Better Conservatives? Where?! (A response to Coffeecat)

The BBQ Pit
601

I still don’t understand. What in that quote “literally dehumanized” anyone? Please be specific. I’ve read it over and over again. There’s a lot of vulgarity, and a lot of insults. But I don’t see a single dehumanizing word, phrase, or sentence in it. Nothing that’s meant to, rhetorically, reduce members of a group to verminhood, lesser status, a lower hierarchy, reinforce a traditional role, or anything like that.

I still think this understanding of “dehumanization” is the main difference in our views. We clearly understand this concept very differently. I think the two best examples of language usage meant to dehumanize were in Nazi German and the antebellum South. The Nazis routinely used words related to “vermin” to relegate various groups to a status of less than human, thus making it much easier to brutalize and murder members of those groups once that language has sunk into the general populace. And antebellum Southern leaders and institutions routinely used terminology (and imagery and other cultural references) of inferiority about black people as a group – thus making it much easier to brutalize and maintain subjugation of black people.

Language isn’t the only thing in culture that can dehumanize – it’s just one aspect. But it’s still an important one. Even things as inocuous as the phrase “flesh-tone”, which of course (in my culture, at least) refers to a color that matches average “white” skin, can be subtly dehumanizing – emphasizing that there is something abnormal, or out of the ordinary, about those with different skin colors.

In an everyday sense, these are very, very minor concepts. “Flesh tone” isn’t enslaving or killing anyone. But these concepts still add up – if children are exposed to different examples of them dozens of times per day, in person and in the media, then they will have an effect and make an impression, helping to reinforce societal roles and mores for different groups. If, every day, girls are taught that there’s something sinister and dangerous about their sexuality, but much less so about boy’s sexuality, then that will have an effect on their development and how they relate to sex and intimacy.

So, IMO, your use of that dehumanizing language, even in an offhand and flippant remark, is in a tiny but still real way helping to reinforce that dehumanization that is necessary for society to maintain power structures and hierarchies, and retard progress on things like recognizing and fighting the extent of sexual assault.

This is less about a comment from 6 years ago and more about how you see these things now. I find it a very interesting and revealing discussion, and I thank you for being a part of it, even as you might find my criticism harsh.

602

I haven’t decided if you’re a bigot or not, mostly because of your repeated refusal to answer my questions/respond to my points. If you get a second maybe answer: “Is it a matter that you think sexual orientation shouldn’t be protected from discrimination like race is? Or is it that you think all anti-discrimination laws that “screw someone else” shouldn’t be allowed”. I’m interested in your view on the need/use of anti-discrimination laws, and your response will help along the way to determining my opinion of your bigotry.

603

No. I’m suggesting you’re using labels and slurs against people you disagree with that helps to class them as somehow less worthy. You know, like calling someone a brazen slut because you disagree with their position.

And by the way, could be a scottish or australian thing, I don’t know, but believe me when I say if I’d pissed in a sink at a party I’d expect to be called Gary the Sink Pisser till the day I die. Just ask my mate Steve the wardrobe pisser.

604

Today Scylla will be appearing in the role of Starving Artist, who is unavailable.

605

Looking at the poll average, that is like complaining that a baseball team lost “a huge lead” when the opposite team scored a run. Kinda silly thing to say when the first team did go from 10 run lead to a 9 run advantage.

IMHO that is evidence that more rational persons do understand that Trump/Republicanism is not what should be preferred.

606

Iiandyiii:

“Dehumanizing” is your term in this thread.

I think we are well passed the point where a hard definition of it should be produced.

I suspect that “dehumanizing language” is a more specific term than just “dehumanizing,” and that it applies to a pretty narrow set of usage and behavior.

I would like to ask you to define those two terms for me as carefully as you could. That would help me look at your last two posts and figure out how to reply.

607

Six years ago.

What the fuck?

608

Here’s a pretty good start:

There’s even a section on language.

A key snippet:

“Dehumanization can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens certain human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing one’s voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically (e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact). Dehumanization often ignores the target’s individuality (i.e., the creative and interesting aspects of their personality) and can hinder one from feeling empathy or properly understanding a stigmatized group of people.”

And the dictionary definition:

"the process of depriving a person or group of positive human qualities.

“the consequences of systematic dehumanization of one racial group in a society can be horrific”"

609

What the ever-loving fuck are you even talking about? This is nonsense. There is no link between communism (state ownership of the meaning of production) and identity politics (demographic blocs voting as a group to deal with problems specific to them) unless you utterly warp and bastardize the terms to the point that they make no sense. Maybe that’s what you do above, but if so, I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass; if I’m allowed to define my terms however I like, “republicans are nazis” is a literally true statement.

This is what gets me. Every fucking time, this is what pisses me off. They “woke up”. To what? What, exactly, did they wake up to? It sure wasn’t the entire process of examining Kavanaugh, where they rushed it from start to finish. It wasn’t Kavanaugh’s testimony, where he shattered any illusions of being impartial (or honest, for that matter). It wasn’t the nightly news, where they may have heard of the ABA reconsidering how they classified Kavanaugh and 2400 law professors signing a letter against confirming him based entirely on his own testimony, not any allegations against him.

No. They woke up to the reality that, when a man is credibly accused of sexual assault, many people think that should serve as a hindrance to him getting a lifetime appointment.

That, or they woke up to something that didn’t fucking happen.

Exactly! Who gives a shit that we just gave a lifetime appointment to a partisan scumbag? That’s not what matters! What matters is that we gave space for a woman to speak up and say, “Hey, he tried to rape me”, and we didn’t simply brush her aside.

Except… Wait… We totally did.

We totally brushed her aside. We totally let her testimony have absolutely no weight in our decisions. We totally ignored her, along with every other person who spoke up to say, “Uh, guys, this is a bad idea” (like the aforementioned 2400 law professors), so that we could ram this specific guy through. And then the right-wingers have the gall to be fucking angry about it? You absolute scumsucking shitbags! What the fuck is wrong with you?! Have you no shame?

And we can all clearly see that Scylla isn’t stupid. He isn’t a moron, he isn’t incapable of rational thought; he just spent like 10 pages rationalizing why intersectional identity politics will lead to gulags. So what the fuck is wrong with him? What the fuck is his problem? Where is the malfunction here? Are you supposed to be the better brand of conservative? Because if so: I rest my fuckin’ case.

610

But didn’t you say that you hadn’t changed except you got better at golf and that you grew a face mullet? Do you regret and retract the slut comment?

611

Iandyiii:

The dictionary definition of dehumanization works fine for me.
I also asked you for a definition of “dehumanizing language.”

The Wikipedia page is more about a philosophy and an ideology, and there is a lot to unpack there.

I also am talking to you, not Wikipedia. I want to know what you think.

You think that I did something wrong, and you have gone to great lengths to pursue that, and in your own words have said that you’ve been highly critical of me.

You will admit, hopefully that I have been pretty forthright, and have gone out of my way to define my own terms.

We have had a great deal of confusion, going back and forth over what this means, so I think my request to define what “dehumanizing language” is is pretty reasonable.

I would do it for you, except that I don’t wish to put words in your mouth. It is after all, your argument.

612

Your question does not parse. To the extent, that I think I can make sense of it, it looks like you are asking me to choose an either/or where you define both sides, and try to get me to pick one. Well, I will happily be the roadrunner to your Wil E Coyote, and just step aside and choose neither.

Back to Acme you go!

It’s perfectly ok, if you just decide that I am a bigot. It’s your opinion. I’ve posted since 1999. If you haven’t figured it out by now, do you think another question will help?

613

You forgot to mention that the fucking president decided that, hey, Dr. Ford really did get sexually assaulted and she really was telling the truth. Except for one key detail: she must’ve been lying about who did it because it sure as Hell couldn’t be the yellow-haired child’s number one pick for the top judgeship in the country.

Trump, with that nonsense, did nothing but a lame job of trying to pander to Dr. Ford, to any woman (or man) who has been sexually abused, and to the American public in general.

614

I think our society is profoundly influenced by both white supremacism and strong patriarchal elements of culture. Both of those are hierarchical systems, with some groups at the top and others at the bottom, in general, and such systems require support from other elements of culture and society in order to avoid being torn apart by the angry masses who are harmed by those systems. One of the major elements of society and culture that assists these systems in maintaining the status quo (to some degree) is language. There are multiple slurs for black people and women (and many other groups other than white people and straight men), both in general, and for those black people and women who fall outside of these societally-defined hierarchical roles, thus reinforcing this hierarchy in small and subtle but still real ways every time they are used. These slurs permeate through almost every aspect of culture to some degree – movies, music, TV, literature, etc. Every child hears them very frequently – especially the most disadvantaged children. Hearing so many frequently-used slurs for these groups, but not white people or men, will affect the development of how children see themselves, their peers, and their roles in society. One instance is not a big deal, but hearing them (and using them) over and over again will add up and have some affect on people – especially kids. I think the ultimate function and impact of these slurs serves to make individuals of all groups more likely to see women and black people as lesser (in different ways). For women, less capable of making good decisions, less competent in most fields and skills aside from those within traditional female roles, less likely to be believed when making allegations against men (excepting, perhaps, when the man is of significantly lower status), and much more. It’s that influence of societal beliefs of “lesser-ness” that is what I mean by dehumanizing language. Language that serves to support hierarchical societal systems by reinforcing the “lesser-ness” of groups other than the dominant one.

615

Thanks. That’s pretty close to what I thought. I appreciate your putting that out there.

In your opinion, does it have to be directed at a group that is subjugated, marginalized, unempowered (you get the gist,) historically or culturally?

For example (and let’s make it a ridiculous one, because they are fun and they help cement concepts,) let’s pretend Oprah has a secret vacation home staffed exclusively by white men. If she is mean to them and calls the “honkies” would I be correct to assume that she is not engaging in “dehumanizing speech?”

(I am not suggesting that you would approve of this. I assume you would think it is bad and inappropriate, maybe even evil. It’s just a different kind of evil than ‘dehumanizing speech’)
If, after a particularly egregious event, one of her wronged and disgruntled employees were to refer to her as an “uppity bitch,” to a fellow coworker that person would have used “dehumanizing speech.”

(I am not asking you to judge the relative merits of their positions. But if you were, I would assume that the employee had a legitimate complaint against Oprah, but that did not excuse his inappropriate comment. I am really just looking to clarify positions so we are on the same page with what you mean)
If we are accepting the dictionary definition for just plain “dehumanizing” than I am guessing there does not have a marginalized target group, that anybody can dehumanize any body else.

To continue our silly example, If Oprah were to actually hold her white male employees prisoner, deprive them of their freedom, lock them in dog cages, make them eat dog food, etc, etc. that ** would** be dehumanizing.
Is this correct?

616

No, I’d definitely call that dehumanizing speech. It may not be in support of a hierarchical system across the nation, but it is in support of a hierarchical system in her vacation home. Absolutely dehumanizing. And exacerbated by the power imbalance of this particular circumstance – Oprah is far, far more powerful then her staffers. Definitely dehumanizing, IMO.

Yes.

If I understand you, these answers remove the need to answer the rest of your questions.

617

Ok. That first answer was not what I was expecting. I still don’t get it. You made a big deal in your explanation about the marginalization of historical groups and genders, that I thought you were saying that there had to be that kind of component. But clearly, you don’t think so. White men don’t have a much of a historical case to make that they have have been oppressed by a black women (as i’m sure you will agree) so the dehumanization that is occurring by our evil Oprah is strictly about their present circumstances and hierarchies.
You make a big deal about perpetuating historical power heirarchies based on race, gender (and I’ll assume sexual orientation) in your definition, but that historical context is notably absent with Evil Oprah.
So. I am missing something. If the historical perspective based on race, gender etc is not required why is it a part of the definition?

618

Perhaps you’re seeing a single tree instead of the forest?

Like: we had a Black president, therefore racism is over; Oprah is a billionaire, therefore there are no longer gender inequities in the business world; I’m a poor redneck, therefore there is no systemic imbalance in favor of White men.

On a micro level, dehumanization is individual. On a macro level, is it entirely related the perpetuation of power differentials in society as a whole.
.

619

Attempting to dehumanize white men is still shitty, but it’s not nearly as bad as adding onto that giant pile of shit that society already throws at women and black people (and others), IMO. The historical perspective is what makes it so bad and prevalent in our language (towards certain groups, at least). But dehumanizing (or attempting to dehumanize) is still bad and worth criticizing in any circumstance.

For a parallel example, black supremacism is bad. But black supremacism has done nothing. It’s killed or hurt very, very few people in recent human history. White supremacism, on the other hand, has brutalized, enslaved, and killed millions upon millions. So I’m probably not going to pay much attention to black supremacism without a drastic change – I’ll criticize it if I see it, but my focus will be squarely upon what has been, by far, the most damaging philosophy in American history – white supremacism. Nothing in American history is responsible for anything close to the suffering as white supremacism.

Similarly, adding to that giant pile of shit that women face, even with a flippant offhand comment, is well worth criticizing, IMO. And even more than that, it gives us the opportunity for this lovely, in depth conversation we’re having now – in which hopefully we’re both learning about how folks on the “other side” think about these things.

620

That is the argument I was expecting and looking forward to dealing with.
I don’t think he is saying that. Is he?