it's about a homophobic put-down.

We hide things on this site all the time. We hide conservative arguments. And we hide bigotry.

We even hide things for being "woo" whatever the hell that means.

Because every one looks at the "hidden" posts with more interest than any others.

Everyone can still see them with one mouse click.

And so the whole thing really is silly and just serves to punish some members. Nothing else.

In this case, about the use of bigoted language.

Not sexual language. Not rude language.

Bigoted language.

Usually, I'm cheering the Rude Pundit on just like everyone else. But our society needs to ditch the homophobic and misogynistic slurs. And it might as well start here.

1. Hey, look at this "hidden" post!! Whee!!

2. If you get the right jury, you can make anything verboten.

first with mods and now with juries. I find the juries far worst actually.

you're cool with homophobic slurs like "go suck a dick", so long as they are aimed at conservatives?

I do not like the slur, but in the context of the editorial and given the pushing of envelopes that have been done for now close to a decade it is a shtick. And I take the shtick as seriously as I take any other shtick.

It is like when a certain black comedian started using the word "nigger" all the fracking time back in the 1990s. You might not remember that, but some of us do. People tried to get him off HBO and banned, oh my sensibilities! HBO did not, never mind that people were insulted due to the racial slurs. Hell, we now have a PC version of Huck Finn, because "Niger" and "Negro" or something. Which I also find to be problematic.

So there is this thing called context... and I recommend people get to be a tad more discerning about it.

I will add, no I would not give any of RP columns to a 15 year old, and I mean ANY 15 year old. I consider his columns, due to his shtick, to be NC-17. And knowing how my mother reacts to ahem any and all bad language. I would not give it to my mother either.

And if RP gives people tummy aches, use the tools on the site and do a universal hide of any threads by RP.

And that is because people pushed back. And they shamed the people who used that word.

I think we need to do the same for homophobic and misogynistic slurs. Our language says a lot about who we are as a people. And if our way of insulting people is to associate them with being gay, then we have internalized some of the bigotry that is still so pervasive in our society.

People want to give the Rude Pundit a pass, because being rude is his gimmick. But you can be rude without saying bigoted things.

I have had multiple people tell me on these threads that telling a straight male to go suck a dick is not even a homophobic remark. Really? In what universe is that not homophobic?

People's heads would be exploding if Rush Limbaugh had said this about one of our politicians. No one would be telling me I was wrong about it being bigoted. We'd all be having a big roast of the "evil intolerant" man who said such a dreadful thing.

But I'm tired of double standards. If it's shitty for them to say, it's shitty for us to say too.

Huck Finn was cleaned up, in some cases removed entirely from school curricula. What is next? Historic bills of sale in history books? I know with photoshop I can change them. And yes, there is a point where we go too far. Though I like the Navy policy on that...nobody, white, black, brown, or Martian can use racial stereotypes, period.

Look, I prefer not to hide my head, and as far as RP is concerned, I guess I will now become a regular reader. I need the entertainment in between picketty, Stieglitz and NEBR documents. Especially when this idiocy, and it is, replaces what he was talking about. That is Dick...darth Chenney and his daughter Lizz

Reunion coming!

your interpretation is not universal.

protected Cheney and changed the topic from his evil war crimes to 'offensive words'. So sick of this, frankly. Words V Torture, Rape, Murder, Sodomy of Children. You tell me what is more important to focus on?

If the post has been hidden for the world 'Cheney', one of the most OFFENSIVE words in the English Language, I might agree.

A sad say on DU.

We know who the asshole is. We know what he did.

If he were a black man, would you support the "Rude Pundit" for using the n-word in a rant against him?

If not, then why give a pass to homophobic and misogynistic slurs?

He got his post hid. In my opinion, he earned the HIDE.

If his message somehow reached less people because of that (which I doubt), that's on him.

Whatever you say, NuclearDem.

If you seriously think the goal of hiding the Rude Pundit's article was to distract from Cheney's war crimes, then you're absolutely off the fucking rocker.

If you're just using the rape and murder of women and children in Iraq to guilt people for bringing up a subject important to them, then that's just fucking despicable and makes you not one ounce better than that heartless boil on America's ass of a war criminal for exploiting 9/11.

And, considering how you've consistently lectured me on "exploiting" people's plights for one's own ends, it's fucking hypocritical to boot.

Know why we don't discuss it much? Because we're pretty all in fucking agreement that Cheney deserves to rot like a pig in The Hague for what he's done. Of course it won't generate much discussion!

I didn't think you could have possibly sunk any fucking lower, but holy shit!

Shark thoroughly fucking jumped.

hideable word) agreement that Cheney deserves to rot in hell etc etc.. Right, that's why this forum isn't focusing on what the Rude Pundit WAS focusing on, but on a few offensive words.

I didn't think DU could possibly have sunk lower than to hide one of the best attacks on War Criminal DICK (is that hideable btw) War Criminal Cheney I've seen in a long time. I will make sure that as many people as possible get to see it, and if Cheney has a Twitter account, which I will now check, I will make sure HE gets to see it himself.

Yes, re the 'shark jumped' reference. Unbelievable that Cheney gets pushed aside so we can focus on our 'outrage' over 'words'. Unfuckingbelievable is right!

But this whole goddamn brouhaha started with an OP complaining about the jury results.

And with usual RP readers complaining about how DU's gone to hell in a fucking hand basket because of a few bad jury decisions, and how the RP was now "under the bus."

From that very fucking moment, it stopped being about Cheney and became all about RP and his style. That OP flung open the doors on that issue.

You do have some serious fucking gall to accuse this OEF veteran with PTSD of not giving a shit about Cheney's war crimes, though. But hey, facts don't fucking matter, do they?

If you actually give a shit about getting the RP's message out there, then get everyone you know on Twitter to fucking RT the link to RP's blog, rather than complaining and throwing a fucking tantrum about censorship here. Fucking tweet it to Cheney! Hell, he might actually fucking read it.

But that would require you to be proactive and fucking do something. It's much easier to just shit on people here for not thoroughly addressing everything you want them to exactly to your fucking specifications.

Correct you are. But you just replied to one of the most relentless people you have ever met. Doesn't matter if they are right or wrong. They will beat you into submission by way of word count.

and the 'hidden' posts get even more views, then how can that possibly be censorship?

between "hiding" a post and censoring a post. "Hiding" a post just means you have to click once to read it.

a member. Thats Censorship.

repost the rude pundit, if they feel the need.

The Rude Pundit himself won't get 'banned', because he's not even a member. and he has his own website, which probably would even appreciate the traffic if people went there directly, rather than simply reading his posts in their entirety elsewhere.

....and get you blocked out of DU for 90 days.

it turned into three, that if they are so bothered by the language, to use the tools available on DU. In the end I used the tools myself, with two of them.

And I do not mean the alert button.

The reasons given by these folks are the same reasons Huck Finn has been removed from many schools, or why we now have a PC version with certain words removed because... well, we really cannot abide to read the N word anywhere, even in historic novels. I wonder if one of these days those same folks will try to change every bill of sale of the period, or tell the United Negro college to change it's insulting name!

Though it is not censorship... since we can still read the hidden thread... but it is close to it in my mind. But that is the juries, which have made this place a comedy at times.

Yes some language is quite insulting. RP has been pushing the envelope for close to ten years. That is his shtick. I do not go out of my way to read him, partly due to the language, but when I do, I still enjoy his major points, even if at times the language is well, pushing envelopes. I would not give a column by RP to a 15 year old, nor to my mother, but discerning adults...

for the thoughtful reply. Well stated.

Because since it's an original post, it locks the thread and discussion of the topic at hand is no longer available. At least until someone puts up the same article but with a different subject line.

Which I thought we weren't supposed to do when linking to articles as you're supposed to put the title of it in the subject line.

but looked at the "hidden" post well after the hoo-haw. I don't mind salty language, but I do think the post broke the 3 paragraph rule. I mean, it was practically the whole article. A few snippets with a link for those who wanted to explore further would have made it fine. As it was, it was kind of like getting hijacked at a link and being swept into a porn site.

Look, I have a pretty bad sailor-talk habit in person, even though I don't exhibit here in writing very often. But I am somewhat sympathetic to people who find graphic language troublesome. We should respect them, too. They put up with our (and I include myself) occasional f-bombs; we should put up a bit with their need for a slightly more civilized tone. There's got to be a common standard that respects everybody's needs to some extent.

And if you don't like what I just said, you can take your *&@!ing *&@!s and $!@# on them.

People who find graphic language troublesome shouldn't even click on RP threads.

I too have a VERY salty language habit in person. I'm a gay man and some of the banter between me and my partner or even my gay friends would get me banned from DU as a homophobe if I were to put it in writing on this website. My boyfriend's pet name for me is "Rotten".

I get and agree calling a gay man "cocksucker" is homophobic and based in misogyny. Ant the "c" word is go-directly-to-jail-do-not-pass-go misogyny.

But telling someone to "go suck a dick" is just a dirtier version of kiss my ass or go pound sand. It's directing someone to commit a dirty act but not calling someone a homophobic/misogynistic slur. There's a difference.

of The Rude Pundit's blogpost had not thought that, they apparently wouldn't have voted to hide based on that falsehood (as they said they did), and it wouldn't have been hidden. The other jurors apparently hid based on the content of the article.

I'm not saying anyone should have voted to hide it. I realize I didn't word my initial post particularly well. I'm typing on my phone.

I just saw the jury results downthread, and it said something like 'and, btw...' To me that reads as if he/she had decided before even getting to any issues of how much was posted, that that was just tacked on as an aside.

you are stepping on my religious rights. Since I am just a woman, is that okay? [I cannot believe I actually have to type 'c word']

The Word Police seem to think of themselves as knights on white horses, slashing and gouging their way to completely neutered language.

They're just censors, as bad as the Hayes Office and Thomas Bowdler.

the neutering of language.

If it is acceptable for people to use homophobic, sexist, racist, or whatever other sort of -ist language, that gives more acceptance to the -ists in general. Even if, as so many people have put it, it is in 'context'. (ie, give a pass to specific people to use it because 'it's their thing'.)

The 'neutering of language' as you call it, is not the end - it is a means to the end of of eliminating, or 'neutering' sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. If you can't even say the sorts of things that homophobes, sexists, racists say without having everyone jump on your case, then you have a heck of a time passing on acceptance of the ideas themselves to future generations.

A lesson learned many years ago from a man who would be shaking his head at this thread. You might have even heard of him, Michelle Foucault.

It s not a nice jail, that one of the mind, either and it allows those who wish to hide to do so well. In this particular case we are not discussing Chenney and his daughter. Mission accomplished.

That neutering of language has led to the removal of classics in American lit from school reading lists. I am sure "1984" is in the list of targets as well. After all those who control language control the discourse.

And I am disgusted people who should know better are missing those points, in the name of being a little offended.

about Cheney and spawn? Everyone knows they're evil hypocrites. Rants don't create any new worthwhile discussion, they're meant simply to vent emotions. So exactly what is the 'mission' in discussing Cheney and daughter? Focusing on has-beens that even the MSM are happy to point out are the last people who should be saying anything about Iraq?

C'mon, what actual purpose was being served? I'm eager to learn exactly what everyone 'missed' because one particular thread was locked, spawning a dozen more in its place. So what was it?

Nope, you don't. Please proceed with the neutering. I will continue to speak of how you and others are building prisons of the mind.

As somebody said down thread, we are now building a comic code for DU. Except that I think Backscatter is wrong, we already built one.

Please give all of us a list of offensive everything. Because that is where we are.

However, from the many many comments, 'dick' was not actually what a lot of people thought was wrong with that post.

It looks like most of the people who didn't care for it were upset at misogyny aimed at Liz Cheney.

So 'please proceed' with your deliberate attempt to minimize and ignore misogyny. But I gotta say, doing so makes those who defend it look like frat boys from a decade back, who simply can't see why they can't go around making jokes about things stuck up the genitals of women they dislike.

And the due was about sucking on dicks.

First somebody brings Liz

Have an excellent day in that willful prison

I imagine he was very pleased to have the focus removed from HIS horrific crimes to something totally unrelated to what the Rude One was talking about.

Now I will have to make sure that the Rude One's Excellent Rant gets circulated on Twitter where I doubt there will be any objection to the reminder of the monstrous crimes committed by Dick Cheney.

Oops, I wrote 'Dick'. Is that a hideable offense?

from those that call themselves liberals. As conservative is associated with the Republican party, more and more conservatives are calling themselves liberals.

Posts should have warnings if they are even slightly offensive, potentially.

Freer forums like Reddit have millions of active users for this reason. Free expression isn't bogged down with juries and pressure groups.

It's why I gave up my star.

and I gave my star for that, reason, and many others.

But once you can mentally separate all the subforums from the whole, it becomes manageable.

I found active forums on topics that I'd seeking for years.

it is becoming more of an analysis place, though we do have policy news.

(And I did a tad of word cup because I can)

is that "she deserves it".

that the corporate serfdom pushers are getting a pass.

I never thought of it like that but yeah, after thinking about that for a while it just makes me laugh. Post an article from Rude Pundit and it's WW3. Post propaganda written by corporate vampires and it's fine.

ignored the entire point due to a few offensive WORDS, while we all know that among the crimes that can be attributed to Cheney is the RAPE OF IRAQI WOMEN and the SODOMY of Iraqi children. Hey, words trump the actual ACT of rape and sodomy any day, apparently on DU these days.

I know what I think of when I see the word 'Cheney' or 'Bush/Iraq' or 'Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice/Ledeen. I think of Rape, Murder, Torture, Lies and I tend to not really notice some 'rough' language. But I'm sure Cheney is smiling as we fight over the words rather than his WAR CRIMES.

or are willing to accept certain restrictions on speech in a specialty board like DU.

Certain subreddits have shitty modes that censor the shit out of their little fiefdoms.

But there are other subreddits that are far more well-moderated, and can keep the trolls and shitheads out without going apeshit over a few bad words.

I am an adult, as someone posted earlier, the extremely easily offended by bad word people can use an ap that will clean it up for them. Or they could simply not read what hurts their feelings.

I feel they should post on a PG forum on some children's website rather than try to turn this into one. They have a right to not read what makes them woozy, they do not have a right to demand I join them in their PG only world.

using the same arguments used by Duck Dynasty apologists, I think the post shouldn't have been hidden for "homophobia"...it's Lee Papa's routine to be obscene! But of course blatant bigotry against entire classes of people should be frowned upon.

Ok, hard to argue with that.

But who is arguing with that?

When? where? I musta missed it.

I always thought book burning was a right wing thing, learn something new every day.

At least I always thought the right wing were those that felt they should choose what others are allowed to read. It always seams to be fascists that burn books or ban writers.

Who knew fascists were left wing. So what books may I read? Is Plato Ok? How about Socrates? (he pissed of some people)

We should start burning books that criticize Cheney ASAP so as to prove our loyalty to progressive Ideals. The Authoritarian mindset really has taken over the party, Do I get to pick what you are allowed to read or are you the only final authority on censorship?

But I moved on - and for whatever it's worth -

In the grand scheme of things I hope the other jurors have bigger things to worry about than one post at DU - including the folks that voted to hide it.

We had a difference of opinion and we move on.

GOTV in 2014.

ETA - I'm juror #2:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Daughter Cheney Can Go Suck a Dick"
"Liz Cheney, meanwhile, secretly turns the egg vibrator in her snatch up to "WMD," and she can barely pound out the words her father slurps out for need of crying out in orgasmic glee."

Unbelievably sexist and disgusting. I have no issues with "fuck it's" and "fuck you's" this guy throws out there, but this is incredibly disgusting and sexist. Completely inappropriate and stomach turning.


JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 19, 2014, 07:52 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Rude Pundit is just that - Rude. As is Duchess St. Rollins when she stops by. Leave it. Put this post in the trash can - and put meegbeer on ignore.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Dammit, this is the RUDE PUNDIT, who is deliberately rude, vile, etc. Of course he's incredibly disgusting and sexist. If you don't want to read his shtick, you should simply trash any posting with 'RUDE PUNDIT' in the title before opening it to save your stomach.

Nevertheless, I will reluctantly hide because it is, after all, site rules. (And btw, it looks like the poster violated copyright by posting FAR more than fair use.)
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That language is offensive - but that's the Rude Pundits stock in trade. You kind of know what you are getting with one of his posts. El Bryanto
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Tough call. I agree that the vibrator thing was very out of place in an otherwise righteous rant.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

Looks like that jury really came down to flipping a coin. Juror 3 decided to go with 'site rules' rather than his/her own personal inclinations on RP posts.

I guess the question it comes down to is 'Do people actually want a site with rules?' And if so, do they want to actually have everyone follow the rules, or are some people simply 'above the rules'? Should everyone be equal before the rules, or should there be some sort of caste system, where privileged people get special treatment that everyone else does not?

If I DO alert - I tell the poster right on the thread why I am alerting. I own it.

If I hide - it's gotta be so blatant my eyes hurt reading it.

If Rude Pundit and meegbear's posts didn't meet community standards - why did it take until now?

And then - I guess I'm the only person that saw the 'play on words' in that. I'm pretty sure I am so I'm going to keep quiet because it's hard to explain when I pointedly call Cheeeeeney a 'dick' - a deferment 'dick' and a 'dick' of the highest order that can suck it. His own that is. . .

The jury system obviously delivers far different results simply based on who winds up on a particular jury, which is why I tend to think if you're going to have rules, they should be pretty cut and dried, so that more people wind up at the same results.

meegbear just posted an email RP sent him (her?), and he mentioned the 'play on words' too. He seems to think people didn't see it, but I think probably lots did, but just didn't focus on that. I haven't read all the comments, but of the ones I did read from people who do think he crossed the line, it seemed split between those who found fellatio crossed the line, and those who focused more on implied incest or how Liz was being treated.

As a final note, maybe the community standards are (slowly) changing, just as society as a whole is, to reflect less tolerance for language that can be taken as misogyny or homophobic. The internet has long been a sort of wild west of misogynistic language, but there has been a lot of pushback all over the place of late, not just on DU.

To post the full thing, so no violation of IP there, or site rules. Why, whenever in post my own shit from my own blog, I think I own the full IP, I post that note at the bottom, that it is my own material.

That wasn't the issue being alerted on. To quote the alert results above

Unbelievably sexist and disgusting. I have no issues with "fuck it's" and "fuck you's" this guy throws out there, but this is incredibly disgusting and sexist. Completely inappropriate and stomach turning.

Read the comments from the jury pool. If saith juror had not done that the post would stand.

What exactly are juries for, if not to reinforce site rules? I certainly hope all seven jurors based their decision upon whether or not they felt the posting violated site rules. If not, the jury system seems rather pointless.

Then censorship is all-right, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023811787#post222

I always debated Octafish openly, don't believe I ever alerted one of his posts. No way to prove that. I WILL admit there may have been times I alerted a post that with further thought was not in total agreement with my philosophy, but rarely. The number of alerts I have thrown on DU3 could be counted on one or maybe two hands and it was intended to target clear trolls pushing far right ideology.

I enjoy debating Octafish.

I think it is another form of disruption. Being "ultra PC" seems like a RW tactic. I've gotten to the point where I just ignore the complainers.

Easy to skip over stuff I don't like, since there is so much that I do like.

I get that the Rude Pundit's thing is being, obviously, rude, but he has to know that part of using language like that is that some people won't read it. He's decided that's OK with him.

Also, something being hidden on DU doesn't mean it's censored. It's still out there. No one is stopping him from doing his thing.

Juries make community standards. I'm glad when I see misogynist, racist, or homophobic language hidden (and I know it isn't a consistent thing but the more it happens, the better IMO.) I am glad most people at DU seem to see that as a community standard (based on jury results.)

However, I do think the Rude Pundit has a lot of good things to say. It seems like there has to be a way to link to him without repeating the language here, or something. I doubt it's an either/or situation.

I'm also guessing that if the standard 3-4 paragraphs rule was followed with RP, you could probably select 3-4 paras per rant that avoid any given homophobic/sexist parts and still get people to link through to read the whole thing on his own site.

And, as an added bonus, once you're on his site, you get to read as many of his past articles as you want, if you're in the mood for a wild rant.

...on the other 99.9999999999% of the Internet.

"Censorship" is a spurious cry. I'm sure RP knows how to write for posting to DU, if he cares to.

to have a bunch of pearl clutchers come in and shit all over our sandbox.

I think a look at where this comes from, and at why "suck a dick" is used as an insult, could be instructive to us all.

But censorship is the issue, lets SHAME those who do it, not censor them.

If rude pundit needed some shame for that phrase then so be it, not censorship.

When posts objecting to sexism, racism, and homophobia are censored.

Juries get it right and wrong but there verdicts are final.


As for censorship we all agreed to the terms of service of this site so we all agreed to a level of censorship.

Read those TOS again.

fwiw, I didn't see the censored post, so won't weigh in, but I'm generally not in favor of censorship of anything outside of hate speech.

Easy Peasy. We all get one vote on any jury we're on. The other six people get a vote, too.

No, it really doesn't. I am very happy that this is a censored site. Always has been. It is nothing new as the perpetually outraged are trying to have us believe. Four jurors have caused an amazing storm. The four jurors aren't the ones in an absolute bleeding eyed rage right now. Some even using words like coward. Funny really.

DUers have taken to hiding posts by pundits who are die-hard Dems and liberals just because of their language. No wonder the party is in such desperate shape

and your support.

feminist Repuke-hating anti-corporatist Democrat over his language. The circular firing squad is never at a loss for targets.