A question.
If I call a banana a chom chom, and someone else interprets the word chom chom as a fighting word, have I uttered a fighting word? Have I been divisive?
Similarly, if I refer to, say, Mother Teresa as a sadist, is that a fighting word? Is it divisive?
If I refer to Manson as a rapist racist, is that fighting words? Is it divisive?
What if I use the phrase rapist racist to refer to Trump?
That is, and I'm not currently sure, can words that have specific truth values (ie, they either refer to events in the world or they fail to do so) be considered divisive? What in the world do facts divide? And, finally, does it make sense to raise fists/knives/guns/bomber jets/aircraft carriers over a dispute over facts?
I think I have answers, but am really interested in other view points.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a conversation I've been having with Cara a lot lately, because when I correct her grammar or word usage, she'll say "well this is what I call it". And my response is always "that's not how language works. In order for language to have meaning, there has to be an agreed-upon culturally assigned meaning to a given word." Now language doesn't have to be "correct" across all segments of a society. Sub-cultures often drift languages in ways that are unique from the mainstream society. But even then, the premise holds - IN ORDER FOR LANGUAGE TO HAVE MEANING, THERE HAS TO BE AN AGREEMENT TO USE WORDS IN THE SAME WAY.
ReplyDeleteSo to use the example of pejorative "gay". It's often been argued by those who say "that's so gay" that "that's not how they meant it". But that argument is objectively false, because language is a collective endeavor, and they're not the ones who get to decide the meaning of a word. Similarly, to go back to your banana example, if chom chom is a word with divisive history, you don't get to use it in a new context divorced of all history and context, because language isn't a decision that you get to make at an individual level.
As for the idea of objective truth in language... obviously there is no such thing as 100% objective truth, because language is messy and imprecise. But in regards to the specific example of calling Trump a racist rapist, that isn't using hate speech to create division. That is being accurate. It can be proven that Trump has a long, documented, provable history of racist words and behavior. It can also be proven that Trump has a long, documented history of sexual misconduct and assault. What's at issue in THAT case isn't "is the language being used correctly" but "does the culture want to listen to the victims". So Trumpistas pretend to get bogged down in an argument about language, when really their argument has nothing to do with language and everything to do with the premise of "are women and brown people PEOPLE".
According to wikipedia, in the case that established the "fighting words" doctrine calling a town marshal "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" were considered fighting words.
ReplyDeleteen.wikipedia.org - Fighting words - Wikipedia
As I understand things the "fighting words" doctrine hasn't been relied on a lot in other court cases and many civil libertarians aren't big fans of it.
Sure, Dan Maruschak, and "racketeer" and, in 1942, "fascist" are for sure libel and insulting unless true. If they are true, then I don't understand how they can be insulting and they are for sure not libel.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's really the question: Can a true utterance be considered fighting words?
Anna Kreider OMG! I've been trying to explain this to the 9yo. No, you can't call Pittsburgh Pittsy. No one else will know what you mean. Other people have to know what you mean in order for you to communicate.
ReplyDeleteoh, Anna Kreider, you are a far better writer than I. I'm always glad when you show up.
ReplyDeleteAgreed in almost all components, of course. The big question to me is whether a true utterance (sure, mostly true) can reasonably be described as insulting/inflammatory.
Now, for sure, there are words that by their very nature are meant to cause harm. But, I don't believe either racist or rapist is at that level. You mention one that certainly gets close, and I think these words share the common description of being words used by the privileged to other.
In which case, of course neither racist or rapist can be.
Oh, and a reminder given who has shown up: This is a public thread. If douchecanoes show up, I'll delete and block, but be aware it may happen.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols It's not at all clear to me that it's that clear cut. Is there an objective test for being a racketeer? Presumably the marshal hadn't been convicted under any racketeering laws, but the person you want to call a rapist also hasn't been convicted of rape. Are there any objective tests for whether or not some is a fascist? A racist? It's also not clear to me that true harsh remarks are substantially less likely to cause a public disturbance than false ones.
ReplyDeleteI would say that truth makes a statement more inflammatory, not less, because we are each and every one of us fundamentally cowards who cannot bear to hear the truth, even when, blinded, we stumble upon it.
ReplyDelete"Contempt of cop" is when you call the cop an asshole.
"Grand contempt of cop" is when you call the cop an asshole and they really are an asshole.
It seems trivially easy (to me) to spin which facts I emphasize, in order to deliver a message. Example: "You know, this guy wouldn't be half as talkative if we beat his head in with a baseball bat." Statement of fact, and also quite possibly hate speech.
ReplyDeleteThere are social implications to which true things one says, in what combinations. How do we talk about making fair rules for people to vie in that arena, when so many folks deny that the arena even exists?
It sounds like your asking if fighting words, or causing offense are more like poetry; where the poet has Dominion over the meaning and themes of the poem. Or if they are more like poetry; where the reader gets to decide what was meant and conveyed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the sub discussion about if someone is or isn't what you call them, and the importance of that line made me think of one of my favorite moments in Bull Durham. Did "Crash" say the umpire was a cocksucker or did he say the call he made was a cocksucker of a call? Important line in the sand for that umpire.
ReplyDeleteCalling someone a racist rapist is certainly inflammatory. There are less-inflammatory ways to talk about it. For example:
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump appears to have animus toward people of other ethnicities that he ascribes to many members of those communities he does not know. Or perhaps he pretends to do so to win votes. Also, he has admitted to forcibly touching women in a sexual manner without being asked, and there are more than twenty women who confirm they've been touched by Trump in a manner consistent with his statements.
That's less inflammatory, but any Trumpkin who can comprehend the words will be insulted by it. So still inflammatory. Despite being true, and as neutral and bland as I can make it.
It's divisive to call someone a racist rapist if people like that person.
The question is whether it's a bad thing to be inflammatory and divisive. And sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
And sometimes it's the only moral thing someone can think of doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAXHXJ2WgrQ
ReplyDelete