So far the only offensive term you’ve been able to come up with that does not violate your general idea is “bad”—i.e., a pure, non-descriptive value judgment. In short, what you have argued—interpreting your somewhat ambiguous statement in the light of your examples—is that value judgment terms are okay only so long as they carry not a shred of description. Once they gain a descriptive dimension, then they are ruled out. What you wrote is somewhat ambiguous but your example supports this interpretation. The only acceptable word is “bad”. You resist ruling out “anemic” but your own criterion forces you to rule it out.
And here’s the problem: non-descriptive words are not very offensive, because to offend someone you need to explain what it is about them that is the cause of your low opinion of them. “I have a low opinion of you” just doesn’t cut it.
The word “anemic” actually begins to offer a description of the badness, if a metaphorical one. This supports the value judgment by explaining what it is about the target that deserves the value judgment. But the problem is—it’s descriptive. And so it classifies. Because any description classifies.
There are words you can use to describe someone as bad (even in particular ways!) that do not refer to actual groups of people who are not (intrinsically, by virtue of that identification) bad in those ways. Some might be metaphorically offensive to non-human things.
Off the top of my head, you could call someone a snake, a lump, a yoctogram, vile, snippy, vomit-inducing, insipid, pathetic, unfashionable, or not groovy. See?
Off the top of my head, you could call someone a snake, a lump, a yoctogram, vile, snippy, vomit-inducing, insipid, pathetic, unfashionable, or not groovy. See?
So someone who does not wear what’s in fashion is intrinsically bad?
What I “see” you saying is that certain groups, such as those wearing last year’s clothes, are okay to put down because those groups are intrinsically bad by virtue of being considered intrinsically bad to the point that the very word for them is a put-down, while others are not.
For example, if I understand you, calling someone vomit-inducingly ugly is okay because the very terms “vomit-inducingly” and “ugly” are intrinsically bad, “ugly” being an evaluative term which therefore does not offend anyone who does not deserve to be offended. The class of people whose facial features are unattractive is a real, if fuzzy, group, but since membership in the group is defined by aesthetic evaluation, it’s perfectly okay to put them down. And if we were to coin a term which does not mean “obese” but rather means “obese to the point of vomit-inducingness”, them this new term, being by definition evaluative, would be okay to use.
Do you still want to hold on to your criterion, or do you begin to share my view that it was not well thought out?
Hey, I’m not saying it’d be nice to use these terms. “Bad” is meant from the perspective of the person using the term. I guess you could even include “gay” in that category if the intent is to deride someone for being a homosexual? The problem there isn’t transmuting the identity into a separate bad thing, but being a homophobe.
So there are two related things you can do with such insults that we have identified so far—one is indicating that you disapprove of a particular trait that may be shared by others, the other is using a particular trait or group as though it meant (some particular kind of) bad, which might be because of an actual bias, insensitivity, or whatever. (This is of course leaving off the more proximate effect of hurting the feelings of the person you’re calling “not groovy”.)
So I still think there is an important distinction you’re missing—you can insult a single person without using an unrelated trait to stand in for ‘badness’. D’you see what I mean?
you can insult a single person without using an unrelated trait to stand in for ‘badness’. D’you see what I mean?
You can also insult a person without using the letter “e”. You came up with an ad hoc rule which the original complaint happens to fit but which, I argued, does not really divide the allowed from the disallowed put-downs. You are trying to argue that the original complaint makes sense by trying to inject a neutral and fair-seeming criterion into it.
As I have pointed out, there are plenty of disallowed put-downs which do not fit your criterion. Conversely, as was shown with the example of “anemic”, there are allowed put-downs which fit your criterion. So your criterion does not fit the facts about what is and is not allowable. It does not explain or justify the complaint.
you can insult a single person without using an unrelated trait to stand in for ‘badness’. D’you see what I mean?
You can also insult a person without using the letter “e”.
The distinction being that the former is relevant to a societal norm which often constitutes a useful distinction: if you insult someone by saying they have a particular trait, you are probably not too concerned that this will hurt the feelings of people with that trait—you think it’s bad! But if you use this other sort of insult, you might be unaware that you are additionally insulting some other group, and might change your behavior if someone indicates that people could take offense to it.
My key point is: you said “So you’re looking for an offensive term that’s not offensive.” This was an inaccurate description of the desire expressed! There are plenty of ways to offend someone that are more targeted.
The distinction being that the former is relevant to a societal norm which often constitutes a useful distinction: if you insult someone by saying they have a particular trait, you are probably not too concerned that this will hurt the feelings of people with that trait—you think it’s bad!
You think it’s bad for that person specifically to have the trait. You can convey that someone does not have traits suitable for their desired identity while not necessarily deprecating the traits in general. You could, for example, mock a guy for having boobs while wholeheartedly approving of boobs. Something similar applies to mustaches—even though there may well be racist connotations when that one is used.
The distinction being that the former is relevant to a societal norm which often constitutes a useful distinction: if you insult someone by saying they have a particular trait, you are probably not too concerned that this will hurt the feelings of people with that trait—you think it’s bad!
You think it’s bad for that person specifically to have the trait. You can convey that someone does not have traits suitable for their desired identity while not necessarily deprecating the traits in general. You could, for example, mock a guy for having boobs while wholeheartedly approving of boobs. Something similar applies to mustaches—even though there may well be racist connotations when that one is used.
True enough. Though I’d probably treat that context (“guy with boobs”, “bad mustache”) as part of the “trait”—at least in the sense that you’re not likely to offend someone who doesn’t fit in the precise group you’re mocking your target due to their membership in (er… that sentence was sorta cumbersome, but you get what I’m saying, right?).
I was going for “woman with mustache” or “guy whose mother has a mustache”.
Ah! I haven’t really encountered this one in the wild much (vastly more familiar with “that guy has a bad hipster mustache”, luckily), but I see what you’re saying.
Ah! I haven’t really encountered this one in the wild much (vastly more familiar with “that guy has a bad hipster mustache”, luckily), but I see what you’re saying.
It becomes a bit more common if you are in an environment with certain kinds of ethnic makeups. It becomes an interesting case in as much as it is offensive at the expense of people who do not even have the trait. Ofttimes part of the conveyed insult is not just ‘you/your mother have a mustache’ but ‘you are of X racial background’. This means that people of race X who (or whose mothers) do not have mustaches are being insulted (as well as those who do).
The same principle, just with an extra layer of indirection.
So far the only offensive term you’ve been able to come up with that does not violate your general idea is “bad”—i.e., a pure, non-descriptive value judgment. In short, what you have argued—interpreting your somewhat ambiguous statement in the light of your examples—is that value judgment terms are okay only so long as they carry not a shred of description. Once they gain a descriptive dimension, then they are ruled out. What you wrote is somewhat ambiguous but your example supports this interpretation. The only acceptable word is “bad”. You resist ruling out “anemic” but your own criterion forces you to rule it out.
And here’s the problem: non-descriptive words are not very offensive, because to offend someone you need to explain what it is about them that is the cause of your low opinion of them. “I have a low opinion of you” just doesn’t cut it.
The word “anemic” actually begins to offer a description of the badness, if a metaphorical one. This supports the value judgment by explaining what it is about the target that deserves the value judgment. But the problem is—it’s descriptive. And so it classifies. Because any description classifies.
There are words you can use to describe someone as bad (even in particular ways!) that do not refer to actual groups of people who are not (intrinsically, by virtue of that identification) bad in those ways. Some might be metaphorically offensive to non-human things.
Off the top of my head, you could call someone a snake, a lump, a yoctogram, vile, snippy, vomit-inducing, insipid, pathetic, unfashionable, or not groovy. See?
So someone who does not wear what’s in fashion is intrinsically bad?
What I “see” you saying is that certain groups, such as those wearing last year’s clothes, are okay to put down because those groups are intrinsically bad by virtue of being considered intrinsically bad to the point that the very word for them is a put-down, while others are not.
For example, if I understand you, calling someone vomit-inducingly ugly is okay because the very terms “vomit-inducingly” and “ugly” are intrinsically bad, “ugly” being an evaluative term which therefore does not offend anyone who does not deserve to be offended. The class of people whose facial features are unattractive is a real, if fuzzy, group, but since membership in the group is defined by aesthetic evaluation, it’s perfectly okay to put them down. And if we were to coin a term which does not mean “obese” but rather means “obese to the point of vomit-inducingness”, them this new term, being by definition evaluative, would be okay to use.
Do you still want to hold on to your criterion, or do you begin to share my view that it was not well thought out?
Hey, I’m not saying it’d be nice to use these terms. “Bad” is meant from the perspective of the person using the term. I guess you could even include “gay” in that category if the intent is to deride someone for being a homosexual? The problem there isn’t transmuting the identity into a separate bad thing, but being a homophobe.
So there are two related things you can do with such insults that we have identified so far—one is indicating that you disapprove of a particular trait that may be shared by others, the other is using a particular trait or group as though it meant (some particular kind of) bad, which might be because of an actual bias, insensitivity, or whatever. (This is of course leaving off the more proximate effect of hurting the feelings of the person you’re calling “not groovy”.)
So I still think there is an important distinction you’re missing—you can insult a single person without using an unrelated trait to stand in for ‘badness’. D’you see what I mean?
You can also insult a person without using the letter “e”. You came up with an ad hoc rule which the original complaint happens to fit but which, I argued, does not really divide the allowed from the disallowed put-downs. You are trying to argue that the original complaint makes sense by trying to inject a neutral and fair-seeming criterion into it.
As I have pointed out, there are plenty of disallowed put-downs which do not fit your criterion. Conversely, as was shown with the example of “anemic”, there are allowed put-downs which fit your criterion. So your criterion does not fit the facts about what is and is not allowable. It does not explain or justify the complaint.
The distinction being that the former is relevant to a societal norm which often constitutes a useful distinction: if you insult someone by saying they have a particular trait, you are probably not too concerned that this will hurt the feelings of people with that trait—you think it’s bad! But if you use this other sort of insult, you might be unaware that you are additionally insulting some other group, and might change your behavior if someone indicates that people could take offense to it.
My key point is: you said “So you’re looking for an offensive term that’s not offensive.” This was an inaccurate description of the desire expressed! There are plenty of ways to offend someone that are more targeted.
You think it’s bad for that person specifically to have the trait. You can convey that someone does not have traits suitable for their desired identity while not necessarily deprecating the traits in general. You could, for example, mock a guy for having boobs while wholeheartedly approving of boobs. Something similar applies to mustaches—even though there may well be racist connotations when that one is used.
True enough. Though I’d probably treat that context (“guy with boobs”, “bad mustache”) as part of the “trait”—at least in the sense that you’re not likely to offend someone who doesn’t fit in the precise group you’re mocking your target due to their membership in (er… that sentence was sorta cumbersome, but you get what I’m saying, right?).
I was going for “woman with mustache” or “guy whose mother has a mustache”.
Yes.
Ah! I haven’t really encountered this one in the wild much (vastly more familiar with “that guy has a bad hipster mustache”, luckily), but I see what you’re saying.
It becomes a bit more common if you are in an environment with certain kinds of ethnic makeups. It becomes an interesting case in as much as it is offensive at the expense of people who do not even have the trait. Ofttimes part of the conveyed insult is not just ‘you/your mother have a mustache’ but ‘you are of X racial background’. This means that people of race X who (or whose mothers) do not have mustaches are being insulted (as well as those who do).
The same principle, just with an extra layer of indirection.
Huh. Our cladistics of insults could get pretty elaborate!