The value of substantive insults like godbag
Published by punkass marc June 29th, 2006 in GodbaggeryReader Quin has engaged me on my “You might be a godbag if…” post in which I had some fun defining a few of the qualities I felt made someone a godbag.
His fundamental issue was this:
My point was that criticizing only the vocal proponents of Jesusfreakery while patting the nicer ones on the head is essentially splittling them up into “Good Jesusfreaks” and “Bad Jesusfreaks”, with the good ones being labeled so because they don’t make waves, is stupid. Criticise them for the illogic of their beliefs, fine. Don’t criticise them simply because they are vocal about it, which is what you are asserting.
Then, after accusing me of asking the religious believer to be an “Uncle Tom” in his initial comment, he went for the other most offensive comparison of one’s arguments:
Are you implying that religious oppression is okay because religion is a choice? That the Jewish relatives I never met because they died in concentration camps should have just renounced their Judaism before anybody came to them with a tattoo gun and a cattle train?
So that’s nice. By using the term godbag, Quin genuinely seems to believe I am suggesting that all religious people, and especially all the Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis, should shut up and roll over to The Man like Uncle Tom.
Long story short, Quin has fundamentally confused criticism with oppression and/or the desire to oppress. To unravel his conflation, and to show why terms like “godbag” do not qualify as oppression, we’re going to have to start at the beginning.
What counts as oppression?
I can’t provide an exhaustive list, I’m sure, but oppression is typically understood as an unjust or excessive exercise of power. The key element is power, meaning one passes laws or uses force unjustly.
Most of us can’t pass laws, of course, but that doesn’t mean we can’t oppress. Anyone clamoring for the passage of unjust laws or practicing unfair discrimination can probably also be said to oppress, or at least be supportive of oppression.
Now, I want to clarify that I believe you have every right to hold illogical beliefs. I will absolutely defend your right to believe in god/s and the like. I will also heartily defend your right to vocalize those beliefs as loudly as you like. Hell, I’ll go to the mat for your ability to talk to anyone anytime about anything you think or feel. You should never face discrimination for your religious belief system. Thus, anyone trying to pass laws, use force, or discriminate against you for these things is oppressing you in my book.
But can’t the use of language be oppressive?
Yes. Empty slurs, or those intended to dehumanize another person, are oppressive. Any time you insult someone in a way that suggests they are less than a full human for any quality or belief they possess, that’s oppressive.
Are all insults oppressive, then?
Absolutely not. Insults can be used effectively to assign to a person a set of values _and_ a negative judgment of those values all at once. I would call that a substantive insult. These insults do not contain inherent dehumanization, they do not imply that the person is less than an equal, nor are they intended to call for legislation or use of force against the insulted in a discriminatory way. They are, quite simply, concise value critiques aimed at a specific individual, and they are quite effective in the ongoing social value debate.
When you call someone a wingnut, you assign the right-wing value system to them and insult the values of that system all at once. This is not oppressive to the wingnut. Nor is the use of moonbat oppressive when aimed at me.
We use substantive insults all the time. For example, conservatives use terms like druggie to imply that one uses drugs and should be criticized for it, we use terms like corporo-fascist to judge those in the business world who unscrupulously pursue the bottom line and/or control over our population. The list is endless.
It’s useful, too. The lingual efficiency of substantive insults allows us to engage in efficient communication, especially when discussing how best to govern a society and trying to identify who opposes you and your principles. It also helps provide framing for your discussion; it can effectively marginalize a belief system without implying that the believer is less than a full human being (there’s a big difference between being wrong/misguided and “less than”). So the key element of the substantive insult is that it contains some kind of value judgment that does not dehumanize.
Wingnut = moonbat = chickenhawk = tree-hugger, and so on; they are all value criticisms aimed a specific (and fully recognized) person, albeit one you think is way off base.
So no substantive insults are oppressive?
This is a tough call. The one term I keep coming back to is feminazi. The term is deeply insulting, and we hate it, but it does include a value critique of feminists as aggressive man-hating fascists, and it’s caught on like wildfire.
But the term applies to a group of people whose sole platform is opposition to very real oppression that happens every day, as well as the specter of further oppression right around the corner. Feminists desire full equality, nothing more. To call someone a term that insults their desire for equality rejects that call for equality, and thus I would say it oppresses or endorses the continuance of the oppression.
There is some grey area here, but I think that there’s a coherent distinction between insulting people for opting into a value system and insulting people solely because they seek equality. I hope we can agree on that.
Is “godbag” a substantive insult?
To be fair, the term is new. There is no universally accepted definition. Maybe some people see it as an empty slur, one that dehumanizes the believer. But I would find that a stretch.
I believe it clearly and simply accuses someone of being a religious blowhard. It implies you not only believe in god and discuss it freely and openly, or even that you recruit others to your belief system, but that you bloviate about it. I think some people might even ascribe to the term the implication that you are bloviating about god for questionable motives, whether it be to further oppression of women for your own gain, or to further entrench the religious institutionalization that so obviously benefits its blowhards.
Even if you lop off the last part and stick with “religious blowhard,” though, the term is useful as a substantive insult. You have assigned to a person the notion that they believe in a value system you find illogical (or worse), and that they are engaging in a behavior you find repulsive, namely the pompous exhortation of those beliefs.
Some of the sample definitions of godbag I included that Quin seemed to dislike were:
-doing anything to convince other people to believe in your god/s
-running formal religious services
-collecting money in the name of or making a living off people’s beliefs in god/s
I dont see how criticizing these things insults someone without substance. I am making a value judgment of the person but that _in no way_ implies these people are less than human or should be oppressed or discriminated against.
But religious oppression is real; how can you condone religious insults like godbag?
I must restate for clarity that anyone trying to pass laws, use force, or discriminate against you for your religious belief system is oppressive and wrong.
But I am also allowed to offer criticisms of the values of a religion, something even Quin seemed to agree with when he said “Criticise them for the illogic of their beliefs, fine.” This does not dehumanize the believers or prevent them from expressing their beliefs even more vociferously in response, nor would I want it to.
As we’ve noted, though, the term godbag isn’t just about the belief system. It’s about being an obnoxious promotor of the value system. If I think that the values promoted are bad, and I can criticize them, then I can certainly criticize _even more strongly_ those who try to spread them. Unlike feminism, the religious platform promotes much more than equality (in fact, I would argue most every religion actively discourages it); it promotes a value set and a way of life that may or may not include things like discrimination against homosexuality or opposition to full female freedom. Surely we can agree that this is substantive criticism.
Assuming you find the term “godbag” to be a harsh condemnation of the belief in, and more likely the pompuous promotion of, a value set I am allowed to criticize, then I think it must be considered a substantive insult.
Why is godbag a useful substantive insult?
[Disclaimer: I am not asking you to agree with my condemnation of religion in this particular post, but rather to follow my explanation of why I care about protecting the use of the term godbag.]
I believe “godbag” distinguishes between people who express their belief in the unknowable intelligently from those who don’t. I also believe it is far more a critique of religion than of spirituality.
As I see them, most religions promote outdated, ugly values. They tend to subjugate women, endorse magical beliefs over empiricism, and seem to discourage critical thinking at certain times. Yuck. Not only does it express these values, but it has _institutionalized_ them. They are accepted by our culture as a-ok. I think that stinks out loud.
Moreover, that institutionalization has led to the development of two distinct classes of people: those who follow religious leaders (sans much critical thinking when it comes to their values) and those leaders themselves, many of whom I believe to be corrupt, or at least manipulative. This allows the leaders to promote values and causes that harm our society (in my opinion) while releasing a whole flock of people to go forth and spread these ideas without questioning their correctness.
Furthermore, the religious rejection of empiricism also allows us to get into a “Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh!” debate with no end other than violence. See most of human history for further reference.
Quin was aggressively attempting to get me to include his grandmother as a godbag, but I find nothing blowhard-y about his description of her. I can still call her illogical, perhaps even foolish, but not a godbag.
And when I call someone a godbag, I do not present a legal or physical opposition to their speech, nor am I calling for one. I am simply criticizing someone for promoting a crappy value set, usually in a crappy way.
Returning to my definitions, are all ministers and priests and other religious leaders godbags?
Some folks seemed uncomfortable with that implication.
Unfortunately, I think that if you make a living off a harmful belief system, or run “formal” services (formal implying they are part of the religious system already in place), you are at the very least an unreliable source for objectivity. Even if you promote it for the “right reasons,” you cast an even wider net for your superiors, or manipulative religious blowhards like our president, to take advantage of people. I also believe almost all religious leaders will cross the line at least once when it comes to manipulating someone to stay part of the machine.
There are nice people in every walk of life and in every corrupt organization or occupation. But I think I can safely lump them into the insulted crowd because at the very least they possess the power to do the thing I am criticizing, and I am trying to reduce that power over other people by bringing alternate discourse to the table.
Are substantive insults useful to discourse?
Quin argued that using “godbag” just turns people off and we should be more inclusive to bring believers over to our side.
This is a matter of opinion, but I believe substantive insults have done a great deal to move people towards and away from a number of ideals and practices.
When you use a term like wingnut or fundie or godbag or tree-hugger or whatever, you are not trying to bring over the hardcore practicioners in those speeches, are you? You’re talking to your own side and those on the fence about the matter. You’re also trying to inject the insult further into public consciousness and spread its reach.
Arguably, substantive insults are tools of shame. Is shame oppressive? I don’t believe it meets any of the critieria described allllll they way at the top of this diatribe. I think it merely condemns someone for taking part of something you believe to be wrong or harmful. And I do think people should be ashamed of participating in something that hurts women and/or homosexuals and promotes the infantilization of our population, so I will continue to promote the use of godbag the same way I promote terms like wingnut.
I believe being overly sensitive to legitimate religious criticism helps religion remain entrenched and untouchable, which I ain’t fer. Beyond that, I think comparing a substantive value/behavior judgment like godbag to dehumanizing racial insults or Nazi-esque practices is absurd (thus the point of this entire damn post, to show the difference).
Naturally, though, one is welcome to hold hands and sing with whoever s/he wants instead of use substantive insults. Just make sure you call those insults insulting instead of oppressive.
19 Responses to “The value of substantive insults like godbag”
- 1 Pingback on Jun 30th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
I too like the insult. Fuckwit, lackwit, and you fucking lame-ass bint are some of my favorite things to say.
So I feel you.
But I want to put up, sort of as a counterpoint, to what I think is an excellent post here, the argument that shaming people doesn’t, usually, win them over. Getting someone angry doesn’t make them want to listen.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, since maybe even if they don’t listen now they might listen down the road a few years…I’m just wondering maybe if we didn’t go calling them lame-ass lackwitted bints, maybe they might hear us now?
(Not that you called them that. That was me. Sorry. And it was a totally non-substantive insult. So it doesn’t exactly apply.)
Oh — and no, I don’t think calling them godbags is oppressing them. Give me a fucking break already.
Delagar, I would point out that he didn’t say shaming is good for bringing the shameful people over. It can if it’s far-reaching enough. But shaming can totally convince fence-sitters to avoid the shamed behavior.
Feminists have been wrongly shamed for their agitation for equality. But shaming worked really well and keeps women who would otherwise ally themselves to the cause away from it. Likewise, shaming Bible-thumping is actually a pretty good technique for keeping mainstream religious people toeing the secular line and respecting the boundaries we need to keep this a free and just society.
Jeez, look at the size of that thing. I feel truly honored to have been the spark of such a clear and well-constructed essay. I look forward to responding in the morning. (I live 14 time zones away from most of you lot, so it’s bedtime for Bonzo.)
Okay, I lied. Put it off too long. Now I’ll be away from my computer for the weekend.
But since this doesn’t appear to be one of those runaway wildfire threads that everybody watches hungrily, and since I’m just this guy in some other country who nobody knows from Adam and why should they really care about my stupid opinion anyway, I’m thinking nobody will mind too much…
But don’t worry Marc, I’m gunning for you on Monday– even if it’s just you, me, and the crickets.
Bring the noyze.
While I like (and will continue to occasionally use) the term godbag, I disagree on a few points:
- I don’t think that Substantive Insults can be considered full on criticism - they’re not nuanced enough. I think that they’re a way of conveying disparagement, disagreement, opposition, etc., but a (substantive) criticism requires something more than the statement ‘that’s bad!’
- SIs are often used to establish the insulted as less than equal, even though the terms themselves don’t necessarily convey that meaning. When I’ve been called a dyke (by nonqueers) /heathen/ baby-killer/ tree-hugger/ etc., it’s been an attempt to lower me in the eyes of others. It’s not oppression, but it’s not an expression of equality either.
- While I agree that most SIs aren’t inherently oppressive, I think that they’re often used to call for or support oppressive policies. A lot of time, this means that we conflate the context with the meaning. (Not saying that the terms them ‘become’ oppressive, just that they’re perceived that way.)
Mm. Two points here. First of all, I think shaming has very limited political value except as a consensus-building/strengthening tool (let’s you and me bond over the fact that at least we’re not as stupid as this fuckwit over here). It also provides a nice warm glow, which in turn can bring a much-needed boost of energy, because, let’s face it, mocking people as a group sport feels really good. Which, because i am a meen bastard, in itself I have no problem with–to a point.
But I don’t believe it does, in fact, bring on-the-fence people over to one’s side, no. in fact I’d say lately I’ve been seeing rather strong evidence to the contrary–people think, oh, fuck, well, that sounds like they’re making fun of -me,- now…well, I have the choice of either abandoning these things that are deeply important to me and have been for a very long time, or abandoning these people/ideas I’ve only fairly recently discovered and have been trying to decide whether or not I agree with them. Know what? Screw you, new people/ideas; I’m goin’ home. And once they’re home, of course, they’re far more likely to indulge in whatever the “shamed” behavior is. Particularly if the behavior in question is not in fact a social no-no (fuck, I caused damage when I did that, I can see exactly how, or at least kind of) but is something that -isn’t- immmediately obviously hurting anyone else (goes to Mass, stays at home with the kids, wears microminiskirts, likes consensual blowjobs, whatever).
And if you -do- win people over to your side by shaming them for being a superstitious fool/brainwashed sexbot/cultureless hick, you know something: it’s a hollow win. Because deep-down people always know that you’ve made them feel like shit, and they’ll resent you for it. And if they’re the kind of people who respond primarily out of wanting to avoid feeling like shit–you’re gonna have to work hard to keep them, especially if you’re a progressive. Because frankly, reactionaries are better at that bullying (for that is what that is) game. Always have been. That’s -why- they’re reactionaries.
Now: if you’re saying you can win people in the great middle over by holding up the excesses of the truly deranged for ridicule, that’s something else. Sure. Happens all the time. And by all means, no mercy. But the thing is, in that instance, -they- did all the work for you. All you have to do is turn the spotlight on them; at most, feed them some more rope.
So if you call extremists funny names that actually have the potential to make certain people in the great middle of that demographic think, “hey! are they talking about -me?-”–well, as long as you do it with the understanding that there’s an excellent chance you’re gonna lose a goodly chunk of those people. If you don’t mind, then full speed ahead.
And what I hear you saying here is that you don’t particularly mind offending religious folk.
I may be misunderstanding.
But if that’s the case–well, personally? I don’t think the left can afford it. Not in this country.
And lord knows I have no love for the theocrats. and no, I’m not always so careful–nomenclature’s a bitch, I know who I’m talking about, no doubt someone else might not. I know I used to use “godbag” fairly frequently. As terms go I actuallly think that one’s potentially useful–provided you do, in fact, use specifically for religious people who’re being ‘bags. Blowhards. Bullies. Yes.
But here’s where I part ways:
>As I see them, most religions promote outdated, ugly values. They tend to subjugate women, endorse magical beliefs over empiricism, and seem to discourage critical thinking at certain times. Yuck. Not only does it express these values, but it has _institutionalized_ them. They are accepted by our culture as a-ok. I think that stinks out loud.
Moreover, that institutionalization has led to the development of two distinct classes of people: those who follow religious leaders (sans much critical thinking when it comes to their values) and those leaders themselves, many of whom I believe to be corrupt, or at least manipulative. This allows the leaders to promote values and causes that harm our society (in my opinion) while releasing a whole flock of people to go forth and spread these ideas without questioning their correctness.>
I think it’s not nearly that simple; and I think that dividing people roughly into “people who have critical thinking skills” and “people who follow religious leaders and/or partake in religious institutions” is both inaccurate and impolitic. Allowing as to how some of the latter are no doubt nice people isn’t enough. That’s hardly the point; and -that- -is- a pat on the head. No one needs or wants pats on the head.
But we do need the progressive religious left.
I don’t have time or energy to get into all the reasons why–it’s been a major thesis of mine for quite a while. For now I’ll just point to the work of Sojourners and Tikkun and the National Council of Churches, among others. These are smart and passionate and funny and skeptical people who, on the whole, are indistinguishable from their “secular” counterparts (belief in the separation of Church and State pretty much included) except for the fact that they see their politics as stemming from their faith.
And faith, you know, really can move mountains sometimes.
Would Martin Luther King have been more successful if he’d abandoned the pulpit entirely? I doubt it. I doubt it very much.
Anyway, back to the main point: I agree that insults are not oppression, no. I also agree that they aren’t really criticism either. They’re nasty & handy little tools for the toolbox, is all. Use ‘em or eschew ‘em; but I don’t think anyone’s ever built a lasting movement based on them alone.
So if you call extremists funny names that actually have the potential to make certain people in the great middle
Kos called, he wants his schtick back.
The thing is, mockage has to be substantial and it has to make the target (whether a person, an ideology or a concept) seem ridiculous and farcical, so that while the hardcore believers will take the mockage and say “hrumph, but [justification]“, nebulous middle entities (or whatever you want to call them) will go, “hmm, you know, that is kinda stupid [sn*gger]” and will never be able to think of that thing without also thinking of the mockage.
So despite the fact that Dworkin has become a by-word for meanie s*x/man hating feminism, her partner runs america’s major male feminist organisation, and no anti-fem is really able to successfully attack Dworkin’s legal work on rape and sexual harrassment.
Cite Dworkin to support an arguement you’re throwing at anti-fems, and because of the heavy mockage she’s suffered since she and other radfems foolishly made a pact with the devil/rightwing against porn and prostitution in the 80’s, nebulous middle entities will stop listening to you, because everyone knows what Dworkin is all about, despite this having no relation to reality.
So yes, it’s effective alright, when it’s done right.
Yeah. My thing here, I realize, is probably more specifically related to the religion business. I’ve been tinkering with this over at my place and will probably continue to do so. I realize I came in on this particular discussion a month late. and no, I don’t really have a problem with “godbag,” per se.
but also I do think there’s a fine line between “mock your enemies effectively enough so that they look bad to reasonable people” and “shame your allies in an attempt to bring them back in line.” not saying the latter’s being done here; like I say, two separate themes I’m working out here. also not saying i walk that line particularly well myself.
…so I guess what I’m fumbling toward is, not so much “let’s all play nicely in the sandbox” but “more finely-tuned aim.”
which i think was already being talked about in this discussion and presumably the one that preceded it; the remarks about religion itself being problematic (or so i initially read it) as opposed to just the zealots is what pushed my buttons; because, well, this has been a pet theme of mine for a while.
per the Dworkin/feminism thing: see, but that all depends on who you are or what your goal is. If you’re a reactionary and your goal is simply to discredit feminists, then sure: conflate the most mockable/outlandish shit Dworkin said with the word “feminism,” make up a cutesy portmanteau like “feminazi:” boom, shit sticks.
But if your goal is to, say, build a bipartisan coalition that includes a number of feminists, if not necessarily the most radical/fringey ones, then you probably want to at minimum be judicious about using (name your Dworkin stereotype) interchangeably with “feminist.”
My thing is–and this is not what was happening here, again, I realize, but I do see it crop up pretty frequently among people I otherwise agree with on most things–the conflation of “godbag” (”fundie,” “crazy zealot”) with “religious folk.” partly because personally I don’t agree that it’s the religion itself that’s the problem, necessarily, although, or–well, that’s a more complicated subject. but also because I think there are too damn many religious folk in this country to afford to burn that bridge.
so, Kos, I dunno; Obama (sometimes, anyway), more like.
bottom line: I mostly agree with you. like I say. no problem with mockage per se. I’d be a damn hypocrite if I said I did.
well, anyway, enough for now.
I just love leaving comments on dead year old threads.. and this one is too much to pass up.
First, delagar ought to know that “bint” is the Arabic for girl (maybe he does.. who knows?) so “you fucking lame-ass bint” is sheer poetry. Zesty misogynism, great line.
As for the rest of this, you all are pathetic. I assume you think that you are all without religion? Here’s a little newsflash: no one is without religion. Etymologically the word comes from the Latin for “obligation, reverence,” and is of the same root as “ligament.” Re-ligare = to re-bind. It’s not necessarily, or even in many cases primarily about God. It’s about worldviews and community. It’s about foundational belief, what we all share in common, what we hold sacred and inviolable, what draws us into relationship with one another, and maintains those relationships. So feminism and secularism are in this primary sense “religious” creeds or cultures, that serve to define and unify.
As for the monotheism that you so evidently scorn, know this: the liberalism that you so love is ineluctably related to it, particularly Judaism & Christianity.
For what – pray tell, oh excuse me “do tell” - is your personhood rooted in? Why should I respect it? If you – and I – are not transcendent, why should not the strong annihilate the weak? What difference would it – does it – make, anyhow? Where is your justice, and by what right do you expect mercy? I mean, are “you” “you” anyhow? On what ethical basis do you expect respect? Forget about women – who would likely lose if there was a real “war between the sexes” - or gays – whose “sexuality” isn’t even sex, and would never perpetuate a community, but for the condescension of the wider community, who can actually have babies – no, let’s just talk about everyone. If a fetus is not a person, then why are you? Is it based on your fleeting illusion of consciousness alone?
You say belief in transcendence is irrational and puerile. But without it, we do not even truly exist as persons. Without it, we are but illusions to ourselves. The ethical implications of that are pretty apparent. And they won’t be pleasant.
So how about this, why don’t you all cut the crap, and stop calling the likes of me “godbags?” Why don’t we all just break it down, get all pruny in the nihilism, and call each other “highly encephalated feeding tubes” or maybe even “cumbags” (which is nicely resonate, whether “you” be giving or receiving the cum.. least I think it has a ring to it..)? I’m sure you wits can come up with even better stuff.. or maybe not.. godbags, is after all, pretty lame..
Cause anyone who would dispense with 4,000 years of religious – philosophical and ethical thought – with such flippancy is either a moral or intellectual retard. You – and Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Russell & Co. – should be consigned to middle school eternally (a species of purgatory you imminently deserve) to memorize the Beatitudes, Ecclesiastes and the prophet Amos- say, just for a start- in the vain hope you might realize that without the transcendent and sacred we have nothing to save us form nothingness- from selfishness, rapacity and inevitable annihilation. You live at the mercy of hundreds of millions of imperfect – mostly nominal – Christians. Do not try to strip them of the faint illusion that “you” all are actually “persons” deserving “respect.” I beg you, for my sake as well as yours.
Puerile Fools. (Oh, sorry, is that an oppressive or substantive insult..? Oh fug it.. it shouldn’t matter to you idiot nihilists anyhow.)
Puerile Fools. (Oh, sorry, is that an oppressive or substantive insult..? Oh fug it.. it shouldn’t matter to you idiot nihilists anyhow.)
LOL. Hi pot, I’m a kettle. What up?
Wow. It wants attention, methinks.
He also called me a twatwad in email, like 3 times. I don’t think it’s substantive, but I am impressed by his ability to inject such ugly sexism into his insult.
Jesus would be so proud of him.
Oy vey, I forgot about this post. I did that terrible thing you should never do, where you go all, like, “Ooh! Why, you– If only I had time to write a proper response right now! But you’re gonna get it next week! You just wait!”, and then run away and are never heard from again.
Anyway, I don’t have time to write a proper response right now, but I promise, I’m gunning for you on Monday, Marc.
P.S. Charles, don’t be such a godbag. Just because you’re scared shitless by the implications of a Godless universe doesn’t actually make God exist.