Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

cunt embroidery small (2015_09_28 11_13_35 UTC)

And if so what are the defining characteristics?

And if there is such a thing is it wrong to mention it?

And if it is wrong to mention it to what degree should that be punished?

But first we have to decide if there is such a thing. The word itself is used as an insult, and I’m not sure an insult can be either true or un-true. Or rather I’m sure it can be true or un-true but that that is not usually the primary purpose for the use of the word. It’s merely meant to cause offence, and usually in response to something the issuer of the insult is either offended, insulted, or angered by themself. But it can also be used in jest, so intent comes into the equation. Not that these things are necessarily independent of each other. And still the question remains: Is there such a thing as a cunt? Though I suppose to be more accurate the question should be ‘is there such a person as a cunt’?

It’s hard to believe that there isn’t. The word exists for a reason after all, and it is a description of a person, or at the very least a quality they posses. I don’t suppose that a person can be nothing but a cunt — certainly wouldn’t want to think so, anyway, though the world is a weird place and Allah does love wondrous variety so who knows! But as a rule I think all people can be considered to be more than just a cunt. But that is not the same as saying nobody is a cunt. So cunts exist. And a myriad of things can make a person a cunt and to a widely varying degree. There are also good cunts and bad cunts; That is something that appears to be being overlooked as far as social media companies are concerned.

So why do I ask the question?

I was recently temporarily suspended from Twitter for 12 hours. I could still view the site but most features of my account were locked. The 12 hour period would only begin to count down once the offending tweet had been deleted and a phone number (confirmed by receiving a code) had been provided.

Here is the the message I got from Twitter and the offending tweet:

deanus blockedTo clarify: I did not simply tweet that comment at them as appears above but rather I retweeted a tweet by one of the two people named (Russell Brand and Sam Harris) along with the comment. The tweet I RT’d was of the interview the two of them had on Sam Harris’s Youtube channel. Childish and immature and totally unnecessary, I know, but was it promoting violence against, threatening or harassing anyone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease? I would argue not. The tweet definitely does not promote violence in any way, and I can’t see how a single tweet can be taken as harassment, and certainly not on any of the grounds listed. At best it could be falsely seen as harassment on the grounds of being a cunt, but as being cuntese, or suffering from cuntability or a person’s cuntnicity are not included in their list of protected groups I can’t see how that would hold up to scrutiny. Nor do I see how it can be deemed hateful conduct as that would assume my motives. Am I wrong?

I wish I had clicked the link at the bottom of the page which read:

If you think we’ve made a mistake, contact our support team.

Then I could have argued my case that Russell Brand is indeed a cunt, and that Sam Harris probably is too, though that may be more open to debate…. but only maybe. Is this merely a matter of opinion? Is nobody an actual cunt? What are the qualities that make a person a cunt? Here’s a few I think can easily be included: Bad cunts: Spite, being obnoxious, the obtuse, lying, hatred, bigotry, arrogance and narcissism. Good cunts: Wit, fearlessness, creativity, imagination, honesty, insight, passion. There are many more aspects that can be included and not all of these on their own would necessarily make someone cuntious, and nor would the possession of all these qualities, good or bad, guarantee or even indicate that someone is of a cuntual persuasion, but a pattern emerges over time until one eventually sees the right combination of traits often enough to come to the conclusion that this person is indeed a complete and utter total cunt. Or maybe just a bit of one.

Doesn’t everyone have a little cunt in them? Doesn’t every family have at least one cunt in it?

Maybe I’m the cunt. There are some very good reasons to suspect I might be. But if you think I am then make your case and maybe it’ll make me a better person. I certainly won’t go about getting you removed from social media just because of your opinion of me, be I offended or not.

Russell Brand has made a living out of calling people a cunt, and I guess he has done well with it because people know he is joking, even when he is also correct. It doesn’t matter if the correctness of the observation is intentional or not on the part of the articulator of the expletive, does it?

I could go into a long list of things that I believe demonstrably prove that Russell Brand is in fact a cunt. A provable cunt. A certifiable cunt. But I think the fact that he had my account suspended because I called him a cunt is not a bad example on its own. Most people, if not all people would simply ignore a tweet like that, block the user and get on with their day. Celebrities don’t seem to be able to do the same. — There’s an irony in there somewhere. All of which can also be said for Sam Harris.

Is it hateful or funny to call a cunt a cunt, especially if that person is considered by many to be a prime example of an exceptionally cunty person? I suppose it might depend on whether they are the good or the bad kind. But do we really want social media companies to penalise users for ever-so-slightly risqué comments, even if they are childish and immature and totally unnecessary? And if so then why not say so rather than dressing it up as some kind of ‘hate speech’.

I’m not talking about the rightness or wrongness of such a comment (although it’s more about the fact that the comment included the Twitter handles of those it was referring to. You can call Russell Brand a cunt all you like on Twitter, but once you add the @ symbol it changes things, but only when those people are celebrities). I can appreciate that it is probably wrong in the sense of not very constructive; It’s not what you’d call a well thought out and considered statement. And I’m sure it would be better if all statements were, though I can not help but think that attempts to regulate speech so that only thoughtful and considerate comments are allowed is an idiotic aspiration. And let’s not forget that sometimes a very pointed comment can have the desired effect, if the desired effect is to snap someone out of their self involvement and bring them down to Earth with a bump so-to-speak. Doesn’t always work and it’s a skill like any other, but it does lend itself to the argument that sometimes it is not wrong to insult someone in quite a base manner in order to make a point: The form is also the message, or at least it can be.

What do you think? Are people overly sensitive, or should we police speech for its perceived offence? I would genuinely love to hear what people think about this either in particular or in general. It is a topic that has been brewing for a very long time and is extremely relevant right now and only becoming more so.

Thanks for stopping by.

Cuntinuity: Keeping a tidy vagina 😉

Header photo embroidery by minutedetaileroftheuniverse

Advertisements