barracuda wrote:Stephen Morgan wrote: I'd say they qualify as sluts, on the balance of probability.
Just to be clear, I don't particularly care for the use of the word "cunt" here either,
But he is a cunt. If you don't want me to call him a cunt, how can I accurately express his nature?
though I understand some leeway has to be given regarding vernacular usage of the term in the UK versus that of America, where the term is nothing but hate speech,
You've got a funny idea of hate speech. To me, "niggers are inherently less intelligent and therefore don't deserve the right to vote" is hate speech, while "cunt" is an insult with a satisfying guttural twang.
and is entirely unacceptable in any context whatsoever. However, I doubt any solid case can really be made that using the word "cunt" in the company of women or men on either continent makes the user appear either intelligent, interesting, or discerning.
Well, it's not like I'm discussing the symphonies of Mahler, I'm seeking to briefly describe an individual, a particular individual for whom "cunt" is an adequately accurate summation. I mean, I could give you list of his moral transgressions, perhaps point out which statutes and moral precepts he may have broken, but in the circumstances it seemed more pithy to call him a cunt. Which, he is.
We've had numerous discussions here regarding the word, none of which raised the perception of its usage to some level of impressiveness.
Well, it may not be a very intellectual word, but I do feel it is somewhat unique in conveying a more primal, emotional message. Nice and guttural too, a word you can say with some feeling. I mean, cocksucker, with all those "ck" sounds, is quite good, but stands the risk of being taken literally, and I wouldn't want to commit libel.
If you wanna play to the cheap seats by demonstrating your solidarity with persons who consider calling someone a "cunt" a winning argument, go ahead.
You seem to be performing the role of an intellectual today, believing that all utterances must be solely for the purposes of rational argument and literal description. As I say above, to use that particular word, which I am somewhat tired of typing, is to forgo rational debate and assume all argument to be fait accompli, a moot point. It is to express one's more visceral instincts. I mean, there are always arguments to be made and factually accurate statements about someone which one can use, sometimes insulting ones. But with someone like Eric Pickles, for example, you've got to ask yourself "what's the point?", and simply say what he is. Express that which he evokes within you.
However, I find your argument more persuasive that it, too, should be discouraged as a matter of course.
Then from now on, at least for this post, I will forgo all forms of insult and merely use factually accurate statements.
But with regards to the term "slut" there is no such ambiguity,
Quite so, it is a statement of quite clear and generally accepted meaning: a woman of dubious moral virtue and ill repute. If you could post a full list of descriptive terms not to be used in the generally understood sense it would be most helpful. I wouldn't want to be banned for describing a wooden table as "linden" (assuming for a moment that the table in question is, in fact, of linden) only to discover it to be hate speech against Barry Lyndon fans.
and if you want to discover how little ambiguity there is about it, use it again as a disparaging term for a woman, and I will happily demonstrate that I consider it hate speech, and against the posted guidelines as such. Please.
Yes, you may consider that a fair warning.
You're not a woman, are you barracuda?
I fear in the use of humour I may have strayed from my pledge to, for the rest of this post, stick strictly to accurate statements of fact.
Rather it should be said that you are most assuredly not a woman, although your repute and moral standing are beyond my ken. Once again the inadequacy of language presents itself. I feel that you deserve to be insulted, for your visceral and unreasonable reaction consistently shown in the event of even the slightest criticism of any individual woman. I feel your unreasonable attitude towards the use of language deserves reprobation. I feel your double standards need highlighting and your hypersensitivity towards alleged slights to the less worthy representatives of the distaff half of the race, correcting. Your attempt to present yourself as the reasonable party while indulging your partisan, unreasonable and entirely subjective interpretation, reproving.
Alas, no insult of which I know is quite adequate to express these characteristics in a factually accurate manner, for I adhere to my previous pledge to speak entirely in a factually accurate manner. Obviously no sexual insult would be relevant, although I concede the possibility that your peculiar obsession with the defence of the honour of the female sex may stem from some deep psycho-sexual flaw. Still, no insult based on amateurish psychoanalysis is likely to be quite emotive enough to properly count as an insult. Similarly "cocksucker" seems factually inaccurate once again, despite jokes I may have made in other posts. And, of course, if it was to be factually accurate it would become politically incorrect to use as an insult. Cunt is rather too insulting, and in abrogating the use of reason is unsuitable for use as a factually accurate insult. No, no term presents itself as both adequate in descriptiveness and the level of insult imparted.
Man-whore may be best. Perhaps adequately insulting, it also conveys a certain lack of substance and laxity of mental structure. Also, contrary to the literal meaning of those parts which make up the insult, in general usage it doesn't imply any pecuniary gain to be made from ones sinful ways. However, it is on the whole inadequate as the allusion to a lack of moral fibre is at odds with barracuda's observed modes of operation, and would need to be replaced by a recognition that he is generally a laid back individual who nonetheless occasional throws off this louche facade and, provoked by pretty much any reference to women either as individuals or collectively, becomes a maniacal and vengeful individual. This area of rawness is contrary to the implications of the term "man-whore", most especially in that to which it is in reference.
I think I will have to use hypocrite. It seems rather insulting, especially as I use it in a factually accurate way, whilst my usual foul mouthed ramblings may allow individual occurences of insults to be disregarded. In fact it's a most remarkable feeling to throw off my usual good-humoured equanimity in the cause of accurate description, but this is the lot that has been forced upon me. Yes, even though it is in no way humourous and may appear to be a breach by dread sincerity, hypocrite is the term to be used. For championing reason while indulging the lower emotions, barracuda is a hypocrite. For rejecting such mild insults as "slut", even when factually accurate by even the tightest of definitions, while casually throwing around accusations of hate speech, barracuda is a hypocrite. For claiming to disavow insults due to an inbred love of honest debate, while choosing to argue his side with emotive allusions, groundless accusations and provocations and threats, barracuda is a hypocrite. Obviously, for his sensitivity towards insults of women while being blase about somewhat worse accusations against named individual men, barracuda is a hypocrite, although this double-standard is widely held.
Doesn't address everything about his personality and conduct which I would like to, but adequate in terms of insult imparted and of accuracy of description. Oh unhappy truth, what a lot I have drawn with thee. Bared my bosom, I have, to the thunder stone and the reproach of the peoples.
And also
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
