people's choice to read or not to read the Rude Pundit.

I guess each person will have to decide that for him or herself. Thanks for your reply.

There is no "perhaps" to be found here.

...unless I'm no longer "people".

You can't just mute someone in person if they are being offensive or disruptive.

On DU, though, you can easily not click a thread you don't want to read, or hide it -- and you will never have to read it.

material. Before you can click the trash thread X, you've already seen it. DU, like a restaurant and bar, is a private business, with patrons. Unlike a bar and restaurant, though, DU has a system that allows people to ask a random group of other patrons whether a post is offensive enough to be hidden. That is as much of a feature of DU as the Trash Thread feature.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with a TRP quote post. Either way. I don't read them, but I leave such things to others. Apparently, in this particular case, someone did bother, and the resulting jury agreed with that person.

This post is not about that, actually. It's about TRP's use of the phrase "Delicate Flower" in a Twitter post. I found that rather amusing, so I wrote the OP at the top of this thread. The reactions have been interesting, I think. Yours included.

The content remains, even when a post is hidden. In fact, hidden OPs are probably read by more people than posts that are not hidden

I've often found that if I'm unable to see a point, it's usually my own failing rather than someone else's. However... I do realize we often need to blame others for our own lack of acuity for a greater sense of self-validation...

Here's a hug for you, Wee Delicate Flower ChisolmTrailDem:

LanternWaste's insults towards me are clever. I often marvel over others' ability to use language eloquently. Go ahead, ask LaternWaste if any of those insults was alterted on. Go. Ahead.

Nope, the title of delicate flower belongs to the word police who alert on RP posts because DICK.

Ah, this day (actually last Thursday too, anyone detecting a pattern) ... !!1! HUGH!!11! SERIES!!!1 Sooooo easy! DUers are so much fun sometimes.

and I like his overall point (even though I also support Rude Pundit and his controversial recent post).

The big difference for me is that in this real-world situation the OP couldn't click a button to send that jerk to the trash and go on to enjoy his time at the restaurant; here at DU, mercifully, that option exists.

I wouldn't click the Trash Thread button, the alert button, or the Ignore button. I don't care for The Rude Pundit, since I believe his rants fail to accomplish any goals at all. I don't read his rants, either on DU or anywhere else. That's my choice. Generally, when someone posts one of his blog efforts, it stands on DU.

For the particular recent one, the title of the OP included "suck a dick." Someone found that offensive, and clicked the alert button. Four people on the jury for that alert agreed that it was offensive, so the post was hidden. That's how DU works. As Skinner has said, more than once, "You take your chances."

It's a matter of indifference to me whether the post was left or hidden. I didn't read it, and didn't act in any other way than to continue looking at thread titles in GD to see what interested me. What happened was that one person was offended and tossed the question to a random jury, which elected to hide the post.

The "Delicate Flower" think came in when the blogger posted on Twitter, using that phrase. I found it amusing, so I posted this OP. In the grand scheme of things, it's about as insignificant an issue as you can find. The vehemence of the ensuing back-and-forth on DU is a hoot.

MY OP isn't about the original posting of TRP's blog at all. It's about the response to that post being hidden, specifically by the blogger himself. I found that amusing.

Sometimes, I'd love to have a Trash button/Alert button/Ignore button to use in some real-world situations.

in that situation in the restaurant. I wonder what the patrons of that place would have decided. I think I know.

There's a difference between language that has the actual intent and effect of causing you harm and language that you simply would rather not hear because it offends your sensibility.

The list of permissible language available to describe intense feelings without causing anyone discomfort or offense is growing shorter and shorter.

I'm surrounded here in the deep South by Puritanical sensibilities every day.

I don't share some people's aversion to strong language and profanity. I don't have any difficulty in looking past the individual words to gather the meaning or the point that the speaker is trying to express.

Not everyone is a William Shakespeare and an ugly idea is just as ugly whether it's stated cleanly or with profanity.

for such a post. That's how stuff works here on DU. 8 people were involved in deciding the fate of that post. The alerter and seven randomly-picked jurors from among those logged in on DU. The result was that the post was hidden. Another time, it could have gone the other way. I didn't alert and I wasn't on the jury for that post. I'm guessing you weren't either.

Besides, my post is about what The Rude Pundit posted on Twitter after the post was hidden. He's the one who used the term "Delicate flowers." I thought that was amusing, so I wrote a post based on that word usage, since I had been actually called that.

My thread is not about censorship of some post on DU. It's about the reaction to it.

Thanks for reacting.

Censorship will always be controversial. It will never be a settled issue, not here, not anywhere.

But somewhat like a fight over preservation, it's not an entirely symmetrical contest. Winning a battle over preservation (of speech, open space, etc.) doesn't mean victory, it only holds the line until the next battle. On the other hand, losing a battle over preservation is final.

The analogy here is far from perfect, speech is essentially an infinitely renewable resource, but the assymetry still exists in a number of other ways.

It's simple really. MM addressed the source of the problem - politely, humanely, courageously - by approaching the SOURCE.

The DU example would be MM running around the restaurant telling everyone they should put on headphones so they couldn't HEAR the jerk.

Some DUers believe it their RIGHT to run around to those parents in the restaurant and scream at THEM for allowing their child to hear such things. While waiting for another DUer to finish tackling the drunk to the floor and duct taping his mouth shut.

has plenty of support and, at this point, the 5th most popular post on all of DU and will, I wager, make it to the top of the Greatest Page.

But thank you anyway, Logical. Always enjoy you contribution, brother.

I mean really, what on earth were you thinking MM.

Wasn't like he was yelling FIRE in a crowded theater or any thing.

Right?

Right.

a lot of leeway to spew his nasty garbage ...?

and is why I didn't return to the place again. The fact that a $20 bill occasionally given to the bartender gave this guy the freedom to behave as he did really bothered me. The bartender, by the way, was the manager that evening. The owner made a mistake, I think. I suspect that what happened that evening was shared by many people in the restaurant that evening. Word of mouth works both ways, when it comes to hospitality-related businesses. It was a small town, and it doesn't take long before word spreads in small towns.

Now, I've been in many bars where language is never an issue. But those bars were not also restaurants that tried to attract a family trade. They were just bars, and standards are different in stand-alone bars, generally. Where the general public is a major part of the customer base, however, dive bar standards won't cut it. The owner, apparently, did not realize that, or was unaware that a hostile environment existed in his establishment. Unfortunate.

I think you speak (whether intentionally or inadvertently) to something much larger than the RP.

to it, against your will, in a confined space? I do believe there is a difference.

(I say this as a fan, MM. But we appear to be on opposite sides of the RP kerfluffle. Ah well, this too shall pass.)

MM was absolutely in the right to call out this drunk on his inappropriate behavior in the fashion that he did. The people in that restaurant had a reasonable expectation to not be subjected to obscene and explicit language. Conversely, people on DU know in advance what the Rude Pundit writes but they have the option to not click on threads containing his writing so conflating the two is disingenuous at best.

so astutely pointed out, his writing is tedious and sophomoric at best. IMO, His lack of writing skills is why he has to rely on being rude to get attention. As usual, YMMV.

But, if I want to comment on an MM thread I will continue to do so.

to your opinion, but "shit" this and "shit"that, is offensive. And I say, Go RUDE P!!!!!!!

Really like your post and the courage it takes to be the one to try to make a point to a drunk. But I want to be clear, your last sentence goes completely against the point. This guys use of the words delicate flower were completely used as an insult. You could keep your last sentence in line by saying that sometimes being called a f....t is not a bad thing. This situation is exactly why both of them are bad things. He is using both as slurs. Enjoyed reading and do not mean my words as opposition to you. Good job at the restaurant.

However, I disagree with to to a certain degree. I don't mind being considered a "Delicate Flower" by someone who is a boor, and is behaving like one. To some extent, my objection to his disruptive language and behavior was because it irritated the heck out of me, personally. However, I could have simply left the restaurant without every asking him to tone it down. I did not, because of the discomfort he was causing to others. I thought I'd give him an opportunity, when asked, to become aware of his surroundings and adapt to them. I failed in that, sadly, because I was not willing to pursue things beyond the suggestion that he moderate his language.

I never mind if a boorish person thinks of me in such terms. That's on that person, not on me.

Good op MM.

I am a recovering user of profanity. I do fall off the wagon from time to time, usually as the result of some GOP insanity. As a young person, I often used colorful adjectives, although I was pretty cognizant of only using adult language around adults. Children should not be subjected to such language at all. As I have gotten older and a little wiser, I have come to the opinion that adult language has little use other than when a person hits their thumb with a hammer. The English language is incredibly expressive with thousands of ways to express oneself without offending anyone's sensibilities.

My favorite phrase is from Jim Garner's TV show The Rockford Files, one of the greatest television series of all times. The character, Jim Rockford, used the term 100% Chucklehead to describe a very foolish and selfish person. It is the best way to describe a wide variety of people and behaviors without resorting to profanity. My DH suggested referring the term to the White House for them to use in dealing with the GOP. Jim Garner, being a proud Democrat, would approve of the use, I think.

John Kasich;100% Chucklehead, that says it all.

Being a "Delicate Flower" is not a bad thing.

However, as you said, there's a place for it and many places where it's not appropriate. I try to discern the difference.

I was raised in a devout Catholic family and never even heard a 'damn' in our family. I'd curdle the sensitivities of longshoremen by the time I was around the military a couple of years. I've got grandkids now and I've learned to temper my speech considerably. And don't forget to monitor the songs you listen to. My 3 year-old grandson's daycare provider told my daughter reproachfully about how he'd been singing AC/DC's "Big Balls."

Until then, I think we need to focus on getting out the vote in 2014.

I hope this is helpful information.

I do, however, agree on the need to focus on GOTV efforts in 2014. I'm glad you're for that, too. If I wanted to run a discussion forum, I'd start one. I don't, so I haven't. As for foul language on DU, it's not one of the things I concern myself with, frankly. Others may alert on it. I don't.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

sorry, I know you're making a point about the Rude issue but it strikes me that the fellow you encountered has the same mindset as the open carry freaks

I'm not sticking around any bar where people are openly armed. I'm not a stupid man.

Same basic mindset: wielding an immense amount of power with absolutely zero sense of responsibility.

We're not talking about someone retelling their sexual exploits in graphic language. We're talking about the phrase "go suck a dick".

As a result, it's not nearly as clear-cut as your example. I'm not even sure it's actually homophobic.

It's an expletive similar to "go fuck yourself". I don't think people who say that are anti-sex. In fact, I strongly suspect pretty much everyone would enjoy self-copulation if it were physically possible. As a result, that expletive really isn't about a punishment.

The only way "go suck a dick" is homophobic is if sucking a dick is bad. Is it?

I didn't alert, and wasn't on the jury. It's a matter of little interest to me. In fact one of my favorite movie quotes occurred in the movie "Striptease," where Ving Rhames played a character named Shad. Here's the dialog:

DU is a privately-owned discussion forum, with a unique member-jury system for moderation. The Rude Pundit is a blogger, with his own blog. The person who posted the OP in question is a member of DU. The post got juried and hidden, according to the process used on DU. No censorship was involved at all.

The uproar over this single jury decision is way overblown. One post. One jury. It's hardly worth noticing, but TRP just had to tweet about it and use the phrase I'm writing about. I love the Internet!

Sir you were lucky you were not injured or worse. weather it be bad service,bad food or unruly patrons ask for the manager and let your displeasure be known then leave.Confronting unruly drunks can more often then not do not end up with the results you hoped for

I'm quite agile, and perfectly capable of avoiding being injured by a belligerent drunk person. I wasn't lucky; I was careful. Thanks for your concern about my safety, though. I have somehow avoided being in a fight since I was 8 years old. I've done similar things in the past, usually with good results. This time, I was unsuccessful in convincing the man to knock off his boorish behavior. It happens.

The manager of the restaurant, who was acting as the bartender, was very aware of the man's behavior and did not act. So, I did, albeit unsuccessfully. Sometimes you win...

eating which is why your analogy fails.

Me, I would have left if someone bothered me but I sure as fuck would never walk up to a stranger and tell him to watch his language. I am not in charge of other people's behavior in public and gosh, gee willikers, neither are you.

I asked him to please moderate his language in that situation. He declined to do so. I left the restaurant. If you had been that person, I would have made the same request of you. There is a distinct difference between a request and an order. I did not tell him to STFU. I asked him to consider his surroundings and be more moderate. When he continued, I left.

Can you see the difference? I am "in charge" of nobody but myself.

"You need to take care of this now or I need to leave without ordering." That puts the job of maintaining the proper atmosphere in the restaurant where it should be - on the management. Customers should not have to confront abusive patrons.

He was well aware of the disruption caused by that person. It was clear that he knew what was going on but failed to do anything about it, so I made an attempt to ask the person to cut it out. Didn't work.

You're correct that customers should not have to deal with such situations. That's the responsibility of the management, of course. However, if that does not occur, anyone can ask someone to not behave in such a way. If more people did speak up, we might have a somewhat more civil society.

I'm not one to stand back or simply remove myself. If I have an opportunity to try to improve the situation, I will do that. If I succeed, that's good. If not, then I will make some other decision.

I learned this from my father, and learned how to do it without endangering myself or others. My father, who is now 89 years old, was a B-17 first pilot while he was still 19 years old. He's better at this kind of thing than I am, but has always been a model for me. I grew up watching him step up and put a stop to dangerous or abusive behavior on many occasions. I'll never be the man he is, but I continue to try.

...certain kinds of behaviors are permissible and some are not. We've even got laws dictating to each of us things like, how much we must wear and the parts of our bodies we must cover. Whether we can go around with a mask on or not. And even now in some places, it is illegal for more than 16 women to be in a house at one time or it is legally defined as a brothel. This was actually deemed a serious moral and ethical problem at one time that they made it into a law.

So we end up with all kinds of sensible and stupid ideas called laws, as a condition of living together within this culture and trying to carve out a space where each of us can live and feel safe and secure in our person, and to freely express ourselves, as is our right to.

Likewise, if I see a building with a sign that says XXX Inside! -- then I have a pretty good idea what to expect if I go in. Same applies if I see a link that say RUDE PUNDIT. I know what will be said within will be RUDE:

RUDE {rood}
adjective, rud·er, rud·est.

1. discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way: a rude reply.
2. without culture, learning, or refinement: rude, illiterate peasants.
3. rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth.
4. rough, harsh, or ungentle: rude hands.
5. roughly wrought, built, or formed; of a crude construction or kind: a rude cottage.

link

his own blog. When a DUer posts from TRP's blog, then his words are subject to the very different standards of DU. Those standards are enforced, not by individual moderators, but by juries of DUers. They are the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable on DU. Even Skinner doesn't override DU juries. That's the system the owners and administrators of this site put in place, and they observe it, too.

So, if someone on DU sends a post to a jury, what that jury decides sets the community standards of DU for that particular post. Often, not everyone on DU agrees with the jury, and the jury itself is often divided, so jury majorities end up deciding.

As for public behavior, I will either join in, leave, or ask an offending individual if they will moderate their behavior. I cannot insist on anything, nor can I do anything but leave if my suggestion isn't followed. I didn't want to leave that restaurant. I wanted to eat a burger there. As it turned out, I did leave, after trying to solve the problem. Three months later, that restaurant was closed, and I never did get my burger.

What I can do, in any situation is to act as I see fit. That is, of course, no guarantee that things will go the way I wish. But, I can still act as I see fit. Then, whatever decision I make is also up to me. You see, I have agency over myself, just as does the boorish person shouting obscenities in a public place. I exercised my agency in that situation and ended up being unsuccessful. So I left, which was always an option open to me. But, I did want a burger there, so I tried.

And yet, the post was hidden, because that's the system in place here. I didn't take part in that decision or the decision that established the jury system on DU. I'm here at the pleasure of the administrators of the forum as a guest. So, I attempt to follow a path here that leads to the civil behavior the administrators have requested. I don't find that it limits my expression. If it did, I'd find some other forum for my viewpoint.

On the other hand, some have advocated a version of the "taterguy exception" for TRP - which I wouldn't be opposed to.

Or any exception for anyone. I've always found that to be a misplaced thing. For a new DUer, who has no idea of such "exceptions," it creates a lot of confusion. My response is simply to ignore posts from people who supposedly have some sort of exception like that, or to challenge them in other ways.

I don't value "exceptions" for uncivil behavior on a public forum. I never have, and never will. However, that does not mean that I will push my point of view. If I'm called to a jury, though, no exceptions exist, and I will vote in keeping with my understanding of DU's community standards every time, regardless of who has posted.

Exceptions that are not written down and available for everyone to view should not exist, IMO. It creates an environment of uncertainty that causes problems.

and consistent rules.

I haven't said anything on the issue til now, but the restaurant analogy reminds me that friends have left DU because of bigoted speech being allowed to stand.

It's a shame, because the discussions here are important and useful. It's a shame that bigoted speech can drive people away who have ideas to contribute to the discussion. I'm always sorry to see that happen.

Let's imagine it all happens exactly as you said it did, except for a little sci-fi twist. Let's imagine that you have a spiffy little device that allows you to simply not hear anyone you don't want to. The second the doofus at the bar starts off on a rant you can hit a little button and PRESTO! Now he's just some guy flapping his gums with no sound coming out. You can hear and converse with everyone else in the room but for you Mr. Meathead no longer even exists. Oh, and not only you but everyone in the place has the same ability. They can listen to him drone on or not, as they see fit. Cool, huh?

Heck, I'd imagine in a situation like that you'd have hit that button before the third word left his mouth and gone on to enjoy an excellent night out with your wife. It would have been such a non-event I doubt you'd even remember the buffoon at the bar to post about years later.