Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:21 PM Jun 2014

The Rude Pundit ought to just steer clear of sexist/homophobic

terms and stereotypes.

He's a pretty literate guy who could do what he does without that.

I remember he did one and I think called a female politician a "cunt". That was removed from DU2.

He doesn't need to do it, and I think that maybe him hearing it could be helpful. Not just for him, but for everyone.

ETA he does read DU, maybe he will see it or his response will be the same as it was here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3912174

By the way, in direct response to the comment on how easy it is to write dick and cunt jokes, hey - don't shit in my bed. You try to come up with dick and cunt jokes almost every weekday for five years.


NOTE: above excerpt is a response from Rude Pundit located at the above link. You can read the entire context there.
359 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Rude Pundit ought to just steer clear of sexist/homophobic (Original Post) boston bean Jun 2014 OP
But it's just performance art! And besides, Ann Coulter and the Cheneys are bad. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #1
Imagine the uproar if a right leaning 840high Jun 2014 #166
Imagine the uproar if a right leaning pundit said LuvNewcastle Jun 2014 #238
Or you could not read his writings. Throd Jun 2014 #2
*sigh* He's the "RUDE" pundit. NutmegYankee Jun 2014 #3
Rude need not be sexist or homophobic. That's bigotry. boston bean Jun 2014 #5
Oh for petes sake NutmegYankee Jun 2014 #18
Did I call the rude pundit a homophobe? boston bean Jun 2014 #20
One would gather that based on the wording of post #5. NutmegYankee Jun 2014 #29
possibly inartfully worded and easily misinterpreted. boston bean Jun 2014 #32
Unfortunately, he's stuck writing in English... NutmegYankee Jun 2014 #46
I don't believe he is either. However, I don't think boston bean Jun 2014 #48
Honestly, NutmegYankee Jun 2014 #57
There aren't any other words that were once common usage that are boston bean Jun 2014 #60
That actually was my point. NutmegYankee Jun 2014 #72
He is not a bigot but he uses bigotry in the form of sexist/homophobic terms and stereotypes. boston bean Jun 2014 #83
I understand your point. NutmegYankee Jun 2014 #104
Indeed, you and boston bean just restored my faith in DU arcane1 Jun 2014 #113
Appreciate the polite and meaningful conversation. boston bean Jun 2014 #123
Let the Man Speak tea and oranges Jun 2014 #125
The right is the party of bigotry. boston bean Jun 2014 #127
It just hit me that what you're offering is a literary critique! tea and oranges Jun 2014 #138
"Unfortunately, he's stuck writing in English" LuvNewcastle Jun 2014 #240
If you are offended, then trash the threads. Plez dont try to censor what we read. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #201
Yup... MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #355
No one forces you to read the RP. HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #308
no one forces you to read boston bean's posts. Scout Jun 2014 #328
But I'm not trying to hide their post... HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #334
That's cute, but where do you stand? You favor a small few determining what the rest of us rhett o rick Jun 2014 #358
My bad. I forgot about the "asshole and proud if it" exception to homophobic language. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #7
Did you ever see this one?? It's pretty bad! boston bean Jun 2014 #14
Self-righteous indignation is often over blown. You can ignore posters and/or trash threads. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #202
as can you. Scout Jun 2014 #330
He's not hiding from anyone. mmm413 Jun 2014 #111
Then ignore him nt riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #4
Agreed. William769 Jun 2014 #6
Or he could just write what he wants quinnox Jun 2014 #8
Sure he can. I can to, and I can come to my own conclusions, and I can speak to boston bean Jun 2014 #9
And as we know, freedom of speech is freedom from feedback. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #11
I'm pretty sure that The Rude Pundit is familiar with the nature of feedback. Orrex Jun 2014 #132
Oh, I've no doubt he does. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #143
LOL! Orrex Jun 2014 #150
... NuclearDem Jun 2014 #169
"Free country"? Why are you using the Duck Dynasty fans' argument? alp227 Jun 2014 #266
I think people need to stop going overboard with what they consider sexist and homophobic. phleshdef Jun 2014 #10
Let him know. In no time at all he can be as widely read and popular as you are. 11 Bravo Jun 2014 #12
He can do what he likes. boston bean Jun 2014 #16
So can you. Warpy Jun 2014 #99
Another bringing this to the personal, like the only reason for posting was boston bean Jun 2014 #109
"One" is general. Warpy Jun 2014 #110
Okay, you find words offensive, but I think you are missing the whole point of some of RP rants Hestia Jun 2014 #251
Do you have a list of books for us to burn. bahrbearian Jun 2014 #13
No, I don't.... sorry to disappoint. boston bean Jun 2014 #15
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #224
lol CatWoman Jun 2014 #17
Minitrue says rudepundit doubleplusungood. Does thoughtcrime. Make unperson. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #21
Awesome! Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #192
+1 scarletwoman Jun 2014 #33
Really? You think I'm in favor of burning books? boston bean Jun 2014 #52
What I got out of your OP is that you're clearly in favor of controlling what other people write and scarletwoman Jun 2014 #56
+100! n/t zappaman Jun 2014 #59
OMG, I vehemently disagree with you. I guess we have to break up bettyellen Jun 2014 #249
Dammit! zappaman Jun 2014 #269
I'm already itching for a reunion! I just can't quit you, 23, Nikki or Cooley- who doesn't bettyellen Jun 2014 #298
If one of the wonderful GD hosts who put our group together zappaman Jun 2014 #299
now I have hosts lying and saying no one judged us to be an "infamous group" bettyellen Jun 2014 #325
Excellant analogy, I agree 100%. giftedgirl77 Jun 2014 #62
I am critical of his writing. Hell, if I can't say that, what the hell can I say? boston bean Jun 2014 #63
No, you want him to CHANGE his writing. There's a difference. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #78
+1000 nt riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #81
My suggestion of not using bigotry in his rants is akin to book burning? boston bean Jun 2014 #87
If the Rude Pundit is reading this thread I strongly urge him to totally ignore your "suggestions", scarletwoman Jun 2014 #98
Lee has a clearly stated "doesn't give a shit" policy on his blog. riqster Jun 2014 #259
Damn! NuclearDem Jun 2014 #66
Please see my post #25: scarletwoman Jun 2014 #85
Yeah, and what I see is tantamount to "SHUTUP, you can't tell other people what to do" NuclearDem Jun 2014 #120
What I saw was had-it-up-to-here anger, which I completely understand. pacalo Jun 2014 #187
boston bean has an opinion, fer gawd's sake! That doesn't make her a book CTyankee Jun 2014 #211
I'd give you my uncensored opinion about what you just wrote pacalo Jun 2014 #212
I am sorry if I have upset you. CTyankee Jun 2014 #213
As good as you're feeling? pacalo Jun 2014 #214
again, sorry... CTyankee Jun 2014 #216
I don't take offense as easily as some do. pacalo Jun 2014 #219
have a good night... CTyankee Jun 2014 #225
Same to you. pacalo Jun 2014 #226
Me too! Go Scarlet, we gotcha back :) Hestia Jun 2014 #252
Right on bahrbearian Jun 2014 #115
I can see how they came to that conclusion. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #204
+1000 nt riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #42
+, um, 451? SMC22307 Jun 2014 #51
LOL bahrbearian Jun 2014 #73
apparently you'd like to burn this thread. why is it that "free speech" only goes one way? nt TheFrenchRazor Jun 2014 #331
I think your hair is on fire. Squinch Jun 2014 #351
better still, people who are offended by the Rude Pundit could just steer clear.. frylock Jun 2014 #19
Why are people trying to limit what other people should or should not read? boston bean Jun 2014 #22
really?! you ask that in a thread you started advising the Rude Pundit to limit what he writes? frylock Jun 2014 #24
LOL. You think I used it to make a sexist joke? You think I used it to attack another woman? boston bean Jun 2014 #28
Oh. My. Gawd. Exactly. Context is everything... nt riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #35
Yeah it is. What context is it ok to call a woman a "c*nt" boston bean Jun 2014 #45
If you don't get the RP's "context" (rude sarcasm) then ignore him riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #65
I am not the PC Police, nor am I trying to censor him. boston bean Jun 2014 #68
It seems that you are asking him to self-censor. riqster Jun 2014 #260
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #198
Seriously I laughed out loud when I read this. Puglover Jun 2014 #244
Aren't you trying to limit what other people should or should not read? cyberswede Jun 2014 #76
No, I'm not trying to limit what other people should read or not read? boston bean Jun 2014 #77
Well, in my case, I enjoy his diatribes *despite* the offensive terms I don't like. cyberswede Jun 2014 #91
I made a suggestion. Thought it was worth a try? boston bean Jun 2014 #100
I don't really think he's normalizing homophobic/sexist stereotypes. cyberswede Jun 2014 #130
I don't think he is a homophobic or a sexist either. boston bean Jun 2014 #135
No, I don't think they would... cyberswede Jun 2014 #151
He is using bigotry to buttress political points and in essence boston bean Jun 2014 #155
I don't mind agreeing to disagree. cyberswede Jun 2014 #162
The administrators gave you the ignore tools to use. No excuses. pacalo Jun 2014 #188
they also gave alerts and juries and hosts to deal with them. the hosts appear to be so paralyzed bettyellen Jun 2014 #285
Why would anyone who knows what to expect from the Rude Pundit pacalo Jun 2014 #307
So, you don't want to answer me @ standards here, instead dredge up old bullshit. bettyellen Jun 2014 #311
Any time the tables are turned on a select few, such as yourself, it's "dredging up old bullshit". pacalo Jun 2014 #319
Du is the victim when hosts freely admit they judge DUers INSTEAD of the content here- and other bettyellen Jun 2014 #320
What a fairy tale you are spinning! pacalo Jun 2014 #324
Since you accused me of lying- here you go- the ugly truth about the hosts forum: bettyellen Jun 2014 #326
How about including the post where you insulted two DUers by name? pacalo Jun 2014 #340
you brought it up, and accused me of lying about it. I did not insult anyone- I said other people bettyellen Jun 2014 #342
"All of the alerters are in the same Group." zappaman Jun 2014 #350
yeah, it makes DU suck that some hosts are so vindictive and openly hostile towards alerters bettyellen Jun 2014 #356
But then there would be one less thing to get upset about. Nobel_Twaddle_III Jun 2014 #67
Better still, they can alert on the specific post Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #309
why doesn't RP just steer clear of people he doesn't like? double standard, no? nt TheFrenchRazor Jun 2014 #335
well you can't argue with the logic like that frylock Jun 2014 #339
For those in this thread who are defending his use of the c word dsc Jun 2014 #23
Yes. It's all in the context. mwooldri Jun 2014 #71
I am willing to bet he did no such thing dsc Jun 2014 #74
Exactly. nt redqueen Jun 2014 #86
You are correct - he hasn't. Yet. mwooldri Jun 2014 #89
Yes, he has used the n-word. Here is a link. Also used the s word for latinos and k word for Jews stevenleser Jun 2014 #168
Again: This is a dishonest comparison. redqueen Jun 2014 #253
Again, no it's not and you are moving the goalposts. stevenleser Jun 2014 #254
LOL. redqueen Jun 2014 #255
it's pretty clear that those people *would* use the n-word if they thought they could get away TheFrenchRazor Jun 2014 #337
Maybe people who can't deal with Rude Pundit's writing style ought to just steer clear of him. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author redqueen Jun 2014 #93
Doesn't everything you wrote in this post apply equally to your reaction to the OP? Squinch Jun 2014 #105
Here's the difference, in case it's too subtle for you see it on its face. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #124
You do not want the Rude Pundit to change, and you are saying so. She DOES want the Rude Pundit to Squinch Jun 2014 #129
"Castigating"? No, I'm OPPOSING her opinion. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #144
Castigating doesn't mean victimizing. Castigating means criticizing. No one said you were Squinch Jun 2014 #158
So, you're saying boston bean ought to avoid doing something? NuclearDem Jun 2014 #134
Boston Bean is entitled to express any point of view she likes... The Road Runner Jun 2014 #147
The OP wants posts written to her satisfaction, so it's just as important that others pacalo Jun 2014 #182
Goodness! chervilant Jun 2014 #173
+1 Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #228
Applause! pacalo Jun 2014 #189
Yes. BootinUp Jun 2014 #229
I never read RP nor any of the 'I'm a ranting maniac' types. When someone declares that being a Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #26
Are you meaning that writing a post about this boston bean Jun 2014 #37
No of course not, I know you'd agree. Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #95
Yeah but somehow the Mildly Impolite Pundit would not have the same impact tularetom Jun 2014 #27
Rude requires sexism and homophobia? Never knew....... boston bean Jun 2014 #30
LOL !!! + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT Jun 2014 #31
Maybe because "rude" doesn't have to fucking include bigoted shit. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #34
maybe he should be arrested and charged for obscenity like Lenny Bruce frylock Jun 2014 #41
Right, because a couple people posting on a message board NuclearDem Jun 2014 #49
i'm sorry. i thought we were discussing censorship here. frylock Jun 2014 #133
Sure, censorship like maybe agreeing with the suggestion NuclearDem Jun 2014 #142
Advocating self-censorship is censorship. riqster Jun 2014 #261
"Advocating self-censorship is censorship" WTF????? No. Really. It isn't. Squinch Jun 2014 #346
Yes, it is. riqster Jun 2014 #353
Wow. That's insane. And wicked silly, too. Squinch Jun 2014 #354
You do realize he teaches English and Creative Writing, right? Oilwellian Jun 2014 #178
Good point. pacalo Jun 2014 #193
A class well worth avoiding whistler162 Jun 2014 #236
No but you shat on anyone who peruses 4chan and teenagers tkmorris Jun 2014 #209
If you've perused 4chan at any point, you know exactly why I despise them. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #210
Wow, you really don't get it do you? truebrit71 Jun 2014 #272
No, I perfectly get that there's a horde of big pearl clutching babies NuclearDem Jun 2014 #278
Don't want to be offended, don't fucking read it. truebrit71 Jun 2014 #280
You clearly don't get it. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #288
The funny thing is, I thought this particular piece was not anywhere close to his strongest stuff... truebrit71 Jun 2014 #294
The jury results are in: In_The_Wind Jun 2014 #283
Thanks for posting the results. No comment. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #292
excellent! + a fucking gazillion n/t Scout Jun 2014 #327
so if you just admit that you're an a-hole, then it's ok? who knew? nt TheFrenchRazor Jun 2014 #338
I love when people tell others what words to use, and use the verboten words in their complaint NightWatcher Jun 2014 #36
Are you meaning I shouldn't have written this post? boston bean Jun 2014 #38
I'll type this real slow for you. You complain about sexist terms, yet you used them NightWatcher Jun 2014 #47
Ridiculous, not much more to say about it than that. boston bean Jun 2014 #50
My favorite part is how Rude's fans can't handle even mild criticism aimed at him NuclearDem Jun 2014 #43
criticize all you like, just don't try to control language NightWatcher Jun 2014 #54
It was a suggestion, not an attempt to control. boston bean Jun 2014 #55
Nah....you got what you wanted ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2014 #88
What is "Nah" in response to? boston bean Jun 2014 #94
Nah meaning I don't buy your supposed shock at the responses ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2014 #101
Suggesting alternatives and providing feedback isn't "controlling language." NuclearDem Jun 2014 #58
Mildly criticized? Uhm how about hidden? riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #80
A hide isn't a crime against humanity. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #107
Can't the same be said about you and your reaction to this OP? If you don't like it, don't read it, Squinch Jun 2014 #116
yawn, thanks for playing NightWatcher Jun 2014 #122
Translation: "Yes. I am doing exactly what I am telling the OP not to do." Squinch Jun 2014 #126
If the OP put a "Let's impose censorship" label on her post, sure. jeff47 Jun 2014 #265
But it's all part of the shtick! No one would listen to him, otherwise! Brickbat Jun 2014 #39
It's a stale and lame shtick. Got old for me long ago. Ikonoklast Jun 2014 #97
But if he can't be sexist and homophobic, then he's not rude! Brickbat Jun 2014 #108
We're sending troops to Iraq again. How many more threads about a blog post will there be? LeftyMom Jun 2014 #40
yep, and there's your fucking context right there frylock Jun 2014 #44
I thought for sure you would be against a post like that. boston bean Jun 2014 #61
you started a FUCKING thread advising a blogger to watch what he wrote.. frylock Jun 2014 #137
I know, I committed the crime of suggesting that the liberal Rude Pundit boston bean Jun 2014 #140
Maybe you should start a thread pintobean Jun 2014 #69
Judging by the number of responses, people seem to view this as quite important... The Road Runner Jun 2014 #159
Very true. In the marketplace of ideas, this thread seems to have a good bit of value. riqster Jun 2014 #264
Stupid thread is stupid. eom MohRokTah Jun 2014 #53
One comment about age and people go berserk BainsBane Jun 2014 #64
At least RP didn't really cross the line by addressing white privilege or something. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #70
Maybe we ought to take this to some group on DU? boston bean Jun 2014 #75
I think the Rude Pundit frequently makes fun of old white men... cyberswede Jun 2014 #79
He attacks politicians BainsBane Jun 2014 #119
I don't disagree about the c-word, but cyberswede Jun 2014 #141
I haven't read much by him BainsBane Jun 2014 #290
He also uses the N word for African Americans, S word for Latinos and K word for Jews stevenleser Jun 2014 #175
I don't really care to read that BainsBane Jun 2014 #195
No need for you to, but the suggestion that he only picks on two groups is not valid. nt stevenleser Jun 2014 #245
That wasn't my point BainsBane Jun 2014 #246
Sure it was. You claim slurs against two groups is accepted, but vs another it isnt. stevenleser Jun 2014 #247
Amazing, is it not? "I didn't say what I said, and stop saying that I said it!" 11 Bravo Jun 2014 #287
You need a new hobby BainsBane Jun 2014 #295
My point was about the reaction by people here. BainsBane Jun 2014 #293
When TRP uses racist slurs, he uses them to demonstrate what hateful stupid rightwingers think. redqueen Jun 2014 #297
No, people need to know he is rude, vulgar, and coarse. mwooldri Jun 2014 #82
Please do read this nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #84
Did I appear angry to you? Point to my anger, please. boston bean Jun 2014 #90
I just pointed out that if he displeases you so much nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #92
You never write about something you want to write about, and are possibly in disagreement with? boston bean Jun 2014 #96
And.... nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #102
The First Amendment cuts both ways. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #128
My advise, given the nature of the beast nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #152
You are also free to ignore Boston Bean's thread... The Road Runner Jun 2014 #163
Better than that, I am putting her on permanent ignore nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #164
Whether you ignore me is up to you. The Road Runner Jun 2014 #171
Actually I prefer to let folks know nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #174
Thank you - as a woman, who does NOT speak for all women, I do not get my thong in a bunch Hestia Jun 2014 #256
Did someone tell you that you should be offended because she is offended? Because that was nowhere Squinch Jun 2014 #347
It's pathetic how many here apparently can't differentiate rudeness/vulgarity from bigotry. redqueen Jun 2014 #103
Well, I can tell the difference. cyberswede Jun 2014 #157
Yes, we really should destroy them over a stupid pun. jeff47 Jun 2014 #267
Apparently you find BB's suggestion worse than people using slurs like "pansies". redqueen Jun 2014 #274
The problem is the suggestion, not the claim that it's bigotry. jeff47 Jun 2014 #276
Yeah. Like I said: I have a bigger problem with bigoted insults than suggestions. nt redqueen Jun 2014 #281
The Rude Pundit is a national treasure. mmm413 Jun 2014 #106
As much an American treasure as Andrew Dice Clay! whistler162 Jun 2014 #300
I think the Rude Pundit should keep writing exactly as he has been and not change one bit. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #112
How about we try avoiding Conservative Cave and Discussionist stereotypes of DU? Paladin Jun 2014 #114
But then, he wouldn't be rude nikto Jun 2014 #117
Obviously you have never listened to Don Rickles. whistler162 Jun 2014 #237
This is how I remember Don Rickles... nikto Jun 2014 #359
I like him, I read him MFM008 Jun 2014 #118
I assume you would continue to read if he left out the sexist/homophobic comments boston bean Jun 2014 #121
Amen. Sometimes the truth is edgy. But it remains truth. marble falls Jun 2014 #136
But it's not "the truth" that is edgy about his rants. The Road Runner Jun 2014 #165
The way he presents the truth is edgy. Sometimes its what it takes to get people to wake up .... marble falls Jun 2014 #185
So did you alert on meegbear's op? Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #131
I didn't alert and I was not on a jury. boston bean Jun 2014 #139
So you think it should have been alerted on, but it is out of bounds to ask if you alerted Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #145
WTF, I did not alert, that is why I said I didn't. I wasn't on the jury boston bean Jun 2014 #148
I did read what you wrote and I am still confused. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #234
I support the hiding of the thread in that the DU community hid it. boston bean Jun 2014 #241
well that cleared up nothing. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #242
Agreed. Union Scribe Jun 2014 #146
Fuck that shit Stryder Jun 2014 #149
Are you familiar with the term: RANT? DeSwiss Jun 2014 #153
Free speech applies all around. She expressed an opinion. She hasn't censored anyone. Squinch Jun 2014 #167
Then what's the point in saying anything at all.... DeSwiss Jun 2014 #183
She didn't alert on it and she wasn't on the jury. She stated an opinion, and she did so very Squinch Jun 2014 #184
I never said she did. DeSwiss Jun 2014 #186
Freedom of speech should apply even if you don't agree with the speech. Squinch Jun 2014 #191
It does apply when one doesn't agree with the speech -- that's my whole point. DeSwiss Jun 2014 #206
Freedom of expression absolutely DOES include the right to complain about how Squinch Jun 2014 #233
''I speak therefore you shouldn't.'' DeSwiss Jun 2014 #282
Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. Maybe if you read it again, because Squinch Jun 2014 #345
Bingo. When one encounters something they don't like LittleBlue Jun 2014 #190
Are you in this thread because you like what the OP said? Squinch Jun 2014 #194
Right here LittleBlue Jun 2014 #197
Saying "ought to" is tantamount to the use of force? That's completely absurd. Squinch Jun 2014 #235
Interesting you bring up homophobic terms... opiate69 Jun 2014 #154
Well, I've never heard it before, and I didn't notice or see that in the post. boston bean Jun 2014 #161
Seriously?? opiate69 Jun 2014 #218
yeah, fucking seriously. I've never heard the term prior. boston bean Jun 2014 #239
LOL ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2014 #357
Not one person in that thread spoke out -- or alerted. The hypocrisy & double standards pacalo Jun 2014 #196
Seems a clear-cut case of "selective outrage" to me... opiate69 Jun 2014 #215
We can see right through them. pacalo Jun 2014 #217
Yup.. and I'm forever amazed that some seem incapable of it. opiate69 Jun 2014 #222
Considering you and your pal are the ones who saw the post BainsBane Jun 2014 #302
It's not like I was a participant in the thread, immersed in its development enough to have pacalo Jun 2014 #312
I only saw it when Opiate linked to it. BainsBane Jun 2014 #323
I don't spend my time on DU to scour the site for something to alert on. pacalo Jun 2014 #336
You waited for a second response to mention the sock BainsBane Jun 2014 #343
It was in your thread pintobean Jun 2014 #318
Good catch very telling bahrbearian Jun 2014 #227
Ah, another one with antedelluvian bookmarks BainsBane Jun 2014 #296
You were the one who saw the post BainsBane Jun 2014 #303
Maybe you actually need to read The Rude Pundit. madinmaryland Jun 2014 #156
Thank you. k/r 840high Jun 2014 #160
So many people seem think that we are criticizing that post just because of "bad language", or ... dawg Jun 2014 #170
OMG this is fucking ridiculous. This SUCKS! Can I use the word SUCKS? BootinUp Jun 2014 #176
You seem really invested in your right ... dawg Jun 2014 #177
SO then. You are not saying I AM homophobic. The Rude one is NOT really homophobic BootinUp Jun 2014 #179
No, that's the jury system. dawg Jun 2014 #180
The notion that its a homophobic slur is utterly fucking ridiculous. phleshdef Jun 2014 #199
Bravo! scarletwoman Jun 2014 #203
Word.... giftedgirl77 Jun 2014 #208
I got a hard on BootinUp Jun 2014 #220
Nailed it. nt Old and In the Way Jun 2014 #286
What, specifically, makes it homophobic? jeff47 Jun 2014 #268
...or not, because his name is, you know, THE RUDE PUNDIT... truebrit71 Jun 2014 #172
And its a frigging character, an act. As a true brit, I am sure you will appreciate this... stevenleser Jun 2014 #181
Yes, as a good liberal why dont you write a list of what he can and cannot say? nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #200
+1,000. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #205
OK so you don't want to be no rude boy tularetom Jun 2014 #207
If he offends your sensibilities, don't read him. HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #221
FU RP mrsadm Jun 2014 #223
Or, in the alternative ... NanceGreggs Jun 2014 #230
I'll copy and paste my response on the "appreciation" thread KitSileya Jun 2014 #231
Personally ann--- Jun 2014 #232
Perfectly reasonable way of dealing with the issue. Nt riqster Jun 2014 #273
Ah, DU's censors are hard at work telling people to stop saying bad words. backscatter712 Jun 2014 #243
Are you scolding the OP? It really sounds like you are. Squinch Jun 2014 #348
Controversy sells. I think that is why he does it the way he does. Rex Jun 2014 #248
Is this a SJW thread? snooper2 Jun 2014 #250
Do you believe bigotry is wrong? nt alp227 Jun 2014 #262
It is against the rules of the Intertubes to answer a question with a question snooper2 Jun 2014 #275
Dumbest post ever Egnever Jun 2014 #257
I rarely disagree with you, but I will in this case. riqster Jun 2014 #258
yeah, also he is not god, occasionally he'll say thinks that are far too 'rude' for a website that La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2014 #263
Because, you know...book burning, or some shit. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #271
they seem to be the most delicate flowers in the DU bouquet. bettyellen Jun 2014 #317
like little luchis stomach. needlessly angry and delicate nt La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2014 #329
yeah- Sweetpea is still squirting occasionally, and it sucks. Adding the canned pumpkin to her 99% bettyellen Jun 2014 #332
yikes. i have put little shitter on dry food only + pumpkin La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2014 #333
I ended up with rabbit because they thought she might be allergic to chicken and fish, which is bettyellen Jun 2014 #341
Bullshit. If you don't like what he has to say, hide posts with "Rude Pundit" in them. Stop ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2014 #270
+1 from a paying EFF supporter. TheBlackAdder Jun 2014 #279
TRP identifies his threads with "The Rude Pundit:," steer clear or update profile to 'ignore.' nt TheBlackAdder Jun 2014 #277
You've gotta go nuclear on Dick's ass. Democrats_win Jun 2014 #284
The Rude Pundit is apparently sacrosanct gollygee Jun 2014 #289
My whole point is that it is just another way DU is being trashed by ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2014 #291
I totally object to the term "PC police" gollygee Jun 2014 #301
It's all about context. Just because somebody says: ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2014 #306
People here used ro defend bullying and advocated prison rape a lot more often, redqueen Jun 2014 #304
I see you've been unable to fix that. nt ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2014 #305
actually- that has changed a lot here. Many rethought the situation. bettyellen Jun 2014 #315
I know, and those were some idiotic views. But I was actually referring to ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2014 #316
I have no idea what you are referring to, and am pretty sure I don't want to! bettyellen Jun 2014 #321
Nope, you don't. nt ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2014 #322
Okay, Mrs. Kravitz. HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #310
LOL redqueen Jun 2014 #313
upthread someone is decrying that N****r is no longer "okay". Okay then. bettyellen Jun 2014 #314
I disagree under the simple principle of I am not on this earth to tell others how to express CBGLuthier Jun 2014 #344
He calls himself "The Rude Pundit" Warren DeMontague Jun 2014 #349
May I suggest that if a DUer is offended by "rude," sexist, crude, offensive, ugly, nasty JDPriestly Jun 2014 #352
 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
1. But it's just performance art! And besides, Ann Coulter and the Cheneys are bad.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:23 PM
Jun 2014

So, you know, it's ok somehow.

NutmegYankee

(16,178 posts)
3. *sigh* He's the "RUDE" pundit.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:24 PM
Jun 2014

His tagline is "Proudly lowering the level of political discourse since 2003."

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
5. Rude need not be sexist or homophobic. That's bigotry.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:25 PM
Jun 2014

Yes, bigotry is rude. The offense is the bigotry.

NutmegYankee

(16,178 posts)
29. One would gather that based on the wording of post #5.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:50 PM
Jun 2014

If you don't think he's a bigot, then you are merely complaining that he used bad words...

Imagine that. A Blog based on being extremely rude using bad words.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
32. possibly inartfully worded and easily misinterpreted.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:51 PM
Jun 2014

However, I meant that what he writes is sometimes misogynistic and homophobic.

NutmegYankee

(16,178 posts)
46. Unfortunately, he's stuck writing in English...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:02 PM
Jun 2014

And the vast majority of rude and offensive words that can be directed as an ad hominem involve the performance of some kind of sex act by a person/onto a person or involve reproductive organs/bodily functions. He uses these words to direct withering contempt and anger at people who quite frankly deserve it. He's just trying to get his point across in the most offensive manner possible to his target while making it funny for liberals. Since we are critical thinking adults, we know that he actually isn't sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
48. I don't believe he is either. However, I don't think
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:03 PM
Jun 2014

the his usage of sexist/homophobic terms and stereotypes is necessary, in so that it perpetuates the normalcy of the terms and stereotypes. It has a negative effect.

NutmegYankee

(16,178 posts)
57. Honestly,
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:13 PM
Jun 2014

If thousands of years of designating such terms as bad words that were not to be used in polite company nor written down didn't succeed in eliminating their use, trying to do so in the age of the internet is like plugging a hole in a dike that's at the bottom of the sea.


boston bean

(36,186 posts)
60. There aren't any other words that were once common usage that are
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:15 PM
Jun 2014

considered to be extremely bigoted, that society made taboo?

Also, It's not the word per se, it the meaning the words and their intent. The meaning and intent behind the stereotypes which becomes normalized. Which are often formulated in sentences using words.

NutmegYankee

(16,178 posts)
72. That actually was my point.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:33 PM
Jun 2014

Driving the words underground (taboo as you put it) hasn't worked for thousands of years. The words have always survived. What holds public usage back is the implicit assumption that the person saying it is some kind of degenerate or bigot, like a racist with one well known slur based on the Latin word for black. That only works because being a racist is socially unacceptable, and people being social animals don't want to be outcasts. The problem in this instance is we fully understand that RP isn't a bigot. And the point he is making is found by most left leaning people to be funny, often because of the use of rude and demeaning terms. Hence the popularity of the blog. The negative feedback isn't there like it is for racist speech, etc.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
83. He is not a bigot but he uses bigotry in the form of sexist/homophobic terms and stereotypes.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:41 PM
Jun 2014

How is that at all helpful in ending bigotry? You say it's just words, however they carry a meaning. A bigoted meaning.

I'm not into normalizing that in the form of rudeness at the expense of those who have been historically oppressed. Especially from someone who I'm pretty sure is a liberal.

Therefore my suggestion to maybe leave it out. He doesn't need it. No need to crucify me (not you). It's an opinion. One I think is well reasoned. Other are free to disagree.

NutmegYankee

(16,178 posts)
104. I understand your point.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:59 PM
Jun 2014

I guess I see it much like another well known slur, that Latin based one, for which it has often been noted that acceptability of usage has been based on who says it and for what purpose. The RP audience knows that the usage in the blog isn't for the purposes of oppressing anyone, whereas usage by his targets would nearly always be understood to be unacceptable. The targets of the blog, certainly regarded as bigots by many from their actions, would be confirmed as bigots through speech, and that negative feedback against oppressive use would come into play. In a way, use of the words sets a trap for our opponents.

While we may not completely agree, it was a pleasure to have a civil discussion on the topic.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
113. Indeed, you and boston bean just restored my faith in DU
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:06 PM
Jun 2014

I've seen too many stupid arguments, hyperbole, name-calling, misrepresentation... more in 2014 than in any other year since I've been here.

It's nice to see disagreement done the way civilized people are supposed to do it

tea and oranges

(396 posts)
125. Let the Man Speak
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:16 PM
Jun 2014

Many things aren't necessary; I have an appendix I'm told I don't need. It's not necessary to hybridize flowers so that they have ruffled flowers in tempting colors or to get in arms races w/ other countries.

Very few things are necessary & it seems we have to keep fighting harder to simply hang on to them. Plus, if you've noticed that we're countervailing the march rightward, that the right's retreating, let's hear about it.

What horrifies me is the thought of living in a world where people are routinely actively mean to one another & yet that's where we're heading.

Let Rude say whatever he wants.

ps He does seem to care quite passionately, I've always suspected he's a sweetheart.

tea and oranges

(396 posts)
138. It just hit me that what you're offering is a literary critique!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:30 PM
Jun 2014

In which case you're saying that Rude's use of offensive language is a distraction for you b/c those words make you cringe b/c of their sexist & homophobic associations.

That's totally cool that you think that! I'm sure lots of people agree w/ you. Quite valid pov.

LuvNewcastle

(16,820 posts)
240. "Unfortunately, he's stuck writing in English"
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:59 AM
Jun 2014

How true. People need to think about the words they curse with. I think the Rude Pundit is a guilty pleasure -- he gets some liberals to make other liberals feel guilty about taking pleasure in his writing.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
355. Yup...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:09 PM
Jun 2014

And when the author is "Rude Pundit", you hold the remote and travel through the channels that don't offend you, or don't read/watch them, IMO.


 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
308. No one forces you to read the RP.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:36 PM
Jun 2014

And you aren't entitled to be a self-appointed decency police and forbid others from reading him. If you are easily offended by RP, simply don't read him.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
334. But I'm not trying to hide their post...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:27 PM
Jun 2014

... preventing others from reading it, see? Quite the opposite from what the delicate petunias did.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
358. That's cute, but where do you stand? You favor a small few determining what the rest of us
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:35 PM
Jun 2014

read?

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
7. My bad. I forgot about the "asshole and proud if it" exception to homophobic language.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:26 PM
Jun 2014


What on earth was I thinking?

mmm413

(185 posts)
111. He's not hiding from anyone.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:04 PM
Jun 2014

He's a proud Rude Pundit. And, I have to say, he's gotten me through really rough spots.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
9. Sure he can. I can to, and I can come to my own conclusions, and I can speak to
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:27 PM
Jun 2014

those conclusions and offer advice.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
11. And as we know, freedom of speech is freedom from feedback.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:29 PM
Jun 2014

And criticism of offensive language is Ingsoc Newspeak censorship.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
266. "Free country"? Why are you using the Duck Dynasty fans' argument?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:46 AM
Jun 2014

Just because it's a free country doesn't mean everything goes.

11 Bravo

(23,922 posts)
12. Let him know. In no time at all he can be as widely read and popular as you are.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:32 PM
Jun 2014

If only he has the wisdom and perspicacity to adhere to your guidance.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
109. Another bringing this to the personal, like the only reason for posting was
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:02 PM
Jun 2014

my being personally offended.

It's more than just about me. It the normalization of it in society. That people think just because someone is a liberal they can say the most bigoted things they please. Or just because their claim to fame of rudeness that harmful bigoted stereotypes and comments are to be accepted, because the person is a liberal. That this deserves zilch criticism or suggestion that it's not necessary, leaves me scratching my head.

There is a cognitive dissonance here, no one but me and a few others are discussing. While most others are trying to make it about me on the micro level. How offended I am, that I want to burn books, that I'm pro censorship. That my little ears can't bear to read it.

 

Hestia

(3,818 posts)
251. Okay, you find words offensive, but I think you are missing the whole point of some of RP rants
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:49 AM
Jun 2014

you are getting bogged down in the minutia and not digesting what he says. Yes, sometimes he is cringe-worthy but for all the right reasons. He says aloud what most people think (sans certain words) about the what used to be the other side says and does. So, he doesn't parse or sanitize his words, but boy, does he get down to brass tacks. What he says is extremely important and the only way to get others to pay attention is to use certain words - to get your attention.

If reading certain words gives you the vapors, why comment on it? Why try to keep others, who don't swoon over cuss words, the right to read his rants? And why come on here and try to make us care about what you think? Guess what, it's not about you but about the asshole Cheney's, et al, who never ever leave and keep causing destruction in their wake.

The worst thing the jury system has done on this board is to hide his rant. WTMFH? All you've done is give him more traffic to his site and more than likely more fans (and yes, I am one) - is that you meant to do when you figured we aren't all adult enough to be able to read for ourselves and critically read and digest what he wrote about? You've definitely given him free PR if you didn't...

When did everyone get so dad gum sensitive over everything? That's what the right wing does not us unless I am on the wrong board and everyone here is right wing? I just dunno anymore...

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
15. No, I don't.... sorry to disappoint.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:35 PM
Jun 2014

I don't understand how offering advice equates to book burning... but whatever.

Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
21. Minitrue says rudepundit doubleplusungood. Does thoughtcrime. Make unperson.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:44 PM
Jun 2014

Sorry that wasn't more comprehensible. It's just that ever since removing "c**t" and "go suck a dick" from my lexicon I haven't been able to form coherent thoughts to express complex ideas.

Gotta go. BB calling for two minutes hate. They've been getting more frequent since that post was hidden.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
56. What I got out of your OP is that you're clearly in favor of controlling what other people write and
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:12 PM
Jun 2014

read.

Rude Pundit doesn't have to change a thing about how he writes as far as I'm concerned. The fact that you think he does means that not only do you want to control what he writes, you therefore also want to control what I can read.

So, yeah. Not all that different from book-burning when it comes down to it.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
249. OMG, I vehemently disagree with you. I guess we have to break up
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:53 AM
Jun 2014

our happy little group taht never existed!

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
298. I'm already itching for a reunion! I just can't quit you, 23, Nikki or Cooley- who doesn't
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:01 PM
Jun 2014

ever acknowledge or answer my posts. I am sure deep inside Mr? Hurd feels the undeniable solidarity we do, but just wants to keep it on the down low. The waaaay down low.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
299. If one of the wonderful GD hosts who put our group together
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:03 PM
Jun 2014

would offer a BIG payment for us to reunite, I think we could get the others on board!
THE AUTHORITARIANS deserve a payday!

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
63. I am critical of his writing. Hell, if I can't say that, what the hell can I say?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:19 PM
Jun 2014

I'm not controlling him. He controls him. I control me. He'll do whatever the hell he wants to do.

That does not in any way make me in favor of book burning. Does your disagreement with me, put you in the book burning crowd as well?

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
78. No, you want him to CHANGE his writing. There's a difference.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:36 PM
Jun 2014

Be critical all you want. But when you start saying that a writer ought to change what and how he writes, you've crossed the line from being critical to desiring to control.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
87. My suggestion of not using bigotry in his rants is akin to book burning?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:45 PM
Jun 2014

Listen, as I said in the OP, maybe he change, if it is pointed out to him. Hell, people give me suggestions all the time. I don't think they are book burners.

And guess what, sometimes people have a point. If he thinks I do, it would be his choice to not do that any longer. It wouldn't be me making him.

Hell, I wish I were that powerful.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
98. If the Rude Pundit is reading this thread I strongly urge him to totally ignore your "suggestions",
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:52 PM
Jun 2014

since they are based in nothing more than your own insistence that others ought to conform to YOUR sensibilities.

Fuck that shit.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
259. Lee has a clearly stated "doesn't give a shit" policy on his blog.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:30 AM
Jun 2014

I am sure he applies it as he sees fit.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
66. Damn!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:22 PM
Jun 2014

Looks like I'm going to have to call off the fire department ladder that was headed to Rude's house. They were all set to go too.

But ever since you exposed boston bean's OP for what it was, I guess we'll just have to try later.

At least we figured out what was really at the OP's heart: totalitarian thought control akin to book burning masquerading as a totally mild suggestion that didn't even resemble a demand. I was worried someone was going to overreact.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
120. Yeah, and what I see is tantamount to "SHUTUP, you can't tell other people what to do"
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:11 PM
Jun 2014

And "if you don't like someone's writings, then don't read them."

Without any trace of irony whatsoever.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
187. What I saw was had-it-up-to-here anger, which I completely understand.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:02 AM
Jun 2014

Scarletwoman's post gets my applause. People need to speak out against those who expect everyone else around them to change in order to suit them.

CTyankee

(63,771 posts)
211. boston bean has an opinion, fer gawd's sake! That doesn't make her a book
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:43 AM
Jun 2014

burner. An opinion. About sexist language. that's it. You can't handle THAT? really?

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
212. I'd give you my uncensored opinion about what you just wrote
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:49 AM
Jun 2014

if I cared less about having a post hidden. Up to here will have to do.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
19. better still, people who are offended by the Rude Pundit could just steer clear..
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:41 PM
Jun 2014

of any thread that has RUDE PUNDIT in the subject line.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
22. Why are people trying to limit what other people should or should not read?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:44 PM
Jun 2014

I just had an accusation flung my way above asking what books I wanted to burn.

Your response seems to fit that accusation better than mine. Although I don't think you mean it that way.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
24. really?! you ask that in a thread you started advising the Rude Pundit to limit what he writes?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:47 PM
Jun 2014

are you for real? fwiw, I voted to allow this thread to stay. yes, you were alerted on for using the c word.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
28. LOL. You think I used it to make a sexist joke? You think I used it to attack another woman?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:49 PM
Jun 2014

You think I used the misogynistic term to be rude to a woman?

Context is everything.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
45. Yeah it is. What context is it ok to call a woman a "c*nt"
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:02 PM
Jun 2014

while intentionally trying to be rude?

What context is it ok to use homophobic stereotypes in order to tear someone down in the name of rude?

I assume you enjoy reading that? I don't. You are right, context is everything. So you tell me what context it is not bigoted to use sexist/homophobic terms and stereotypes to tear individual people down.

I'm allowed to speak, so is he. I'm allowed an opinion, so he is.

So, if you don't like what I write, don't click. That is your advice to me, right? So, why don't you follow it? Perhaps because you may feel that someone is trying to squelch your speech? Our differences aren't me imposing my will upon you, and my OP is not imposing my will upon Rude Pundit.

 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
65. If you don't get the RP's "context" (rude sarcasm) then ignore him
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:22 PM
Jun 2014

You appear to be advocating that the RP be censored - which is the topic du jour here at DU.

The RP uses the "C" word in many contexts relating to politics, especially progressive topics. He is neither a neanderthal or a Rethug but an upright progressive.

His wit and sarcasm appear to be lost to you in an attempt to paint him as "rude"?

Well hell, he IS rude. Its equal opportunity rudeness towards ALL of us if you haven't read him before.

That's his schtick.

Get over it or ignore him.

He's been a DU fixture for a decade or more and NOW the PC police want to squash him?

YOU"RE the one advocating we all squash/censor him (hide his columns). I'm simply requesting you ignore him.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
68. I am not the PC Police, nor am I trying to censor him.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:25 PM
Jun 2014

Nor am I trying to control anyone. I didn't alert, I wasn't on the jury.

I pointed out that prior some of his sexist writing was removed on DU2. Also, my opinion that he lowers himself in using sexist/homophobic terms and stereotypes. That I feel his usage helps to normalize and perpetuate the bigotry.

Hell, people here are more upset with me for saying this than someone using that bigotry to be insulting to individual persons.

Response to boston bean (Reply #45)

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
76. Aren't you trying to limit what other people should or should not read?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:34 PM
Jun 2014

Namely: the Rude Pundit's use of offensive terms?

I agree that some of his terms are problematic, and I really doubt he would use the n-word in a comparable way, for example, but it's easy enough for people to avoid, if it really bothers them.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
77. No, I'm not trying to limit what other people should read or not read?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:36 PM
Jun 2014

I question what enjoyment they get out of reading bigotry in some of my follow on posts. I also made a suggestion that maybe the Rude Pundit could leave out the sexism and homophobia from his rants in my OP.

For that I am fucking guilty as hell. Where's the guillotine!

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
91. Well, in my case, I enjoy his diatribes *despite* the offensive terms I don't like.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:46 PM
Jun 2014

I don't get enjoyment out of reading bigotry.

And there's nothing wrong with your suggestion that he leave out such offensive terms; it's just that some people are going to disagree with you (which is also ok). Hence, a logical response might be to suggest that you eschew his writing, thus avoiding being offended - it's really an easier solution that trying to get the RP to change, isn't it?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
100. I made a suggestion. Thought it was worth a try?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:56 PM
Jun 2014

How do you know, with him being such a liberal, that he might not see why this is an issue.

I very very rarely read his rants because of the sexism and homophobic comments and stereotypes.

I could mostly agree with his main points and I enjoy a good rant as well as the next person.

However, I can state my suggestion that he ought to leave sexist/homophobic BS out. It's not as simple as ME being offended. I don't know why people always take this to the personal level. In using sexist/homophobic terms and stereotypes he is normalizing this in society. Please take this up a level and look at the macro.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
130. I don't really think he's normalizing homophobic/sexist stereotypes.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:25 PM
Jun 2014

I suspect his audience is mostly liberals who are capable of appreciating his rants despite the offensive terms...and I also doubt he's widely read enough to have that broad an effect.

He's an artist, and I think most people understand that he tries to be as offensive as possible as his gimmick, not because he is homophobic or sexist, nor to normalize those sentiments.

Again, I don't have a problem at all with your suggestion; I just think it might be tilting at windmills.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
135. I don't think he is a homophobic or a sexist either.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:27 PM
Jun 2014

He can be quite offensive without using homophobic/sexist insults/slurs/stereotypes? No?

I mean would people stop reading him if they did. Do they enjoy that so much that if he stopped they would stop reading?

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
151. No, I don't think they would...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:39 PM
Jun 2014

but I guess he gets to choose his words, and we can take it or leave it.

I guess that's the cross that artists bear. Would Mapplethorpe have changed his art because people found his subject matter offensive? He could have...but should he have?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
155. He is using bigotry to buttress political points and in essence
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:45 PM
Jun 2014

scoring political points using bigotry. He's not Archie Bunker who showed the utter stupidity of bigotry. He is actually using bigotry to attack people.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think people would stop reading the Rude Pundit if he left out bigoted crapola. He is using this to entertain a liberal audience. I can't believe there are more people who haven't made this simple suggestion to him. oh well....

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
285. they also gave alerts and juries and hosts to deal with them. the hosts appear to be so paralyzed
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:10 PM
Jun 2014

these days, stuff is going to juries. I am just curious, do you feel nothing should ever be hidden? Perhaps we should be like Reddit? I'm genuinely curious when I see this kind of outrage from people who are aware the site they are on has stndards or rules is angry that they are occasionally followed. Why would anyone join a site with moderation if it enrages them so much. I totally do not get it.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
307. Why would anyone who knows what to expect from the Rude Pundit
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:33 PM
Jun 2014

click open his post if they are extra sensitive to words -- his essays have been posted on DU for years. Hmm?

And, btw, DU no longer has moderators. If you have a problem with the hosts, why don't you address them directly? After all, I've seen you address them several times before -- determined to get your way -- after you had alerted on GD OPs, while the ones being alerted on had no access to the hosts' forum & could not defend their OPs.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
311. So, you don't want to answer me @ standards here, instead dredge up old bullshit.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:42 PM
Jun 2014

Sorry that a HOST ASKED for others opinions, so I gave one. Super sorry- for DU- that some hosts expressed their dislike of all alerts and or alerters. Really disgusted that some hosts indulged in paranoid fantasies about alerters being in a group and suggesting they should be ignored because of who they are- and not the alert. Of course I pushed back on that idea- as did the others who were being denigrated in the hosts forum.

Hosts admitting that they prefer to judge DUers instead of the damned posts - that makes DU suck.

Wasn't going to go there- but you brought it up.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
319. Any time the tables are turned on a select few, such as yourself, it's "dredging up old bullshit".
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:52 PM
Jun 2014

And there you go with the hyperbole, yet again:

that some hosts expressed their dislike of all alerts and or alerters. Really disgusted that some hosts indulged in paranoid fantasies about alerters being in a group and suggesting they should be ignored because of who they are- and not the alert. Of course I pushed back on that idea- as did the others who were being denigrated in the hosts forum.

Hosts admitting that they prefer to judge DUers instead of the damned posts - that makes DU suck.


You are twisting the truth to fit your narrative of victimhood. You shouldn't have gone there, because the only one denigrating others (who could not respond due to not having access to the hosts' forum) was you.
 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
320. Du is the victim when hosts freely admit they judge DUers INSTEAD of the content here- and other
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:57 PM
Jun 2014

hosts do not call them on it. Thankfully a few other hosts spoke out against that too.
You want I should post the thread? I'm happy to oblige.

Otherwise, I won't waste time with anyone who can't answer the simplest , most direct question about the standards here.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
324. What a fairy tale you are spinning!
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:05 PM
Jun 2014

Even if the post you took "offense" to were posted right here, along with your twisted interpretation of it for easy comparison, you would remain adamant that the molehill is a huge mountain.

You are dangerous to be around.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
326. Since you accused me of lying- here you go- the ugly truth about the hosts forum:
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:15 PM
Jun 2014

(anyone who wants to go straight to the heart of it- scroll to Post #44 an the replies to it)


Agschmid (8,333 posts)

1. GDH - I posted in that thread so no vote from me.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:48 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

2. Kicking... open to NAGDH input since it seems to be a light GDH night.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:55 PM

greatauntoftriplets (139,682 posts)

4. Frankly, it's a question he should ask Skinner.







And that's all I'm going to say, just wanted to help out even a little bit. Good luck with this.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greatauntoftriplets (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:57 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

5. Thanks!










Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:58 PM

greatauntoftriplets (139,682 posts)

6. You're welcome!







Bedtime for me.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:52 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

3. Got a pass from a jury, just FYI not related to our decision.








AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Let's Keep Score Here... Grasswire Just Got A Second Strike...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025035784

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is ridiculous. Meta is dead and GD is not this person's individual forum to endlessly complain about any perceived "slights" he feels have been bestowed. Completely inappropriate for this forum

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:48 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I should hide because, META. but 50% of GD is META now it seems. I am not willing to hide this META unless all META gets hidden.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Baaaaaaaah!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: alerter can go suck eggs. turning alertds into meta is better.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:41 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

18. Whining about DU is an SOP violation and that is a host decision.







Juries are not responsible for hiding SOP violations. But we are responsible for locking them.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:59 PM

Warren Stupidity (37,298 posts)

7. gdh leave wsc









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:00 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

8. Thanks.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:58 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

34. Can can you provide a strong rationale for ignoring the GD SOP?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:49 AM

Warren Stupidity (37,298 posts)

121. Well I replied before I saw the nonsense that happened here.







Don't lock threads with no consensus. Doing so causes hosting to be painful. Please stop.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:05 PM

X_Digger (15,433 posts)

9. GDH- leaning lock, but WSC.







It is meta bullshit, but meta has been getting a pass recently.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to X_Digger (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:09 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

11. Thanks.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:05 PM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

10. GDH - Leave.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:09 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

12. Thanks.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:58 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

33. Can can you provide a strong rationale for ignoring the GD SOP?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:10 PM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

13. Leave. n/t









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Autumn (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:58 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

32. Can can you provide a strong rationale for ignoring the GD SOP?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:46 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

119. Is that required? A new rule perhaps?Can you provide a strong rationale







for locking posts you don't like and ignoring the votes of GD hosts to side with non GD hosts who just so happen to be the alerters?
Many hosts have put leave only in the subject line. And can you be anymore fucking rude? Since when do you get to put up new rules?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:31 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

14. Whining about jury decisions is not a jury issue, it's SOP and this should be locked.







GD hosts have a very narrowly defined jurisdiction and this is one of the few things is in it. There's no excuse for not locking. But considering the players I'm not going to waste the effort of going rogue and then dealing with the stupid shite that would inevitably follow. If GD hosts want to screw around instead of doing their rather elementary and easy job, fine, screw around.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:40 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

17. Not currently a GD host, but I agree with you







"Whining about DU" is clearly prohibited in the GD SoP.

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:37 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

15. Another alert:







Author: WillyT
Let's Keep Score Here... Grasswire Just Got A Second Strike...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025035784
Alerted by berni_mccoy: Whining about DU


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:39 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

16. Hoo boy. This one needed to be locked up an hour ago.







Thanks for bringing this alert in Rhiannon as I know you're not a GD host.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:42 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

19. No, I'm not at the moment, but GD alerts are the only ones on the list right now...







And most of them are about this particular thread.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:45 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

20. 5 in just over an hour.







I think we're creating a problem, not solving a problem.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:47 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

21. The way I look at this, DUers have spoken







Just my two-cents...


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:42 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

44. The DU'ers have spoken? Those DU'ers are not hosts. The hosts voted to leave.







All of the alerters are in the same Group. They can get 10 more alerts if they want. It isnt about how many alerts there are it's up to the hosts.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:45 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

47. Yup.







Last edited Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:45 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA: So I feel like I have to qualify my statement before I get called out on something I didn't mean. I just meant that regardless of the fact that there are "x" alerts it doesn't indicate whether the DU "community" feels a certain way about a thread, IMO. That is all.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:51 AM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

50. My point is that if there are more than one or two alerts







The hosts should take that into consideration and reevaluate. But it's up to you...


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:21 AM

Number23 (16,246 posts)

83. "All of the alerters are in the same Group."







And this, better than ANYTHING anyone else could have typed, is the crux of the host problem right here.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Number23 (Reply #83)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:46 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

88. you said it right there.







my jar dropped when I saw that. five alerts is nothing if you don't like the DUers, I guess. that would be the group right there.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #88)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:01 AM

Number23 (16,246 posts)

94. "five alerts is nothing if you don't like the DUers" You nailed it







As many times as you and I have bumped heads over the years, I guess we're in the "same group" because rhett o rick doesn't like us. Which is perfectly fine with me, in all honesty, but that certainly does make one question his "fitness for duty".

That person is far too preoccupied with keeping up with what "group" is doing what instead of enforcing the SOP of the forum. We all know he's by no means alone in that regard, but it's still pretty amazing to see out in the open.

Edit: And actually it was SIX alerts by long time DUers that all need to be ignored, apparently.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Number23 (Reply #94)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:09 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

97. I know, I just looked at the group and said WHUT?







I can't remember any agreeable conversations with any of them except for Nikki, actually. Wow. I feel like I've really neglected Zappaman now, ha ha.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #97)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:48 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

116. What should we call our "Group"? Pussy is already taken.







BTW, I'll play the triangle. I hope you can sing.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #88)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:49 AM

Whisp (23,770 posts)

120. Looks like List Making to me.










Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:50 AM

zappaman (11,770 posts)

90. What group is that Rick?







What group am I in?
Is there a "let's ignore their alerts" group as well as whatever group you are blathering about?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to zappaman (Reply #90)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:58 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

93. Have we ever spoken before?









Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:15 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

117. Are you suggesting that there was a coordinated effort to alert on this one stupid, meta OP?







Or any? That's both wrong and fucking ridiculous. It was a disruptive meta post. I stand by that. Alone or with a fucking "group".


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #117)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:08 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

142. Apparently we have hosts who believe alerting is so beyond the pale that







The imagine it must be personal? A bit if projecting there!


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #142)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:10 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

143. This place is a fucking joke. A few hosts are FREAKING THE FUCK OUT that they are being asked to







justify their decision, but completely ok with the fact that another LITERALLY said they should disregard the alerters.

I am really getting sick of one or two hosts treating non-(current GD)hosts like we're pieces of shit who should be ignored. Hey, newsflash, we're members of this community, too.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #142)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:12 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

144. I'm really not comfortable with GD hosts being attacked like this....







I don't think it's helpful at all...


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #144)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:13 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

145. How about alerters being 'attacked', is that cool?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #145)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:15 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

147. Even if they had been, that doesn't justify attacking GD hosts n/t









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #147)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:18 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

148. She's not 'attacking', she's voicing anger about being "grouped" and dismissed.







Follow the subthread you're in.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #148)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:19 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

149. Both of you are attacking the hosts and making things much harder in here than they need to be n/t









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #147)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:19 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

150. The alerters were attacked and accused of nefarious BS...







And if discussing it reads as an attack on any one- maybe it's because that was an incredibly shitty and biased thing to say.

No reflection on anyone acting in good faith here.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:52 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

23. Added it to the OP, thanks!









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:53 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

25. No worries!







Slow evening... *fingers crossed*


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:50 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

22. Does anyone object to a lock, and if so, can you give a strong rationale why we should ignore SOP







not to mention Skinner's clear instructions and leave this thread open?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:52 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

24. You have two GDH that voted leave so you'd need to TB with them.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:54 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

27. I don't see any rationale for leaving this open.







Do you?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:55 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

28. As I said upthread I'm not going to vote on this one.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:57 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

30. I will politely ask all three leavers for their reasons.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:59 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

35. I have politely asked all three leavers for their reasons. nt









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #35)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:05 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

38. Wonderful.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:57 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

52. We dont have to get you to approve our reasons to leave. We are supposed to leave threads open







unless there is a CLEAR CONSENSUS TO LOCK. There is no such consensus. And dont let non-hosts "strongly encourage" you do lock something when there is not a consensus. You should not be locking threads unilaterally.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #52)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:02 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

56. Baloney. You should SHARE your reasons, but you all haven't.







You shouldn't be surprised that a Host's vote with no reasoning behind it has no sway. If you care so much about a particular vote, take the time and effort to share your reasoning. That's how the community of Hosts builds consensus, not by "phoned in", effortless votes.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:11 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

81. It isn't baloney by a long shot.







Group consensus is group consensus and when it is close, Skinner himself said to leave it.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:38 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

127. New rule? Made by who? Since when is that an issue?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:23 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

112. NaGDH, but I saw a good point made in the OP.







I lurk more than post these days, but I felt strongly enough about the discussion to participate in it. So did many others. I can understand why some hosts would vote to leave it.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:53 PM

greyl (16,995 posts)

26. Am I wrong, or







did the 3 Leave voters not include an ounce of reasoning behind their vote?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:57 PM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

31. Nope, "the 3 Leave voters not include an ounce of reasoning behind their vote", again.









Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:00 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

36. If it were up to me, I'd ignore their votes







and let them work on gathering the required reasoning needed for their complaint to Admin to be sympathized with.

(Not a GD Host)


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:04 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

37. yeah, I know they think racism and sexist crap is not in their purview, but this is clearly a







violation. I guess Willie is special. This is just making GD worse, Grassswire posted some real RW crap and we have a thread of people treating her like Joan of Arc or a little lost lamb. Can't wait to see what they'll be emboldened to post next.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:45 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

114. Whoa, whoa, whoa. What does the OP have to do with "racism & sexist crap"?







Or to the post to which you were responding? That's coming from left-field, as though some prior hurts of yours are coming into play where they shouldn't be.

That's some commentary about grasswire where it doesn't belong, too. Your commitment to "no Meta threads" isn't looking very strong.

It's sad to see the hosts forum becoming an offshoot of the Meta forum.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to pacalo (Reply #114)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:51 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

137. It's about inconsistency.







What did I say about Grasswire other than she posted RW crap? She/ he did that.
No speculation why on my part.

I commented on those around her/ him acting as if getting a thread locked made them a martyr for getting a locked post- w/ RW crap. No one is a martyr here for having a locked post, it happens. And it should happen if it's dodgy RW bullshit. That is why you all got so many alerts. I'm sure the RW crap got juried for the same reason, because of where we are.



Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:05 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

125. What disgusting smears against Willy and Grasswire.







Grasswire apologized, had no idea it was a RW site, you should be ashamed of yourself.

"yeah, I know they think racism and sexist crap is not in their purview, but this is clearly a violation. I guess Willie is special. This is just making GD worse, Grassswire posted some real RW crap and we have a thread of people treating her like Joan of Arc or a little lost lamb. Can't wait to see what they'll be emboldened to post next".

That is a personal attack against two DUers by a so called host in a forum where neither of them have the opportunity to defend themselves against your vile bullshit.





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Autumn (Reply #125)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:38 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

135. She did post RW crap, it's not a smear- it's reality.







Accidental or not- I didn't speculate. No insult there. It happened, was corrected and not the end of the world. I said the same thing to Grasswire's face. Know a bit about your sources. It's not hard.

Hosts speculating WHY many different DUers alerted are some kind of a group? That was a smear, unfounded, and shows bias against six good DUers. Do they not matter?

It is now clear that some hosts are looking at the people, and not the posts when deciding how to vote. They explain this here while avoiding discussion of the OP.
That explains a lot if the inconsistency here.

Poor Achshmid asking for other hosts to weigh in. They didn't realize that's only welcome theoretically.

I never did try and "vote", but said many times I thought it was a bad lock as handled. But it should have been a clear easy lock. It's pretty cut and dry.



Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #135)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:41 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

136. She didn't know, I wouldn't have known that was a RW site.







Talking trash about DUers in the host form is not cool. Look in a mirror lady you have been looking at the people for quite a while now when you want a post locked.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Autumn (Reply #136)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:55 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

138. Untrue. I am completely unfamiliar with Grass and never speculated- but clearly their post was a







Problem. That's not talking trash- it's exactly what hosts are supposed to be discussing- instead of talking trash about the alerters. Group my ass.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #138)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:56 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

139. She apologized but that's not good enough for you. We discuss alerted posts, not the posters.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Autumn (Reply #139)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:02 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

140. A lock is good enough for RW crap, and I hold no animus toward them.







But you seem okay with trashing the alerters as was done here. No comment on that bit of bias?


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #140)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:07 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

141. Then there should be a list of acceptable sites. Y'all ought to get right on that.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Autumn (Reply #141)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:14 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

146. News busters has an anti- liberal subheading under the name...







You can look at the "editors picks" to get a feel for it where a place is at, editorially.
It's a good lesson for Grasswire, anyway.

Are you really thinking any old RW crap should stay if it's an accident or was posted by someone the hosts like and want to protect? That seems to be the message I'm getting. After all this, I have no idea why anyone would leave that crap in GD. None.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:37 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

42. GDH - So you are not a GD Host and you are pushing a host to ignore other host's votes.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:04 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

58. That fact that you are pulling rank instead of offering reasoning,







leads me to believe you are occupying space in a Host slot rather than using it as it was intended.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:06 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

59. If claiming that non-hosts dont have a vote is "pulling rank" then I am guilty. I resent your







pressure to try to get me to see things your way.

I voted to leave and I dont owe you an explanation.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:13 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

63. Nobody is arguing that non-GD Hosts have a vote.







You are arguing that the opinion of non-GD Hosts offered here in this decision making discussion should be ignored.

I say good luck trying to get people to ignore good reasoning from other DU Hosts.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #63)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:19 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

65. I didn't try and vote, we just discussed our opinions calmly. for this I am accused of being part of







some group or another. LOL. Ridiculous.



" I try to lock those threads that violate the SOP, period. If one gets left inappropriately, we cant just let the retaliatory OP stand if it violates the SOP. " -


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #65)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:26 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

68. I've just lost my patience with Hosts who think all they're supposed to do is vote, not think.







When Hosting on DU3 was new, it was different. But after seeing a pattern of Hosts voting Leave while offering little reason for doing so, and when at least one of them goes so far as to say they'll usually vote Leave regardless of whether the Post violates the SOP, I think it's impossible for other Hosts not to learn from that and adjust their adjudicating appropriately.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #68)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:32 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

71. yeah, as one said- we usually leave everything, so why not leave everything, LOL.







And that's the best reason they have for this crap? It's pretty funny.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #71)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:50 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

73. You should sign up for GD if you feel you could make a positive impact.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #73)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:57 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

75. not sure how one could these days- with fellow hosts accusing others of bias, yet offering no







rationale for their decisions of allow the SOP to be explictly violated. I hosted before, and it was different. I think they'll always be one head poppin gin with a "leave!!- no consensus possible", now that people realize that is a thing they can do. Always had hosts who did not want to enforce the SOP, but they used to be expected to explain why.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #75)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:06 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

79. He busted a thread that had no concensus







And went off on his own to lock it. That's bullshit.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Aerows (Reply #79)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:14 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

82. I don't agree with that, nor do I agree on voting to totally disregard the SOP w/ no explaination







The thread was pretty clearly whining about DU, which is just about the only thing that actually does get locked around here, these days.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #82)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:28 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

86. You don't go off on your own







and lock a thread without consensus, and it was not established.

Good bad or indifferent, rules are in place for a reason.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Aerows (Reply #86)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:31 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

87. I already agreed with that?







But, rules are completely different for some posters than others, and it has always been that way to some extent.
I remember the first day I hosted, someone said they always ignore X persons alerts. And someone else said, oh they alwys have broken that rule, so we can't enforce it. It was terribly confusing!


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:05 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

110. "Pulling rank" belongs to the host who locked without consensus.







Skinner has stated that the hosts are, in effect, free to use their own judgment. Like the jury system, you get the luck of the draw in the different mindsets who serve as a team at any given phase DU is going through at the time.

You sound angry, to be frank.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 04:43 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

109. NaGDH: The hosts who voted to leave aren't the ones who need to address ATA.







The ones who are not able to get past opposing hosting opinions are the ones complaining here. There was no consensus to lock this thread.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:17 AM

Bobbie Jo (9,525 posts)

134. Well, one did







http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1243&pid=89569

I suspect this is why others didn't feel the to explain.

Seems pretty clear to me, apparently the wrong "group" alerted.

Nope, no bias at work here. Totally above board and a good faith effort.

The inadvertent honesty is kinda interesting, no?



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:57 PM

itsrobert (10,393 posts)

29. GDH - Lock







Meta - Whining about DU


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:08 AM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

39. It is locked.







Here is the lock message:

Locking. Complaining about jury decisions violates the GD Statement of Purpose.

It's one of only a few things that does:


Statement of Purpose: Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


Thanks for understanding.
...........................................................
Agschmid, I recommend that you self-delete the OP. I will take full responsibility for this decision. Complaints should be made in ATA. Thanks all and good night.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:10 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

40. I'll leave it open, thanks for the recommendation but I imagine...







there will be some further discussion here.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:12 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

41. Good Leave. nt









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:39 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

43. GDH - I am respectfully requesting that you unlock this. Remember those here that







are not GD Hosts DONT GET TO VOTE. I am a strong leave. You and the non-hosts dont get to decide if my Leave is worthy.

Please unlock this now.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:42 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

45. I'm just popping in with a lock vote and a question







I thought whining about hidden posts was something skinner had told us we should be locking. So why wouldn't this one fall into that category?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:11 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

62. I dont see this as whining. Sometimes we dont all agree, but some here cant handle that.







I am not referring to you Violet.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #62)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:56 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

74. That's fair enough. Fwiw I don't see it as disruptive meta







Not like the ones where someone calls for the nuking of another DUer. I'm not going to die in a ditch over it so I'm changing my vote to WSC.......


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:03 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

77. It's a leave







he just hauled off and locked it.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:43 AM

Hassin Bin Sober (10,894 posts)

46. You need to unlock this. You had no consensus.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:46 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

48. Yup.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:04 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

78. Exactly.







I have no idea who he thinks he that he can just swing in and lock threads without consensus, but that was a horrible lock. He needs to get kicked.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:13 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

111. Agree.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to ucrdem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:02 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

76. You locked without consensus







That is a no no.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:50 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

49. GDH - I see a vote of three Leaves and two locks. There is no consensus to lock. This is crazy.







Non-hosts are in here telling a host what to do. No one appointed ucrdem as the decider. He does not have the power to review other hosts reasons for their votes and decide whether they are valid or not.

Of course there are a bunch of alerts. They are all in the same "Group".



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:54 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

51. I could honestly care less who the alerters are... this lock was without any consensus from GDH.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #51)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:59 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

54. I only mentioned it because the number of alerters was being used as a reason to lock. It's not a







popularity contest. The non-hosts dont get to vote.

I agree that this was locked without a clear consensus.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:10 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

60. It's not a popularity contest- but you've given no one any reason to allow the SOP to be ignored







no one has. What is up with that?




Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:17 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

64. Is that a required portion of our job?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #64)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:22 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

66. I think if you want to leave something that CLEARLY violates the SOP, you owe your fellow hosts the







courtesy of why you want to make a special exemption for this violation.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #66)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:25 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

67. In this case I didn't actually vote, as I stated multiple times.







So no special exemption from me, I just am unhappy with how the lock happened. There were 3-ish leave votes and to me that does not mean we had arrived at consensus.

Anyways not going to beat a dead horse here. Hopefully this gets re-visited by the locking host, goodnight.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #67)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:30 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

69. I understand totally. Sad you invited other hosts opinions only to have us insulted and accused of







pushing anyone to do anything. You can't express an opinion these days without some pretending it's abusive or totolitarinism, LOL.
That no one could provide a rationale, is an interesting point.

(It was a those three you, and not a you you. - And NONE of it is personal)


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:31 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

70. Well they still might, who knows there is always tomorrow.







Reason or not I feel their voices were important.

Thanks, goodnight.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:07 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

80. It isn't a popularity contest







but some people want to make it one, and it is plain stupid to allow it to continue.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Aerows (Reply #80)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:22 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

84. It is about Willie being popular, yep. And maybe about people just hating any rules here at all.










Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #84)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:49 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

89. Locking a thread







without consensus is against the rules. Is that how you define "hating the rules"? Because I define them that way.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Aerows (Reply #89)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:54 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

91. I already agreed with you in that so many times, I moved on to discuss other rules







And how they don't see to apply to some posters, or matter to some hosts.

Not exactly a secret, and it appears it's always been that way.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #91)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:08 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

96. I didn't mean to run it into the ground







I do agree with you that it doesn't seem to apply to certain posters.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Aerows (Reply #96)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:18 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

99. I'm shocked I'm apparently in a group now?







What bullshit. Really embarrassing revelation about the "thinking" that goes on here.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to bettyellen (Reply #99)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:21 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

101. ?







I am clueless as to this response. Are you sure it was intended for me ?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Aerows (Reply #101)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:24 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

102. I thought you'd have seen post 44. Apparently some DUers are better than others







According to hosts here.

Like I said, there have always been biased hosts.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:59 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

53. Some reasoning is persuasive.







Zero reasoning is not.

Zero reasoning is what the Leave votes offered.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:01 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

55. Are they even here right now?







If there is mixed consensus is it the right thing to do to lock a thread and then walk away? It's 1:01AM EST potentially the leave votes are in bed, I don't see any reason this had to be a rushed lock which is what it turned out to be.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:36 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

72. Half are here, counting you.







How long to wait for all the Leave votes to reply with some reasoning and rebuttal to all the Lock reasons given in the Alerts and Host replies here is a judgement call with a very fuzzy target.

I do think it may have bought some more time if the first objectors here to the Lock offered good reasons for Leaving it.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:26 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

126. It was my Son in Laws birthday BBQ. I looked in a few times and saw this one and said I was a leave.







as I did on the taterguy alert. I was unaware we had new administrators who are making the rules now.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to greyl (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:03 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

57. I certainly agree that reasoning is persuasive. But there is no requirement for hosts to justify







their votes. Posts are to be left open unless there is a clear consensus to lock. If three host vote to leave, that's enough to indicate that there is not a clear consensus. To pretend that our votes dont count because you dont like our reasoning is crap. I was at dinner when ucrdem unilaterally decided to lock, based on pressure from non-hosts. That's bullcrap.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:10 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

61. I said "some" reasoning,







implying that there is other reasoning that is not persuasive. I didn't mean to say "an amount of" reasoning is persuasive, because some reasoning out there is lousy. Just because it's offered as reasoning, doesn't mean it's worth a damn, iow.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:35 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

113. Your post here is what moved me to join in on this thread to give it some balance.








Non-hosts are in here telling a host what to do.


I'm a non-host who believes there was no consensus to lock this OP.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:26 AM

Behind the Aegis (32,910 posts)

85. This is fucking absurd!







On Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:00 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Locking. Complaining about jury decisions violates the GD Statement of Purpose.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5036606

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Abuse of host privileges, he did not get consensus.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:11 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: We're in for a rough ride
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good God Almighty, am I glad my GD hosting tour is over. - Lasher
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is one of the most pathetic uses of the alert system ever! If he is seen as abusing his hosting duties, take it up with Skinner, and for the record, your host privileges should also be revoked!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: An alert sent on a host's locking post???

This place is now officially nuts.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I stick by my comments (#5)!


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #85)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:55 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

92. OMG! Hilarious.









Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #85)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:04 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

95. My word







we have entered a new era. We alert on alerts about alerts


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Aerows (Reply #95)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:41 AM

LeftishBrit (32,265 posts)

104. Meta-alerting! Or perhaps meta-meta-meta-alerting.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #85)

Aerows This message was self-deleted by its author.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #85)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:40 AM

LeftishBrit (32,265 posts)

103. Good lord, this is ridiculous!









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
340. How about including the post where you insulted two DUers by name?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:34 PM
Jun 2014

Really good form, bettyellen. I'm not even a current GD host & you used me to spread your garbage.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
342. you brought it up, and accused me of lying about it. I did not insult anyone- I said other people
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:42 PM
Jun 2014

were treating a DUer like some sort of fallen martyr. Just like the rude pundit. Which I think is a fucking joke in both cases.
So post away, if you'd like- but post it all, as I did. Transparency is awesome!

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
350. "All of the alerters are in the same Group."
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:24 PM
Jun 2014

Which means that some hosts don't bother with enforcing the SOP if they don't like the alerter.

This particular "Host" (I use the term loosely since they are terrible at the job) didn't like the 5 people who alerted so told the other hosts to ignore the alerts. The made up some bullshit rationalization that the alerters were part of a "group" but refused to answer when all 5 alerters independently asked the host "What group?"

Sad that people host GD just so their buddies can not get locked and the people they don't like can not only be locked, but have their alerts ignored.

Oh well.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
356. yeah, it makes DU suck that some hosts are so vindictive and openly hostile towards alerters
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:15 PM
Jun 2014

I'd never guess it was juries who were going to stop this place from being an unflushed toilet bowl, but it appears that is the case these days.

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
309. Better still, they can alert on the specific post
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:38 PM
Jun 2014

and take their chances with a jury. I'd bet good money that other Rude Pundit dropping have survived alerts. This one didn't.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
23. For those in this thread who are defending his use of the c word
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:46 PM
Jun 2014

would you be as OK with him using the n word at say Clarence Thomas? Inquiring minds would like to know. If the answer is yes, that is one thing but if the answer is know then what is the difference?

mwooldri

(10,291 posts)
71. Yes. It's all in the context.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:30 PM
Jun 2014

This kind of stuff is expected from The Rude Pundit. For all I know he may already have associated that particular word with Clarence Thomas.

mwooldri

(10,291 posts)
89. You are correct - he hasn't. Yet.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:46 PM
Jun 2014

He's been there with the n word and the President.

If Justice Thomas does something very newsworthy then that n-word could be used. Time will tell.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
253. Again: This is a dishonest comparison.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:01 AM
Jun 2014

In your examples he is referring to bigots who think that way.
When talking about Sarah Palin's daughter's vagina, or directing people to 'suck a dick', he is not.

He is speaking as someone we are supposed to agree with.

This is really not complicated. It is depressing to me that these significant differences are apparently not intuitively obvious to others. Oh well.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
254. Again, no it's not and you are moving the goalposts.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:03 AM
Jun 2014

The goalposts were set at "He only uses phrases that are offensive regarding the LGBT community and women"

Now that this is proven false, you are changing that to "oh well, he uses them against every group but its the WAY he uses them against certain groups that is unfair".

Your point was shown to be wrong. At least have the honesty to admit it.

 

TheFrenchRazor

(2,116 posts)
337. it's pretty clear that those people *would* use the n-word if they thought they could get away
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:30 PM
Jun 2014

away with it and stay in good standing among their "progressive" friends.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
25. Maybe people who can't deal with Rude Pundit's writing style ought to just steer clear of him.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:47 PM
Jun 2014

You know? If you see an OP clearly stating that the post is going to consist of a piece written by Rude Pundit, then just STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THAT THREAD! Don't click on it! It's so simple!

I absolutely DO NOT GIVE A SHIT about anyone's fucking offense meter being pegged by Rude Pundit's writing style. HE does not have to change one thing about how he writes. Those who don't like it can pass it by, PERIOD.

I will NOT share your grievances, I will NOT share your insistence on YOUR iron-clad definition of fucking Political Correctness. That's on YOU, and only on YOU. It's YOUR responsibility to protect your delicate sensiblities by NOT clicking on an OP that features Rude Pundit's writing. It's not MY responsibility, and it's not Rude Pundit's responsibility.

No one else gets to decide what's acceptable to ME. I'm fine with Rude Pundit just as he is, I don't need him to change a damn thing. JUST DON'T READ HIM IF YOU DON'T LIKE HOW HE WRITES!

Response to scarletwoman (Reply #25)

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
105. Doesn't everything you wrote in this post apply equally to your reaction to the OP?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:00 PM
Jun 2014

"Just steer clear if you don't like it," "Stay out of the thread?" I'm not saying that to be snarky, I'm just pointing out that this OP has said something that you find offensive and you are reacting in exactly the way you are telling the OP not to react.

The OP isn't asking you to share her grievances. She's making a statement of her opinion. If you are calling what she is doing censorship and you are against that, you have to be against censorship of things you don't like as well as things you do.

Though personally, I don't think the OP was saying anything about censorship.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
124. Here's the difference, in case it's too subtle for you see it on its face.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:15 PM
Jun 2014

The OP is suggesting that a longtime public blogger change his writing style: "The Rude Pundit ought to (blah, blah, blah)..."

I am not suggesting that the OP doesn't have a right to her opinions, I am merely pointing out that if she doesn't like how the Rude Pundit writes, she can easily avoid reading what he writes by not clicking on any OP that states that it is a post of Rude Pundit's writing.

She wants the Rude Pundit to change how he writes. I do not want the Rude Pundit to change how he writes, and I am saying so.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
129. You do not want the Rude Pundit to change, and you are saying so. She DOES want the Rude Pundit to
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:25 PM
Jun 2014

change, and she is saying so.

You are not suggesting that the OP doesn't have a right to her opinions, but you very clearly offended that she expressed that opinion, and you are castigating her for doing so.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
144. "Castigating"? No, I'm OPPOSING her opinion.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:34 PM
Jun 2014

And I've stated why in several posts on this thread, as clearly as I can.

I am not fucking victimizing the OP by holding and arguing for an opposing viewpoint, for gawdsakes!

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
158. Castigating doesn't mean victimizing. Castigating means criticizing. No one said you were
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:51 PM
Jun 2014

victimizing her.

You have one opinion, she has the other. You are saying that when she holds the opinion that is opposite to yours, she should, "pass it by, PERIOD." Your position means, then, that YOU should pass it by when she expresses an opinion that is opposite to yours.

You say, "I absolutely DO NOT GIVE A SHIT about anyone's fucking offense meter being pegged by Rude Pundit's writing style. HE does not have to change one thing about how he writes." No one said he had to change. And isn't your offense meter clearly being pegged as well? And should we give a shit?

You say, "I will NOT share your grievances, I will NOT share your insistence on YOUR iron-clad definition of fucking Political Correctness." No one asked you to. She stated an opinion.

You say, "That's on YOU, and only on YOU. It's YOUR responsibility to protect your delicate sensiblities by NOT clicking on an OP that features Rude Pundit's writing. It's not MY responsibility, and it's not Rude Pundit's responsibility." So by that logic, it is your responsibility to protect YOUR delicate sensibilities by not clicking on an OP by a poster who clearly offends you.

"No one else gets to decide what's acceptable to ME. I'm fine with Rude Pundit just as he is, I don't need him to change a damn thing." No one is trying to decide anything for you, and no one is asking you to change your opinion of the Rude Pundit. The poster is simply stating an opinion that differs from yours.

She is opposing your opinion. Just as you are opposing hers. Why is your position acceptable and hers is not?

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
134. So, you're saying boston bean ought to avoid doing something?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:26 PM
Jun 2014

Yeah, I see how that's totally different.

The Road Runner

(109 posts)
147. Boston Bean is entitled to express any point of view she likes...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:37 PM
Jun 2014

...just like you are, as long as it doesn't violate DU's Terms of Service.

If she wants to read RP's blog every day for no other purpose than to complain about it she is allowed to do so.

She can complain all she likes. It doesn't mean RP has to listen.

FWIW, I don't know much about RP; however, the guy has been pushing the envelope with his blog for quite a few years now. He knows that writing style is going to produce some blow back. I imagine he's used to it at this point and isn't going to change because people get upset- That's kinda the point of writing that way in the first place.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
182. The OP wants posts written to her satisfaction, so it's just as important that others
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:44 PM
Jun 2014

who disagree with such a totalitarian view speak out. Considering that the administrators provided the tools to ignore topics that bother us, the OP is akin to book burning. The solution to the OP's complaint is to use any of the trash functions, rather than encroach on others' rights to read the Rude Pundit's essays.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
173. Goodness!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:27 PM
Jun 2014

Who pissed in your post toasties?!?

If you're done flinging poo, you might want to take your own advice (eg, elect to avoid BB's posts since you apparently cannot respect her opinion about RP). I'm sure you don't want to sound shrill and offensive?

Just FYI, I don't read the Rude Pundit precisely because I have observed that he relies heavily on bigoted and/or misogynistic language to tweak his audience.

Besides, the few times I've attempted to stomach the Rude Pundit's writings, I've found him tedious and sophomoric. It would not hurt for him to consider that his casual use of sexist and homophobic memes serves to perpetuate these isms.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
26. I never read RP nor any of the 'I'm a ranting maniac' types. When someone declares that being a
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:47 PM
Jun 2014

windbag and or asshole is their style I am no longer interested. It's fun maybe once. But DU is a batch of hypocrites. The worst homophobic language has always been and still is defended here. That is the language that says we should not have rights, have plenty of rights, that our history does not count. DU is full of posters who say that shit and our politics is made up of people who oppose or opposed and rant away about it. All of that is worse than RP and no one gives a flying fuck.
People post about how much they love the Pope, who says horrible things about gay people. That's considered to be acceptable, but it is inherently homophobic. And sexist. If you complain they say things like 'you hate all people of faith everywhere'. So if you say 'that guy is homophobic' they say 'you hate all religious people and want them eliminated from the planet'. So you can't even criticize a bigot on DU. That's worse that the RP. It just is.
So this thing of holding up a few words and a few people for inspection strikes me as a way to avoid the real issues.
But that's just my rant, I suppose.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
37. Are you meaning that writing a post about this
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:55 PM
Jun 2014

means that others wouldn't agree (especially me) with the other examples you provide?

It's all part and parcel of the same problem, imho.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
95. No of course not, I know you'd agree.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:49 PM
Jun 2014

I'm just saying that really did not rankle me like other things here do. I just said it rant style, because DU loves rants.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
27. Yeah but somehow the Mildly Impolite Pundit would not have the same impact
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:49 PM
Jun 2014

What part of "rude" do you not understand?

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
34. Maybe because "rude" doesn't have to fucking include bigoted shit.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:54 PM
Jun 2014

If that piece of shit hack excuse for a blogger has to employ 4chan teenage loser "I hate everyone because I can't get laid" level of dialect, then maybe someone should rude punt his ass back into remedial English where he belongs.

(See, rude, and I didn't even have to call anyone a c**t. Science!)

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
49. Right, because a couple people posting on a message board
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:04 PM
Jun 2014

is the same as an obscenity law. Yep, you nailed it!

Here's come a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head!

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
142. Sure, censorship like maybe agreeing with the suggestion
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:33 PM
Jun 2014

to "stop talking about this, Iraq is more important."

But hey, I mean it's apparently as simple as if you're offended by boston bean's writings, then just steer clear of them, so I don't get the dust up.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
261. Advocating self-censorship is censorship.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:40 AM
Jun 2014

I understand BB's point: I just disagree with her proposed solution.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
178. You do realize he teaches English and Creative Writing, right?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:34 PM
Jun 2014

Stephanie Miller, a major gay rights advocate, has him on her show on a weekly basis. Apparently she understands the role he plays and doesn't have a problem with what he writes. She adores him. I'd love to hear what she, an openly gay female, thinks of this pearl clutching myopia we now see on DU.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
193. Good point.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:13 AM
Jun 2014

There's a difference here between educated, open-minded mindsets versus those who take the petty, authoritative view.

 

whistler162

(11,155 posts)
236. A class well worth avoiding
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:08 AM
Jun 2014

if he has that poor a understanding of ways to say something without making a ninny of himself!

He needs to call Don Rickles for some lessons on the art of rude. Now there is a king of rude.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
210. If you've perused 4chan at any point, you know exactly why I despise them.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:37 AM
Jun 2014

Also, I was a teenage boy myself not too long ago. So, yeah, fuck them.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
278. No, I perfectly get that there's a horde of big pearl clutching babies
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:44 PM
Jun 2014

who when confronted with the fact that words have a real power to hurt and see even the mildest of suggestions from any group that's been a target of those words about how to alleviate it shit themselves and throw a big fucking infantile tantrum until the grownups give them their toy back.

The same spoiled brats who after their morning jerkoff to 1984 take to the internet to scream down feminists and minority groups for daring to speak about rape culture, white privilege, or male privilege because it hurts their precious fee-fees, and receive pathetic congratulatory pats on the back from the rest of the brogressives and brocialists for a job well done standing up for the plight of the self-entitled white man made uncomfortable.

Suggesting the slightest amount of self-censorship (OOGA BOOGA BOOGA) isn't the crime of the fucking century. In fact, outside of the discussion of the words themselves, I've happily struck n****r, s***k, w*****k, and a whole shit-stained laundry list of words from my lexicon. And yet, through some miracle of the English language, I'm still able to express complex ideas and make a point! I can even still use salty language! Also, shockingly, I don't even fucking miss calling a woman a c**t or telling other men to stop being a p***y. Imagine that!

As far as the "duh, well if you don't want to be offended, don't read it!" totally unironic attempt at censorship masquerading as advice, if someone actually thinks simply avoiding the ground zero of hurtful words in any way alleviates the problem...well, let me take your footprints because you were apparently born yesterday. All it takes is for one fucking moron to look at what's supposed to be a progressive community, see this absolute garbage heap of hate and--fucking ta da!--instant validation. If progressives, who are supposed to be the right ones are giving these words a pass, then I guess I can use them after all!

And that asshole is not going to be as eloquent as TRP.

So, cry, whine, and throw your little fits about creeping censorship, but frankly, if words like f*g, f****t, or f***y b*y had been eradicated from the English language by a cultural understanding that words, much the same way as guns, have the very real power to hurt and both should be used with the utmost responsibility and care, then maybe my friend's parents wouldn't have had to find him dangling from a fucking rope in his closet.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
280. Don't want to be offended, don't fucking read it.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:59 PM
Jun 2014

It really is that simple.

Words are words, it's the context, and who is using them that make them hurtful. That's a BIG distinction.

You obviously have strongly negative feelings about the RP and their style, I strongly suggest you don't read it anymore, it should help lower your stress level.

I also highly doubt that any serious person looks at The Rude Pundit, or this tiny little obscure Democratic Circular Firing Squad of a website, as being an accurate representation of the Progressive Community.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
288. You clearly don't get it.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:42 PM
Jun 2014

I actually like TRP. He's a hell of a talented writer. The earlier post there was just an example of how one can be rude and still avoid unnecessary hurtful words, not my true feelings about TRP at all.

Which is a big reason I'm so fucking furious over this. I've read his work, and he's so much better than this.

Example: Jamie Kilstein is one of my favorite comics ever. He's extremely funny, and equally passionate about progressive ideas. But several years ago, he had a bit about same sex adoption which was nothing but supportive of the community's right to adopt children. Unfortunately, his act used the word f****t in that specific context, and after a show, a young gay kid approached him and told him that, even though he loved the show, his using that word felt like a dagger in his heart.

For a while, Jamie was defensive about it, and refused to take that word out of the bit. He figured he was a good enough progressive that he could get away with using it in that context. But eventually he came to the realization that as a progressive, he's supposed to empathize with the people he purports to care about with his words, and realizing how painful that word was for so many gay kids in his audience, he did away with it.

And what do you know, the joke is still in there, and it's still funny--it just no longer uses the slur.

That's what I'm talking about. Words have power, and that power demands responsibility.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
294. The funny thing is, I thought this particular piece was not anywhere close to his strongest stuff...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:56 PM
Jun 2014

...but the knee-jerk reaction from the pearl-clutchers was just so out of order it had to be defended...

In_The_Wind

(72,300 posts)
283. The jury results are in:
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:06 PM
Jun 2014

12:57 PM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:52 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

No, I perfectly get that there's a horde of big pearl clutching babies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5126773

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Damn.. the whole post is just over-the-top with the insults and incivility.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:57 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is about ideas, not attacking individuals. There's no place for sexism or homophobia in society.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: yup
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Passionate defense of free speech. Keep it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you're defending the Rude Pundit's use of language, I'm pretty sure you're in no position to complain if someone replies in kind.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Poster needs to take a time-out.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I get the point. It was made very well.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
36. I love when people tell others what words to use, and use the verboten words in their complaint
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:54 PM
Jun 2014

If you don't like Rude, don't read Rude, but don't tell Rude what words he can and cannot use because it offends your delicate sensibilities. Use your common sensibilities and avoid his work all together.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
47. I'll type this real slow for you. You complain about sexist terms, yet you used them
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:03 PM
Jun 2014

to tell him what to write.

His name is the Rude Pundit, yet you were offended by his rudeness. His name alone is a trigger warning that you should heed and avoid.

And I'm also not a fan of telling people what words they can and cannot use. Have you ever read 1984?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have written the post. I am saying that you shouldn't read any of his.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
43. My favorite part is how Rude's fans can't handle even mild criticism aimed at him
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:01 PM
Jun 2014

without taking hyperbolic offense, like, say, declaring him now "under the bus."

It's almost like they can't handle mild impoliteness or something.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
54. criticize all you like, just don't try to control language
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:08 PM
Jun 2014

I have no idea what the rest of your post is about because I haven't taken offense at what was said about him. Why do you feel the need to police this thread to comment on criticism of the criticism?

Whatever dude, life's too short and this is a waste of time.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
94. What is "Nah" in response to?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:48 PM
Jun 2014

You think I write this for the replies? Hell, I could live forever without the ones calling me as a book burner, pro censorship. Most of the responses in here are personal insults.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
101. Nah meaning I don't buy your supposed shock at the responses
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:58 PM
Jun 2014

There's plenty of people in this thread who haven't thrown insults at you, they just disagree....and you obviously don't like that either.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
58. Suggesting alternatives and providing feedback isn't "controlling language."
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:13 PM
Jun 2014

It's suggesting alternatives and providing feedback.

I've no interest in policing other people's words. All I'm doing here is ridiculing the kneejerk 1984/Fahrenheit 451 hyperbole that happens every time someone with a following here is even mildly criticized for their language.

 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
80. Mildly criticized? Uhm how about hidden?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:38 PM
Jun 2014

Meegbear has been posting the RP's columns without any hides for many years and now its a hide??



Squinch

(50,774 posts)
116. Can't the same be said about you and your reaction to this OP? If you don't like it, don't read it,
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:10 PM
Jun 2014

and don't tell the OP what she can and can't say because it offends your sensibilities?

Brickbat

(19,339 posts)
39. But it's all part of the shtick! No one would listen to him, otherwise!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:59 PM
Jun 2014

And by combining homophobic, sexist slurs with political arguments we agree with, we get the best of both worlds! We can make tee-hee comments about vaginas and fucking and dick-sucking, all while trashing our political enemies! IT'S BRILLIANT!

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
97. It's a stale and lame shtick. Got old for me long ago.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:51 PM
Jun 2014

When the other side has one of their loons go off on a rant using the same style, people here defending him would be the first to lose their shit over it.

Brickbat

(19,339 posts)
108. But if he can't be sexist and homophobic, then he's not rude!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:02 PM
Jun 2014

And if he's not rude, he's not The Rude Pundit! HE EVAPORATES.

LeftyMom

(49,212 posts)
40. We're sending troops to Iraq again. How many more threads about a blog post will there be?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:59 PM
Jun 2014

This is a stupid fucking waste of time, and right now there's more important shit to discuss.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
61. I thought for sure you would be against a post like that.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:17 PM
Jun 2014

It is after all telling me that I shouldn't write what I wrote?

frylock

(34,825 posts)
137. you started a FUCKING thread advising a blogger to watch what he wrote..
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:29 PM
Jun 2014

nobody is buying this bullshit argument you keep trying to make. YOU are the one telling people what they should and shouldn't write.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
140. I know, I committed the crime of suggesting that the liberal Rude Pundit
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:32 PM
Jun 2014

leave sexist/homophobic comments and stereotypes out of his rants.

Send me to the electric chair! I am guilty! Guilty I say!

The Road Runner

(109 posts)
159. Judging by the number of responses, people seem to view this as quite important...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:52 PM
Jun 2014

...or at least interesting.

It's never wrong to consider issues of censorship and community standards. It doesn't preclude discussion of other things.

I am confidant that DU'ers can both walk and chew gum at the same time.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
64. One comment about age and people go berserk
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:21 PM
Jun 2014

Sexism and homophobia, no problem.

I bet any amount of money if someone set themselves up as the anti-old white men pundit, people here would be up in arms. Too many have no problem with humor directed at the subaltern, but if they themselves are every targeted, all hell breaks lose. The uproar over the age comment demonstrated just that, as did the call out thread about the person who referenced "malcontents." Racism, homophobia, and misogyny are fair game, just don't make fun of anyone who actually counts.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
70. At least RP didn't really cross the line by addressing white privilege or something.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:28 PM
Jun 2014

Because God knows no one here would ever try to dictate the language used in such a discussion because they found the term offensive.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
75. Maybe we ought to take this to some group on DU?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:34 PM
Jun 2014

And just not bother DU with this.... As we are often told. I know, no one was ever trying to censor what was on DU when the demanded that and have polls on it.

Is there a Rude Pundit Uses Sexist and Homophobic Terms and Stereotypes group on DU?

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
119. He attacks politicians
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:11 PM
Jun 2014

but does he use slurs about old white men? The problem with referring to Ann Coulter by the c word is not that it hurts Ann Coulter, but that it is offensive to many women. English has far more words expressing hatred toward women, LGBT, and people of color than it does for white men.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
141. I don't disagree about the c-word, but
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:32 PM
Jun 2014

I think he tries to be equally disparaging toward men...it's just harder to do that, given the imbalance of gender-related slurs and how slurs used toward women outnumber those used toward men (as well as packing more of a punch, unfortunately).

I think this is also the case when it comes to POC and LGBT folks. I'm sure if equally denigrating terms existed for white men, the RP would use them with enthusiasm.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
290. I haven't read much by him
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:51 PM
Jun 2014

so I can't profess any authority. I'll take your word on that. My point, however, was about what people on DU find acceptable vs. what they don't.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
247. Sure it was. You claim slurs against two groups is accepted, but vs another it isnt.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:47 AM
Jun 2014

And my point is, Rude pundit has used slurs against just about everyone.

11 Bravo

(23,922 posts)
287. Amazing, is it not? "I didn't say what I said, and stop saying that I said it!"
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:31 PM
Jun 2014

I see crap here every day that would cause a middle school debate moderator to collapse into paroxysms of laughter.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
295. You need a new hobby
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:57 PM
Jun 2014

Surely making snide comments about me gets boring at some point, particularly when you are so obviously wrong.

For your edification:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5127123



BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
293. My point was about the reaction by people here.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:55 PM
Jun 2014

I'll post it again:

One comment about age and people go berserk
Sexism and homophobia, no problem.

I bet any amount of money if someone set themselves up as the anti-old white men pundit, people here would be up in arms. Too many have no problem with humor directed at the subaltern, but if they themselves are every targeted, all hell breaks lose. The uproar over the age comment demonstrated just that, as did the call out thread about the person who referenced "malcontents." Racism, homophobia, and misogyny are fair game, just don't make fun of anyone who actually counts.



Subaltern means any subordinate group and certainly includes people of color. I even explicitly mention racism. No where do I say what the Rude Pundit does and doesn't do. I haven't read enough by him to say. My comment is about what insults people here find acceptable vs. the one's they don't. The subaltern are supposed to be able to take a joke and not be offended when insulted, but if anyone mentions age, malcontents, or white privilege, all hell breaks lose.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
297. When TRP uses racist slurs, he uses them to demonstrate what hateful stupid rightwingers think.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:01 PM
Jun 2014

When he uses misogynistic and homophobic insults, he's using them himself about rightwingers. And we are agreeing if we support his use of those insults.

This is a pretty significant contextual difference.

How do so many people here not grasp this?

Just thought I'd try again ...

Anyway, if you can find an example of him using racist insults against a rightwing politician (or their relatives, as he did wirh misogynistic insults toward Bristol Palin) please let me know. Maybe he's even worse than I thought.

mwooldri

(10,291 posts)
82. No, people need to know he is rude, vulgar, and coarse.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:39 PM
Jun 2014

Once it is recognized that there will be language that can be seen to be derogatory to a certain part of society then The Rude Pundit's blog can be enjoyed to its fullest.

What may need to happen is that whoever is posting from that blog here will remember that there are somewhat more sensitive and who may not use as much readers' discretion as is advised. Perhaps an appropriate summary and a link will be provided.

But then again, The Rude Pundit doesn't care about what we think. He says so in not so eloquent language on his blog.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
84. Please do read this
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:43 PM
Jun 2014


AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


You can of course exercise your own rights NOT to read or hear such testy language and steer away from the threads.

You are free to complaint, but I really doubt RP is reading this thread. And if he is, I am betting in giggles all around. It is his shtick. That is what he does. At times he gets offensive, but it is his shtick.

Because of his shtick, for example, I would never ever send even one of his milder columns to my mother. You are not my mother, but I recommend you steer away from RP. Serious.

And while you get angry over it, we have a war to discuss, an economy that is barely making do for most Americans, a fracking widening income gap, children in poverty, I could go on. Trust me, I will not concern myself over the use of the C word by a pundit who makes a point of using such language.
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
92. I just pointed out that if he displeases you so much
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:47 PM
Jun 2014

you are free to trash the threads, or universally block them. DU has those tools, free free to use them.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
96. You never write about something you want to write about, and are possibly in disagreement with?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:51 PM
Jun 2014

Uh huh.....

Hell, DU wouldn't exist. Also stop subscribing emotions to me. You are not me. You do not know what I am feeling at the moment of writing a pretty tame post.

I'm not displeased. I made an OP. Live with it.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
102. And....
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:58 PM
Jun 2014

what you write or don't write affects me in the least. I am just telling you the tools are there to improve your DU experience, that is all. And with that I will take my own advise and put this thread... in the trash.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
128. The First Amendment cuts both ways.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:22 PM
Jun 2014

RP is free to write what he wants, within the existing restrictions, and BB is free to write what she does.

If RP's work is a form of performance art as many have said, then their arguments would essentially run every art, movie, book, and TV critic out of town as book burning Nazis.

Unless BB is some government agent I'm not aware of, then I don't see how anyone could be crying censorship as anything other than, ironically, an appeal to emotion to stifle discussion.

Censorship is appalling--which is why, other than one time (mea culpa) after being emotionally stirred up, you won't see me defending obscenity or hate speech laws.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
152. My advise, given the nature of the beast
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:39 PM
Jun 2014

and I mean it, is to avoid the whole thing,

I read RP from time to time. I do not go out of my way to find the columns, but this idea that his choice of words are so offensive, it is a matter of who they are offensive to. If they are that offensive, either confront RP, or avoid it altogether because he is not going away

Oh and truth be told, I read at times some folks who also have first amendment rights, who make RP look like a boy scout. I definitely will NOT link to those places here. But as part of the job I find myself reading those sites from time to time, and after wards I have the definite urge to run, not walk, RUN, to the shower.

but if he is so damn offensive, given that Nolabear posts those links here regularly, it is easy to avoid it. The tools are there.

And from the results on this thread, I do not think she is making much headway. Language is one of those particular things that either we have a mass banning of it, or people will use at times what offends you... and at that point you can confront the author, (and in this case it will go nowhere), or you can give the author no traffic... it is the nature of the internetz

I much prefer to have RP and those sites I have mentioned be completely out there to be found, but will NOT link to, present and alive and offending... than not have them, by government fiat. There are places in the world that do mass collective word bans... that is the other choice truly.

By the way, the same argument made by the OP has been used by many school districts to ban far less offensive works of literature, like "to Kill a Mockingbird" and "Huckleberry Finn." Hell, the latter we have a new PC version that removed things like the word Nigger from it. Given when Sam Clemens wrote that book...

So I will go back to my advise. She can use the filters the site gives her, trash the threads or permanently hide them. That is also a choice you have under the first amendment. You do not have to be subjected to that language if it is such a problem.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
164. Better than that, I am putting her on permanent ignore
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:57 PM
Jun 2014

thanks for the reminder of those tools



Would you like to join her? I am serious, let me know.

The Road Runner

(109 posts)
171. Whether you ignore me is up to you.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:22 PM
Jun 2014

I suspect, though, that you will be much happier and less stressed if you do in fact put me on ignore.


As an aside, when you publicly declare that you are ignoring someone, you're not really ignoring them. You in fact are acting like a kid running around with her fingers in her ears yelling: "Lalala...I can't hear you!"




Here's a hint...The secret to successful ignoring is to simply STFU and do it.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
174. Actually I prefer to let folks know
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:27 PM
Jun 2014

so they do not bother to try to have non useful conversations.

As to my happiness, it is not about it. The tools are there, and I just chose to use them.

Have a good day, and yes, welcome to my ignore list. That way you can avoid any future threads I post on, since I will not be able to answer what you post... even if witty or insightful. That is a shame truly, but... I will take that... to be brutally honest.

It is as you requested.

 

Hestia

(3,818 posts)
256. Thank you - as a woman, who does NOT speak for all women, I do not get my thong in a bunch
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:11 AM
Jun 2014

over a word. Actually, in a thread drift, women should stand up and reclaim the word - it was a title of the Great Mother Goddess and men used her title of greatness and reduced to mere sex in order to take over religious thought. In fact all the words that are supposedly misogynistic were once titles of the Goddess - all of them - B, W, C - and women need to quit cowering and reclaim the words. Quit letting men define what offends us and personally, as a woman, I take great offense when a woman tells me that I should be offended because she is offended. Not here.

Call me the c word all you want (don't want to get alerted on though I may already have been) and it will not offend me at all, in fact, I may thank you for equating me with the Great Mother Goddess.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
347. Did someone tell you that you should be offended because she is offended? Because that was nowhere
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:53 PM
Jun 2014

in the OP.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
103. It's pathetic how many here apparently can't differentiate rudeness/vulgarity from bigotry.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:59 PM
Jun 2014

I know I've seen plenty of discussions about humor that involves bigotry and the difference between punching up vs. punching down. So obviously more people get it than are letting on. I saw the 'More Important Things' tactic upthread even ... never understood posting on threads to say how unimportant the thread is, but whatever.

Brogressives sure are a whiny, hair-on-fire type aren't they? Accusing you of book burning, quoting the constitution... all cause you said maybe stop using bigotry as humor.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
157. Well, I can tell the difference.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:50 PM
Jun 2014

I just enjoy his writing despite the bigoted comments. If I though he were actually a bigot, I'd probably feel differently.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
267. Yes, we really should destroy them over a stupid pun.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:57 AM
Jun 2014
Brogressives sure are a whiny, hair-on-fire type aren't they? Accusing you of book burning, quoting the constitution.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't turn to Ari Fleischer's advice - "People should watch what they say".

Having a debate as to whether "go suck a dick" is an expletive similar to "go fuck yourself" or bigotry is fine. Demanding an author stop using certain phrases is not.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
274. Apparently you find BB's suggestion worse than people using slurs like "pansies".
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:19 PM
Jun 2014

I have different priorities.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
276. The problem is the suggestion, not the claim that it's bigotry.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:23 PM
Jun 2014

Call it bigotry. Shout it from the mountaintops.

When one moves to "Don't say that", one crosses a very large, bright red line.

mmm413

(185 posts)
106. The Rude Pundit is a national treasure.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:01 PM
Jun 2014

He's given us solace through the most disheartening times, made us laugh and made us feel we weren't wrong or had to apologize. Okay. He's crude, but he's on the money always. We should revere and appreciate him. Sometimes, even I cringe. But he's spot on and we should not apologize or feel that somehow we have to make excuses to those who don't really matter. I'm deadly serious here. He and Will Pitt got me through some of the darkest hours I've ever experienced. And if DUers feel he should be banned or censored, all I can say is fuck off.

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
112. I think the Rude Pundit should keep writing exactly as he has been and not change one bit.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:06 PM
Jun 2014

Don't like it? Don't read his stuff. Pretty easy.

Paladin

(28,204 posts)
114. How about we try avoiding Conservative Cave and Discussionist stereotypes of DU?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:07 PM
Jun 2014

All the right-wing yokels have got to be enjoying this little dust-up.

I support Rude Pundit, vile language and all. His ultimate value is in reminding us daily that we cannot afford to play nice with the radicalized forces who are arrayed against us. If the battle cries turn profane, so be it.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
121. I assume you would continue to read if he left out the sexist/homophobic comments
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:12 PM
Jun 2014

and stereotypes, right?

Or would he just not be rude enough anymore? Serious question....

The Road Runner

(109 posts)
165. But it's not "the truth" that is edgy about his rants.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:05 PM
Jun 2014

The content of the rants themselves are pretty standard, progressive, DU-type rants. The things he complains about are all things that have been expressed thousands of times before.

The "edginess" comes from the fact that his rants are laced with profanity and material that is frequently offensive to the very audience that he is preaching to.

He's like a Left Wing pundit on steroids. He's invigorating and scary all rolled into one- maybe that's the point.

marble falls

(56,359 posts)
185. The way he presents the truth is edgy. Sometimes its what it takes to get people to wake up ....
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:59 PM
Jun 2014

and no doubt he certainly turns some off. The c-word column went too far for me.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
131. So did you alert on meegbear's op?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:25 PM
Jun 2014

Even if you didn't, wouldn't you agree that that was sort of a lame-ass thing to do?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
139. I didn't alert and I was not on a jury.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:30 PM
Jun 2014

I don't know why you think you had a right to ask me that, as I understand the implication you are trying to make and it's quite accusatory. I'm not appreciative of the attempt.

As to your second question, I think that if that if the Rude Pundits rant is homophobic or misogynistic, DUers will decide if that particular post should be alerted on and hidden. I mean isn't that what all this community standards stuff is about?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
145. So you think it should have been alerted on, but it is out of bounds to ask if you alerted
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:35 PM
Jun 2014

on it. Why would you not proudly admit to such an honorable act? Why, if this is the right thing to do, do you find it insulting to ask if you were the hero who stepped up to do it?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
148. WTF, I did not alert, that is why I said I didn't. I wasn't on the jury
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:37 PM
Jun 2014

that is why I told you I wasn't on the jury.

WTF Warren, read what I wrote again if you have further questions that aren't accusatory bullshit, get back to me.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
234. I did read what you wrote and I am still confused.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:59 AM
Jun 2014

I think that if that if the Rude Pundits rant is homophobic or misogynistic, DUers will decide if that particular post should be alerted on and hidden. I mean isn't that what all this community standards stuff is about?

You wrote that, right? And you wrote in the OP:

The Rude Pundit ought to just steer clear of sexist/homophobic


So I just get the impression that you a) find the rude pundit's writing to be sexist and homophobic, and b) think that sexist and homophobic utterances here should be alerted on and hidden.

But you find it rude and insulting to even ask if you alerted on the post or if you support hiding that post.

Do you support hiding the rude pundit's essays?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
241. I support the hiding of the thread in that the DU community hid it.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:08 AM
Jun 2014

I would not alert on the post because mostly it is accepted that his rants get posted here.

If I were on the jury, and it was flat out sexism or misogyny or homophobia, I would vote for a hide with my one vote.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
146. Agreed.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:36 PM
Jun 2014

I don't get the ferocious defense of this guy using language that most of us wouldn't accept from each other here.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
153. Are you familiar with the term: RANT?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:42 PM
Jun 2014

No? Hmmm, then I suppose the words censorship don't ring any bells either.

You do realize that this is not the Rude Pundit's problem here, but your inability to accept his right of expression, because he uses words you personally dislike?

Probably not that one either.

- What ever the hell happened to free speech?





Squinch

(50,774 posts)
167. Free speech applies all around. She expressed an opinion. She hasn't censored anyone.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:07 PM
Jun 2014

And it seems that you are writing here because of, as you put it, your inability to accept her right of expression because she wrote an opinion that you personally dislike.

The people who are calling "censorship" on someone because she expressed an opinion are pretty laughable.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
183. Then what's the point in saying anything at all....
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:48 PM
Jun 2014

...if not to squelch the use of language which one disapproves of? And considering the fate of a recent Rude Pundit thread which didn't fair so well in the censorship department because someone else complained about the language used, I think my point is well-made.

- We're all still laughing about that thread's censorship shut-down too. It was hilarious....

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
184. She didn't alert on it and she wasn't on the jury. She stated an opinion, and she did so very
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:58 PM
Jun 2014

mildly.

And if her post constitutes censorship because you think its purpose is "to squelch the use of language which one disapproves of," - and I disagree that her post does constitute censorship, but if you are maintaining that it does - then you have to agree that your post also constitutes censorship.

All this, however, is calling something censorship which is not censorship.

She stated an opinion. Just like you did.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
186. I never said she did.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:01 AM
Jun 2014

It's the atmosphere of intimidation it creates.

Expression isn't about pleasing anyone.

- It's about FREEDOM.




I'm out...............

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
191. Freedom of speech should apply even if you don't agree with the speech.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:12 AM
Jun 2014

And I seriously doubt anyone is intimidated.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
206. It does apply when one doesn't agree with the speech -- that's my whole point.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:52 AM
Jun 2014

However, freedom of expression isn't about the right to complain about how other's are using their right of expression! Jeeze! It's about respecting everyone's right no matter whether they like it or not. Clearly she doesn't and told us all about it. Fine. That's her right. But if that's all this ''right of free speech'' is about them I don't see the point in having it at all, if it's simply to be used to verbally disparage or denigrate those with whom one disagrees.

As for the influence or intimidating of others, that's really all it takes these days. As I said in this instance, what's the point of complaining if its not to exclude? To gather together with those of similar thoughts and perspectives? Again, fine, but if your free speech right is only about creating an echo chamber for the right to condemn the use of the language used by others, then it's just a matter of time before someone is doing the same to you.

- That's the whole point of protecting so-called offensive speech. Because they keep moving the lines as to what's acceptable to suit whomever's in power at the time.....


'Intimidation Is The Most Efficient Tool For Those In Power'


''To say one is exercising one's right of free speech via complaints about how someone else is using their right of free speech is not only circular logic, but hypocritical to the nth degree.'' ~DeSwiss

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
233. Freedom of expression absolutely DOES include the right to complain about how
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:50 AM
Jun 2014

others are using their right of expression. Jeez. When a group counter-protests Westboro Baptist, do you find them to be hypocritical circular thinkers?

If it's about respecting everyone's right no matter whether they like it or not, then you need to respect her right to have a dissenting opinion.

If her right to voice a dissenting opinion makes you not understand why we have a right of free speech at all, then you don't understand the right of free speech very well.

She didn't disparage or denigrate anyone. She pointed out his strengths and talents and suggested that he not use sexist or homophobic slurs.

If the point of complaining is just to exclude, then aren't you just trying to exclude her dissenting opinion? Aren't you suggesting that she not voice that dissenting opinion, thereby just creating an echo chamber for those who support the RP's use of racist and sexist slurs?

And if you are saying that using free speech to complain about the way someone else is using their free speech is circular logic and hypocritical, then please note that YOU are complaining about how someone else is using her free speech. It is not circular logic nor is it hypocritical. It is what is meant by free speech.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
345. Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. Maybe if you read it again, because
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:42 PM
Jun 2014

clearly you haven't "got it."

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
190. Bingo. When one encounters something they don't like
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:10 AM
Jun 2014

most people don't read it.

The language/behavior police try to force writers to change their writing. And when they don't get their way, they mash the Alert button and pray for a stupid jury. And when they don't get their way using that course of action, they run to ATA and other areas of the form to accuse the site owners of supporting X, Y and Z.

These are censorship tactics and it's pretty disgusting. So when someone says "they're just expressing an opinion", that is dead wrong. Mashing "Alert" is an attempt to silence.

You don't like it? Do what 99% of normal people do and don't read it.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
194. Are you in this thread because you like what the OP said?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:17 AM
Jun 2014

Or are you expressing an opinion that disagrees with the OP?

In what way did the OP try to force writers to change their writing?

And the OP has repeatedly said that she didn't alert on the original thread and wasn't on the jury. The OP expressed an opinion. Just like you did. That is not censorship.

And if you don't like the opinion the OP expressed, do what 99% of normal people do and don't read it.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
197. Right here
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:21 AM
Jun 2014
In what way did the OP try to force writers to change their writing?


It's in the title:

The Rude Pundit ought to


You can't tell people what to write and then claim you're not trying to change their writing. And you certainly can't alert and then claim you're not trying to censor the opinion.


All language police go in that group, whether trying to influence writers to change what they write or using juries. It's all the same to me. Sorry.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
235. Saying "ought to" is tantamount to the use of force? That's completely absurd.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:04 AM
Jun 2014

She isn't telling him to do anything. She is expressing the opinion that he ought to. She did it mildly and politely.

Here: I think that you ought to rethink your argument. Now: Show me the bruises. Show me how I have prevented you from sticking to your argument. Show me how I am controlling in any meaningful way what you do and don't think or say.

And don't look now but all those in this thread who are trying to say the OP doesn't have the right to express her opinion, including yourself, are doing exactly the same as those who you are calling language police.

 

opiate69

(10,129 posts)
154. Interesting you bring up homophobic terms...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:43 PM
Jun 2014

Considering, one of your friends was guilty of slinging around homophobic terms in the group you host, and oddly enough, you were silent....

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
161. Well, I've never heard it before, and I didn't notice or see that in the post.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:55 PM
Jun 2014

Are you saying that makes me incapable of pointing out homophobic terms?

I've looked the term up and I've seen two different meanings. One meaning Two very close friends that spend a lot of time together, and are rarely seen apart from each other (which comes up first). And the other meaning persons who have anal sex.

I'm not sure how she meant it. You will have to ask her.

 

opiate69

(10,129 posts)
218. Seriously??
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:57 AM
Jun 2014
One meaning Two very close friends that spend a lot of time together, and are rarely seen apart from each other


You have got to be kidding me..

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
239. yeah, fucking seriously. I've never heard the term prior.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:55 AM
Jun 2014

I looked it up and that was what is said in the urban dictionary. And it was the first link.

So, yeah, I happened to take it seriously that that is what it means. Just as I take it seriously that it also means from other links people who have anal sex.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
357. LOL
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:19 PM
Jun 2014

In some twisted way, I believe it. Because it's a pejorative that only gets hurled at one gender.

But I don't REALLY believe it.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
196. Not one person in that thread spoke out -- or alerted. The hypocrisy & double standards
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:21 AM
Jun 2014

are duly noted. Thanks for pointing it out, opiate.

 

opiate69

(10,129 posts)
215. Seems a clear-cut case of "selective outrage" to me...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:55 AM
Jun 2014

(not that we really needed any more evidence, after a decade of the same old song and dance, though)

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
312. It's not like I was a participant in the thread, immersed in its development enough to have
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:43 PM
Jun 2014

noticed it like those involved in the thread should have. In fact, I've blocked that nasty gossip corner of DU. It was pointed out to me by my pal (love ya, opiate!) as a great example of the double standards & hypocrisy that one "protected" group enjoys so much.

And why didn't you alert on it?

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
323. I only saw it when Opiate linked to it.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:02 PM
Jun 2014

Why you think I scour HOF with the same intensity he does, I have no idea. There are hundreds of posts in there everyday. I don't read them all, even when they are in a thread I created. That post was not in response to me. If you're so concerned with civility, I imagine you're busy alerting on posts in your pal's group anyway. You of course wouldn't turn a blind eye to those out of some double-standard.

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
336. I don't spend my time on DU to scour the site for something to alert on.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:27 PM
Jun 2014

And I've never used a sock puppet at any time to skirt the rules.

Funny that you've mentioned quite a few times in response to other people that you don't bother reading what they've written; now you're admitting that when you create threads, you don't read them all. I don't know if you're being disingenuous (sooprise, sooprise) or if you think you're "too special" for the "underlings".

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
343. You waited for a second response to mention the sock
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:08 PM
Jun 2014

that must be a record. It's your go-to when you know you have nothing to say.

Let me get this straight: You don't scour the site looking for things to alert on, but I am responsible for reading every single post ever made on this site? When am I allowed to work?

You can't even make an effort at being consistent. No wonder you have to resort to invoking the sock all the time. I almost feel sorry for you.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
318. It was in your thread
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:50 PM
Jun 2014

and in your group. It seems that you, or another hof member, would have seen it in plenty of time to alert. Claiming that the responsibility lies with others is ridiculous.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
296. Ah, another one with antedelluvian bookmarks
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:00 PM
Jun 2014

Imagine if we started posted to what was said in YOUR group. Luckily for you, no one has the stomach to wade through it.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
303. You were the one who saw the post
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:17 PM
Jun 2014

Why would it be up to anyone else to denounce it? And aren't you yourself exercising the same selective outrage you accuse others of?
Are homophobic slurs okay or not?

dawg

(10,610 posts)
170. So many people seem think that we are criticizing that post just because of "bad language", or ...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:19 PM
Jun 2014

"sexual language".

They seem to think that we are just being "prudes" and that we want the "Rude One" to be more polite.

I can't figure out whether they really don't understand how "go suck a dick" is homophobic, or if they just don't care. ('Cause he's on our side!)

But even though the Rude Pundit is a character, he's supposed to be a sympathetic character. He's supposed to express the liberal opinion in a shocking and rude fashion.

Bigotry is not a tool for doing that.

He has the right, of course, to write whatever he wants.

But people on this site also have the right to alert on such posts, and jurors have the right to vote HIDE.

And really, when you get right down to it, it's the people who were defending the Rude Pundit who threw the epic whine fest. Not those of us who agreed with the jury.

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
176. OMG this is fucking ridiculous. This SUCKS! Can I use the word SUCKS?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:31 PM
Jun 2014

I want my GF to SUCK my NIPPLE later. FUCK. THat feels GOOD!

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
179. SO then. You are not saying I AM homophobic. The Rude one is NOT really homophobic
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:37 PM
Jun 2014

but neither of us can use words or phrases that homophobic people use?

THATS CENSORSHIP

dawg

(10,610 posts)
180. No, that's the jury system.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:39 PM
Jun 2014

This isn't the free press. It's a (mostly) self-moderated message board.

A jury can vote to hide things it considers homophobic. That happened. I'm glad it did.

Even the Rude Pundit is not immune.

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
199. The notion that its a homophobic slur is utterly fucking ridiculous.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:42 AM
Jun 2014

That notion can eat an entire bag of dicks.

You folks are ridiculous with this stuff. This is why some people don't take us seriously when it comes to real issues of sexism and homophobia, because of this PRETEND shit. This language police stuff is getting tiresome and I'm done with it. I'm going to openly say what I want and I DARE anyone to challenge me as a homophobe or a sexist over it because then I'm gonna turn it into a conversation about REAL homophobic and sexist issues and the way you folks cheapen the debate by gnashing your tear and tearing your garments over trivial word police nonsense.

Get down off that fucking cross already.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
268. What, specifically, makes it homophobic?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:03 PM
Jun 2014

"Go fuck yourself" is not anti-sex. In fact, self-copulation would really not be much of a punishment. I think most of us would find it rather nice, if it were physically possible.

"Go suck a dick" is a similar expletive. The only way it becomes bigotry is if the act of sucking a dick is bad. Is it?

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
172. ...or not, because his name is, you know, THE RUDE PUNDIT...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:26 PM
Jun 2014

Don't like the language or the style? Then don't fucking read it...jesus why is it SO hard for people to get their heads around that concept?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
181. And its a frigging character, an act. As a true brit, I am sure you will appreciate this...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:42 PM
Jun 2014

Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2, Page 5

HAMLET (to Ophelia regarding the offer to rest his head on her lap)
Do you think I meant country matters?

yes, country is meant as a joking euphamism for the 'c' word.

Rude one also uses the entire spectrum of slurs, in this link you get the "N' word for African Americans, the 'S' word for Latinos, and the 'K' word for Jews: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/nigger-haters-for-clinton-rude-pundit.html

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
221. If he offends your sensibilities, don't read him.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:02 AM
Jun 2014

Is that too difficult a concept to grasp? Many people enjoy the Rude Pundit, why should they be deprived of their enjoyment just because one thin-skinned prudet thinks hes too offensive for them?

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
230. Or, in the alternative ...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:52 AM
Jun 2014

... the Rude Pundit can continue to do what he does so masterfully well, to the great delight and satisfaction of his many ardent fans - myself being one of them.

If you don't like what he says, or the way in which he says it, you don't have to read it. It's that simple.

"He doesn't need to do it ..." You're right. He doesn't need to say what he wants to say in the way he says it. But he chooses to do so. If you are offended by that, the you-don't-have-to-read-it option is still open to you. And again, it's that simple.



KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
231. I'll copy and paste my response on the "appreciation" thread
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:55 AM
Jun 2014

There's certainly no thought whatsoever among these cheerleaders that if liberals use these slurs against conservative women, what do you think liberal women experience? Do they think conservative hate-mongers are less inclined to use slurs against liberal women? Are they really that naive?


Don't they care that there's a huge problem for women speaking out on issues that they receive death threats, rape threats, and hate mail? Don't these so-called liberals care that women are being silenced because the price of speaking out on issues is too high? Already women must judge whether the price of speaking out is worth getting doxxed, having their faces photo-shopped onto porn pictures and having animations of their faces being beaten blue and bloody. It has been documented that these are typical reactions women face when putting themselves out there with their opinions. Even in Scandinavia this is a huge problem!

Don't they realize that the Rude Pundit and his supporters are taking away any moral high ground we could have used against them? Don't they realize that women see that their so-called fellow liberals have no problems attacking women on the other side because of their gender, rather than their opinions, and know that these "allies" can turn on them in a thrice if they say something these "allies" don't like?

 

ann---

(1,933 posts)
232. Personally
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:37 AM
Jun 2014

I can't stand all his filthy rants, that's why I don't read him any more. He turns EVERY issue into a sexual one. The man is sick.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
243. Ah, DU's censors are hard at work telling people to stop saying bad words.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:39 AM
Jun 2014

Yeah, censure and coercion will help you get the point across.

Keep the scolding up. That will win hearts and minds...

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
248. Controversy sells. I think that is why he does it the way he does.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:52 AM
Jun 2014

By purposely not being PC, it is almost guaranteed to offend someone, somewhere. Which I think is his mission in life.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
275. It is against the rules of the Intertubes to answer a question with a question
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:21 PM
Jun 2014

I thought everyone knew this

riqster

(13,986 posts)
258. I rarely disagree with you, but I will in this case.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jun 2014

RP is alerting people to the nature of his content via the name of his blog, and its slogan. It is easy to ignore, therefore.

His blog writing is very carefully crafted and is deliberately offensive. Almost anyone can find something to be offended by in any given week of his posts.

In short, it's speech and it's art. His plays aren't written like his blog, because they are a different art form and have a different purpose.

When he shits on believers, or on non-Leftists, I don't take it personally; but I could rise up, waxing wroth about how he "doesn't need" to write things that offend me. But I don't. It's the artist's call to make, and I support him in that.

Put another way, * * * * * * * * * *
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”— Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
263. yeah, also he is not god, occasionally he'll say thinks that are far too 'rude' for a website that
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:45 AM
Jun 2014

is not his.

what's will all the whining about this? he doesn't seem particularly outraged, why is anyone else so very horrified?

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
332. yeah- Sweetpea is still squirting occasionally, and it sucks. Adding the canned pumpkin to her 99%
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:23 PM
Jun 2014

rabbit (Instinct) and some probiotics and enzymes is the best I have come up with so far. She had a tick borne infection, that could flare up at any time and this could be a result of a damaged intestinal track from it. Apparently she was immuno- suppred (sp?) for years because of it, and the vets never caught it.

 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
333. yikes. i have put little shitter on dry food only + pumpkin
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:25 PM
Jun 2014

(he gets royal canin sensitive stomach or blue buffalo sensitive stomach)

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
341. I ended up with rabbit because they thought she might be allergic to chicken and fish, which is
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:40 PM
Jun 2014

apparently common. But I think it was grains that bothered her more than anything. If I give her 100% chicken or beef baby food (first stages, no salt/ spices) she tolerates it fine. Apparently it's because it is an ultra fine mince, it's much easier on the stomach. I used to give her a cheaper version of rabbit (Evanger) and then the grind got coarser she was choaking and I noticed fine bone fragments in it. But rabbit and duck seem to give her the least trouble.

The bug she got years ago can cause ulcerations in the intestinal tract, (as well as blindness and dementia) and they can become cancerous and it spreads quickly. That is what happened to the cat I adopted with her years ago, so it appears they both came to me post infection. Neither of them had the nice wavy coat that they are supposed to, and the breeder blamed it on them blowing their coats after pregnancy. But when Pea had some heavy antibiotics, her coat grew in, so they imagine she had a low level infection all those years. Luckily she eats so much that she will never be malnourished. I might try some of the Canin Sensitive stomach too.

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
270. Bullshit. If you don't like what he has to say, hide posts with "Rude Pundit" in them. Stop
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:07 PM
Jun 2014

policing what people can and cannot say.

Democrats_win

(6,539 posts)
284. You've gotta go nuclear on Dick's ass.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:08 PM
Jun 2014

The words and the ideas about sucker Dick are wayyyy over the top in this article. Sometimes you've just need to Let it Be. The Rude Pundit is almost as angry as I've been over the bush/cheney presidency.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
289. The Rude Pundit is apparently sacrosanct
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:45 PM
Jun 2014

No one can say anything negative about anything he does or says.

Is there anyone else that DU treats that way? No politician I don't think. I'm going to have to think about that.


 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
291. My whole point is that it is just another way DU is being trashed by
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:54 PM
Jun 2014

the rightwingers and the PC police.

Ever since I first discovered DU, the RP has been a mainstay and has never been sanctioned. Now all of a sudden he's getting hidden??? It's just a sign of what DU is becoming, as it sure as hell isn't the place it used to be.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
301. I totally object to the term "PC police"
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:07 PM
Jun 2014

It's a term used by right-wingers, even though you seem to connect people who expect people to be sensitive to oppressed groups and right-wingers in your mind. Expecting people to not be misogynist, racist, and homophobic isn't a bad thing.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_correctness

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
306. It's all about context. Just because somebody says:
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:23 PM
Jun 2014

""Father and Daughter Cheney Can Go Suck a Dick" doesn't automatically make them a homophobe, especially when their opinion on homosexuality is long-established to be positive.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
304. People here used ro defend bullying and advocated prison rape a lot more often,
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:18 PM
Jun 2014

oh boo hoo hoo, the good old days are over!




Oh and by the way, no one has said NO MORE RUDE PUNDIT ON DU EVAR!

If he's gonna use bigoted insults then whoever posts them here is taking their chances.

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
344. I disagree under the simple principle of I am not on this earth to tell others how to express
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:28 PM
Jun 2014

themselves and i wonder why so many people think they are.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
352. May I suggest that if a DUer is offended by "rude," sexist, crude, offensive, ugly, nasty
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:48 PM
Jun 2014

language and analogies, he or she put any post involving a Rude Pundit text on ignore.

That's what I do. I don't formally have it on ignore, but I never read it. Rude Pundit is funny. That's his schtick. More power to him, but I usually don't read his stuff because his humor doesn't suit my tastes.

So, let's place a bit of responsibility on DU readers. It's easy to avoid posts by authors that offend us repeatedly. Rude Pundit is what he is. We don't have to read what he writes. We don't have to ban him from Boston either. In my opinion, we are adults and don't need to over-swear or over-prude.

If we don't read posts by authors that disgust us, those posts will sink like lead and pretty soon, people will stop posting them. That's a better way to deal with them than creating a big controversy that divides people (and causes more people to read the original post than normally would).

Those who create a big controversy over offensive posts cause more people to read the offensive post. It's counterproductive and not the best way to deal with those posts.

We have more important things to argue about than whether Rude Pundit's posts are too crude, offensive and undignified for DU.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Rude Pundit ought to ...