Reader 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.
Recently