Frank Zappa Appreciation Thread

[Guybrush]

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

What in the world would count as a "meaningful way" to you?

It's the account of someone who spent a lot of time with Zappa, saw his behaviour and discussed women's lib and morals with him. She addressed what is understatedly called their double standard. How does your beef with a single slogan counter any of this?

[Marie Monday]

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

You were responding to a post of mine that said, "Zappa didn't find it negative or problematic or anything that men and women enjoyed sex."

So how would we be talking about a double standard, "shaming" women, etc.?

because you used what you're quoting to claim that Zappa doesn't mean 'slut' in a negative way. What I'm saying is that one can enjoy having lots of sex, and even not be opposed in theory to women doing so, but still shame those women for it by calling them sluts in a derogatory way

[Terrapin_Station]

Originally Posted by Guybrush

It's the account of someone who spent a lot of time with Zappa, saw his behaviour and discussed women's lib and morals with him. She addressed what is understatedly called their double standard. How does your beef with a single slogan counter any of this?

The paragraph about the double standard was talking about one of the Mothers. Who, we don't know. The next paragraph says that Zappa "didn't see her point of view," and she specifically gives the example of the woman protestor. If that example isn't relevant to evidencing what she interpreted as the different point of view, the example shouldn't be there. If it's relevant, I'm explaining what could easily be the source of an incorrect interpretation on her part. If there's more to it than that, more than just a claim that could be about an interpretation that Zappa wouldn't at all agree with, then she should have provided a bit more info.

[Terrapin_Station]

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

because you used what you're quoting to claim that Zappa doesn't mean 'slut' in a negative way. What I'm saying is that one can enjoy having lots of sex, and even not be opposed in theory to women doing so, but still shame those women for it by calling them sluts in a derogatory way

Sure, so in your view how would we know whether it's using the term in a derogatory way?

[Guybrush]

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

because you used what you're quoting to claim that Zappa doesn't mean 'slut' in a negative way. What I'm saying is that one can enjoy having lots of sex, and even not be opposed in theory to women doing so, but still shame those women for it by calling them sluts in a derogatory way

This is roughly what I believe he did and what Butcher's account seems to confirm.

It's my impression that as women became a commodity, he lost some respect for them. I think he could offend them and they would still have sex with him. I believe he thought that giving up your pride, your sex, your whatever, to a rock star or even just the band bassist-was kind of debasing yourself.

I'm fairly certain he did not allow Gail to engage in the sort of promiscuity that he himself enjoyed.

[Terrapin_Station]

Originally Posted by Guybrush

I believe he thought that giving up your pride, your sex, your whatever, to a rock star or even just the band bassist-was kind of debasing yourself.

I think you're rather projecting.

[Marie Monday]

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

Sure, so in your view how would we know whether it's using the term in a derogatory way?

See Guybrush's last post

[Terrapin_Station]

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

See Guybrush's last post

As I said, he seemed to be projecting.

So we can know by assuming that he has views that he never expressed and then reading our own views into it?

[Marie Monday]

He's not projecting lol
It's actually possible to read the intention or judgement or thoughts etc. behind what people say, like you're trying to do when you assume Guybrush is projecting

[Terrapin_Station]

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

He's not projecting lol
It's actually possible to read the intention or judgement or thoughts etc. behind what people say, like you're trying to do when you assume Guybrush is projecting

I'm not literally reading his intention, etc. The reason I said that is that what he's saying isn't actually in what we're talking about. So it must be coming from somewhere. I'm simply assuming that that would be his view.

How do you believe that we can literally read mental content such as intentions, thoughts, meanings, etc. into expressions correlated with the same? Can you explain the epistemic process there?