I laid out in detail in my post how high the bar is for getting a conviction charge for harassment. The behaviour has to be utterly awful, persistent and highly distressing. Yet the woman who reported harassment and got a conviction is still being labelled a cnut for crying to the police. No fecking wonder people don’t come forward over this shit
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
It's completely repugnant.
I thought it was basic knowledge that gendered insults aimed at women by men is a very bad look? Something to do with a history of sexism, violence and discrimination?
In any case, going "the cnut went crying to the police" about a woman reporting harassment is an extremely bad look. At that point, the amount of detail given was limited to "he sent her three texts" and that kinda sounds like the normal type of downplaying you often see when someone talks about a person they know who got falsely accused of having harassed/assaulted/raped a woman. "he sent her three texts (and also called her 20 times a day, dropped by her house numerous times, and left notes/messages saying he would kill her/himself/both if she didn't get back together with him.)"
In any case, going "the cnut went crying to the police" about a woman reporting harassment is an extremely bad look. At that point, the amount of detail given was limited to "he sent her three texts" and that kinda sounds like the normal type of downplaying you often see when someone talks about a person they know who got falsely accused of having harassed/assaulted/raped a woman. "he sent her three texts (and also called her 20 times a day, dropped by her house numerous times, and left notes/messages saying he would kill her/himself/both if she didn't get back together with him.)"
Here you go.
Posted three posts - and nearly two hours - after a long, detailed explanation about exactly what this woman had done to justify calling her a cnut.
For what it’s worth, I think you subsequently made some excellent points about harassment and the “cnut story” sounds like the sort of collateral damage that is acceptable if it means more serious incidents are more likely to be dealt with properly.
My point was that it would be great if we could have these interesting discussions without self-righteous knee-jerk insults being thrown around the instant someone goes off message with their choice of words. Which is, as I said, ironic considering the whole point of that accusation of misogyny was about policing the sort of insults we can and cannot use.
Last edited:
Well I can pretty much guarantee you could find someone in any country that would be angry at any statement, so I suppose you 'win'. I like to live in the realm of normal though, and from my life experience, no sensible person would have an issue with that usage, aside from a dislike of the word itself.
The main point I was trying to make is that nimic found it very easy to assume, based on the little info provided in the original post, but had nothing to say after a lot more info was provided, info which clearly explained the poster's initial sentiment. The initial poster was obvious close enough to the situation to be pretty angered by it, so I don't even have a problem with people questioning his original post, but there should at least be some sort of acknowledgement after more info is provided, rather than the usual on this forum(someone just stops replying once they realise they may have been wrong about something).
This is a discussion forum, it's not a Facebook wall. If everyone is supposed to constantly update everyone else about how they feel about every single little thing, the pages would fly by a lot quicker. I asked and he answered. But my opinion about how he phrased that hasn't changed, so I don't see what more there is to say on the matter
In any case, I can't believe this discussion is still going on. @Trequarista10 himself hasn't posted in the thread since Sunday, so I assume he's moved on.
In any case, I can't believe this discussion is still going on. @Trequarista10 himself hasn't posted in the thread since Sunday, so I assume he's moved on.
And sometimes they can have a point, even if majority culture sees itself differently.
Well yeah, it's clear you think that locals who understand it as a gendered insult must be delusional. (And again: the context here is a harassment claim by someone who can't defend herself against the counter-allegations and insults on this forum.)
It's in the nature of the thing that I can't properly reply to claims of 'this is how culture in my country works, and no one can reasonably disagree'. But I can say why I'm sure it's nonsense anyway, even though the country in question remained anonymous so far, and I certainly don't live there:
Issues like this are never about a word by itself, they're always about the social relations behind language and verbal interactions. Language is just a cultural medium in which these relations express themselves, and are constantly enacted and reproduced. That's what gives words their meanings, nothing else.
So to me we're talking about social relations expressed through culture. And in that sense, the claims that a vulgar insult about female genitals is a gender-neutral and totally unproblematic term (regarding misogyny) implies either a society free of misogyny, or that sexualized language and gender reality exist completely seperate from each other.
And both is absurd, anywhere in the known world.
'Twas the irony
All I'm trying to say is that we could discuss the actual facts of @Trequarista10 's story about harassment, which is a valid discussion, without it turning into a penis measuring contest about how 'woke' everybody's language is.
We all swear, and usually it's because we can't find the words to express our frustration eloquently, but this is a written forum, we have the time to slow down and explain our points.
I love reading all of the debate on here, much more than I enjoy posting, but this kind animosity about something so trivial kills really interesting threads.
I know, it was a confirmation of your point.
Don't think the wider issue is trivial at all, but I agree that presenting touchy subjects in an insulting manner is a really bad idea.
Seeing as we’re already deep in this rabbit hole I might as well ask the question. Are you saying we’re not allowed to use the word “cnut” on here in any circumstances? Because misogyny.
Cambridge Dictionary:
Calling somebody a cnut for the reasons @Trequarista10 explained equals hatred of women now? If not, what is this discussion all about?
Calling somebody a cnut for the reasons @Trequarista10 explained equals hatred of women now? If not, what is this discussion all about?
Of course!
If we go far enough down this Critical Theory/IDpol/seeing-the-world-through-the-lens-of-the-most-mental-articles-in-the-Guardian rabbit hole we'll eventually get to the conclusion that calling someone a dick/nob/prick is somehow misogyny as well. Probably something about the phallic language of the patriarchy thrusting itself to the forefront of Western consciousness.
No, context matters. I dislike the slur on a principle basis, but there are (mostly flippant) usages I don't mind much, or can find funny, and others I find ugly and disturbing.
But either way I do think it's silly to deny the insult's origins in an awfully long cultural history of misogyny. While I'm not a native speaker or linguist, my social senses and general grasp of cultural history/language tell me that.
So the underlying question is how to deal with the often unpleasant and ugly heritage our culture runs on. My outlook is materialist, so I think that gross/violent language which loses its backing by living social relations will also lose its vitriolic edge. It becomes anachronistic or changes its meaning. I'm sure everyone can think of examples. So for me it's the culture that has to change, and language will follow suit. But changing language to some degree is obviously an important part of it as well.
If you ask me what I think should be done, I'd go by three basic points of reference (which will partly contradict each other in practice):
1) restricting language has always been a part of any cultural norm (established or oppositional), and has always been part of cultural change (both towards the better and worse)
2) completely sanitizing language by decree is neither feasible nor desirable
3) not attempting to sanitize culture doesn't mean to deny its problematic or outright inhumane sides, or the need for practical change
The rest is about finding a realistic practice between these (imo) truths, based on reason, humanism, and a realistic understanding of our culture and the society that produces it. If all of this is too vague and abstract, the things I write on this forum are an attempt on such a practice. An awfully limited and restricted one, to be sure. I'm aware that meaningful change is ultimately a matter of overcoming established power structures, not forum posts.
Last edited:
That’s a good/interesting response. Thanks.
Ah for some reason I was thinking about the initial posts that kicked it all off and the initial demands for an apology, my mistake
Once again Larry was correct
Whatever of the one sided nature of the post(i.e. the woman in question can't provide her side), it's amazing how in the telling of a story where a woman takes advantage of a mentally disabled man, the main point some people want to latch on to is the use of a curse word.
Ive gone into detail about how hard it is get a conviction for harassment. Go back and read it
What does that have to do with the story in question, though? Do you not believe the poster's description of what happened?
I don’t think he lied, but I absolutely believe that the poster either forgot or wasn’t privy to some of the information.
- The poster claimed he was charged and convicted because the man sent three texts claiming he missed her and that she was beautiful.
The bar for harassment is high. As I said before, the behaviour has to be persistent, downright disturbing and oppressive. Importantly, the behaviour has to be objectively distressing in nature past the point of upsetting or annoyance. So that if someone with no relation to the case were to examine the evidence they would agree that it meets the criteria of oppressive, persistent and disturbing. Alongside these factors, is one important to this case. Safeguarding comes into play, if the supposed agitator is unaware that his actions do not constitute being disturbing and oppressive in nature, then he can not be liable for harassment.
- The woman in question decided to not press charges
As I’ve outlined above harassment is difficult to prove. Those three texts saying I miss you, without any prior disturbing or oppressive behaviour, is not going to cut it. Coupled with the fact that the victim didn’t provide a victim’s statement only compounds the fact that not in a million years would this hold up in court.
- The police use harassment claims as easy ways to meet their quotas.
The police don’t have quotas, and as I keep stressing harassment claims are awkward for officers and certainly not the type of crime that would be an easy case. This might have happened when quotas were a function of law enforcement, but with the information we have there is zero chance a court would go along with it.
I’m going to reiterate this, I don’t believe the poster is lying. I think this is a case that emotionally impacted him and his feelings about harassment legislation are genuine. From the various reasons I’ve listed above though, I think he has missed or forgotten important details of the case, and as such I’m not going to accuse the woman in the case of being a cnut who ran to the police for reporting harassment. We as a society do that enough every single time a victim of harassment, stalking, sexual abuse, come forward when reporting these crimes.
That's quite interesting. I reported my ex to the police for a domestic incident last year but in the end decided I didn't want to press charges because they said I'd have to attend as a witness if it ever got to that stage. They also told me because I wasn't pressing charges they wouldn't take it any further. I had no idea they could have decided to do so if they wanted to.
And his comments about the magistrate? Something isn't really adding up, between your description of the process and his.
This sounds a bit like those people saying that faggot isn't a homophobic slur because it's directed at straight people as well.
It's literally nothing like that.
This sounds like a crap comparison, and an unwillingness to acknowledge that languages change over time.
Again, this sounds exactly like the people wanting to shout faggot at people. Originally it was a homophobic [misogynistic] slur, but it has evolved to be sexually [gender] neutral and now is describing a set of behaviours.
What's the history of cnut? Think that needs to be laid out here properly for those of us not completely familiar with the history of cnuts.
As an aside, when I was at school you'd call one of your mates a 'mad cnut' if they were being a bit weird or eccentric almost as a term of endearment.
Cnut has always been aimed at men and women. Faggot has its origins as in insult exclusively aimed at gay men. And remains primarily used in this way.
You’re making a terrible comparison.
“Exactly like”. Good one.
Hush mate. It's important for you to learn on how to use your language in your country by someone who doesn't even have English as their first language, let alone having the slightest clue on the cultural context behind it's usage.
I’m not sure what you want me to say here. I’ve already said I don’t think the poster was lying and that the situation emotionally impacted him. I’ve just explained how the harassment legislation works.
I was happy to drop this, I’ve made my points and the original poster hasn’t posted about it, and for all I know doesn’t want to keep discussing this. You and @hobbers made two posts further up this page highlighting that the actual crux of the issue was missed. I assume it’s been cleared up now.
As mentioned by a few others, I don't think the words are remotely comparable.
Of course I’m serious.
I’ve no idea where you’re from (or how old you are) but I can tell you with absolute certainty that cnut is just as likely to be used to describe a man as a women in the UK and Ireland (bear in mind this is an Irish owned website about a UK football club) and this has been the case for decades.
If anything, it’s more often used to describe men than women.
“blatantly untrue”. Another good one. You’re on a roll here.
EDIT: In case another cultural reference goes soaring over your head, that’s one of the most famous sketches in the history of British comedy.
Last edited:
This is like when some melt goes "you calling me an idiot?" when you call something they said idiotic. It's perfectly possible to say or do something that appears misogynistic without hating women. Some people use fag or faggot as generic insults, not really seeing them as homophobic slurs. The problem is that they're still used as such, so you risk inadvertently causing upset or offence by throwing them around indiscriminately. You intentions mean jack shit when you're using a word you know is still used as a slur.
Now, I wouldn't say cnut is at that level. I'm well aware of its ststus as a generic, gender-neutral insult in the UK (or term of endearment if you're Australian.) Still, in other English speaking countries, it's still considered a pretty vile thing to call someone, especially a woman. One of these is the US, and their cultural footprint is a lot larger than the UKs. Naturally, then, a lot of people will read the word like an American would, rather than a Brit. This being an internet forum, with members from all over the globe, questions are going to be asked when you refer to a woman reporting harassment as a "cnut that ran crying to the police." It looks bad, and warrants an explanation.
Energy here is similar to "saying Lukaku has a big dick is a compliment, how can it be racist?" It's willful ignorance, plain snd simple. Anyone with half a brain understands how or why these things are or can be problematic.
@Cascarino
Really good and informative posts btw, including the Kobe one.
Really good and informative posts btw, including the Kobe one.
No, I've seen that sketch thank you. I know you're a boomer, but the word is 800 year old at least, your personal experience doesn't make it all the way back there.
I know full well, of course, that cnut is used about men and women. Everyone knows that. I also know that it's primarily used by men about other men. There's a reason for that, namely the fact that it's so misogynistic when directed at women.
That a word is used about both men and women doesn't make it gender neutral, it can still be gender specific. When you call a man a cnut you're saying something different than when you call a woman a cnut, especially if you're a man. Bitch is another example; a man is a coward, a woman is difficult, nagging, etc. Faggot when directed at a straight person means something different than when directed at a gay person. Most people who use faggot as a generic insult would think twice about directing it at a gay person for that very reason.