Aaron James offers a cognitivist conjecture, which sheds light on foul language generally. Knowing or not, people began to grasp the rules of normal usage, which called for one type of person to be called an asshole and left other types for better names. While the man is simply vile, hold back your feelings of disgust for the moment, and consider his property argument. My definition says when the term is descriptively correct. If nothing else, then, the emotional charge often associated with the term is something that must be explained.
David, I also respect your point. He also does such things systematically, across many areas of social life, say, by parking his car in handicap spaces, talking too loudly in public on his cell phone, and berating the referee at his child's little league game. The real, full story is presumably complicated. If my hunch pans out, then expressivism is wrong even about most foul language. Dan, I have to admit when I read your lead-in, I was surprised. Being honest is a good quality.
As with any good metaphor, at least as Richard Moran explains it, the point was to see or experience Pug as an asshole, to interpret him and his actions from an imaginative frame of reference that treats a man as the physical embodiment of a body part that behaves much as that body part might. In which case, you know, it is fine for colonists with guns to carve up plots and finally drive the natives into the sea or wherever. No matter how beautiful or environmentally friendly his car. But take a simpler example: Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose plain racism yearns for halcyon days of slavery. And if you mean to rudely suggest that some woman is fat which may or may not be true , you're at best using cow metaphorically, with no claim to literal truth.
So, treating people badly has an huge negative impact ultimately back to the bottom line. When Locke mentioned them, though, he nullified their claim in a rather convenient way: the natives, he said, were letting the land spoil, or lay waste, simply by not improving it with European farming techniques. He taunts his subjects with this pronouncement precisely because he seems to approve wholeheartedly. If You do not have anything nice to say, please hold your silence. Use of the term is expressively correct, says Kaplan, when the supposed fact holds: I say ouch and I am, in fact, in pain; I say that bastard and I do indeed despise the person. From a moral perspective, no one is the appropriate object of contempt or discrimination simply because they happen to belong to a racial group.
I believe that work comes first. Often the real A… appear very very nice on first contact and only show their stripes once someone has been hired. It breeds contempt, which can turn to hostility. After all, he is not to be questioned, and so he is the one chiefly wronged. So, first, the asshole is the guy -- yes, assholes are mainly, but not only, men -- who helps himself to special advantages in cooperative life.
What suggestions can you offer for dealing with assholes? Families who tolerate and compensate for irresponsible behaviors are dysfunctional. Second, he does such things from an entrenched sense of entitlement. Mine would admit to some harsh tactics, but not full consider herself an asshole. Or, more plainly: if the fender bender or other untoward event hasn't actually occurred, it won't be expressively correct to say shit! Sometimes they hurt me, seemingly without provocation, but I invariably find that at some point in the past I have made decisions based on self which later placed me in a position to be hurt. Tolerating assholes: Bosses who tolerate assholes are bossholes. But surely he didn't therefore have the right to park in handicap spaces, or savage his associates with cruel insults both of which he in fact did, among other misdeeds.
In that case, the racist judgement that Berlusconi is a wop will lay claim to truth and yet fall into error by virtue of resting on a false presupposition. Thanks for defending the donkey. Shit happens, and has to happen, for it to be shit: shit has existence as its essence. And yet, Sterling, or any particular team owner, is readily dispensed with. This kind of reasoning has led me to be pretty sceptical about expressivist analyses of foul language generally.
Dan, thanks for calling like it is. Hi Anonymous Your definition of asshole is quite specific. A more literal, non-colloquial definition would be the part of the body where shit and farts come out sorry, was that too crude? So saying oops will be expressively correct when one has just seen someone inadvertently break a wine glass, but incorrect when the mishap isn't minor for example, a whole building falls down, killing hundreds, in which case oops could at best be a macabre and vile joke. And, boy, you gotta love those gadgets! They do not understand the emotional levels and the sort of thinking process that the reciepient goes into when they here such brutally honest comments. Sometimes people just can't accept the truth which is itself contestable. Maybe he drives as though he owns the road. There is no remedy to such kind of leadership which has a good shelter of the bosshole.