I think you're actually agreeing that Gervais was/is wrong
just that the intention, the mens rea, is absent.
I would say that Gervais's intention is feminist, anti-homophobe, anti-racist, and anti-disabilist. That his intention is based on the evidence of linguistics and embedded in a method of emancipatory action that was most prominently used by feminists and the gay rights movement.
He cannot thus be criticised specifically on what he says, but how successful he is in changing and escaping the oppressive relations that these words initially operated in. This is how we criticise those feminists and gay activists that sought to play with language, not by saying that they were essentially mysogynous (spelling?) and homophobic but that their theory of action, their praxis, was wrong.
( , Tue 16 Sep 2014, 23:21, Share, Reply)
just that the intention, the mens rea, is absent.
I would say that Gervais's intention is feminist, anti-homophobe, anti-racist, and anti-disabilist. That his intention is based on the evidence of linguistics and embedded in a method of emancipatory action that was most prominently used by feminists and the gay rights movement.
He cannot thus be criticised specifically on what he says, but how successful he is in changing and escaping the oppressive relations that these words initially operated in. This is how we criticise those feminists and gay activists that sought to play with language, not by saying that they were essentially mysogynous (spelling?) and homophobic but that their theory of action, their praxis, was wrong.
( , Tue 16 Sep 2014, 23:21, Share, Reply)