--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > > Remember when Off was spouting all his karate > > > stuff which included some very pointed > > > physical threats of how he would prove his > > > point? I thought to myself that it would be > > > a pretty long kick from Vermont to Virginia > > > so I didn't feel physically threatened. > > > > Did you read anything from me suggesting that I > > felt physically threatened by what Barry said, > > Curtis? > > Yes, it was the claim of a "death threat."
FAIL. You just claimed above that Off had made "very pointed physical threats," but since he was pretty far away, you didn't feel physically threatened. Why did you assume *I* felt physically threatened when the issuer of the threat was *across the freaking ocean*? <snip> > > See anything about fear on my part that Barry > > would cross the Atlantic and hunt me down with > > a flamethrower? Have I expressed any such fear > > since? > > > > No? Then how come it hasn't occurred to you > > that this may not have been what I meant by > > "death threats"? > > I am trying to figure out what you mean, that's > why I asked you. You didn't just *ask*, you also made an argument *against* based on the assumption (supported by zero evidence) that I felt physically threatened. I want you to tell me why you made that assumption, rather than just asking what I meant. <snip> > > Hint: How would you characterize the phrase > > "misogynistic vomit"? I'm looking for a one-word > > description; there are two that would fit, one > > a little more precise than the other. > <snip> > My one word replacement for "misogynistic vomit" > would be "hyperbole." Excellent. That's the less precise one. The more precise one is "metaphor." Now contemplate the phrase from my post "misogynistic vomit (including death threats)." Given that "misogynistic vomit" is both hyperbole and a metaphor, what does the above construction tell you about the term in parentheses? > I still think you are misusing the term "misogyny" > on people who just don't like you, but who like > women in general. If you heard someone, with obvious hostility, calling a black person a "dumb angry nigger," and I said he was a racist, would you think I was misusing the term on someone who liked black people in general but just didn't like that *particular* black person? That was the excuse used about Hillary: that all the misogynist attacks--from *Democrats*, mind you--weren't because she was a woman, it was because people didn't like *her*. And then came Cindy McCain, and after that Sarah Palin, and they've been subject to the very same kind of attacks. Isn't that an amazing coincidence? > There has been sexists language used against > you and Raunchy "Sexist" and "misogynist" are not synonymous. Calling women "dumb angry cunts too stupid to live" is not sexist language, it's misogynist language. and you have both retaliated. > > I don't see any evidence for the claim of > misogyny against anyone here, nor have I > seen any death treats. (If I were into Freudian theory, I'd hassle you about the typo.) I think you're defining both terms very strictly and narrowly to serve your argument. Both have broader meanings. "Misogyny," as the term is commonly used, doesn't mean overt hatred of all women whatsoever. It can refer to a deep distrust and fear of women that is held in check--not expressed overtly--as long as a given woman does not pose a threat to a man's self-image or status. But if, when a woman *is* perceived to pose such a threat, the man's response is expressed in hostile language that pillories her *as a woman*--especially when it involves fantasies of doing her harm or even erasing her existence--that's misogyny coming to the surface. If we want to get all legal, the Law Encyclopedia defines "threats" as "spoken or written words tending to intimidate or menace others." I put it to you, counselor, that "dumb stupid cunts too stupid to live" fits the definition, even though it doesn't explicitly threaten to cause harm. It says, "I hate you so much I want you to die." I think you have to work *very* hard to draw a hard line between such a statement and a death threat. It's intended to state the hatred with such ferocity that it intimidates; it's certainly *menacing*. That Barry couched it as "humorous" is irrelevant. I think everybody sees through that pathetic excuse. His genuine hatred for me is obvious to everybody here. He just thinks he can get away with it if he puts a wish for me and raunchydog to die violently in the context of purported humor. Keith Olbermann said of Hillary at one point that somebody should "take her into a room, and only he comes out." That was very widely perceived to have been a threat to harm her physically, at the least, if not to kill her. He had to apologize for the remark on the air. His excuse? "It is a metaphor." It was a huge deal at the time. For more, see this article by Rachel Sklar in HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/keith-olbermanns-idea- for_n_98557.html http://tinyurl.com/3ojqtb > As far as I can tell you and Raunchy seem > perfectly capable of dishing out as much as > you are getting here. I've never posted any fantasies about Barry dying a violent death, nor have I ever used any misandristic language in referring to him (or any other man here). Neither would ever even *occur* to me, because I simply don't have any kind of underlying hatred of men. (I think I did call Barry a "dickhead" at one point, but that isn't a gender-specific term like "cunt.")
