If I call someone an ass hat

[My Good Babushka]

I don't really think I can wear them on my head. I don't really think they're a hat.

Corporate whore, same. The conjunction of the words changes the meaning, obviously.

[In_The_Wind]

1. Obviously.

[yuiyoshida]

2. indeed...

i wonder if there is such a thing as a ass hat trick ??

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. It only takes three asshats. nt

[yuiyoshida]

4. That must be common then

if we're talking about the Republican Party!

[Javaman]

6. I'd hate to see an ass hat rack. nt

[Brickbat]

5. Is "hat" a gendered term?

[My Good Babushka]

7. Neither hat nor whore are gendered terms. nt.

[Brickbat]

8. Says you.

[My Good Babushka]

9. I don't think it is. Others think it is.

There's no agreement.
Is it gendered? Is "nurse" gendered? If we're not supposed to say gendered, sexists things, should we keep talking about needing a "woman president"? Do we say "woman doctor" or "woman accountant"? Should first year college students be called "Freshmen"? It goes on and on into the postmodern navel-gazing subject of semiotics. You'll never get anywhere.

[Brickbat]

10. Oh shit, I never thought about the slippery slope that might appear if people stopped using

sexist slurs. As someone who, many years ago, was in the first class at my college to be referred to as "first-year students," I'm wondering if you can explain how talking about language means we'll never get anywhere.

Don't get me wrong; you're asking good questions. Why, indeed, worry about having a "woman president" if we shouldn't say sexist things? Because we live in a sexist society, so we have to have those conversations. Having a woman president moves toward us having just "a president," much as allowing women into fire departments helped us move to "firefighters" and away from "firemen."

[Orrex]

11. Joanna Weiss

But language evolves. And you have to have been living in a 1940s movie not to know that the word is now applied in a gender-neutral way — to men and women who compromise their principles, engage in shameless pandering, even enjoy things to excess.

Link

Sounds like a reasonable point to me.

[Brickbat]

14. It's certainly used in that way.

It's also still a highly gendered term.

[Orrex]

15. Dare we consider that its use might depend on context?

Shocking to imagine, I know. But is there any way, across the far reaches of the universe, that two different people could use the same term while somehow packing entirely different connotative baggage?

Do we, as a species, aspire to such lofty heights that we grasp that more than one intent can be conveyed by a single word?

[Brickbat]

16. Absolutely. But as I say below, to pretend that you are using one context and couldn't possibly mean

the other is to be a lazy speaker -- or a very, very canny one.

[Orrex]

19. Some of the burden is on the reader or listener

I don't believe that anyone suggested that word "couldn't possibly mean the other" definition, but instead it has been correctly pointed out that reasonable context also requires the listener not to be a fool about it.

If a man introduces himself by saying "Hi, my name is Dick," then I imagine that a foolish listener could indeed deliberately misconstrue that ("Ha-ha! He said his name is penis.&quot So, yes, it's often possible to misread a speaker's or writer's meaning, but the sole responsibility doesn't rest on them. It's fair to require the reader/listener to perform reasonable contextual analysis before hitting the panic button.

[Brickbat]

20. Fortunately, names are generally fairly straightforward.

Other contexts, such as emotional political battles, aren't so much, making it doubly important to watch your words carefully.

I do hope you don't think I'm hitting the panic button. I don't have that kind of energy. But when I read the transcript, here's how my stream of consciousness went: "Powerful words, unfortunate imagery, bad judgment. I hate it when my side says something stupid. Could have said it better. My opinion drops. It's nice that these everyday nonprofit exec and biotech c-level leader types can speak, but Christ, who screened that?"

I do appreciate that Paul Song apologized, uncompromisingly, for his words.

[Orrex]

21. I used a name as a silly example, but there are many others

If my boss tells me that I'm fired, I can reasonably be expected to infer that he's not going to immolate me.

If my friend tells me that she's broke, it's fair to require me to understand that she doesn't mean "damaged beyond functionality."

If my cousin tells me that he drives a piece of shit... Well, you get the idea.

My point is that the speaker/writer is free to use whatever words she considers appropriate to the context of the discussion, and it is reasonable to expect the listener/reader to engage the material with the goal of understanding--rather than misreading--the intent.


You are arguing that a speaker/writer must self-censor in order to avoid words that some people might misconstrue.

But if that's not what you're arguing, then is it my fault for misreading you, or your fault for failing to make it clear?

[Brickbat]

23. "You are arguing that a speaker/writer must self-censor in order to avoid words that some people

might misconstrue."

Believe me, I've been "self-censoring" as fast as I can on this thread to ensure I'm as clear as possible. And perhaps that's my problem -- I assume others have given the same thought to their words as I do mine, and so when I hear a gendered slur used in a rally meant to engage my support for a candidate by an educated and considered person, I assume it's at least somewhat deliberate or that the educated and considered person isn't as savvy as I first though. Either way, a disappointment.

[Orrex]

24. Lovely

I assume others have given the same thought to their words as I do mine,

Ah, yes. Passive-aggressiveness. See? I can read your words and infer their intent, and they are indeed unambiguous.

Further, you reveal your limited and egocentric vision. Is it not possible that a speaker/writer puts considerable thought into her words and simply reaches a conclusion that's different from yours?

I assume it's at least somewhat deliberate or that the educated and considered person isn't as savvy as I first though.

It's interesting that you would assume this, because that means that you aren't really listening to what they're saying; you've assumed a conclusion that aligns with your agenda. And it's frankly amazing that you would assume that the "person isn't as savvy as I first thought," rather than considering that your interpretation might be incomplete or incorrect. The person may be less savvy, but it's foolish to assume this outright.

Either way, a disappointment.

That's one way to put it. I'm about done here.

[Brickbat]

25. Fair enough.

[My Good Babushka]

12. He should have asked

Is Hillary a quid pro quo politician who will favor corporate-friendly legislation for campaign and foundation contributions, because it sure looks like it. Has anything she's ever proposed been more favorable to the underprivileged than to the very privileged. It's too bad the speaker wasn't elegant and refined enough for the delicate sensibilities of some.

[Brickbat]

13. Part of communicating clearly is understanding whether any of your words carry baggage.

A person can make a point, or a person can feint and then deny.

[My Good Babushka]

17. It can be said that some are feigning outrage

and denying that the words could be construed in a political sense rather than a misogynist sense, too.

[Brickbat]

18. It can, indeed, be said.

If I had a nickel for every time I was told my annoyed objection was "outrage," and that my emotion was "faux"...

[OnlinePoker]

22. I prefer the term Corporate Stooge. n/t

[guillaumeb]

26. Clearly not obvious to many at DU. Recommended.

[2pooped2pop]

27. some like to feign ignorance almost as much as they feign outrage

[sarisataka]

28. This thread needs pictures

[leftofcool]

29. What ever! I am not at all surprised at the condoning of the use of this word against women