General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAustralia's Opposition Leader Just Called A C**t In Parliament
From HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/15/christopher-pyne-bill-shorten-australia-_n_5328916.html?
If there's ever a good time to drop the c-bomb, it's probably not in parliament, on film.
It started off as just a normal, dull old day in parliament when Australia's minister for education started criticising the opposition leader with some standard political banter.
---SNIP----
"The minister will refer to people by their correct titles."
Response to alcibiades_mystery (Original post)
dipsydoodle This message was self-deleted by its author.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)Do you believe in calling Black people the "N- word" too?
I hear that the use of the "C-word" is common in the UK, so it seems you need
to learn about "cultural differences", because in the States
and on DU, we view the word an intolerable gender slur.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)who when last recorded was male.
It was you who referred to women. If you have a link to Shorten having a gender change operation then feel free to provide it.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)The "c-word" isn't used for "laughs" here anymore than the
"N-word" is.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)No way, no how, no excuse.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)As much as I think Christopher Pyne is a fucking wanker out to destroy this country, he wasn't using it as a gender slur. If he'd aimed that at Julia Gillard when she was PM, that would have been a gender slur. As it was, it was a nasty insult that should have gotten him suspended from parliament, but the speaker of the house is notoriously biased towards her own conservative party and refuses to suspend anyone but the opposition.
Here's some more on Christopher Pyne, and the incredible bias of the speaker of the house...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1086552
gollygee
(22,336 posts)is still a huge insult to women.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)It's commonly used by bogans along the same lines as calling someone a wanker. Calling someone a wanker doesn't mean that the person doing it is saying to them 'you're horrible because you're comparable to a guy having a wank'. Same goes for the c-word (which, btw, is a word I rarely use, but since the budget came out on Tuesday I've used it once to describe the government) coz I have bogan heritage.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)In the US, the term is pretty much always closely associated with the body part it describes and almost never used against males. In the UK and most other commonwealth countries, the term's usage is quite a bit farther removed from its etymology. It's become the equivalent, in this sense, of calling someone a "prick."
The term is more offensive to us Americans because our understanding of it is closer to the etymology, so its undeniable misogynist nature is much more "front-of-mind."
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Do you fucking hear yourself?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Fer fuck's sake. I said how it's used in Australia. I'm aware that it's different in America, but this isn't America. I'll save the outrage and puking emoticons for the stuff that really matters, like the House having the most biased Speaker in its history, a government that's going to make us pay co-payments to go to a doctor, a government that's slashing education, public services, attacking the elderly, the sick and the young, and where the only winners are big business.
Christopher Pyne deserves a lengthy time-out for his attack on Bill Shorten, but if all you can get out of what's happening in Australia right now is that it's the most fucking horrific thing ever and an attack on women, you need to visit the Australia forum and start to get a handle on priorities when it comes to outrage and anger.
Have a lovely day!
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Yes, well done, that is exactly what I said!
You're too late with the ridiculous hyperbole anyway someone's already used that tactic.
Good to know you actually would consider that usage not to be a homophobic slur BTW. At least you're consistent.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I suspect not. I've explained to you that there are cultural differences between here and there, and that the use of that word is one of them. When it's thrown around like the way it was in that clip, it's the equivalent of calling someone a wanker or a fuckwit. It's not done as a gender slur. You want to argue with me on that? Go right ahead. I mean, it's not like I've lived here all my life and heard it used a fair bit or anything.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)But thoughtful people don't accept the rationalization.
Like I said, none of the people still defending this as if it is defensible surprise me at all.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)You don't like it? Fine. But don't sit there and tell me that it's used the same way in the US as it is here. Because yr wrong.
Feel free to form a SWAT team and hurry over here and tell Australians how they must use language. As Steven said in another post, it's likely you'll get rebuffed with far more colourful language than you ever knew existed...
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It was "cultural" ro use 'gay' as a catchall insult referring not to ones sexuality but simply as a very mild insult.
People learned that despite the fact that it wasn't used to actually accuse the target of being homosexual, it was still associating homosexuality with negativity by using it as an insult.
It is no different with the use of female body parts as insults.
I would say that it's shocking that this has to be spelled out here on DU but it really really isn't. And that's very sad.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I have no idea why yr having so much difficulty comprehending that the word's used here differently than it is in the US. It's a simple fact that it is. What do you want Australians to do about it? Stop using it because Americans are offended by it? I don't think that'd go down too well...
boston bean
(36,223 posts)I don't think that will go over too well...
wow, this was really enlightening conversation we are having here.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)In fact, I distinctly remember pointing out that I'm aware that Americans use it differently and wouldn't ever use that word in the company of Americans because they do find it offensive. How does that translate into wanting Americans to change?
boston bean
(36,223 posts)wanting Australians to change?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)And when I pointed out how it's used in Australia, I was told off for pointing that out.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)But that is neither here nor there.
In Australia does the word have any derogatory female connotation? I'm just asking so don't light a fire under my ass ok?
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)here is OUTRAGE over the fact that not everyone chooses to be OUTRAGED at the different usage in the UK and Australia.
If you're outraged, then fine. I'll support your right to be outraged.
But don't expect others to feel the same sense of shock and outrage at a word that's actually pretty common over there, and doesn't have the same meaning. And don't try to make anyone who doesn't feel your sense of outrage out to be an evil sexist.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Please point to a post of mine in this thread that you feel may show my outrage, please.
If you can't this is just another occasion of someone applying false narratives to my posts. For what reason, they'll have to ask themselves.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)what I clearly posted was:
IF you're outraged...
OK, so you're not.
But someone else apparently is.
So just for the record, it doesn't bother you that some people here aren't getting all foamy mouthed over the use of the *c* word in a country other than the US?
And that it's OK to point out cultural differences without being accused of having severe character flaws?
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Then secondly, you want me to be responsible for everything people write on DU? Ok. And have to speak to every single thing someone says. Hell, I'd do nothing with my life but post on DU.
And your last sentence has not basis in reality to anything I have posted.
Jessum Chrissum, you are seeing stuff that just aint there. Just admit it and we'll move on.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)because we do NOT "expect" them to feel the same sense of outrage -- We simply expect them to RESPECT
the cultural differences of a board which has a MAJORITY American membership ...If they want to use the word
that way in Oz or the UK, fine...For God's sake, if they even showed the simple sense to post it on
on their own forums it wouldn't be so bad, but it was posted in General Discussion and THAT in our view
is inappropriate.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)We never thought of it as a slur against the developmentally disabled. It just meant supremely stupid. However, to those outside of the subculture it came across as a slur. When I hear someone from my subculture use it I know what they mean and I'm not offended. However, I've chosen not to use it myself.
IMHO in a world where we don't spend most of our time communicating only in our own specific subcultures it's probably a good idea to consider whether hanging on to vernacular is more important than choosing words that aren't as offensive to those outside of our own culture bubble.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Last edited Fri May 16, 2014, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)
Several countries (not to mention regions within countries) use English and have their own slang and slurs and different meanings for various words. OP found that a politician in Australia used a word that has a very offensive connotation here and posted it not understanding the cultural difference (Edited to add, the OP commented and indicated that I was wrong about the italicized part). Several folks here piled on also not understanding or caring to understand the cultural difference.
No one responding suggested that the word being discussed is anything other than horrifically offensive here in the US to the point that it should never be used.
Edit #2 - And also to your point, its a good idea not to try to use slang in countries unless you are really familiar with how it will be received.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and it's no longer valid to excuse the usage because it isn't offensive within my own cultural framework. If most of the people speaking my language recognize the term as offensive, what's liberal or progressive about defending its usage?
Some have tried to deflect the argument by bringing up the slang term for cigarette in other English-speaking areas, but they're missing a critical difference. Before it became a slur for gay, that term was used to describe small sticks. Thus the slang use of it for a cigarette makes sense in an etymological sense.
There isn't an innocuous history associated with c***. It's been held as obscene since at least the 18th century.
For anyone who wants to read up on it, I recommend "Expletive Deleted" by the Australian linguist Ruth Wajnryb.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the fact that there are more American speakers of English than British, Australian, and Kiwi speakers of English combined doesn't negate the fact that certain words have different meanings in non-American English, nor does it make the use of words in that context by people who aren't American automatically wrong or horribly offensive in the way Americans insist it must be.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)It's just considered more vulgar in the U.S. It's vulgar language period. Has been for centuries. That's not an idle reference -- the term is defined in an 1811 dictionary of vulgar language by Francis Grose as a "nasty name for a nasty thing" while linking it to cunnus, the Latin word for vulva. The term was removed from expurgated editions of Lady Chatterly's Lover even in the mid-20th century. These days, most main stream media in Britain and Australia won't write out the word or utter it in audio.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)First off, I don't know how to sugar coat this so I won't, it is pretty arrogant that anyone in the US decides to post something said in Australia between two Australians here on a website and then have folks proceed to use the American meaning of one of the words to pronounce judgement on it and say its a bad thing.
It's only because we are so insular here, cut off from most of the world by two large oceans that some here don't know better than to do such a thing. There are several dialects of German, Spanish, French, Arabic and various other languages. There are different slang and vulgar words in the various dialects. Words that are fine in Spanish spoken in Spain for instance are vulgar in Spanish spoken in parts of Latin America and vice versa. Sometimes, yes, it is joked about but that's it.
Trying to claim one's version of the meaning is more right than another dialects is, to put it nicely, silly. Germans, Austrians and German speaking areas of Switzerland know better than to do this to each other. The various Spanish speaking countries know better than to do this, etc.
The rest of the world would find this argument to be yet another example of American arrogance and provincialism. We don't get to tell Britons, Irish, Scottish, Australians and New Zealanders the 'real' meaning of English words. They don't get to tell us the 'real' meaning of English words. Our meanings are our meanings. Their meanings are their meanings.
In terms of 'Global Communications', of which what is detailed in the OP is not an example, by the way, German, Spanish, French and yes English people who communicate with people of more than one country deal with that by utilizing as standard and non-Slang version of the language as possible. What is called in German "hoch Deutsch" or high German for instance. I'm sure if the Australian Opposition leader were speaking to an international audience, he would have used as non-slang a version of English as possible.
But as I said, he wasn't. He was speaking to another Aussie, face to face, using language he knew another Aussie would completely understand in exactly the way he meant it. It's not our right to apply our meaning of a word he used to try to contravene the Australian meaning of the word and then beat it up. It's the height of arrogance to try and strikes me as a version of a strawman fallacy.
Finally, since you brought up the points, no one said that the word isn't vulgar, not did anyone argue the etymology of the word. There are various English words in various dialects of English that have etymologies that no longer reflect their current meaning. Let's not pretend that this is in any way unique with this word in non-North American English.
There is no excuse and justification for the position some have taken here and certainly no justification to attack fellow DUers (including native Australians who have tried to explain it) for pointing out what is completely obvious. The word simply does not have the same meaning or connotation in non-North American English.
I find the outrage expressed completely manufactured, baseless and ultimately, inane.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and wrote specifically about the history and usage of this word, I'm being North American-centric?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)as opposed to the reams of peer reviewed science explaining something totally different.
For instance, as cited in this post below http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4962581
https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au
From the about page on the Macquarie dictionary:
The Macquarie Dictionary was first published in print in 1981 and has been online since 2003. Its reputation has gone from strength to strength and it is now nationally and internationally regarded as the standard reference on Australian English.
The Macquarie Dictionary Online gives you access to the Macquarie Dictionary Sixth Edition (published in October 2013), annual updates of new words, along with its companion reference the Macquarie Thesaurus.
------------------------------------------------------
There is also Violet Crumbles post in one of the other threads with good links:
C--t - noun - ka-hnt
Just relax, okay. Take a breath. In Australia, C--t (pronounced c--t as in bunt) has many connotations - most of which are actually positive. For example:
If a friend of mine were to be exceptional at motor sports or a nice person in general he would henceforth be referred to as a Sick-C--t. (pronounced sick as in lick and c--t as in bunt.)
And no, C--t does not end there! This once frowned upon curse word has been embraced by the Australian people as the suffix to end-all-suffixes. Play around with it and try it for yourself.
Likely conversations include:
Hey man, you going to Lizs party?
Nah-C--t.
Translated:
Hello friend, are you going to Elizabeths party?
No thankyou, Sir.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bradesposito/outrageous-words-that-are-said-every-day-in-australia
It's a profanity, and the way Christopher Pyne used it was as an insult and in exactly the same way as if he'd called Bill Shorten a fuckwit. But it's not a gender-slur here and not used like that.
btw, I found a long but interesting article on the use of the word here that some DUers might find interesting
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/do-you-c-what-i-c/147/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as Spider Jerusalem posted in RedQueen's thread:
Again I refer you to the Cambridge Dictionary of British English (note that the first definition given is "stupid or unpleasant person", regardless of gender): http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/cunt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that is three separate sources combined with pretty much everyone commenting who has lived in a non-North American English speaking country native or otherwise. I don't know the agenda of the person you quoted, but to say they are a minority in terms of people of Commonwealth countries and their interpretation of the word is understating it.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Wog is a pejorative for dark complected people and the example given shows that it's still used with that sense.
The Global mail makes it clear that to use it in every day speech is attractive to some specifically because it's a taboo word.
That leaves the Cambridge Dictionary as the only one of your citations that refutes Wajnyrb. I chose her because I have her book at home (and the c-word is only one chapter in the book, with others dedicated to specific words like 'fuck' and still others are discussions of cross-cultural expletive references.) It's not written for linguists and is accessible easily. A more academic book is Geoffrey Hughes' Swearing. Hughes is South African so again not writing from an American perspective.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Back when there were a lot of Italian and Greek immigrants, words like wog and dago were insulting. Dago dropped out of use years ago, and thanks to 'Wogs Out Of Work' and 'Wogboys' where some comedians of Greek and Italian descent took back the word and made it their own, wog is what I'd consider pretty benign, though of course if someone's saying something like 'go back where ya came from, ya fucking wog!', then it is being used as a bigoted insult. But when a work colleague of mine recently informed us that she was attending a massive wog wedding at the weekend, that wasn't bigoted partly coz it's her family and also coz the word wasn't being used as an insult...
whathehell
(29,095 posts)this is an American Progressive board, so I'd suggest you and
some others here realize that, and start showing some of that
cultural "sensitivity" we Americans are so frequently lectured on.
The fact is, you are guests here..You might want to
start acting like it.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I think it's pretty crappy for you to talk down to our friends and allies like that. They have as much right to be here as you or I do.
This is not your website.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)and I'm not "talking down" to people, I'm reminding them
of the reality and simply asking them to show some cultural
cultural sensitivity, something I believe you and I would
do if we were permitted to post on an foreign political site.
Again, it's not too much to ask.
No, it's not "my" website, but it is an American PROGRESSIVE
website that was created to discuss American politics, and in that
sense I think they are guests and should show some sensitivity to
to American mores, especially when it comes to perjoritives.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)We should be enjoying American privilege.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Sometimes, it works. I'm sure you're not the only one laughing. It's just, why are they laughing?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)are all guests of admin here.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)He's British, isn't he?
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Treat different words.... Thanks for trying to explain it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)maddezmom
(135,060 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)as the obligation to respect the province of the 'host' falls first upon the guest.
Have a nice day.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I think you might want to reconsider your stance.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)That's probably a Freudian slip of sorts, lol, but I'll let it speak for itself, while reminding you that
DU is the 'host".
Actually, Mis, though I'd love to see the link which concludes that "1/3 of our 'hosts' (sic) aren't Americans",
that still leaves an American majority.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)of the American political focus of the board and its majority American membership.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)why don't you take it to ATA. Ask them, that since you're an American, if you have some special privilege that makes your opinion trump the opinions of DUers who are in other countries.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)and I don't have to "take" it anywhere. I've not been alerted on (at least successfully) so it seems
I've not broken any rules.
I'm afraid we'll have to leave it at that, as I have a nice, sunny day to enjoy.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)on DU? I must have missed that. Please provide post numbers and/or links.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)to the original complaint, but frankly, I don't give a shit if I'm the only one on this low rated thread
(5,000 views and 6 recs ) who has the guts to point out what others say privately.
The irony here is that it isn't the Foreign DUers who are denying this supposed "privilege", i.e.
the need for cultural sensitivity, it's just a few over PC Americans.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)There are three admins to DU. EarlG isn't American and an admin.
Regardless, you're not an admin. You don't get to tell people who is and isn't welcome at DU.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)Beyond that, I wasn't telling people "who is and isn't welcome".
I was reminding them of things like cultural sensitivity, board rules, and simple courtesy.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Here's why--you can try to explain the cultural use of a term, you can provide examples, you can provide lectures, essays, articles and snippets from television discussions on the topic, but no matter what you do, there is a subset of people here who will associate your "explaining" with "approval," no matter how often or vociferously you try to disavow any agreement with the conduct.
It's just a no-win. Those looking for a punching bag will zero in on you and excoriate you for failing to roundly condemn--and nothing more. There will be no nuanced discussion. Any expression of understanding of the milieu in which the phrase was used will be taken as cheerleading or endorsement.
Some people refuse to acknowledge that the "Bee" word has changed meaning in USA, to the point where it is no longer censored on network television IN THE MORNING.
I'm afraid Jesse Pinkman brought that word into the common vernacular and it's not going away. I don't expect the "Cee" word to make an appearance quite so easily, but once upon a time, Americans never said "at the end of the day" and now they say it all the time. Language does ebb and flow. Sooner or later, the cee word will appear on American television, cropping up like dandelions in springtime, and we'll have this discussion over, and over, and over, and over again....!!!!
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #24)
Post removed
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I don't always agree with rq by any means, but that's a ridiculous accusation.
And what do you mean by "the real world"? The word "c**t" is indeed far more offensive in the U.S. than the U.K. or Australia - as others have noted on this thread, there's a distinct cultural difference there.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)But if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.
Cha
(297,720 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)but this is an American Board dealing with AMERICAN politics with a majority American membership!
"Christopher Pyne deserves a lengthy time-out for his attack on Bill Shorten, but if all you can get out of what's happening in Australia right now is that it's the most fucking horrific thing ever and an attack on women, you need to visit the Australia forum and start to get a handle on priorities when it comes to outrage and anger"
No, dear, we really don't....What YOU need is to understand the composition of this board and something called "cultural sensitivity".
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)[url=http://www.smileyvault.com/][img][/img][/url]
whathehell
(29,095 posts)I understand why you've given up on words, Maddez, they've clearly been failing you.
Come back when you've improved.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)What don't you understand? VC is not condoning just giving it context. Geez.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)I DO understand the context and have referenced it several times.
It is you and VC, it seems, who don't understand the point of our objections even
with the understanding of the subject and it's context and I am much too tired
to try and explain it to you again.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I've got to admit being a bit gobsmacked that 'we' appear to believe that a politician firing a really nasty insult at another is more important an issue than the fact that the current govt is trying to dismantle our universal healthcare system and slashing education and forcing people to work to 70 before they can get a govt pension. Oh-kay, it's just that I think the latter three are vitally important things and the former is just a predictable example of how those RW politicians are allowed to run rampant and say what they like in parliament.
Could you explain this 'cultural sensitivity' thing to me? Does it go something like this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4966285
btw, the last person who called me 'dear' was my grandmother. Thanks for bringing back warm and fuzzy memories of my Nanna
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Here's where I stand. I understand that the word's far more offensive in the US than it is here, and I understand that people will react more strongly to it than I would. The reaction's a reasonable one, imo. What I don't consider to be reasonable is that some people seem to be demanding that the word be treated the same way here as it is in the US and that anyone who disagrees them is condoning misogyny and all that stuff.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4966285
-----------------------------------
It's really not that hard, is it?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)This whole thing is like talking to a brick wall. And I'm not even sure what they think they're giving a lesson about, or what they think they're going to change. I guess they could send a bunch of DU juries to Australia to confront brawling bogans on a bus. That'd make the already entertaining bogan bus brawls even more interesting than they already are
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Do you intend to tell people in the UK not to use that word that way too because it has a different meaning and connotation here?
Why stop there?
- Lift
- Pissed
- Bash
- Bird
- Blinder
- flannel
etc.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Though I usually call them durries. But back when I was smoking, I sometimes said to another work colleague 'want to pop out for a quick f--?'
While this thread's been entertaining, it's time to head off to bed. When I return, I expect a full list to be ready for me to share with everyone in my part of the world of what words we shouldn't use EVER EVER again
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And it wasnt 'MILF.'
Thought you'd appreciate the irony.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I don't even know where to begin with describing how I feel about that description of women, and seeing my description may possibly contain some very colourful language, I don't think I'll start...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Google the poster, the offensive word, and "academic" you'll come up with all sorts of stuff....
I just really thought you'd apppreciate the irony.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It is laughable how far a few people are bending over backwards to defend misogynist slurs.
That usage - fag as a word for a cigarette - is not an insult. It literally has an entirely different meaning.
I wish I could say I was surprised.
But I know how dearly some here love the fact that misogynist slurs are still socially approved by most. And how desperately they'll fight to keep it that way.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I see how diplomatic incidents happen now when people have such tunnel vision regarding their own cultural norms that they cannot possibly see that other people have different interpretations of things.
Congratulations. You have provided an excellent example of how not to act when dealing with other cultures.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #62)
Post removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Don't forget that part.
And what do you have in response? Not much of anything.
Just a demand to see usage of this word from an American-centric viewpoint when the issue is usage of the word in an incident in Australia.
Nothing about how you have tried to characterize this makes sense.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)This has gone from ridiculous to asinine.
Oh wait this is coming from the same crowd who thinks 'bitch' suddenly has a different meaning when directed at a man so that's totally not misogynist either!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I am completely sure that when UK'ers and Aussies use the word, it is not being used as it is in the US.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)I would really like to know. Cause I'm not offended in the least bit by them discussing a cigarette and calling it a fag.
I don't know how these things get so twisted. Should I know that calling a person a fag in London is the same thing as calling them a cigarette?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Originally confined to the United States the use of the words f-g and f----t as epithets for gay men has spread elsewhere in the English-speaking world, but the extent to which they are used in this sense has varied outside the context of imported U.S. popular culture. The words queer, homo, and poof are all still in common use in the UK, and some other countries, as pejorative terms for gay men. The words f-g and f----t, moreover, still have other meanings in the British Isles and other Commonwealth societies. In particular, f----t is still used to refer to a kind of meatball, and f-g is common as a slang word for "cigarette".
The terms f-g/f-----g, have been widely used for a practice of younger pupils acting as personal servants to the most senior boys for well over a hundred years in England, in the public school system of education.
Use of f-g and f----t as the term for an effeminate man has become understood as an Americanism in British English, primarily due to entertainment media use in films and television series imported from the United States. When Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews was overheard supposedly using the word in a bad-tempered informal exchange with a straight colleague in the House of Commons lobby in November 2005, it was considered to be homophobic abuse.
--------------------------------------------------------
If someone in the UK/Australia is called the 'F-G' word, they will get it after a few seconds of thinking about it but it's not really a part of slang vernacular there. Their first thought will be, "Why did that person call me a cigarette"
MADem
(135,425 posts)The British, though, are able to figure out the CONTEXT in which the word is used. If someone is told to "Man up, you miserable (insert either term)" we know full well, as do they, that the person isn't being called a cigarette or a meatball.
OTOH, if someone say "Would you care for a (insert either term) we know that, if they are standing on the loading dock with a bunch of tobacco consumers, that the person is being offered a cigarette, and if they're sitting round a chafing dish on a table full of food, it's a meatball that's on the menu.
I think what's happening in this thread is that a very few people are taking delight in being deliberately obtuse. Gotta get that RAGE on some way, some how.
I think it would be interesting to see how well this kind of thing played out at the new Free-For-All website. I doubt they'll try it over there, though--I suspect the reception won't be nearly so polite.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because the 'cultural thing' in question couldn't possibly be a patriarchal culture.
That can't be it. This is above criticism of us mere americans.
( )
whathehell
(29,095 posts)Um, yeah, and last I checked, this is an American political board.
Gee, I thought only we Americans were so "culturally insensitive".
whathehell
(29,095 posts)Laughable and sadly predictable.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Usage of same word in Fairy Tale of New York , you scumbag , you maggot ............was Liverpool Irish slang for an idiot / stupid person. Only learned that at a later date - I'd always assumed it referred to a rotten / decayed meat ball
Incidentally the cigarette quote pretty much fell out of use here years ago - not for any particular reason other than maybe a reduction in those smoking leaving just the old farts like me with memories another day.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This is exactly it. These words are simply not the same in other English speaking countries.
You cannot judge their usage the same way.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)I had them at an early age and when people in the US started using that term as I grew up later, I thought it odd that they called each other "liver meatballs"
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)but if they're anything like Swedish meatballs then they make you fart big time.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)I haven't had them since I was a kid. But I could see that they might be gaseous.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Been running since the eighties. These days there's anything up to a thousand dancers there during each of the 5 weeks with most eating on site in mass canteens.
Each week starts with a meet & greet invariably including social issue warnings with regard to their meat balls .
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Prolly just a posh term for nothing in particular.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)West country Sauce (62%) contains: Water, Lard, Wheat Flour, Modified Maize Starch, Tomato Puree, Salt, Colour (E150c), Yeast Extract, Sugar, Onion Flavour, Spice & Herb Extracts (Celery)
http://groceries.iceland.co.uk/mr-brains-6-pork-faggots-in-a-west-country-sauce-656g/p/38475
I don't think "West Country" refers to what you think - Devon , Somerset & Cornwall . More likely refers to the West Midlands aka The Black Country.
The Black Country is an area of the West Midlands conurbation in England, north and west of Birmingham and south and east of Wolverhampton.[1] During the Industrial Revolution, it became one of the most industrialised parts of Britain with coal mines, coking, iron foundries and steel mills producing a high level of air pollution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Country
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)sabbat hunter
(6,835 posts)they would be calling their friends cigarettes if they called them a f*g. Fanny in the UK means a womans vagina. Here in the US it means rear end.
The c**t in australia does not mean teh same thing that it does in the US.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I love how a few people here seem to operate under the illusion that they're able to spread such falsehoods.
sabbat hunter
(6,835 posts)the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English states c**t is "a despicable man". When used with a positive qualifier (good, funny, clever, etc.) in Britain, New Zealand and Australia, it can convey a positive sense of the object or person referred to.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)She has appropriated the right for herself to decide how people in other English speaking countries should speak and the meaning of their slang words, which according to her is the same meaning as in US English. Imagine that.
That said. Do you have a link to the Macquarie Dictionary?
sabbat hunter
(6,835 posts)have to sign up for a 30 day free trial
https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au
whathehell
(29,095 posts)Try this: We don't find the word "nigger" funny when applied to a white guy
either.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we can take seriously complaining about what Australians consider simply gross language.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)They're really inexcusable. We can do better than that. I know that I was guilty of using that term much too casually but these past few years I've been consciously working on cleaning up my act.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Yeah they're all in poor taste but ONLY ONE PUNCHES DOWN
whathehell
(29,095 posts)gay men, although, in a literal sense, it wouldn't be limited to
them. One can't say that about "cunts", so I'm wondering
why women here would be entitled to less respect, slur-wise
than gay men?
As for "prick" -- Nice try at false equivalence, except that
we all know that term is viewed as a vulgarity, at best, while
while "cunt" is viewed as obscenity.
Maybe it's the word (I'd grant that 'cock' might be viewed as obscene) but mostly I'd guess it's a question of power differential.
Men are still more powerful physically, politically and
socially, so what you're attempting is akin to defending a white
man calling a black man "nigger" because a the black man might call the white man a "honky".
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Yipes!
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)As you could tell by the lack of shock by the speaker and everyone else in Parliament when they heard Pyne say it, the word is much more commonly used in Australia and the UK and doesn't nearly have the shock value it does here. It's about as shocking as saying the "S--t" word here. i.e. it's still a vulgarism that should not be uttered in formal situations, but you can get away with it.
I think if a man said that word on the floor of the house or senate here in the US, I would be surprised if the ensuing uproar didn't force them to resign.
I've heard the word used by English speaking people in pubs and other informal situations in Europe with some frequency and no one is the slightest bit shocked, well, except me the first time or two each trip.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)None of the people attempting to minimize and excuse this are surprising at all.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That I attempt to control what is considered acceptable in the UK and Australia? Or that I freak out that they use a word differently than we do?
Do you even see how ridiculous you are being?
What is unsurprising from you is yet another baseless and snide insinuation that is manufactured from nothing and has no basis in reality at all.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I got told off by redqueen for pointing out it wasn't used as a gender slur as its usage is different here. I'm pretty sure she's aware I'm Australian and that this happened in Australia, but apparently she's imposing the US usage of it onto Australia now and even though I've lived here all my life and heard it used, I don't know what I'm talking about. Oh, well
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It is like she is holding it personally against both of us that the word is used differently in the UK and Australia than it is used here and we acknowledge that as fact. Not that we like it or don't like it, just that it is and we state that.
I can't help how UK'ers and Australians use the word. In fact, if I went on a campaign to change it, I think folks in both areas/countries would tell me to get lost, in much more colourful terms (yes, I used the u in colourful on purpose).
The toxicity she exhibits here with this and other occasions for no good reason at all is unfortunate and exactly the reason why on occasion I have told her she should be T/S'd. I'd say the same to anyone being unjustifiably nasty as often as she is.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I suspect I'm supposed to back right down and go: "Of course yr correct on this, redqueen. In Australia it's exactly the same as in the US and we're a nation of uncouth misogynists who use that word as we see it as a gender slur.' But I'd be lying if I said something like that...
LOL at the spelling of colourful. That reminded me of a time on another US forum away from DU where someone told me off for spelling words incorrectly, like colour, and labour and favour. At least that person wasn't aware that I was Australian and we spell those words differently. In this current case, there's no such excuse as redqueen's well aware of where I hail from
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I see that a lot from my Canadian and UK friends on Facebook (as well as from non-Americans here) and I always think I should start spelling words that way too because it looks more cultured.
As far as someone running around telling non-Americans how they should feel about words used in their countries that we here find offensive, I really don't know what to say about that.
I just find it somewhat sad that some of us Americans think the whole world revolves around what WE think, say, do, want, etc.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)taught us both spellings. I grew up in the Midwest region of the USA. I used to in use either -or or -our interchangeably when writing. My teacher would accept either.
Scruffy Rumbler
(961 posts)All must use our American Empire Dictionary when speaking American....er I mean English... Oh ya....AND BE OUTRAGED!
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,343 posts)I learned about if from my former Manchester soccer hooligan neighbor. Even his American wife uses it - and she is the type who would slap the shit out of someone if they used it in the American fashion. If that makes any sense.
Kali
(55,025 posts)but I can't help noticing how those arguing for that "excuse" avoid at the same time "excusing" retard or gay in the same type of situations. "It isn't meant as a slur" - against the people it is actually being used as a slur for.
Yes fag has a different etymology, but I am not aware that cunt has any origin other than the female genital one.
Cunt, whether used as a mild insult or as one of the worst possible verbal slams, depending on culture is still a gender-based one.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)As a woman myself, that word absolutely disgusts me, yet even I realize that there are cultural differences.
We use some words and gestures here in the US that are considered innocuous but are extremely offensive in other countries.
I've known for a while that the *c* word is not viewed with the same level of disgust everywhere, and am not shocked that it would be used in a casual manner in some places.
Maybe we Americans should start telling people in other countries what words they can, and cannot, use.
Warpy
(111,358 posts)and trust me, this word and derivatives do appear quite often from posters in Oz, NZ and the UK, mostly from women posters.
I'm afraid you're wrong about this.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I trained and task forced with a couple of limeys and an Irishman who enjoyed taking us out to the pub and getting drunk (to put it mildly) regularly. The words uttered in the bar (not in hate, misogyny, or any other negative light) would turn some of the posters here hair completely white. Hell, the words uttered by the barmaids were worse than what they guys were saying.
We all should realize that words don't mean the same everywhere.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Sorry, but it's true.
Kali
(55,025 posts)and think they have some sort of inherent RIGHT to continue to do so - as well as post offensive crap just to poke and insult them (and other non-straight white dude people)
sorry but that is even more "true"
Response to Kali (Reply #106)
TransitJohn This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I am with you 100%.
People who have never traveled tend to judge other cultures by their own personal standards.
It is another form of self absorption. As soon as the entire World conforms to what they find acceptable, then they can rest.
I personally believe that "It is better to put on slippers than to try to carpet the World".
Jim Jefferies explains it:
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)just as much as the USA
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)but I don't think it has QUITE the specifically misogynist implication it does in the USA, at least when used for a man.
Very foul-mouthed, though; worse than the F-word. You'd expect it of a drunk football fan, not an Education Secretary.
The most notorious recent use of the word in the UK was accidental, though quite possibly a Freudian slip. It was when James Naughtie referred to Jeremy Hunt, then Culture Secretary, now Health Secretary, as 'Jeremy C*nt, the Hulture Secretary'.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)This crime must be punished!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It is not a choice between 1) it's fine and dandy; and 2) send him to gitmo.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)On Fri May 16, 2014, 08:47 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
OMG! Arrest him at once, and then send him to gitmo!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4961708
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Quinnox is forever dismissing sexism and misogyny. Insensitive, hurtful and rude.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 16, 2014, 08:55 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this post is not insensitive, hurtful or rude. While he may offend you, this post does not qualify for hiding.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pahleez this is a wasted alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This person is perniciously sexist and derisive toward many of our feminist members. That should not be tolerated.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Here's hoping you don't use that word in your insular little anti-feminist world. ( jic )
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Or at work, or formal type situations. Like I said in another post, I never use it, but did on Wednesday morning when talking to friends to describe the govt and the destructive budget they delivered. I wouldn't do it at DU or in front of Americans, though, coz I get that there's cultural differences and wouldn't want to offend them...
mokawanis
(4,452 posts)While I don't like the "C" word and never use it I'm not going to dismiss your explanation, because I know very little about Australia.
That some here are so aggravated that they refuse to see the cultural difference is, to me, laughable.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Second, there have been numerous threads on this site addressing sexism and misogyny herein.
And, third: the person who posted this OP posts most often in GD, causing me (and, probably, others) to wonder whether he/she was expecting it might serve to stir the pot, so to speak, because SURELY this person has seen the numerous threads re: sexism and misogyny.
While the cultural difference in usage of this term is relevant (at least to some), the poster's decision to post in GD is suspect, and I fully understand the opposition to this vile word herein.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)And pretty much straight away there were responses from people who believe no matter what they're told that the usage of the word is taboo like it is in the US. Nothing's going to sway them from that belief, which I think is weird, but in the big scheme of things doesn't change a single thing. I'm still going to hear people throwing the word around casually and, based on the law of averages, use it myself another few times in my lifetime. What the OP displayed wasn't sexism and misogyny, but a complete wanker who behaved totally inappropriately in parliament, and a speaker of the house who refuses to do the job she's supposed to do.
Here's where I stand. I understand that the word's far more offensive in the US than it is here, and I understand that people will react more strongly to it than I would. The reaction's a reasonable one, imo. What I don't consider to be reasonable is that some people seem to be demanding that the word be treated the same way here as it is in the US and that anyone who disagrees them is condoning misogyny and all that stuff.
No offense to the person who posted the OP, but I don't know them and I'm not interested in trying to think up motivations for why people post what where.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I'm glad the OP posted this, and posted it in GD. I've learned some things in this thread that I find very interesting. The differences in cultures that are so much alike can be fascinating. Thank you for your participation in this thread, Violet.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Being a feminist, I don't defend misogynistic slurs. If that had been the US parliament, I'd be saying it was a misogynistic slur, but it was the parliament in my country, where that word is used the same as wanker and fuckwit.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)speaks volumes. I'm wasting my time with you.
You have a wonderful day now, ya heaer?
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)But what the fuck would I know. I'm just an Australian after all...
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Tiresome, indeed.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)select the posts that you alert to better and you may get better results. The jury cannot condemn a post that does not contain any such word, just because this guy is "forever dismissing sexism and misogyny."
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Perhaps you should be careful about your assumptions.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)free expression. Thanks to jurors who recognized that.
When lampooning thought police is considered a hide-able offense, it will be time to move on full time to discussionist.com
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)There is nothing obviously (or even remotely) offensive in the actual post.
The alerter doesn't even address the actual post, but instead alerts because he or she doesn't like the poster: "Quinnox is forever dismissing sexism and misogyny. Insensitive, hurtful and rude."
One of the jurors does the same thing: "This person is perniciously sexist and derisive toward many of our feminist members. That should not be tolerated." Again, attacking the poster and not the post.
This is some sad, silly shit.
But this whole thread isn't going to well for the purity patrol. Several people have managed to make themselves look like complete bloody wankers.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)so Juror 5 is my next guess. Closer?
Response to quinnox (Reply #13)
Post removed
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)anglophone countries.
The c-word is one of those things you'll have to get used to if you interact with British/Australian people.
sl8
(13,901 posts)I can say that, as an American male, because in America both women and men have fannies.
Gosh, we're egalitarian.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Mail Message
On Fri May 16, 2014, 08:09 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
That really chaps my fanny.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4961973
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Oh look another zombie account active on a contentious thread. And this one is using the word fanny which is another slang word for vagina in the UK.
Charming. The next six months are going to be brutal for mirt.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 16, 2014, 08:17 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He or she defined the term in the post, so I don't think the post, on its own merits, is hide worthy.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think poster is making a play on words relevant to the arguments made in the thread. Usage of certain words differs in various cultural contexts. Although it doesn't really contribute much to the discussion, I think it can stay.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you're going to make a zombie accusation at least have the courtesy to name who you think it is.
Although even if you did I'd still vote to leave.
Terrible alert.
Assuming it fails, you should go confront the poster with your zombie evidence.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Thanks for the heads up.
Zombie? I've been biding my time for 7 years, just waiting for the opportunity to use the word "fanny" in a post?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)The usual suspects seem to know what that word means in the UK. Convenient.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)did you see what I just did?
I insulted everyone.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I think "wanker" is funny.
One of those words like "fart" that don't sound particularly nasty.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)its an equal opportunity insult.
Anyway Australia's ruling party is about to destroy their social system including pensions, medical etc and dig up the great barrier reef
The country has been taken over by the inmates of an insane asylum
They are a bunch of thugs and that's what the topic should be about....
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I know anybody can be a wanker...it's just that I find the word itself funny, and if anyone actually called me a wanker, I would probably hurt myself laughing...
But anyway, I think you have a good point. So much else of a truly ominous nature goes on, yet what do we do? We get into pissing matches over the use of a word.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)that started at the men's room urinal.......
and writing in the snow..... even that is so called sexist and guess what, the nature of humans.
yeah its a distraction, they want to bring COAL ships through the great barrier reef, destroy the environment but we do have our priorities.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If I wanted to insult a woman, I'd choose a different word, to avoid creating the impression that I was insulting her for being a woman, rather than for whatever reason I actually was. But for insulting men, I don't think it's any worse than "asshole" or similar - which is to say, I don't think it belongs in parliament, but I don't think it's nearly as serious as it would be used at a woman.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)say that.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)How the hell does a post pointing out cultural differences get twisted to suit someone's agenda like that?
Nobody is laughing over it.
Response to pintobean (Reply #66)
Nye Bevan This message was self-deleted by its author.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)You don't own the English language. "Cunt" is not generally considered a gendered insult in British, Australian, or New Zealand English and indeed is much more commonly directed at men than women (and is not only an insult but also a term of endearment among some people; in some places it's not at all uncommon to hear "oi, you old cunt, how are you?", for instance.)
Note that in, say, the Cambridge dictionary (of UK English), the sense "stupid or unpleasant person" is the primary definition given: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/cunt (Compare and contrast with Merriam-Webster, an American English dictionary, which doesn't give "offensive and stupid person" as a definition at all.)
redqueen
(115,103 posts)None of it makes a fucking scintilla of difference.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)My British and feminist wife uses "cunt" as a non-gender-specific insult quite often (usually when talking about the Tories).
redqueen
(115,103 posts)And equally illogical.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Sorry, cultural differences exist, the UK and Australia and New Zealand are not the US, and it's supremely arrogant for Americans to presume to lecture people from other English-speaking countries on their usage of a word that has different meanings and connotations in non-US English.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and it is even more sad to see those who understand the cultural differences attacked for it.
The provincial thinking evinced is surprising and disappointing.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I really don't know. Perhaps there is something that could be said in the USA that would be relatively benign which would get people flapping their arms in other English-speaking countries.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)here in the US. Also, I wouldn't consider it offensive so much as a funny difference.
Randy in the UK means 'horny'
I recall a coworker who flew with me to the UK introducing himself as "Randy" to an elderly lady whose face lit up and she responded to him "Well... are you?" followed by laughter that seemed impossibly raucous from a septuagenarian.
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)would elicit complaints I would have thought:
Introducing Randy Bender:
http://thebendergroup.net/whoarewe.php?navVal=1
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Also "randy" = "sexually aroused, horny" so Americans called "Randy" (for "Randall" or "Randolph" are the source of some amusement.
Also: "Bollocks" as in "made a bollocks of it", apparently picked up by American servicemen in the UK during WWII and frequently appearing in American English contexts written as "bollix", meaning "made a mess of"; see this for instance from a New York Times editorial: "The House Ethics Committee has now hired an outside counsel to investigate its own bollixed investigation into the conduct of Representative Maxine Waters." You'd NEVER see a respectable British newspaper saying "Parliament made a bollocks of the investigation" in a leader (British English for "editorial" .
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It is still fairly mild in the UK, but milder still in the US (where many people don't even know what it means).
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)is quite embarrassing.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)and we have rules against gender slurs -- Try reading them.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)And, as American progressives, are we not allowed to discuss different cultures, and the way our language is used? As we can see from what is hidden, and what isn't, the community doesn't agree with your characterization.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)most of the "community" likely just wants to avoid the
uncomfortable topic.
As for "discussing different cultures" -- Please..That is NOT what
this is about and I think you know that.
My complaint was serving up for laughs...As I mentioned, that
may fly in the UK and OZ, and that's okay for them, but
the poster and a couple of his respondents put it in GD.
For fucks sake, he might, at the very least, have confined it to the
UK or Australia forum...That is NOT too much to ask.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)They haven't avoided the thread. There's been a shitload of alerts in this thread. Jurors aren't hiding what you find so offensive.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)was alerted on because the offending post was self-deleted
by the poster.
I don't know about the "shitload" of alerts, but a number of
people here feel as I do...That's all I have to say on the matter.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)The ones you summoned?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)Special measures weren't needed.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I do see a lot of people getting their knickers in an almighty twist over the use of it in Australia by an Australian in a context where its meaning and connotation are very different to that commonly understood in the US. Insisting that US cultural norms should apply to Australians or people from the UK is rather stupid.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)Some words, those used against a minority or less powerful
powerful group, are viewed as too denigrating for a
progressive board.
It doesn't matter, for instance, whether or not we are calling
another poster "faggot" or "nigger", they are deemed as insulting
to the African-Americans and Gay men here, and the same goes
for women.
The only times these words are allowed is when we are
using them as a point of reference, in which case we put "quote"
marks or something similar as I just did.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I live in the UK. I can tell you that in my experience "cunt" is not a term of abuse used for women specifically. Use has made it a nongendered insult.
See here for instance: http://ssy.org.uk/2011/01/giles-coren-what-a/
See also here: http://www.2ndcouncilhouse.co.uk/blog/2012/01/13/thatcher-a-feminist-retrospective/
Note that those are both feminists who are probably on the political left of most of DU.
So, you know, the use of certain words in a US context is understandably offensive. However insistence that the US context is the only valid one is parochial and stupid.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)"So, you know, the use of certain words in a US context is understandably offensive. However insistence that the US context is the only valid one is parochial and stupid"
Again, I am not doing that. What I'm saying is that THIS board is composed primarily of Americans
and that others should be both aware and respectful of the cultural difference you note when posting here, as I'm
sure they would rightfully expect Americans to do were we posting on boards with a majority British/Australian
membership.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
pintobean
(18,101 posts)It didn't take long for your name to come up at Discussionist.
http://www.discussionist.com/10154441#post31
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Do you have a link to the TOS about it being an American Board?
whathehell
(29,095 posts)"Do you have a link to the TOS about it being an American Board"
Hardly needed as it was created by Americans for American Democrats for the express purpose
of discussing American politics.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)maddezmom
(135,060 posts)how words ares used in other countries? Good luck.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)You are, of course, twisting my words, but I guess that's needed when honesty causes one
to lose the argument, lol.
The OP was not presented as a "discussion", it was presented as a gender slur played for laughs.
As I've now said several times, that may play in Oz and the UK but it doesn't on a majority American
progressive board.
If you're still confused, I'd suggest a course in remedial reading.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)But thanks for all your advice.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)losing the argument.
Thanks for the confirmation.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Not hardly....carry in with your bad self tho.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)that
If there were laughs, they were in the first reply, which was self deleted before your alert was completed. Regardless, that reply was not made by the OP.
And, this thread seems to have played well for Americans and others.
whathehell
(29,095 posts)Five Thousand Four hundred ninety two views with only six reccomendations.
Yep, it's a real winner.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Care to explain why you would rec this racist shit?
whathehell
(29,095 posts)and I can't even find the "racist shit" you're accusing me of reccing. Fail.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)maddezmom
(135,060 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.
I don't recall reccing or endorsing this bs anywhere.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)whathehell
(29,095 posts)I'll be glad to "unrec" if you tell me how you know that, but you might want to go
after all the other people who recced it as well.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)[IMG][/IMG]
StevieM
(10,500 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)I learned something. Thanks.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Erose999
(5,624 posts)endearment.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)edbermac
(15,947 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)What a display of misguided and provincial prudery.
Could be a result of that constant Condition Red search for something to be offended about.
1000words
(7,051 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rude and over the top.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 16, 2014, 12:55 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Attacking other posters. Enough of this behavior.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No, thanks. Hide. Whatever group this person is calling "howler monkeys," it's a personal attack.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)who believe every national stereotype in the book.
Australians are not offended by profanity? Do you also believe that the French are cheese eating surrender monkeys, or that the Swedish are all like the Swedish Chef?
Does your bigotry extend to US states? In your mind are all those from Georgia USA incestuous bumpkins?
Give us the benefit of your wisdom oh mighty Comrade !!!
Or better - don't
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)As many people, including actual Australians, have pointed out in this thread, the word in question is used differently than it is here. But some posters here are so eager to offended and so laughably provincial that they don't get it, even when told repeatedly.
But do carry on in defense of...what, exactly?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)They are not particularly. If you believe they are then take up the argument with Tim Minchin
The fact is I pointed out your ignorance by citing other stereotypes.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I have no opinion on how tolerant Australians are of profanity. I do know that much of the former Commonwealth uses the word in question in a different way than we do.
You pointed out shit.
Now go bother somebody else.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Well I will anyway from your post #119
What a display of misguided and provincial prudery.
Could be a result of that constant Condition Red search for something to be offended about.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)That I claimed Australians are more tolerant of profanity.
You're becoming one of those posters I'm embarrassed for on this thread.
Now, please go away and bother somebody else. Or better yet, take a walk and clear your head.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)and that was due to a certain insularity.
What Australian sensibilities do you you believe are misunderstood by "Condition Red" posters seeking to be offended?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Three times someone made a completely unsupportable assertion about what you said (not that all of our comments are easily viewable or anything) followed by a last post moving the goalposts in an unintelligible direction.
This is not rocket science we are talking about, nor is what we are talking about new. In 1887 Irish novelist Oscar Wilde said "We have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language."
That's how far back this discussion of the differences in the dialects of English goes. No less than 126 years. Nor is this kind of difference unique to English. There are several dialects of German, French, Spanish, Arabic and various other languages. There are different slang words in each language. A word that is completely fine to say in one dialect can be vulgar in another.
This was nothing to freak out about. No one said the usage was 'good' we just noted a cultural difference in which a word has an altered meaning and is not as offensive.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the reaction by some here is completely indefensible.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And yes, it is embarrassing.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)... seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking all Australians are products of the University of Wooloomalloo
Marr
(20,317 posts)The religious-like refusal to acknowledge a very simple fact is just sad.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)travel abroad, and experience some different cultures.
Maybe then people would understand that words have different connotations in different cultures.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)Try speaking to some other Australians sometime.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Because I haven't. There's absolutely no dispute that it's a profanity. Of course it is. It's just that it's not a gender slur the way it is in the US...
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I can see that it was probably quite a frustrating experience but it was good to get feedback from an actual Australian.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)At first it was kind of amusing and bizarre, but the irritation levels started to rise watching one or two people intentionally ignore and dismiss anyone who tries to explain to them that the word's used a different way in Australia
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There are all kinds of folks from different groups here on DU trying to get through to them including you who is actually from Australia and they refuse to listen.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)They also object to the stereotyping in which Monty Python indulged.
Australians are just as diverse as any other nation
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)It so clearly is. It's just not used as a gender slur.
Okay, I think that Monty Python skit is every bit as hilarious as it was the first time I saw it years ago. It's good natured stereotyping, the same as what's aimed at the British from comedians here...
intaglio
(8,170 posts)bit I also object to the special pleading that to some group called "Australians" it is not a gender slur no particularly offensive.
Now, regarding the sketch, it may be funny but it is offensive stereotyping playing to British prejudices about "Australians". There are many other works which are now troubling to watch because of race or gender stereotypes: 7 Brides for 7 Brothers; Gone with the Wind: early Bond films; the early Carry On Series the list goes on and on
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They keep wanting to argue that it is profanity, but no one has argued against that.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's embarrassing.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Well done.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)We don't need them, plus they'll be at home in the US as they want to turn Australia into a version of the US where there's no public assets and only the rich can afford education and healthcare...
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)We have enough bagger idiots here thank you. What I meant was that politicians in other countries are a lot more colorful than what we have here. From Prime Minister's questions in Britian to the fist fights in Canada's parliament to this guy in Austrialia, they have more interesting political discourse.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)It's still an inappropriate word to use, but it doesn't have nearly the "shock value" that it does in the U.S.
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)Just to note: in the UK, and quite possibly in Australia, the word, though one of the rudest words that it's possible to use, does not usually have quite the same misogynist connotation as in the USA. The word is a general nasty insult, often applied to men, as it was here.
But that is quite bad enough in itself. Pretty reminiscent of Dick Cheney's notorious instruction to Senator Leahy!
And what is it about Education Secretaries? We have Michael Gove; the USA have Arne Duncan; Australia has this charmer...