3 ms·
Does it though? There's an assertion here in this write-up that 'bitch' is in the same class of insult as various racial epithets which are far more taboo. I do
by bluedanieru 15y ago
Does it though? There's an assertion here in this write-up that 'bitch' is in the same class of insult as various racial epithets which are far more taboo. I don't think that's the case.
At any rate, this wasn't even a joke. How is it funny? How could anybody think it would be funny? I don't even mean it isn't funny because it's offensive or not, it simply isn't funny full stop. Noah Kagan has a poor sense of humor, and should not attempt to make jokes.
- LaGrange 15y ago"Does it though? There's an assertion here in this write-up that 'bitch' is in the same class of insult as various racial epithets which are far more taboo. I don't think that's the case." Oh please. The "there are worse things" fallacy is so old there are books on it. Even specifically on the case of "discrimination of women is not as important as whatever-is-deemed-important-by-dudes today".
- bluedanieru 15y agoI was addressing a particular assertion in the article, namely: >Frankly, if the word on that picture had been a racial slur, many of us there that day would have [walked out]. It attempts to draw an equivalence between the two. You have reinforced that with your post above. I dispute that, for much the same reason I dispute that 'moron' or even 'retard' is in the same category. Simply, 'bitch' can not be used in the same way as a racial epithet. This is not a fallacy, and while there certainly are worse things that's not at all what I was getting at, and finally none of this has anything to do with 'whatever-is-deemed-important-by-dudes' or such nonsense.
- LaGrange 15y agoOh, it definitely has. You just decided that the case of discrimination based on religion or ethnicity is more important than discrimination based on gender.
- bluedanieru 15y agoNo, I haven't.