.

  5. I let people self-identify and then use the terms they prefer – when a group of people start calling themselves “tea baggers” I giggled (as did most of the internet). I would imagine that they read the internet (since they do use it extensively) and they have seen that giggling. I was under the impression that the Tea Party folks who have persisted in self-identifying as “tea baggers” were aware of the sexual innuendo and choosing to reclaim the word.

    I do not watch television (and seriously, anyone who is making money off a third party by telling you something is not really someone I think you should listen to without a ton of salt, but that’s neither here nor there) so, I did not know that certain televised outlets were consistently referring to those folks as “tea baggers.” My news sources have been consistently referring to them as “tea partiers.”

    The specific issue not withstanding, I believe that words have power but not inherently. Words have power because we give them power. That doesn’t lessen the power they have but it does give us some control over that power. Words like “gypped” to refer to being cheated are still exceptionally offensive but most speakers on English in the US don’t even realize that they are using a derogatory term. Some words like “cunt” or “slut” are offensive to some but empowering to others. For some oppressed groups, being able to jokingly use the word among others who have been slandered by the term is a way of grasping and twisting some of that oppressive power (see ethnic minorities using racial slurs amongst themselves).

    When someone uses the word “gypped” I’ll often inform them that the term is derogatory and why and most of the time, those folks are surprised and grateful by and for the information. Because, they did not know that they were being offensive. When someone uses the word “faggot” I know full well that they know what they’re doing and by using the word in a derogatory way they are advertising to me that they are misogynists (homophobia is just one aspect of misogyny – another conversation for another day). They intended to be hateful. Intent matters to me.

    1. I am very curious where the idea that the Tea Partiers claimed the term “teabaggers” came from. I’ve heard it from many sources, so I don’t doubt its veracity but I’ve never seen the actual source. I know that my initial observance of the term in a political context was from news outlets and blogs using it in a derogatory sense. Can you point me to a Tea Partier calling themselves that?

      In response to your second point, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow both used it during the past election cycle. I don’t remember other usages specifically when I first became aware of the term, but I do remember hearing it on various news outlets.

      Now you have my curiosity piqued. What is the etymology of “gypped?”

        1. I’m not familiar with idiom “Jewing someone down” Is it possible that it’s a local usage?

          I can understand dropping the term “going Dutch”, but the origins of “Indian Summer” are at best unclear. Some sources suggest it has to do with the traditional time for corn & squash among the east coast Amerindians. There’s nothing derogatory about that. In Eastern Europe it’s called “Grandmother Summer”.

          1. Really? My family’s all from the Kansas City area, and I went to college in Joplin, but I’d never heard (read) it until today.

          2. And I was referencing an incident a few years ago on the Calontir mailing list. 🙂 (I should remember to always look at the LJ icon….)

          3. I wouldn’t localize it to that extent. I was aware of it (and its derivation) long before I settled in the US Midwest. The problem is that because my background is so diverse, and I have already completed my sixth decade of life, I can’t really recall exactly from what source I first heard it.

          4. Interesting link. Still I think it’s telling that, “in the early nineteenth century … the term was of sufficient antiquity … that its origin had gone out of living memory” and that the author says “William and Mary Morris suggest” that the origin had to do with falseness attributed to the tribes.

            I read another suggestion that it had to do with a period of raiding and warfare between the tribes and colonists that took place after the harvest during the brief return of warm weather. But again, that’s just as much speculation as the other two. Truth is, we don’t know, and to assert that it is a racial epitath (of sorts) is as much stirring up unnecessary trouble as anything. In my humble opinion.

          5. Perhaps you are right.

            I bet we can find any number of incidental examples to replace it, and still make my original point. 🙂 Or should that smiley be a frown?

        2. Never heard that before but I’m already offended! 🙂 To be honest, given the abnormally high rate of exposure to Jews and Judaism in the US, I sincerely doubt that this person didn’t “realize” how hateful they were being. At least most people in the US have never actually had exposure to the Roma…

          Like with the word “gypped,” to use a word that you assume offends no one because you don’t realize that the slur (or in this case, legitimate term) actually refers to anyone is still offensive.

          Another good one is Winnebago – it’s a horribly rude word for the Ho’Chunk but we’ve got cars named for it, cities, lakes and streets. I’m pretty sure it means something like ‘people who stink’ so just undoubtedly meant to be rude.

          1. In the case of the “Jew someone down” comment…

            I was fortunate enough to know the person who used it, to understand without reservation that they were a caring and decent person who, had they stopped for a moment’s reflection, would have realized that the term was not appropriate.

            I was not offended: I felt it would be useful to remind this person of their better nature, was all.

            I tend to attempt to only be offended when I am certain that the other person deliberately intends offensiveness. Usually that intent is clear enough: and does not require any particular offensive magic words.

            ASIDE: yesterday, my 13 year old daughter was given a detention for yelling at a fellow student and dropping “the eff bomb”. Discussing the incident this morning with my wife, we talked about how there are good and bad ways to communicate outrage and dissatisfaction: I quoted “Thou cream-faced loon”, for example. 🙂

          2. I wasn’t actually offended 🙂 – just joking (which is never safe in the written form 🙂 ). But still… I find it hard to believe that one could be in such a bubble to not realize the offensiveness inherent to the statement.

            Also, “cream-faced loon” made me giggle and probably would not pass the 13-yr-old test (i.e. if you say this to a 13-yr-old will they think it’s dirty? – Tea Bag does not pass this test either to bring it full circle 🙂 ).

      1. The Roma I am personally familiar with consider the term “gypped” to be an offensive reference to the derogatory word for Roma, “Gypsy.”

        As for Keith and Rachel whoever – I am only vaguely familiar with them but I am pretty sure that they make their money by selling you something, so I think they might mean to be offensive for ratings/rhetorically so that’ll you’ll buy what ever it is that they are selling.

        The origins of the Tea Party Movement are very clearly a series of protests in which people mailed tea bags to congresspeople and waved tea bags around and had signs talking about tea bags.

    2. Self Identification

      I don’t think so.

      As far as I’ve read, there was one Tea Party protestor back in February of last year who had a sign with the term – used in a way that made it quite clear that he was aware the double-entendre – but other than that, the use of the term has originated in their opponents, and it is clearly meant as an slur.

      As for politicians using it – I really can’t bring myself to believe that they, as a group, are really that naive. I can be pretty naive myself, and *I* knew what the term meant. Besides, most Washington-types have at least one college intern on staff who I’m sure could bring their bosses up to speed.

      1. Re: Self Identification

        I have never personally met a person who considers themselves to be a part of the Tea Party Movement (to my knowledge). But, I did see lots of protesters with tea bags and signs talking about tea bags and tea-bagging (in reference to sending tea bags to congresspeople – I’m assuming they understood the innuendo and were using it purposefully as a shock ploy for attention).

        As I mentioned in my post (to which your comment refers) my news sources have not been calling these people “tea baggers” but, as I said earlier, if they want to call themselves that, then more power to them. I never said that I believe that they are currently referring to themselves as such just that I did not refute that they might be (note the use of the subjunctive case in my earlier post). 🙂

        1. Re: Self Identification

          I liked the summation this Salon article gave:

          “Since Americans unwisely gave up on loose tea years ago, the symbol of these tea parties isn’t colonists dumping whole barrels of the stuff into Boston Harbor but the humble tea bag. If you happen to stop by one of the protests on Wednesday, you’re likely to see a few around, and there have even been campaigns to send tea bags to members of Congress. (Given that this is the post-9/11 era, this hasn’t always gone so well.)

          Problem is, the right couldn’t have picked an easier symbol for opponents to mock.”

  6. I think there are some complexities here.

    What is a “derogatory term”? It is not just the term, but the communicated intention that matters. That’s why some terms can be used WITHIN groups, but are considered derogatory from without.

    It isn’t just the disdain, either, though: there has to be some general cultural agreement about the term.

    I think the term “teabagger” is not necessarily derogatory: yet. Partly that is the self-use of the term, partly there is not yet a commonly accepted simple word for “Tea Party Supporter and/or Activist”.

    It is surely the case that, no matter the term eventually used, there are those who will refer to the targets with disdain. The fact that they disapprove does not make whatever term they use derogatory. Sure: they might be drowning in their own cleverness with using a term that also has negative sexual overtones. But, no matter what term they use for the political movement, the disdain will appear.

    There are terms, like faggot, kike, nigger, whose use is widely considered purely derogatory. But even so, there have been tons of debates that confuse word choice with mental process or intention: teachers that are fired for teaching the kids that the word “nigger” is bad, because they said it. Or the Washington DC politico who was widely chastised for using the term “niggardly” – despite it having no relationship to the derogatory term.

    I remember having a conversation with someone, where she objected to the phrase “calling a spade a spade” – despite it’s documented origin as coming from the game of bridge. Spade was a bad word: I was a bad man for using it, no matter how.

    I think there is also, in the minds of some, the notion that it’s hard to be derogatory towards people with white privilege. I recognize that people hold that position, especially the position of white male privilege. But I think *that* position is both prejudicial in the extreme, and weak-minded. I don’t defend it: but I note its existence.

    I think, before we can truly say that teabagger is nothing more than an unnecessarily derogatory term, we need for our culture to create or recognize multiple terms for the same group of people that are common, and sonorous, and used. Then, we can agree that the choice to use one of them is derogatory.

    1. Future Etymology

      “there is not yet a commonly accepted simple word for “Tea Party Supporter and/or Activist”

      I have heard “tea partier” or “member of the Tea Party” or “Tea Party Activist” all used each having a slightly different meaning.

      Unlike the Big Two parties plus Libertarians, the Tea Party and the Green Party (probably a few others I am less aware of as well) do not have a word that describes a person or philosophy first and foremost as the title of their party. Although, “Green” is coming to be more and more an adjective used primarily to denote a philosophy and the people who support that philosophy. Since the word “tea” did not begin life as an adjective, I’m not sure it will ever be used the same way “Green” is starting to be though…

      1. Re: Future Etymology

        I have heard “tea partier” or “member of the Tea Party” or “Tea Party Activist” all used each having a slightly different meaning.

        But I think that all of these terms are unsatisfactory, and not yet widely accepted. For one thing, the entire ontology of “Party” is a misnomer, because there is no such party. Part of the concept seems to include a certain amount of anarchy – although they are not strictly speaking, anarchists.

        Not all people involved with the Tea Party movement are activists, either.

        We lack a proper useful SINGLE term for “pissed off Conservative that hates political parties as much as they hate government”. Anarchists are usually left wing. 🙂

        The funny thing is, I think there is the potential for a broad-spectrum political movement, or anti-political movement, that as strong despite for the existing corporate-fueled political process and gang-infighting of the Democrats and Republicans alike. But that anguish at the corruption of our political system is not innately conservative nor liberal.

        (I was wishfully thinking, the other day, that I wanted to start a political movement that was nothing more than “Political Rights for People Only”, attempting to undo the entire Citizens United v FEC decision, but also taking aim at corporate donations to the political parties or to PACS and other programs. Limit donations to those from US Citizens, maximum of 10,000 dollars per year per adult-with-franchise. Do not permit corporations to participate in the political process in ANY way: not in money, goods or services.)

        (I recognize that it can’t be done: it was, as I said, wishful thinking.)

        1. Re: Future Etymology

          I don’t think overturning Citizens United is wishful thinking. I actually think it may be necessary to the continued success of our national political system. I would join your “Politics is for People” movement – it would be better for me personally and save non-profits a shit ton of money that they could then use to further their mission on the ground instead of on the Hill. I would also like to see a return to journalistic integrity but at this point, I know that that is wishful thinking.

          I see the point that “Party” isn’t really an appropriate descriptor for parts of the movement, but at the same time, to an outsider, the whole business seems like a big business fueled money bags manipulation of populist sentiment at this point that it might as well be a Party.

          1. Re: Future Etymology

            But a political party is a very specific thing. The so-called Tea Party isn’t that thing. It’s like calling an orange a “Round Banana”.

            The part of me that most loves irony, loves that the so-called Tea Party, anti-political corruption as it is honestly is, is as manipulated by private monied interests as any other group in the United States. If not more so.

        2. Re: Future Etymology

          I would agree to the last point about campaign donations if, and only if, unions did not exist. Unions, which are to all intents and purposes corporations in their own right, are some of the biggest political contributors around right now. In fact, the vast majority of their dues go to influence politicians.

          Ah, campaign contributions, the worst aspect of democracy.

          1. Re: Future Etymology

            I wouldn’t join a union unless I had to, and I have little patience for their worst aspects.

            Having said that: for purposes of what I wrote, I do not have a problem with unions.

            I don’t have a problem with people donating to political causes. I don’t even have a problem with some people donating more than others. I have a problem with corporations donating money to political causes.

            If a person wants to donate to a corporation or other collective tool (such as a union), I’m fine with that. I’m not fine with forced collections, and I’m not fine with confusing business arrangements with paid lobbying (such as is done by AAA and AARP, for example).

            But if I want to politically support, say, the metric system – I don’t have a problem with doing so my donating to a non-profit constituted for the purpose, and have it represent that position for me. I just have a problem with that corporation being founded or funded by a trade group that makes metric bolts.

            I want the people’s speech to be what is most represented.

        3. Re: Future Etymology

          We lack a proper useful SINGLE term for “pissed off Conservative that hates political parties as much as they hate government”. Anarchists are usually left wing. 🙂

          Well said. Can I quote you?

        1. I’ve heard spade used in a derogatory context- “He was as black as the ace of spades”. Not commonly used, but the intent is to single someone out as ‘other’.

    2. I agree in general, but I think in the particular case of teabagger that the most common intent is to communicate disdain with the sexual reference. I have never heard it used by anyone in the Tea Party movement myself. The only people I have ever heard use it have used it in a pejorative sense, and while not all of them knew the sexual reference, they intended it to be derogatory.

      I really really really despised, by the way, all those people who jumped on the guy in DC for saying niggardly. I can accept getting upset on initial hearing, but someone involved merely had to point at a dictionary and not the Old Norse origin of the word to defuse the issue. Bleah.

      Your point about teachers brings up the question about the teacher is also pertinent. I do not condone the use of the term, but any honest historical film pertaining to racism must include racist terms. We exclude those to our peril, IMHO.

      1. I have never heard it used by anyone in the Tea Party movement myself.

        The king of documentation of silly things said in the news, is Jon Stewart.

        When the Tea Party first made itself known, not long after that news correspondent had his fit on the floor of the Stock Exchange that launched it all – Jon Stewart collected a fair number of news clips where various media personalities on Fox News and “angry protesters” used the term to describe the movement.

        Being that his is a comedy show, and his audience is generally younger and hipper, they had a great deal of fun with the unintended allusion. This story of his, um, er, thrust the idea into the awareness of Middle America. (As for me, I first learned of the term back in the late 1980s, reading news stories about the sexually inappropriate hazing taking place at the local Miami fire stations.)

        I’ve been tempted to call them Beales, for the character from Network. Uselessly shouting “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more”, while being cynically manipulated by the press to depraved ends. The parallels are too strong to be ignored. Alas: my name for them is too clever by half.

        And yes: I think the Tea Party, as it is currently constituted are Useful Idiots for a cynical press, and basically stupid and nihilistic.

        My reference to the teacher (and it’s a true story: happened locally), is why I wrote about intent and disdain, versus magic words. While teaching a valuable lesson about wrong-headed thinking in the past, he used the words and concepts that were wrong as part of the lesson plan.

        How stupid that teaching kids to eschew hate, was instead used to terminate a teaching contract.

  7. Rhodri,
    My brother posted a couple links in my Facebook edition of this discussion, which I think you might find interesting.

    This one is from the National Post.

    There is a good deal of specifically-Canadian commentary, but I thought this tidbit from the second paragraph is a propos:

    That “left-wing” speech is protected more rigorously than “right-wing” speech is hardly in dispute. … University of Ottawa provost François Houle became a bit of a joke for lecturing Ann Coulter, the outspoken American commentator, about visitors needing to conform to the superior civility of law-abiding Canadians, just before a mob prevented Coulter from speaking, while the Ottawa police looked on.

    My friend Kathryn pointed out that this essay is probably more on point than any discussion concerning specific epithets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.