Been mulling this over for a while, after a conversation with a very dear former teacher of mine about whether or not I should be able to refer to fundamentalist beliefs as ‘wacko’ in her room.
She runs her room much like GD/GQ. All points of view are welcome, you always leave knowing more then when you entered, and no making people feel unwelcome.
I argued that certain statments (e.g… ‘fundamentalist beliefs are wacko’) are factually true (for accepted values of ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘wacko’), regardless of whether or not they are insulting, and you can’t insult someone with the truth.
Regrettably, she had to teach class, and I had to leave school, so the discussion was cut short. So, I put the question to you all.
On a quick glance, this appears to be self-contradicting. It is insulting but you can’t insult someone if it is true? Why not?
At any rate, if a pejorative is used (e.g., “wacko”) it is clearly a words that would normally be used with the intent to insult, so the speaker’s opinion that such word use is factual would do nothing to remove the nature of the insult–and the targets of such language would most likely feel insulted whether or not the speaker chose to believe that the word was insulting. This would tend to render effective discussion difficult to pursue in a calm and rational manner.
A true statement may be insulting. If a girl is ugly, and by any, or even just a majority of, objective standard[s] would be held to be ugly, it is still insulting to call her ugly. Insult is a social construction, not a logical one. So, even though she is ugly, she may know she is ugly, and everyone else knows she is ugly, it would still be considered insulting to point this fact out. Just MHO.
“Accepted values of ‘fundamentalist’ and wacko’?” Accepted by whom? And of course you can insult someone with the truth. I wouldn’t want to hear “Hey, how are you? Geez, you look terrible! You musta gained twenty-five pounds since I saw you last! You look like a fat pig. How’s the family?” even if it were true. Especially if it were true. Of course, that’s an example of social interaction, not intellectual discourse, where the conversation may be expected to take on some vigor and challenge. All the more reason for it to remain civil.
Which is not to say you have to go tippy-toeing around every sensitive feeling that may mine the playing field. My first inclination would be to recommend that one eschew any expression which, if applied to one’s own beliefs and thoughts, would be considered insulting. But depending how thin one’s skin is, that could eliminate any negative or critical remark at all, and then there go your vigor and challenge and you might as well not bother talking at all.
You’re starting off well making the distinction between “fundmaentalist beliefs” and “fundamentalists”. However, because your idea of “accepted values” and what qualifes as “the truth” about them (or anything else for that matter) are obviously going to differ from someone else’s idea of them, qualifiers are always a good idea. “It seems to me…” “It appears as though…” “I think/believe/feel that…” and so forth. It’s not meant to be weaselly, so I hope it doesn’t come across that way. It’s merely a way to acknowledge that others have their ideas and you aren’t assuming yours are the only correct ones. Heck, I’ve discovered a few of mine needed a little massaging over the years. And choose modifiers that are precise, rather than simply denigrating. “Wacko” is not a useful criticism, not just because it’s insulting and that’s likely to cut off communication, but because it’s too broad. Show a little discrimination. “Fundamentalist beliefs appear obscurantist and narrow to me. I find them highly unrealistic and unlivable. [present examples]” That strikes me as more useful as well as less insulting.
I was going to ask that you update us on your teacher’s take on this, but it occurs to me that “had to leave school” refers to a more-or-less permanent leave-taking and not just that day. Oh well.
I believe that the term “wacko” in and of itself is not necessarily a comment on truth, but a stated opinion. I may disagree w/the validity of certain other political stances for example, but by commenting that they’re ‘wacko’, I"m not commenting on facts, but rather establishing my opinion.
I believe that the phrase you’re ignoring (so as to use the term ‘wacko’ ) is something like
“faith based” “Faith based vs. scientific based” etc.
these other terms would be accurate w/out necessarily the pejorative.
I’ve also used terms such as “non main stream” to describe stuff I consider to be at the extremes vs. the main stream, w/o the social condemnation attached to the term “wacko”>
Since I have since graduated from that school (I was visiting from college), I haven’t been able to resume that discussion with the teacher.
And how is ‘wacko’ defined around here, anyway? I believe that I could make a case that due to things like the order of created things in Genesis, the references to hares chewing their cud and the corners of the earth, belief in the Bible being true in the same way that a physics text is true is not consistent with reality. That’s more or less what I meant by ‘wacko’.
As for the weight remarks: Is the statement ‘You have gained weight.’ insulting?
Let’s up the stakes to racial epithets. If someone calls you a racial epithet, then they may have insulted you. But if someone simply says, “You are black/Asian/Mexian/not from around here.”, then is that insulting?
And if you strip away the connotations, aren’t racial epithets just words for someone of a particular race?
Stripping away the connotations is the hard part, no? I mean, if you remove the insulting connotations from an insult it is rather per se no longer insulting, but that is a bit tautological.
Insult is an emotional, subjective, reaction. Objective truth can equal subjective insult.
Alright, then, why is calling a belief wacko worse than saying that it is not compliant with reality? Why is a racial epithet worse then simply being referred to by your ancestral country/continent?
People can be insulted by anything, which is precisely why your teacher was unwise to disallow that which makes people uncomfortable.
If you provide a precise and explicit definition for ‘wacko’ and ‘fundamentalist’, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be allowed.
Yeah right, you crypto facist!
i guess it depends on the “accepted definition” of “reality”. if you think these “wackos” accept your definition, you’d probably be branded as a wacko to them.
if you think about all the times a person might have been referred to by a given racial epithet (say, the “n-word”), and who might have used that epithet, it doesn’t seem hard to understand why one might find it insulting.
The idea that some personal definition known only to you makes it permissible for you to use pejorative expressions to describe a group of people’s general religious beliefs is wacko.
It is also insulting that you assume the truth of your opinions without examination, and deny that others might have the ability to think as well.
But, an insulting wacko such as yourself probably doesn’t care what fundamentalists think of you. Or anyone else, I guess.
Tris
Now, Tris, he asked for discussion, not examples.
“You have gained weight” is not necessarily insulting, depending on the context. If someone had been ill and the weight gain was desired, it could even be considered complimentary. In the context of “You look like a fat pig,” well… would that not sound like an insult to you? “Unrealistic” or “non-scientific” might be considered the equivalent of “you have gained weight.” “Wacko” is analogous to “you look like a fat pig.”
Whoops, sent too soon.
Also, racial epithets are not “just words for someone of a particular race.” They are words for someone of a particular race that are laden with assumptions and associations on the part of the speaker of the general disgusting unworthiness of the person in question based on perceived membership in that racial category. Do you really that is equivalent?
Similarly, “wacko” carries connotations of assumptions: a supercilious disdain or patronizing dismissal of another’s mental soundess. It does not imply a well-thought-out argument or a reasonable position on your part. Do you really want to present yourself that way?