Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

The word itself is not what does harm, it is the understanding of what that word means to a person that can do harm.

 

Words, devoid of subjectivity, are completely harmless.

 

So this directly proves the value in reclaiming a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brkl's response to your original comment covers part of what I was going to say about the interconnection of language and culture as well as the example of the word "gay" (I was going to say specifically that it seems like the association more recently that people would have with the word would be a friend, family member, co-worker, or other actual person rather than an amorphous idea of something inferior and different). As I'm typing this, I saw your response to his response, and I'm not sure if I can agree with the idea that without language these ideas would still exist. That gets into an ontological problem that is probably over the head of anyone with dual PhDs in linguistics and philosophy. I take your point that slurs that get appropriated just get replaced with new slurs, but even these new slurs can get appropriated too. What I'd suggest is that any new slur will lack the power of the old because it doesn't have the same history. You bring up the term "faggot" which isn't new, but has been around for quite some time. However, if that were to get re-appropriated and replaced by some new invented term, it wouldn't carry the same historical weight as its predecessor. 

 

I love this post. I agree completely, the power of slurs is history, which allows them to be understood universally as slurs. If the connotation of a former slur is interpreted as something positive, the slur is useless to the original party, because it no longer causes distress. Sure, they might make up a new slur, but its history has to start from scratch to get the same understanding. I can't just start calling people "feebleweebles" and have them break down in tears. It takes years and years, in the meantime "faggot" and "gay" and "dyke" have lost a lot of their bite and are becoming tools for building LGBTQ community.

 

Words are all about history. Take that away and they become meaningless. That makes reclaiming them so powerful, if done right.

 

The word itself is not what does harm, it is the understanding of what that word means to a person that can do harm.

 

Words, devoid of subjectivity, are completely harmless.

 

I get what you're saying, but is there any example of a word being used "devoid of subjectivity"? This sounds like a fairly extreme hypothetical to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this directly proves the value in reclaiming a word.

 

How so? Do you think your friend would not have had a different response if the word you used had a mildly different connotation, even when the noun, verb or adjective describes is the same?

 

If rape had a positive connotation, would it make getting raped any less traumatic?

 

I get what you're saying, but is there any example of a word being used "devoid of subjectivity"? This sounds like a fairly extreme hypothetical to me.

 

It is, language is entirely subjective by it's very nature, I'm not arguing that. My core conceit is that language is used to express ideas, ideals, emotions, expressions and so on, and that changing the language will not change the ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's inherently impossible for the word "rape", with its current meaning, to have a positive connotation, as long as the act of rape is seen as a negative. (Which, of course, it always will be.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? Do you think your friend would not have had a different response if the word you used had a mildly different connotation, even when the noun, verb or adjective describes is the same?

 

If rape had a positive connotation, would it make getting raped any less traumatic?

 

Hmm, I see. But we're not talking about reclaiming the word "rape", which is a negative word about a negative thing. We're talking about reclaiming words like "faggot", which is a negative word describing a positive thing. If the referent is positive, then changing the connotation of the referrer to reflect it is good and useful.

 

 

EDIT: Dammit, Twig!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You first asked the question in this post:

 

I could be a stupid person, but what is the value of intentionally "reclaiming" a word or attempting to do so?

 

Then you answered the question in this post:

 

The word itself is not what does harm, it is the understanding of what that word means to a person that can do harm.

 

Words, devoid of subjectivity, are completely harmless.

 

The value in reclaiming words is that the understanding of what that word means to a person can change to something positive and the word can cease to cause harm or at least carry a much more positive meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was typing up a response (damn my slow self doubting nature), but in the last few minutes everyone else has basically already said it so I'm just going agree with Twig, Gormongous, and Zeus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is, language is entirely subjective by it's very nature, I'm not arguing that. My core conceit is that language is used to express ideas, ideals, emotions, expressions and so on, and that changing the language will not change the ideas.

 

Getting into that debate is not a great idea for this thread. That's an unending philosophical mire. 

 

The value of reclaiming words is obvious from looking at communities that have managed to do so. Examining that would be more useful than continuing a debate on the nature of language and human thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's inherently impossible for the word "rape", with its current meaning, to have a positive connotation, as long as the act of rape is seen as a negative. (Which, of course, it always will be.)

 

I was using it as an example. Generally people are only "triggered" by extremely horrific incidents, which will also always have negative connotations.

 

Hmm, I see. But we're not talking about reclaiming the word "rape", which is a negative word about a negative thing. We're talking about reclaiming words like "faggot", which is a negative word describing a positive thing. If the referent is positive, then changing the connotation of the referrer to reflect it is good and useful.

 

I would argue that "faggot" is a negative word about a neutral thing, but I'm splitting hairs at that point.

 

You first asked the question in this post:

 

 

Then you answered the question in this post:

 

 

The value in reclaiming words is that the understanding of what that word means to a person can change to something positive and the word can cease to cause harm or at least carry a much more positive meaning.

 

So, I'm to understand that the value in "reclaiming a word", that is, the value of changing the connotation of a word in society at large, is that it allows an individual person to change what a meaning of a word means to that specific individual?

 

I'm afraid I don't follow.

 

The value of reclaiming words is obvious from looking at communities that have managed to do so.

 

Such as?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm to understand that the value in "reclaiming a word", that is, the value of changing the connotation of a word in society at large, is that it allows an individual person to change what a meaning of a word means to that specific individual?

 

I'm afraid I don't follow.

 

I'm not sure I can spell it out any more clearly than I already have. It sounds like you are unwilling to be convinced so let's just agree to disagree and move forward with the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I can spell it out any more clearly than I already have. It sounds like you are unwilling to be convinced so let's just agree to disagree and move forward with the conversation.

 

My lack of understanding is due to the idea that an individual needs to change the connotation of the word in the greater society to change how they themselves understand the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm to understand that the value in "reclaiming a word", that is, the value of changing the connotation of a word in society at large, is that it allows an individual person to change what a meaning of a word means to that specific individual?

 

I'm afraid I don't follow.

 

 

Such as?

 

Allowing people to identify as members of society not essentially different from anyone else is huge. And the you know which communities, they've been mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My lack of understanding is due to the idea that an individual needs to change the connotation of the word in the greater society to change how they themselves understand the word.

 

I'd honestly say that you need to go do some research on your own.  The things we're talking about are not new ideas, and your counterarguments have been factually wrong, drawn on extreme hyperbole and hypotheticals, or attempted to distract by drilling down into the philosophical nature of thought and language.  I don't see any particularly value in engaging with any of that.

 

You can start here and it will lead you to hundreds of interesting references and sources about the nature of word reclamation.

 

Edited to add: Reading through that, we've really been limited to the scope of examples we've used.  It's a good summary of examples of terms that have previously been reclaimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing people to identify as members of society not essentially different from anyone else is huge.

 

I'm not sure what this means in the context of my post.

 

And the you know which communities, they've been mentioned.

 

If you mean the homosexual community, I don't think the connotation of the word "gay" had anything to do with it. I think it had more to do with the connotation of being homosexual.

 

 

 your counterarguments have been factually wrong, drawn on extreme hyperbole and hypotheticals, or attempted to distract by drilling down into the philosophical nature of thought and language.

 

I am not trying to make counter-arguments, I am not intending to engage in debate. I am trying to understand on a fundamental level, what people think the value of reclamation is, and more importantly, why they think that.

 

Were the answer as simple as reading a Wikipedia article this discussion would have ended 2 pages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My lack of understanding is due to the idea that an individual needs to change the connotation of the word in the greater society to change how they themselves understand the word.

 

If a term is generally used as a pejorative, then hearing that word will most likely carry negative connotations. If, over time, the pejorative use is stripped from that term, hearing that word will most likely not carry the negative connotations it once did and it can actually become a positive thing (I think Bjorn's nerd/geek example is a perfect illustration of this). What is so hard to understand about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a term is generally used as a pejorative, then hearing that word will most likely carry negative connotations. If, over time, the pejorative use is stripped from that term, hearing that word will most likely not carry the negative connotations it once did and it can actually become a positive thing (I think Bjorn's nerd/geek example is a perfect illustration of this). What is so hard to understand about that?

 

The need to change what the word means to others to change the pejorative connotation for oneself. The nerd/geek example does not hold up in my experience, unfortunately. If someone called me a nerd today, I could take it as a pejorative or compliment depending on context and tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Words, devoid of subjectivity, are completely harmless.

 

But we don't experience language without connecting it to our subjective experiences, so I don't see how this is a useful distinction to make.

 

EDIT: I must have been looking at an old version of the thread. Several people raised the same objection, so forget I repeated it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think nerd/geek is a great example, because it also covers the two sided nature of reclamation.

 

Someone can still call me a nerd and attempt to use it in a hurtful way. But as the idea of being a nerd is improved through reclamation, I can use it to feel better about myself and feel more central to society.

 

Someone can call a woman a slut and use it in a pejorative way. It can, and is, used in this way. But for friends to playfully call each other sluts can actually be uplifting and sex positive.

 

This also works for nigger/nigga.

 

To me it's not about completing disarming the word, it's about using it to empower yourself through self-centering action. Dominant members of society can still attempt to use these words as pejoratives but marginalized members can still find ways to twist those words around for the opposite purpose. They're still weapons but now they fight for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The need to change what the word means to others to change the pejorative connotation for oneself. The nerd/geek example does not hold up in my experience, unfortunately. If someone called me a nerd today, I could take it as a pejorative or compliment depending on context and tone.

 

We don't exist in a vacuum. A big part of how we understand words comes from how they are used in society. If I hear a word used exclusively in a negative context, it will have a negative connotation for me. Likewise, if I hear a word used exclusively in a positive context, it will have a positive connotation for me. I see a lot of value in taking terms that carry a negative connotation and turning them into something positive. Growing up, I identified as a nerd but that term was only really used as an insult. Now, nerds around the world carry that title with pride because, for the most part, that term was subverted and lost a lot of its negative connotation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The need to change what the word means to others to change the pejorative connotation for oneself. The nerd/geek example does not hold up in my experience, unfortunately. If someone called me a nerd today, I could take it as a pejorative or compliment depending on context and tone.

 

I think part of that is belonging to a group.  If the meaning to one person is no longer pejorative but it still is for everyone else, there's value in getting that changed.  It sounds like maybe you've learned to separate words from their meaning on your own, but that's not a statement everyone can or wants to make.

 

Edit: Damn you Zeus, beat me to the punch.  Fucking nerd*. 

 

*Nerd in this instance is used as a term of affection.  This note exists because nothing is clear anymore apparently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Damn you Zeus, beat me to the punch.  Fucking nerd*. 

 

*Nerd in this instance is used as a term of affection.  This note exists because nothing is clear anymore apparently

 

I'M SO OFFENDED!!! You turdface*

 

*Turdface in this instance is also used as a term of affection. I'm not actually implying that you have a turd for a face and I'm really just jealous of your good looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't exist in a vacuum. A big part of how we understand words comes from how they are used in society. If I hear a word used exclusively in a negative context, it will have a negative connotation for me. Likewise, if I hear a word used exclusively in a positive context, it will have a positive connotation for me. I see a lot of value in taking terms that carry a negative connotation and turning them into something positive. Growing up, I identified as a nerd but that term was only really used as an insult. Now, nerds around the world carry that title with pride because, for the most part, that term was subverted and lost a lot of its negative connotation. 

 

Well, I think that's one thing that we just thing about differently on a basic level. Nerd for me has never been anything but descriptive term, one that could be used both negatively or positively depending on context and tone. How others apply connotations to words has very little baring to how I think of what they are describing. Maybe I have brain problems.

 

I must ask though, is it not valuable to have words with negative and positive connotations that describe the same thing?

 

Anyway, I'm off to bed. It's 4AM and I am far too tired to continue.

 

Cheerio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to point out that Faegbeard is essentially engaging in a standard derailing tactic that is often used against feminists, the "Won't you explain it to me tactic."  The goal of this tactic is to divert time and energy away from engaging with the specifics of a discussion and to focus the discussion on the ignorance of the person trying to derail the conversation.  There are literally thousands of online resources that would help someone understand the core ideas behind word reclamation, it's history and the simple fact that it exists.  But to derail a conversation about it, you simply keep repeating, "But I don't understand, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.  I don't follow." 

 

I'm not going to make any assumptions or claims about Faegbeard's motivations, but a lot of people end up engaging in these kinds of derailment tactics without even realizing that they are actually following the same pattern that happens all the time in conversations like these.  That's why there are entire websites devoted to derailment tactics.  I will point out that we are now on page 112, and since Faegbeard entered on page 109, much of the conversation has centered around Faegbeard's "lack of understanding" and inability to follow the arguments presented here, due to a lack of education in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×