A video showing Meredith Viera apologizing for Jane Fonda's use of the word "cunt" on the TODAY show. Mind you, the word was in the context of the play. I wonder what other people think--inappropriate or innocuous?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
CUNT offends Today Show Audience
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Inappropriate for morning television. Such a powerful word with so varied connotations dealing with sexuality, gender, discrimination, empowerment and violence should be reserved for a time with a more mature viewing audience. That is to say, people should have the ability to opt-out of more mature subject matter and language - which is a choice you make when tuning into national morning television
Who Cares?
To worry so much about the use of words distracts us all from actions which are more deserving of our outrage and response.
Instincts for ourselves to speak in a politically correct manner are all fine and good, but when we demand everyone else do so is when we cross the line. When we demand anyone other than ourselves to use our words, or our mannerisms, is when we offend the values behind our ability in this country to speak whatever we please.*
The marketplace of ideas cannot function except without all feeling the freedom to use the words they feel best suit any situation. When we demand otherwise we do ourselves and everyone else a great disservice. We should seek to win on the basis of our ideas, not because we've demonstrated great outrage at the words of others.
Justice Brandeis once wrote, "Sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants." See Freund, The Supreme Court of the United States, 61 (1949). If you wish to convince anyone that you are right regarding anything, a surefire way of fucking that up is to be outraged in how they state their original position. You will turn them off quicker than if you had yelled "cunt" in their face.
I am for quibbling with substance rather than semantics. People may use any word they wish.
I have to admit I am a little taken aback by the quickness with which you are willing to dismiss the power of words.
Your post seems to imply that words themselves don't matter. That only the ideas they point to matter. As if somehow these ideas are able to be extricated from the words themselves.
Words matter. They carry a lot of baggage with them. Like Tyler said, the word cunt evokes "sexuality, gender, discrimination, empowerment and violence" all in one word.
That is why labels matter so much. They help define the substance of who and what we are. We are not fags, we are not bitches, we are not dykes, we are not niggers, we are not retards. And we are not cunts. To ignore the power of words is a dangerous mistake. Words matter very much. And discussing the meaning and baggage of words is not "quibbling with semantics." The meaning and connotations of words is substantive, not merely semantic.
The word itself has no power outside of it has x amount of letters in x arrangement. Example: say the word cunt or your favorite "offensive" word to a Tswana tribesman. It is the ideas, the history, the connotations that go along with words that have power. If I say a word which offends you, ask me what I meant by it, or why I used it, and then let's discuss the substance of what I've said, do not demand that I never use that word.
Here's a timely example: a few days ago, in response to a caller into his nationally syndicated radio show that was beginning to make the angry black woman argument against Michelle Obama, Bill O'Reilly said something to the effect that he would not "join the lynching party" against her "unless there is evidence" of her being angry or anti patriotic, etc. I get angry about these comments not because he used the word "lynching" but because of the sentiment that it is not ok for a black woman who is a public figure to appear to be angry. The word "lynching" is not per se offensive, if it were, there would be no context in which it could be used where it would not offend (e.g. I can use the word "lynching" in a historical context, and dare say no one would be offended). It is the bigoted sentiments behind the word, it is the history invoked by choosing to use that word, in the context it has been used, which i would quibble with. But I would not tell anyone to never use the word, rather I would prefer to engage with those who use it, or in the case of a public figure such as O'rly, to speak out about the ideas expressed by their words which I disagree with.
No one is a true absolutist about free speech, everyone has their line somewhere, mine just happens to be pretty far out there. While we are not speaking about state action limiting speech here, but rather individual outrage, my point of view is much the same: words shall not be limited or proscribed, either by state action or mine own action. I cannot control others, and I recognize others disagree with this line of thought, but that's where I am.
Post a Comment