My Fellow Americans - Dissensian roadtrip

[nomadologist]

Isn't this the argument as to why if anything it is better to have a republican in the white house than a Democrat, as both essentially follow the same policy objectives, but the Republicans kick in the door and rile the rest of the world up due to their flagrant obnoxiousness, whereas the Democrats attempt to at least put on a show of niceties, making them all the more insidious....?

Then there's option c) Let the republicans start WWIII, let capitalism effectively collapse, then maybe have some sort of hope that we can rebuild things and make them better?

 

[gek-opel]

There is always that. Im in 100% agreement with HMLT that where the democratic process only leaves room for different flavours of the same shit that total negativity must be the order of the day. Then the only interest this election has is the same as celebrity gossip. Also wasn't Clinton in the '90s an even more effective warmongerer than Bush in the 00s...?

 

[subvert47]

Frankly, Statto, I'm very surprised by your response. Did you read the thread in its entirety?

Yes. After the first use of "slut" it all got rather excitable and, for me, off-topic. Rather than debate the use of the word itself, I'd be more interested in whether or not it is in fact applicable to Hilary Clinton politically.

First of all, the words "slut" and "whore" are not synonymous, as has been discussed above in some detail.

In this context I think they are — the context can only be the third definition ("a person who is unscrupulous, especially one who compromises their principles for gain").

Second, the study of linguistic usage and its semantic fields, effects, and political meanings is thankfully not based on the wikipedia entry for the word "whore."

Third, your post gives the impression of taking the side of someone who has told us that using the words "slut" and "psycho bitch" are "valuable" for the cause of political liberation, for political discussion

The initial comment was "she's a fucked up, compromised political slut". It's strong language for a strong viewpoint. It may not be "valuable" (as in useful) but it seems perfectly "valid" (at least from a UK perspective — we don't always mean quite the same thing linguistically).

"slut" is a pejorative term for a woman who is sexually promiscuous.

Yes it can be and usually is, but the context here was not a sexual one. The word was indeed used pejoratively, but no one here has taken it as a comment on Hilary Clinton's sexual proclivities. (If it was referring to Bill on the other hand...)

On this model, we'll apply racist langauge to Clarence Thomas, anti-gay slurs to argue against Andrew Sullivan

No, because such language would have no wider meaning other than the offensive one.

And to hear them come from one of the most vocal, shrill, name-calling posters who professes to be interested in linguistic usage and the struggle against racism, is a total and complete hypocritical joke.

well ok, I don't know the history there



PS.

BTW, Thatcher was also a SLUT

"This lady's not for turning." "There is no alternative." No, she really wasn't a slut. I might be tempted by one of the other epithets though.

 

[nomos]

I'm locking this thread for what should be obvious reasons. If anyone takes issue with this please read the whole thing from start to finish twice and then go for a walk before registering a complaint.

hundredmillionlifetimes has been banned for a limited period for his repeated personal attacks on members of the forum. The other mods can revisit this when they return.