Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: 80s Week: Reconsidering “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” Previous entry: CSA Week #22 & #23: “A Soup Pot Made For Two” Edition

That term “civil liberties” doesn’t mean what you think it does

Heather at C&L posted this 13-second video of Reihan Salam saying that the TSA dust-up is just one of many examples of conservatives getting back to caring about civil liberties.  This is naked bullshit, of course, and that he bothered to utter it just proves what I said at the Guardian about this:

The influx of money, tied to a perceived political imperative not to be seen as being “soft on terrorism”, means the battle lines over this are being drawn in such a way that real change over security protocols is unlikely. Conservatives who are up in arms about this will likely shut up if their team wins by getting security privatised, even though it will remain as invasive. Meanwhile, many Democratic-leaning journalists and pundits seem content to attack dishonest and shady rightwing TSA critics – without examining in detail why such security procedures are invasive and need to stop.

It’s been really unpleasant, dealing with conservatives on this.  Plenty of liberals think the TSA searches are out of line, but making alliances with conservatives on this is a scary proposition.  From my article:

[A]ligning yourself with the American right means bringing on quite a bit of baggage: bad faith arguments, outright lying, racism – and hidden agendas, usually serving predatory corporate interests.

The notion that there’s some great pro-civil liberties sentiment on the right makes as much sense as saying Sarah Palin is a feminist.  Which is to say, only if you’re too stupid to figure out how to work a zipper.  Those of us who support civil liberties mostly find ourselves fighting the right on this one. We are talking about the conservative movement, to whom the term “ACLU” is a dirty word.  Indeed, most of the energy on the right on this TSA thing is about restricting civil liberties—-the problem for most isn’t that there are invasive searches.  It’s that white people have to endure them. 

As far as I can tell, the right only cares about civil liberties if they can make it about provoking the emasculation fears of a bunch of bitter assholes, thus the gun nuttery aspect of the right.  But should said emasculation fears support restrictions on liberty, then they’ll all for it.  You can’t take their guns, and no woman should have the right to reject a man’s seed, which is practically like taking his balls from him!  Freedom of speech is sorely misunderstood on the right—-their interpretation appears to be, “No one should criticize me when I speak my mind, liberals should shut the fuck up, and how come white people can’t say the n-word, like black people can?” (Which goes up to the first point—-they seem to treat having people snarl at you as an infringement on liberty akin to actual infringements, like going to jail.) Religious liberty only means that Christians should have a right to impose their bullshit on everyone else with taxpayer money, but it certainly doesn’t mean you should have the right to build a community center on private land.  There appears to be exactly zero right wing anger, outside of a couple of eccentrics working at libertarian think tanks, over police abuses of the citizenry. 

Actual supporters of civil liberties are out there as they always have been, mostly working for the left.  Which isn’t to say that there aren’t liberals who buy into fear-mongering and support actual infringements on our liberties—-I’m not naming names, but I’ve seen some pants-wetting about terrorism used to justify the TSA searches on the left.  But most of the work done in this area is and will continue to be done by liberals.  And we tend to be more whole cloth about it.  As I note in a podcast I do every week that’s devoted to a certain aspect of civil liberties, people shouldn’t have to have their junk touched to get on an airplane, but nor should the price they pay for delivering a baby in a hospital while being in an interracial relationship be that their baby is taken from them on spurious grounds.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:37 AM • (57) Comments

Salam: “The conservative backlash against the TSA is just part of a bigger revival of civil-liberties talk on the right.”

Gee, I just simply cannot figure out what has changed in the past couple of years to suddenly change conservatives’ view of the balance of executive-branch powers vs. civil liberties.

Salam: “We’re gonna see a lot more of it in the next year or two.”

Gee, I wonder whether there’s some sort of big event regarding the executive branch of the government coming up in about two years.

Gee, I wonder whether anyone asked him to elaborate.

Comment #1: RickMassimo  on  11/29  at  01:27 PM

“The conservative backlash against the TSA is just part of a bigger revival of civil-liberties talk on the right.”

...“civil-liberties talk”...interesting choice of words.  Talk but no action.

If the US had acted as the hard-core conservatives wanted back in the day, not only couldn’t Barack Obama be elected President, he’d be lucky to have a job pulling weeds in the Rose Garden behind the White House.  And god help him if he tried to get a drink from the “Whites Only” drinking fountain he’d find there.

Conservatives (Republican or Democratic) just say no.  That’s what they’re all about.  Say no to everything.  No to widespread civil rights, no to social safety nets, no to progress. 

The only exceptions are massive and ill-considered tax cuts for the wealthy, massive fraud via “privatization” of all government functions (even their favored military), and massive giveaways to Wall Street.  And they happily say “yes” to bringing back the worst abuses of rape-and-pillage capitalism, mixed in with a large dose of fascist police-state. 

I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free.  Or some such bullshit…

Comment #2: MikeEss  on  11/29  at  02:01 PM

I, for one, look forward to the massive cash infusion the ACLU can expect from the newly found civil rights movement the wing-nuts have found.

Comment #3: cynickal  on  11/29  at  02:08 PM

Salam is bizarrely optimistic in that clip. But if any pro-civil liberties sentiment does arise on the right, we liberals who are civil libertarians should take the support, despite Amanda’s accurate assessment of where conservatives generally stand. Glenn Greenwald has written persuasively that genuine left-right alliances could help improve progress on issues like this, especially if the Democratic Party overall is not fighting for civil liberties. Alan Grayson and Ron Paul were able to combine their efforts to get the Federal Reserve audited, for instance.

Still, I’m pessimistic that the alliance will be broad enough to make much progress on civil liberties. But even if it mainly succeeds as education and awareness-raising, it would be good. This TSA affair and others like it may be a learning experience for the Right about how civil liberties are values to be defended and appreciated always, whether or not “our team” is in power. Too many Democrats, on the other hand, are looking the other way now that their team is in charge.

I hope pundits like Salam help by educating their followers, rather than making premature announcements on Chris Matthews’ show.

Comment #4: Panda don (from woods of Oxford)  on  11/29  at  02:15 PM

*Sarcasm* Oh, privatized airport security will be so much better.  *sarcasm*

TSA employees already don’t have collective bargaining.  Let’s face it, they have a terrible job.  You want to hand them over to a Walmart-like corporation, you will have some seriously angry (angrier) people handling your “junk.”

Comment #5: Theresa  on  11/29  at  02:20 PM

I can’t wait to see what comes along in 6 months to make this look like little more than a minor inconvenience.

Comment #6: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/29  at  02:56 PM

“I can’t wait to see what comes along in 6 months to make this look like little more than a minor inconvenience.”

Body cavity searches?  No travel at all unless you have “letters of transit” (which you can get at Rick’s Cafe Americain)?  Checkpoints on highways?

No matter how bad security theater gets, there’s always more they can do.  And here in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave there seem to be a lot of people who are supporters of, or want to be, America’s Thought Police…

Comment #7: MikeEss  on  11/29  at  03:13 PM

re: the baby taken away after hospital drug testing

I had heard that there’s a federal rule requiring that a hospital that does drug testing must do it on ALL patients and that the effect of this is that hospitals whose patients are poor test everyone, whether showing drug addiction symptoms or not, but hospitals whose patients are rich test no one, whether showing drug addiction symptoms or not. 

Anyone here have the resources to find out if that is correct?

Comment #8: Nutella  on  11/29  at  03:18 PM

“*Sarcasm* Oh, privatized airport security will be so much better.  *sarcasm* “

Now see, this is just the sort of snarky dismissal by Liberals Who Hate Freedom of THE FREE MARKET SALVATION that they foolishly oppose. Don’t you realize that BIG BLOATED GUBBERMINT is the problem - but that BIG BLOATED CORPORATE CONTROL is the solution!??

Comment #9: MHF  on  11/29  at  03:30 PM

MikeEss—exactly. I remember when shoe removal was considered an intollerable crime against liberty. Then not being able to take liquids on the plane was an intollerable crime against liberty and shoe removal was just an inconvenience. 6 months to 1 year from now, when you have to show up six hours early, hand over all of your clothing and sit naked in a booth for either four hours or until you have a bowel movement, which is to be turned over to the TSA inspectors, during which time your clothes are given a cursory scan before being lumped into a steam press, we’ll look back at the days when we were just being groped and given cancer as the days of freedom.

Comment #10: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/29  at  03:30 PM

I can’t wait to see what comes along in 6 months to make this look like little more than a minor inconvenience.

I wouldn’t worry about it.  By then, we’ll all be stripping naked for routine cavity searches and wearing jumpsuits to fly anyway.

Comment #11: Sour Kraut  on  11/29  at  03:48 PM

Anyone here have the resources to find out if that is correct?

I have a sister-in-law who works as an RN at the local hospital and knowing my home town I would bet garbage to doornails that she not only knows, but would know of specific cases where someone, poor or otherwise, tested positive and for what.

I’ll report back in the evening.

Comment #12: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/29  at  03:49 PM

Only question is: will they be called Liberty Jumpsuits, or Jumpsuits of Liberty?

Comment #13: Sour Kraut  on  11/29  at  03:59 PM

I hate to say this, but Ross Douthat actually wrote a semi-honest column about this in the New York Times today, pointing out how the right conveniently didn’t care about any of this when Bush was President and only whined about civil liberties when Clinton and Obama were/are in charge. (And yes, he’s right that some on the left have muted their criticisms of Obama for civil liberties violations as well. We certainly don’t hear as much about indefinite detention or warrantless wiretapping or letting torturers off the hook as we should.)

And that’s the only thing I would add to Amanda’s (correct) point. In addition to playing on the fears of white middle class people, this is also a political issue to bash the President over. If Bush were doing the same thing, most of these people, if not all of them, would find a way to not only defend it but accuse anyone on the left who criticized it of not understanding that we are at war and the nature of the terrorist threat, etc.

Comment #14: Dilan Esper  on  11/29  at  04:00 PM

Only question is: will they be called Liberty Jumpsuits, or Jumpsuits of Liberty?

Comment #13: Sour Kraut

That’s still under consideration, but they’ve already ruled that they’ll be orange and numbered.
For your safety, of course.

Comment #15: cynickal  on  11/29  at  04:04 PM

“If Bush were doing the same thing, most of these people, if not all of them, would find a way to not only defend it but accuse anyone on the left who criticized it of not understanding that we are at war and the nature of the terrorist threat, etc.”

...or being called Fifth Columnists by assholes like Andrew Sullivan, which is what he was actually calling anyone opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and anyone questioning anything Bush Jr. (or more likely Darth Cheney) wanted to do:

“The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column…”

“[W]e might as well be aware of the enemy within the West itself - a paralyzing, pseudo-clever, morally nihilist fifth column that will surely ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead.”

...

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  11/29  at  04:13 PM

I don’t know why people are over-intellectualisating this.

On any matter, “civil liberties” reduces to the convenience of white males, “necessity” is when it only affects other people.

These wankers are complaining that their junk has been touched - and they don’t give a shit about people being tortured to death in American gulags because those people are brown Muslims.

Now, if all the feminists would kindly not read the next sentense, because I’m going to use sexist language to express myself honestly here:

They’re nothing but a bunch of scum-sucking cunts who deserve nothing but to be shovelled into the same hells they build for other people, and left there screaming.

Comment #17: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/29  at  04:50 PM

Freedom of speech is sorely misunderstood on the right—-their interpretation appears to be, “No one should criticize me when I speak my mind, liberals should shut the fuck up, and how come white people can’t say the n-word, like black people can?” (Which goes up to the first point—-they seem to treat having people snarl at you as an infringement on liberty akin to actual infringements, like going to jail.)

This, a million times this. In particular, since the proliferation of interactive Internet media, I can’t recall ever hearing so many whiny wingnuts pissing and moaning about their free speech rights being trampled whenever they get banned from posting comments on a blog or message board. What makes it even more pathetic is that so many of them seem to actually believe that the 1st Amendment guarantees them the right to say whatever they want in any forum whatsoever, even in privately owned and moderated forums such as a blog or a newspaper’s message boards.

Perhaps most offensive of all, however, is the ridiculous notion that freedom of speech somehow means freedom to say anything you want without any repercussion. The whole notion behind the pejorative label “political correctness” is that the meanie, evil, constitution-hating liberals are trying to impose language restrictions on all of society. Nevermind the fact that left-leaning civil libertarians are often the first people to defend wingnuts’ rights to speak offensively in public. As much as they try to paint the ACLU as a nefarious liberal institution whose only reason for being is to oppress poor widdle conservatives, they couldn’t possibly be more wrong about what the ACLU does. It has been the ACLU that has gone to court to defend the constitutional rights of hateful organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church to assemble in public to spread their hateful messages.

There appears to be exactly zero right wing anger, outside of a couple of ec
centrics working at libertarian think tanks, over police abuses of the citizenry.

I am by no means a supporter of Congressman Ron Paul, and I’m even more repulsed by his asshat son. Having said that, Rep. Paul (the father) has taken a stance of strong support for Imam Rauf’s right to build Park 51, arguing that any government effort to try to stop the plan from moving forward would be a gross violation of Rauf’s constitutional rights. At least in regard to this specific situation, Rep. Paul would qualify as one of those eccentric libertarians who breaks from the mainstream conservative opinion on the matter.

Comment #18: DTGslu2K  on  11/29  at  05:38 PM

First they came for the women’s junk, but I said nothing because I’m not a woman.
Then they came for the black’s junk, but I said nothing because I’m not black.
Then they came for the minority immigrant’s junk, but I said nothing because I’m not a minority or an immigrant.
Then they came for the Muslim’s junk, but I said nothing because I’m not a Muslim.
Then they came for the white man’s junk and I kicked up a raging hissy about my civil liberties and the sovereignty of my junk.

Comment #19: snobographer  on  11/29  at  05:40 PM

^eh, that should be “black person.” Sound icky the way I wrote it. Sorry.

Comment #20: snobographer  on  11/29  at  05:43 PM

I, for one, look forward to the massive cash infusion the ACLU can expect from the newly found civil rights movement the wing-nuts have found.
Comment #3: cynickal on 11/29 at 01:08 PM

Don’t hold your breath.  They’ll create their own organizations that concentrates on the RIGHT rights.  Astroturf is so much…cleaner.

Comment #21: oldfeminist  on  11/29  at  05:53 PM

A more accurate description (“Labeling”) of what the TSA is doing ought to at least give apologists pause.

It’s a Strip Search, plain and simple.  A machine removes your clothes, and a person (or group of persons) gawps at your naked body.

It amazes me that people -even authoritarian Nitwits- who would never agree to strip naked, or have their children stripped naked, in order to board a goddam ariplane, are OK with having their clothes electronically removed.

It shows genuine stupidity, a total lack of imagination, and the inability to think ahead or envision consequences of actions.  When you add in to the equation the danger of skin cancer from the “naked machine”, and the danger of photographs of yourself or your kids being disseminated all over the planet... it is impossible to understand how anyone would comply.

So I wonder fearfully What In Hell Are They Planning NEXT?

Comment #22: Kwillow  on  11/29  at  05:56 PM

They’re nothing but a bunch of ... cunts

You say that like it’s a bad thing.  Is having a cunt supposed to be shameful?  Being PC isn’t about avoid dirty words.  The problem is with implying that being compared to a woman is insulting.  I really think you have missed the point if you think our delicate sensitivities are offended by uttering the incorrect word.  It’s the idea behind the insult that is offensive to us.

Comment #23: bananacat  on  11/29  at  06:02 PM

We won’t have Liberty Jumpsuits; we’ll have Liberty Straitjackets.  And maybe some Liberty shackles on our feet just for extra freedom.

Comment #24: bananacat  on  11/29  at  06:03 PM

“We won’t have Liberty Jumpsuits; we’ll have Liberty Straitjackets.  And maybe some Liberty shackles on our feet just for extra freedom.”

...and individual <strike>tasers</strike> Liberty Enforcers pre-connected to the <strike>prisoners</strike> passengers so if the stew finds your request for a glass of water offensive, she/he can easily adjust your attitude.  Sounds like every airline flight would be like Con Air, but without Nicolas Cage to save the day…

Comment #25: MikeEss  on  11/29  at  06:20 PM

@23 they could just as easily have been ‘scum sucking shitbags” or “scum sucking hypocrites” or “scum sucking scum suckers.”

Comment #26: snobographer  on  11/29  at  06:29 PM

You say that like it’s a bad thing.  Is having a cunt supposed to be shameful?

The logic, and it’s a good one, is that using that word as an insult is inherently demeaning women, which is why I try to avoid it.

However, I am reaching into my early youth to express my contempt for these fuckers.  I call them “cunts” because when I was growing up, that was the “fighting insult” - the one that told people you were about ready to start punching noses.  With respect, snobographer, “shitbag’ just doesn’t cut it.

Comment #27: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/29  at  06:34 PM

I think Phonecian means it in the British sense, a la Jarvis Cocker’s observation of who’s running the world.  As in gigantic, mendacious powermongeriing A$$holes.  It’s unfortunate that misogyny has robbed us of such a useful shorthand.

I blame the patriarchy.

Comment #28: Sour Kraut  on  11/29  at  06:59 PM

How about dicks or ballsacks then?

The “British sense” isn’t any less misogynist. People with cunts certainly don’t run the world anyway, no matter what the crappy stand-up comics say, so that makes no sense.

Comment #29: snobographer  on  11/29  at  07:06 PM

Just curious, Amanda: does the Guardian Britishize the spelling in your columns (“lays the groundwork for arguments in favour of privatising airport security”) or do you submit it to them that way?

Comment #30: Cris  on  11/29  at  07:13 PM

Most people don’t have a problem with torture or wiretapping or indefinite detention without habeus corpus or the no-fly list because they are the ‘good guys’ and have ‘nothing to hide’. They assume that anyone who is accused is guilty (well, unless a liberal says so).

Here THEY have to go through the drill—it’s almost as if people assume they might be guilty of something. I try to look for allies, but really if a person didn’t have a problem with torturing and indefinitely detaining someone because someone accused them of terrorism, then they should just shut up about this.

There are some conservatives that really do care about civil liberties: Ron Paul and Bob Barr both publicly had problems with some of the ‘war on terror’ methods, which is more than can be said about a lot of Democrats.

Comment #31: JohnL  on  11/29  at  09:01 PM

I thought part of the problem the TSA was supposed to solve was that private security at the airports was handled poorly by minimum wage people run by fly by night companies which might not adhere to federal standards?

Comment #32: Crissa  on  11/29  at  10:03 PM

I had the most frustrating discussion about this stuff with some of my coworkers/classmates the other day. They’re all generally liberal people, but they were staying stuff in support of the new searches like “well, I know it probably isn’t any safer, but…” and “yeah, maybe it violates people’s rights, but…”

I wanted to scream “there’s no ‘BUT’ about rights!”

But of course there is. Because everyone I was talking to was middle-class, white, able-bodied, and all but one were guys. One guy said he didn’t see what the big deal was with having to remove a prosthetic breast. Another guy said “well, it’s too bad that some rape victims are getting upset, but…” and I had to cut him off with an “OKAY I GUESS we’ll have to agree to disagree” and walked away.

How are the lefties not on the correct side of this one? We finally have agreement from the recalcitrant petty assholes we call “conservatives” and instead of cheering and getting some stuff changed we’re all busy saying shit like “well, having a bag of your own urine spilled on you isn’t really that embarrassing” andyesthat’saquote.

Comment #33: Bagelsan  on  11/29  at  10:41 PM

I call them “cunts” because when I was growing up, that was the “fighting insult” - the one that told people you were about ready to start punching noses.

Of course it was. The only things more insecure about their masculinity than grown-up little boys are little little boys. Their raging hormones, ignorance, and their anxious budding heterosexuality should not limit your creativity in insults, however.

Comment #34: Bagelsan  on  11/29  at  10:44 PM

@Crissa-

I know the security at O’Hare became a lot more professional when it was federalized.  Those assholes just loved to harass people, especially those of us travelling with babies, where the TSA has actually helped.

I still think TSA and Homeland Security should be disbanded.  Private firms will still be required to use the radiation nude-o-scopes, so it’s the regulations that need to be changed.  And they won’t be changed b/c the Constitution is worthless and there’s too much money to be made by Rapiscan to give a second thought to travelers’ civil rights..

Comment #35: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/29  at  11:15 PM

I figured the TSA would bring a one-stop clearing house for training, spot-checking, best procedures and making sure that employees have proper backgrounds and up to date training.

Instead it seems it just given them inflated egos, worst procedures, and virtually none of the good machines and processes have been duplicated between airports.

Comment #36: Crissa  on  11/30  at  12:11 AM

Good post Amanda, I agree that the outrage on the right is that not enough civil liberties are taken away.  I have also noticed with this obsession over “grandma.”  Every conservative column I have read has included the “let’s stop screening grandmas and only go after scary Muslim men.”  Of course “grandma” is in this sense code for “white people.”  To a conservative, they see non-whites and non-Christians as “young” and to them “grandma” represents something wise and pure and that seems to be the example they use when arguing for racism or Islamophobia.  One could almost make the case that they believe there are no non-white or non-Christian grandmas.

Comment #37: Albert Cirrus  on  11/30  at  12:41 AM

*sigh* Think “culture”, not “masculinity”, Bagelsan.

Comment #38: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/30  at  01:10 AM

You wanna think of something scary - I just read an article pointing out that the gloves are for the benefit of the TSA agents, and that they might not change them very often, if at all, between patdowns.

Think of that the next time they want to stick their hands down your pants…

(the CDC suggested making the clear request to change gloves if you have to submit)

Comment #39: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/30  at  01:20 AM

Think “culture”, not “masculinity”, Bagelsan.

Surely it’s called a “patriarchy” ‘cause those two are virtually inextricable? :p

Comment #40: Bagelsan  on  11/30  at  01:21 AM

One thing to keep in mind: People who have private jets don’t have to go through airport security.

Comment #41: Doug S.  on  11/30  at  01:56 AM

Herm. I do hope that one issue is pretty clear. When talking “civil rights” and “privatization” the issue is (almost certainly) an attempt to remove Fourth Amendment issues. I don’t know if the courts have tried to settle whether the feds have a right to search you for trying to take a flight - but it seems that a private party has a lot more right to demand you submit to a search or not fly, than any US-based law enforcement organization.

Comment #42: LongHairedWeirdo  on  11/30  at  02:14 AM

One could almost make the case that they believe there are no non-white or non-Christian grandmas.

Grandmas are made of cookies and love and college-fund-contributions and call black people “colored” but-it’s-not-racist-she’s-old, while terrorists (also known as “Muslims”) spring fully-formed from the desert and hate ‘Murka. Doncha know.

Comment #43: Bagelsan  on  11/30  at  02:25 AM

One thing to keep in mind: People who have private jets don’t have to go through airport security.
Comment #41: Doug S.  on 11/30 at 12:56 AM

One wonders what it takes to be “private.”  I mean, if me and 50,000 of my friends happen to chip in on a few jets and use them for a route or two, on a regular basis, are we “private” in the same sense that sedan companies manage to worm out of being taxicabs?

Comment #44: oldfeminist  on  11/30  at  03:05 AM

I wonder how long it will be before some enterprising terr-ist — let’s change things up a little:  how about a nice white woman, about 50, whose daily TV diet of fundnut propaganda and Glenn Beck has pushed her over the edge — gets some pilot’s training, grabs one of those oh-so-private jets belonging-to or leased-by Trump, some Wall Street CEO, or some other wealthy Republican asshole, and flies it right into the NY Times building (like Coulter would want)?

Will “private” jets remain off limits to strip-searching, actual or virtual, after that?  If so, how long before they become exempt again from the rules that govern us little people?...

Comment #45: MikeEss  on  11/30  at  10:40 AM

Either being a cunt is something to be ashamed of and insulted by, or it isn’t.  You can’t say that being compared to a woman is just fine most of the time, except when you really want to insult someone, and then it’s insulting.  I can’t even believe I have to explain this on a feminist blog.

And I don’t really care if you grew up with that insult.  The point of feminism is that we don’t have to conform to tradition, especially when that tradition reinforces patriarchy.  The very fact that cunt was the worst possible insult in your childhood culture should make you want to change it, and you can’t do that by continuing to use it.

Comment #46: bananacat  on  11/30  at  02:25 PM

Also? If I had to choose to deal with a bag of shit or a cunt, I’d take the cunt. Cunts are nice. Bags of shit are gross, smelly and germ-filled.  I get that it was your insult of choice, but really think about it?

Comment #47: JulesAboutTown  on  11/30  at  04:16 PM

I thought about it for you; being compared to a woman (or a woman’s parts) is WORSE than being compared to a bag of human waste.  That’s just terrible.

Comment #48: JulesAboutTown  on  11/30  at  04:19 PM

Thank you so much for the condescending lectures.  I’ll be sure to use the word more often in honour of the two of you.

Comment #49: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/30  at  04:40 PM

Hahahahahahaaha! Good one, PIATOR. 

Really, though. Insulting each other aside, isn’t it interesting that sexually based insults are considered the worst? I mean….your culture, my culture…it’s as if sex really is truly and completely nasty dirty in our psyches. 

Would you rather be compared to a body part than human waste if you had to choose? I think most people wouldn’t, because the shame and stigma around sexuality is higher in US and Western cultures (I suspect) than waste.

Anyway.  Thanks for being snide back. I appreciate it so much as I’m in a terrible mood today and it’s probably the 5th time in a month I’ve been faced with the conversation surrounding the use of “pussy” “cunt” and yes, even “dick” as insults. I don’t like sexually based insults at all, even for men. I think dicks are lovely things and shouldn’t be used as insults.

So I’m touchy about it. But do go ahead and use the term as you will to spite me. Seriously I won’t have any idea you are doing it so it won’t hurt me at all. I’m sure whoever you address as a cunt might not like it though.  Unless it’s me. Maybe I’ll feel it though the Force that permeates all humankind, like a dark shiver rippling over my previously good mood and I’ll know….PIATOR called me a cunt.

For the record I’m being a jerk right now. Or a ass (as in donkey).

Comment #50: JulesAboutTown  on  11/30  at  04:52 PM

And apologies for that truly lovely derail of mine. Seriously, I’m in a terrible horrible mood. I should put the internet down.

Comment #51: JulesAboutTown  on  11/30  at  05:01 PM

I wouldn’t sweat it too much, Julie.

I can’t think of anybody who’d like to be called “cunt” and the mere threat of doing so sorta proves the point about the offensiveness of the word itself.

Not that it makes a whit of difference one way or another, seeing as how he’s just a blog contributor (like you and me) and I know for sure he doesn’t pay any of my bills, so I’m guessing he probably doesn’t pay yours either.

Therefore, I could give less than a shit about whatever female genital names silly boys will call things they don’t like, seeing as how it’s less than revelant and so far beneath my notice as to be a barely-perceptible blip on the radar of my attention span. 

Oh look, a piece of candy…...

Comment #52: Mezosub  on  11/30  at  05:08 PM

Yes PAITOR, insult women as a group more often just to piss off feminists.  And then go hang out with the rest of the anti-liberals.

Either being called a woman is an insult, or it isn’t.  There’s nothing condescending about pointing that out.  And you have proven that you clearly think it is shameful because your parents and peers told you it was when you were little and you’re just gonna stick with it rather than challenge tradition.

Comment #53: bananacat  on  11/30  at  05:16 PM

Mezosub, an old friend of mine said the best thing about the word was that the NT sound at the end of it makes you sound very snide and sneering. As if picturing Johnny Rotten growling it out. Which I admit is a good point. 
I am not Johnny Rotten though, nor even Amy Winehouse so I doubt my spitting out the word fiercely would have the same impact.

Comment #54: JulesAboutTown  on  11/30  at  05:19 PM

Really, though. Insulting each other aside, isn’t it interesting that sexually based insults are considered the worst?

Depends on the society.  There was a discussion on this in a book whose name escapes me at present.

Comment #55: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/30  at  05:29 PM

PIATOR, I had a thoughtful reply for you yesterday but then all the tech issues happened. For the better, I say.

Comment #57: JulesAboutTown  on  12/01  at  05:50 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.