I heartily agree with all of it!

as a weapon, despite original intent. Nuance and metaphor are dead.

I think 3-year-olds are that literal, too.

Trying to hold back the tide of binary understanding. But what the hell, I'm too old to give up on nuance.

(PS: Yes, I am aware that the stereotype of Canute is historically inaccurate. But in this context, it can be a useful bit of imagery.)

This is the same argument used by Duck Dynasty fans in response to A&E suspending Phil Robertson for homophobic remarks made in a public interview. Just because has has A right to say something doesn't mean the something IS right.

In the context of American society, the words as used by Duck Daddy are indeed noxious. In CONTEXT.

The words themselves, not a problem at all.

could give two shits if the word is rushing to class or running off for a smoke. Certain words aren't allowed in the halls no matter what.

the modes of discussion we chose to use. I'm opposed to censorship, both from the government and by boycott, but I see nothing wrong with pointing out that someone uses offensive or stupid language.

Anybody can choose to say whatever they like, but if they choose to use language that is offensive or detracts from their message or hurtful, than I feel free to comment on that. And if they cross the line beyond what DU community standards allow I can understand why people might alert on it. I rarely alert myself (I can't recall ever having done it, but it's possible I have and it's just not coming to me), but I can understand why some might.

Bryant

Because nowhere are you advocating that others should not say x, y, or z. You are saying that you will dispute, debate, comment and such.

If I say that I am going to dispute both the context of someone's comments and how they say it, that means I'm going to say that they shouldn't have expressed something a certain way, which might well include saying "The word C*** is offensive to women and shouldn't be used on a liberal message board."

That's disputing, but it's also saying that they shouldn't say something they have said.

Bryant

My fiance uses that word a lot, and she's quite liberal, and a VERY active activist...

But there are those who want to shut down everything that offends them. I have found it MUCH easier in life to NOT be offended by anything. It's made things much easier, and has brought my stress levels down considerably.

You do seem to be suggesting that your fiance be held up as the standard to which all women should live up to - but I'm not sure that works. If I had a black friend who was find with me using the N-Word would that be an acceptable excuse to use it on this board? or where do you draw the line?

Bryant

But only in America's puritanical BS is the C word considered some terribly offensive word. It's a quite common slang word in the UK, and if you watch the BBC at any length, you will come across the word quite often.

It all depends on context. If I was quoting John Lennon, it should be quite ok to say "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World".
Same with quoting George Carlin's seven words ("shit, piss, cunt, fuck, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits&quot .

In those contexts, it should not be offensive. But I'm sure there will be some who will find offense in that. Even though they are direct quotes. I don't believe we should censor direct quotes.

Now, this is all different from me calling you (or any other DU member) a n**** or a c***. Those are nasty, vicious personal attacks on a DU member, and should be hidden. Also, broadbrushing a group in that manner should also be unacceptable. But direct quotes? Never.

I don't trash keywords, but if i see it's an article by him, i usually don't click on it. But I was on the jury on that post and I voted against hiding it - because my tastes aren't everybody elses.

It seems like we are talking about two separate things - 1) under what contexts can you quote offensive words and 2) should you be allowed to use those offensive words at DU.

Bryant

as it's a verbatim quote. RP isn't a DU member, so his articles shouldn't be held to the posting standards (just as other articles are not).

They quickly substituted words like, fornicate, intercourse, feces, etc. and outlawed the native sayings of the very same thing. At one time, they were not swear words.

Can't have grandmother asking to pass the breasts, or little sister asking for a little more thigh...

it VERY easy to "not being offended by anything", since unlike gay males,

men of color, or Women of ANY color or orientation, there is virtually Zero

in the vernacular or public discourse that DEMEANS and INSULTS you

just for being the White, Male and Straight that you are -- Get it?

It's easy to "not be offended by anything", when you are NOT a target of

derision just BECAUSE of your condition of birth, be that the "wrong" gender or race.

Just thought I'd point that out.

If I say "Bryant, I disagree with your use of 'cheese' in your post" I'm debating community standards with you. (Assuming curdophobia becomes part of our social order. God, I hope not. )

If I say, "no one should ever utter the word 'cheese' regardless of context or intent", or "Bryant should never say 'cheese"', then I am advocating that others practice self-censorship. I am saying that we cannot discuss cheese. I am trying to stop discourse.

Does that make it clearer?

You say here that not wanting people to use the word in question keeps someone from discussing something in the same way not wanting people to say "cheese" keeps them from discussing "cheese." You have to see how faulty that logic is. No one is trying to keep anyone from discussing any particular topic. The community standards have been that general misogynist, racist, and homophobic language is not an attempt to keep people from discussing topics, and the word the Rude Pundit used was not necessary to discuss that topic the way the word "cheese" is necessary to discuss cheese. At least it would be awkward to discuss cheese without saying "cheese" but it is easy to discuss the Cheneys without the language he used.

I see your point, but just because one could talk about matters fromage without saying "the "cheese word " doesn't mean the word has no use. In context, depending on the deliverer, audience, etc.

Example from my own experience: my wife was bootblacking at a gay bar last year, and "suck a dick" was said in a number of contexts over the course of the evening. Sometimes it was used like RP used it, sometimes in other contexts. Those present did not try to limit the words or their usage; they just dealt with the use of the words as they came up, depending on who said them to whom and how.

despite context.

Could the Rude Pundit have expressed what he wanted too without using those terms? Or is it impossible?

What ideas does political correctness actually prevent you from articulating?

Bryant

The point is more along the lines of "I deplore what you say, but defend your right to say it".

And let us add, "how you choose to say it".

instead to context? Or do we all have to resign ourselves to the binary thinking of a 3-year-old?

How well does that actually work in the real world?

Bryant

either your hopelessly confused, backpeddling or a total hypocrite.

which of those three choices do you like?

Because the jury is a means of enforcing standards in a private space. DU. By posting here, we all agree to self-censor what we say on this site. That is how the place works.

It is the attempt to coerce a non-DU author into self-censoring that I am objecting to."

aren't Du's community standards censorship?

People think the Rude Pundit is crude and should self censor, and then those same people post THIS in support of their opinion.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5121718

Wait...wut? OK, I kinda think someone lost the plot! Bwahahahahahahaha!

and homophobic insults.



Seriously, it's almost like a parody...

When TRP uses racist slurs, he uses them to demonstrate what hateful stupid rightwingers think.

When he uses misogynistic and homophobic insults, he's using them himself about rightwingers.

This is a pretty significant contextual difference.

How do so many people here not grasp this?

Seriously...

Anyway, if anyone 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 more noxious than I thought.

you can justify anything as long as you agree with it.

Oh.....wait.......ROFLMAO.

Thanks for the heads up.

I don't even understand how you see that post as parallel. At all.

From dictionary.com

CRUDE
adjective, crud·er, crud·est.
1. in a raw or unprepared state; unrefined or natural: crude sugar.
2. lacking in intellectual subtlety, perceptivity, etc.; rudimentary; undeveloped.
3. lacking finish, polish, or completeness: a crude summary.
4. lacking culture, refinement, tact, etc.: crude behavior.
5. undisguised; blunt: a crude answer.

Only things that are misogynist, racist, or homophobic. But thanks for explaining why you think they're related.

You miss the plot.

Dick.......Cheney........get it now?

I didn't even see that post until today and I don't think it would have occurred to me to alert on it.

But someone thought it was homophobic - because telling a man to suck a dick is homophobic, and maybe someone thought it was rapey too? I don't remember what I read about it. And so someone alerted and most of the people on the jury apparently agreed.

What I see is people think the Rude Pundit should be off limits for alerts. So I guess you want people to self-censor themselves when they decide whether or not to alert.

Anyone can alert on anything, and it takes a majority of the people on the jury to hide it. I've seen things get hidden I didn't think should be hidden before, and I didn't start bunches of threads and freak out for hours over it. But you're saying I'm outraged. LOL

I don't think his posts are funny, or interesting, or entertaining. I don't bother to read them.

But, I sure as hell don't get all up in arms over a play on words by anyone.

What I object to is that anyone feels responsible for telling ME what I should find interesting, acceptable or humorous.

And, then, spending days and hours trying to justify THEIR behavior.

I sincerely doubt anyone here cares what you find interesting, acceptable, or humorous.

There are community standards based on what jurors generally find acceptable. (Interest and humor are not really what juries are about.) This one didn't pass a jury. Juries don't tell other people what they should find acceptable, only what they feel should be acceptable specifically on DU.

I am calling him a prick. That's just what happens when you are an oozing slimeball who also happens to be named Dick.

"I have a very good friend in Rome named Biggus Dickus...I will not have his name ridiculed by the common soldiery" --Monty Python's Life of Brian

"Go fuck yourself". An expletive used in anger. It's pretty obvious that the person saying it is not happy. But I really don't think people would find self-copulation to be a punishment if it were physically possible.

Similarly, "go suck a dick" is only homophobic if you believe a man sucking a dick is bad.

In that he was obviously suggesting they do something he considered bad. If he didn't consider it to be horrible then it wouldn't have made sense in the context of what he was writing.

I wouldn't have alerted because I expect stuff like that if I see the Rude Pundit. I guess when you're expecting stuff, you don't notice it in the same way. But I think it's disingenuous to say it wasn't homophobic, or that if you think he meant it that way it's because you think fellatio is bad.

People using that are not typically anti-sex....even if self-copulation were possible.

of people who enjoy sex.

There's plenty of anti-white slurs. Doesn't mean whites are oppressed.

are slurs without power, and therefore not parallel.

People who enjoy "alternative" sex are prosecuted on a regular basis. Check out https://www.ncsfreedom.org for more info.

There is no oppression of people who simply enjoy sex.

Really? No, I mean, seriously, really?

Slippery slopes don't get much more treacherous than that one.

He asked why "go fuck yourself" or talk of fucking isn't the same as homophobic talk, and the reason is because people who fuck are not oppressed. That's all. "People who have sex" is not an oppressed group. I'm not talking about some subgroup of "people who have sex."

Your rant is irrelevant to the question I was replying to.

Gay people who enjoy sex are still being persecuted, for instance. So for you to say that there is no such persecution disregards the very real denial of human rights that millions of people face every day.

"People who have sex" as defined only as "people who have sex" - NOT A SUBGROUP of people who have some kind of sex, or who have sex with some people, but simply people who have sex, are not persecuted.

Gay people are persecuted for being gay or having gay sex, but that is a subgroup of people who have sex. The group "people who have sex" are not persecuted for being "people who have sex." The word "fuck" doesn't mean "gay sex." It just means "sex." So talking about fucking is not the same as talking about men having sex with men, as people who fuck are not oppressed, but men who have sex with men are oppressed.

I don't believe you are stupid enough to not understand what I'm saying. I could not make it any clearer. I really think you are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying and claiming it's something else.

We are all members of at least one subgroup, as well as being members of aggregate groups. To attempt to limit discussions of freedom and discrimination by passing over part of the populace is inherently flawed.

So when you say "no one is..." whether it be about discrimination against their sex lives, speech, or any other injustice, it is dishonest in the first place, and disrespectful into the bargain: it minimizes the struggles of the "subgroups" and makes it that much harder for them to overcome.

for being part of whatever subgroup, not for being a part of "people who have sex."

Just like Jewish people are in some places oppressed for being Jewish, not for being "people who believe in God." "People who believe in God" are not oppressed as a group. Some people in that group are oppressed, but not for being "people who believe in God."

And I care about both, but we're talking about why one group of words is not parallel to another group of words, not about whether oppression is wrong against any particular group. One group of words "Fuck you" is not oppressive because "people who fuck" (or "people who have sex&quot is not an oppressed group. Homophobic language IS oppressive because gay people are members of an oppressed group.

It's okay to unleash a stream of profanities at a wedding reception because...well, just because. Or in a church. Or at a funeral.

We all self-censor all the time. People who don't self-censor are usually those with Tourette's Syndrome.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

But it's not my job to try to tell you what words you should not use. Nor is it my place.

This dramafest is turning out to be the most entertaining thing to happen around here in a long time.

and there's nothing they can do to stop you 'cause they're in the Bible.

The world must be falling apart. And, and, and, we teach it to children?

While I agree with what you said, around here you censored for absolutely no profanities.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove any doubt!"

Especially because it's up to each of us to make that determination.

Some guy trying to dress like a character on the duck die-nasty strolls out ahead of us and gets into his pickup. I was covered with bumper stickers such as:

LISTEN TO RUSH!

REPEAL OBAMACARE!

And other such brainwashed nonsense, and we just broke out laughing. I doubt he heard us but it was so ridiculous. We got in our vehicle and that's when the Twain quote hit us.

viewpoints.

All of us here have agreed to operate within those constraints. If Skinner says "thou shalt not", then we can comply or take a hike.

someone has the right to call obama a gay-married muslim kenyan, doesn't mean i want to share a space with them.

I like being challenged, at times. But not all the time.

And telling her off ...

No holds barred .... yep

As a species, we self censor ourselves every day ...

But that isn't the same as telling others how they should self-censor.

First, the Rude Pundit is all over the internet. Having a post where he's quoted here hidden is not censoring the Rude Pundit.

Second, asking people to monitor their language is not censoring people either. Mainly because people can say "no."

Third, the Supreme Court rules on what words should be allowed to be legally uttered, not what should be posted on DU. We have community standards based on how juries generally vote, and juries generally vote to hide misogynist, racist, and homophobic stuff. If you say something that fits one of your boxes, you take your chances. If you quote someone who says something like that, you still take your chances.

I'm glad most people at DU find that kind of language unacceptable here. We as a community hold ourselves to a higher standard than the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't see that as a bad thing.

but the mass freakout seems downright impervious to logic.

By someone who is freaking out post after post after post that the community doesn't allow any language at all here. I am trying to think when I've seen more outrage at DU than I've seen today over this issue - all by people claiming everyone else is part of "the outrage brigade" or whatever.

This is like performance art. I'm not outraged at all. I am very amused by how upset people are over one jury hide.

Except performance art it still art. This latest DU rage is just stupid.

Rec.

The odious speech of the Westboro Baptist Church is "sacrosanct" but only insofar as the government cannot censor it. However, if the members of the Church tried to take their message off of the public sidewalk and display their signs on the private property of a cemetary, the cemetary could demand that they leave and if they refused, could call the cops and have them arrested for trespassing (but not for their speech).

Put another way, if I invite someone to my house and they start telling jokes about "n*****rs", and another guest comes to me and requests that I ask the person to stop, the second guest is advocating that I engage in private censorship. And if I do ask them to stop , I am advocating that they engage in self-censorship. And if they refuse to stop, I can engage in private censorship by demanding that they leave my property. If they refuse I can call the cops. They would be subject to government action not because of what they said (although that was my reason for demanding they leave my property) but because they were on my property without my consent.

In short, to the extent the OP blurs the distinctions between government censorship, private censorship and self-censorship (and the distinction between advocating those different forms of censorship), it blurs important distinctions.

cops got there. And that would be a whole other kettle of fish.

On DU, the owner can make certain speech off-limits. It's privately owned.

In the public space, far less control can be mandated by law, because of the fact that it is public space.

All of that is true. So consider my OP as existing within those confines. And take the example of RP's recent Cheney post. Within the confines of DU, it got alerted, adjudicated, and hidden. Perfectly fair and reasonable: it is in DU space and is subject to DU rules. I might well have voted to hide, had I been on the jury.

It is quite different to posit that a DU jury verdict be applied outside of DU, in public space. To urge and outside entity to conform to standards not of their own devising, in a context in which those standards do not apply.

I would never say, "bitch", "cunt", "suck a dick", or many other words/phrases. I find them misogynistic, homophobic, racist, etcetera, depending on the word or phrase, and in my mind, it's never OK for me to say them.

That is a long way, however, from my demanding that no one else ever say them.

Seeing swearing and children and silence in church as examples, I don't think it's the same. Due to the history of suppression of political speech, I give it a special place along with art, film and literature as something that should be freely expressed.

And it's fine to say "I disagree with that viewpoint". Or to ignore it. But to opportunistically stifle speech with jury systems and pressure groups is against free speech. A few have argued that trying to stifle speech is a form of free speech. That isn't the same. One is a free expression, the other is speech attempting to suppress free expression. And using a jury to shut down speech is certainly not free speech.

Even more curiously, every DU member can moderate what they see using trash thread, hide user or hide keyword. They could have used those functions but instead chose to shut down discussion for everyone. The language police are just causing problems on this forum and contribute nothing of value.

They can protect themselves via the ignore or trash features and leave the "protection" of others to themselves via the same methods.

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken

Calls for a

... what you say is true.

It does not make sense that you can come to my home or business and expect to be able to exercise your rights to free speech without repercussion and without limit.

At work I have the governmental sanctioned right to say what I want (with the limits established by the court) ... my employer does not have to respect my 'free speech rights" i.e. I have the right to say (tell clients) Engineering Firm X is far superior to the company I work for ... my company does not have to tolerate that speech.

One can be a raging racist, xenophobe, homophobe, misogynist ... etc and engage in all the hate speech you want ... I do not have to tolerate or allow that speech in my home.

DU, as it is constructed, is a private place in which the community is allowed to establish their standards ... if the community decides certain words/ topics are offensive to their collective sensibilities ... then it is.

I realize your post is intended to provoke thought (especially about "words" in isolation); however, there are some words (even in isolation) that the community can define as too odious to be used in our 'house" ... I draw the line at racial, ethnic, homophobic, etc slurs

But when people say that an extra-DU source should self-censor so as to comply with DU standards, I see a problem.

RP doesn't post his own stuff here. Others do. So his writing really shouldn't be held to our standards, except when reposted here. Then they can go through the DU jury process.

And I'd say that is true of many people's speech.

... should censor themselves.

I was speaking solely about what we say at "our house"

Free speech is indeed, free speech. However, I have few problems with anyone realizing the social consequences of what they say, regardless of how they may rationalize those very same consequences as being inappropriate or discriminatory...

Mel Brooks was a comic genius, and would comically lampoon those who intentionally offend. Many others however, who cite him as an example though? Well... not so much genius as simply attempting to justifying a narrow-minded provincialism.

Therefore not the job of others.

Should people be allowed to post anything here?

There is no question that virtually all speech is constitutionally protected. That isn't the issue here. Rather it is what is in keeping with community standards. A jury decided the rude pundit's blog entry wasn't, just as two juries decided my use of violated community standards. I didn't appreciate those hides, but there wasn't nothing I could do about them. The same constitution that protects the Rude Pundit protects my right to speech, and that of every other member on DU who has had hidden posts.

I really don't care about the Rude Pundit. I haven't read much by him, and from the entries that I've read as a result of this controversy, I can see I'm not missing much. Stripping away the insults, his essential point was an objection to the Cheney's editorial and their hypocrisy toward Obama. I certainly have no objection to that basic message, but it's not exactly insightful. The only thing that distinguished it from any of a thousand other comments saying just that was its vulgarity.

I find fascinating what some people decide is censorship vs. righteous hides. Stuff is hidden here all the time. One of the common kinds of hides is for people who object to sexism, racism, and misogyny. Yet those hides don't generate that hides for sexism, racism, and misogyny do. That tells me one thing. People are more comfortable with bigotry than they are with confrontations to bigotry. In fact, to look at this controversy, it seems people believe that bigoted slurs about subaltern groups are so justified, they should be protected above other forms of speech.

But when we have people telling non-DU posters to self-censor so as to comply with DU standards, I see an issue.

RP doesn't post his own stuff here, remember.

as he does to express his own. I have no doubt he will disregard them entirely, even if he does see them.

I think her point was that rudeness need not be bigoted. Others here clearly disagree.

...and urging that others self-censor so as to be in compliance with an opinion external to their own. Had she said "that speech is offensive, and I won't listen to it", that is fair. When people say that others should not even say things that offend them, it's not.

At one time, my ancestors spoke their prayers in French rather than Latin. It was said that demanding we follow the Catholic form of speech was not a hindrance to our expression, we could just as easily speak in a way that did not offend the dominant class...

During the Vietnam war, some people grew their hair as a protest. Some said that was wrong, that there were other ways to protest...

The right to free speech is there for a reason. Indeed, it is often the right to utter the speech we like the least that we need to protect the most.

Everytime they tell someone off for their opinion. It has happened to me a zillion times and no one gives a damn.

The people who said growing long hair is wrong have the same rights as those who grow their hair. It's the same thing. The only difference is you agree with one and not the other. If you don't grasp something so basic, how can you claim to be for free speech? You're essentially advocating for the freedom of speech you agree with and not speech you don't.

Telling me that I am full of shit is fair and happens often.

On the other hand, telling me that I should not speak as I do is censorship.

One is arguing, the other is suppressing.