Right. I've also been thinking more about this issue since I last asked you, and I want to raise something which I don't think you've mentioned so far, namely words as art.
I'm very big on the aesthetic effect of words, which sometimes sits in tension with respect for social semantic effect. To go back to the link in your previous post, it's true that 'libtard' and 'theistard' aren't particularly original or witty, but for me they have other significant effects, e.g. they create a unity in disparagement, they contribute to the gritty, caustic feel of the writing as a whole, they succinctly and strongly (because of the double-stress) designate both an ideology and contempt for it, and the 'tard' reminds me of 'turd' which adds to the overall effect.
Because I perceive these effects -- whether or not they were intended -- and because I'm pretty sure no other words can mimic these effects if only because they sound different, I'm reluctant to support blanket bans or strong discouragement of words in general, whatever they are. It's analogous to the place of Holocaust imagery in Plath's poetry; critics rightly knock it down for being self-aggrandizing and insensitive, but at the same time it contributes to a very distinct and effective aesthetic in her work.
That's not to say that all use of oppressive words is art or has artistic effect, nor is it to say that even if it did, it would justify the oppressive implications of usage. People who use such words for rhetoric effect should be just as aware of the potential for offense and accept responsibility for using them, BUT IMHO higher tolerance should be extended to oppressive words within a rhetorical non-oppressive context, especially if it noticeably contributes to the aesthetic, because a) I like rhetoric, and b) integrating a word into a specific artistic context can detach it from the overall kyriarchic context.
Anyhow. That's a lot of overthinking. Probably the most pragmatic and sensible rule of thumb is just to know what words piss the other party off, and if you care about them enough or simply need something desperately from them, then it's a good idea not to use those words.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-04-07 08:15 am (UTC)I'm very big on the aesthetic effect of words, which sometimes sits in tension with respect for social semantic effect. To go back to the link in your previous post, it's true that 'libtard' and 'theistard' aren't particularly original or witty, but for me they have other significant effects, e.g. they create a unity in disparagement, they contribute to the gritty, caustic feel of the writing as a whole, they succinctly and strongly (because of the double-stress) designate both an ideology and contempt for it, and the 'tard' reminds me of 'turd' which adds to the overall effect.
Because I perceive these effects -- whether or not they were intended -- and because I'm pretty sure no other words can mimic these effects if only because they sound different, I'm reluctant to support blanket bans or strong discouragement of words in general, whatever they are. It's analogous to the place of Holocaust imagery in Plath's poetry; critics rightly knock it down for being self-aggrandizing and insensitive, but at the same time it contributes to a very distinct and effective aesthetic in her work.
That's not to say that all use of oppressive words is art or has artistic effect, nor is it to say that even if it did, it would justify the oppressive implications of usage. People who use such words for rhetoric effect should be just as aware of the potential for offense and accept responsibility for using them, BUT IMHO higher tolerance should be extended to oppressive words within a rhetorical non-oppressive context, especially if it noticeably contributes to the aesthetic, because a) I like rhetoric, and b) integrating a word into a specific artistic context can detach it from the overall kyriarchic context.
Anyhow. That's a lot of overthinking. Probably the most pragmatic and sensible rule of thumb is just to know what words piss the other party off, and if you care about them enough or simply need something desperately from them, then it's a good idea not to use those words.