General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDU is not the US government (or any other government for that matter)
if DU removes something from its website, you can still have legal access to read it somewhere else on the internet.
quit acting like no one can read something because it's no longer on du.
unblock
(51,974 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Autumn
(44,754 posts)if an OP offends you you can use trash thread, if certain words offend you you can trash those by keyword. Those little steps clean up DU nicely. Nothing here is the end of the world as we know it.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)If someone finds something offensive, they'll alert to make sure that nobody can read it on DU anyway.
Autumn
(44,754 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)those thing get alerted and removed and people here STILL do not lose the right to read it and debate it elsewhere
Autumn
(44,754 posts)Most web sites I have seen do not even come close to DU. I think it's the best discussion site there is and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that.
I don't think any DUer should have to go elsewhere to discuss anything. Sometimes a jury gets it right and sometimes a jury gets it wrong. Same as with the hosts.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I wasn't on that jury but from what I've seen of the hidden post I probably would have voted to leave it alone. I'm 70 years old and haven't led a sheltered life and have known to indulge in vulgarities at times, especially when dealing with recalcitrant computers, shrink wrap, and other irritants. I consider profanity my second language but try not to indulge in it when writing or conversation.
Big deal.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)but lauded. There is a poster who lectures gay people 'you have plenty of rights' she says. If you criticize her, she says 'you hate me because I am an Obama supporter' as if all Obama supporters were saying that shit. Of course, no one complains, the poster's own cohort considers them a superstar poster, and every day we see that shit.
'Gay marriage is to me, unthinkable'. That poster is still here. No one got upset over that real, actual, bigoted desire to prevent others from equality. Unthinkable. Acceptable to DU.
So this affectation over words that are way less harmful than 'there is only one right you don't have....you should be ashamed' says far more about DU than DU thinks it does. Well, about the straight people here and about specific subcultures here. Plenty of rights. Unthinkable.
Whatever.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but regardless, i dont get this brouhaha over rude pundit. occasionally he says that are not du appropriate and it gets removed from here, he can still be read on his own website
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Among those passing out over RP are folks who cheer them on their soapboxes. That's the point.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Al Franken was working pretty blue those days too if I recall, we should have probably blocked him too, right?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)in the last decade (to reflect societal change in the last decade too)
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)and the stupid here is strong and getting stronger.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, a hide on DU isn't a constitutional crisis. But many of us believe in the ideals that created the first amendment. As a result, we react rather negatively to "you can't say that".
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)by blocking out all conservative and rightwing ideas.
i do not your argument. if you believed that the first amendment should apply to this website, you would not be here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Reading. It's a good thing to try from time to time.
I think people should be able to have discussions openly. The problem with the conservative trolls is they do not believe so. They believe volume makes up for being false. They have demonstrated that they will disrupt any discussion they can, and so you can't actually have the free expression behind the first amendment with them present.
As for the specific phrase in question, another part of my anger is we are better than that. Declaring "go suck a dick" to be homophobic is to act only on keywords instead of meaning. It's believing that homophobia is not a state of mind, but the use of particular phrases.
"Go fuck yourself" is not anti-sex. In fact, I don't think too many people would find self-copulation to be a bad thing were it physically possible. Similarly, "go suck a dick" is only homophobic if you believe sucking a dick is a bad thing. Is it?
Meanwhile, there's plenty of posts on here that contain actual homophobia. Declaring that "gay marriage" and similar LGBT advances are bad. They don't get hidden, because the posters do not use particular keywords.
We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be the smart ones able to actually read an argument instead of scan for keywords. And in this incident, we massively failed.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)that contain actual homophobia and you're not alerting on them, you're part of the problem.
If you 'want us to be better than that', you need to start with you.
If I see 'actual homophobia', I'm alerting on it, no matter what words are or are not present.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)as long as they avoid a forbidden vocabulary. So they can spew hate at LGBT people, explain to us that bigotry is not really a bad thing just don't say 'dick' and you can say 'gay should be ashamed' and be a hero of DU.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i am not sure i would have personally hidden that (although, i would have hidden the one in which he said cunt), but i am ok with something being removed for language that maybe be homophobic or sexist and i am DEF ok with having people who are sexist/homophobic removed from DU
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I saw a number of such demands for 'forbidden vocabulary'.
The reality is, if you use an insult at someone that is based on their inherent properties (or the stereotypes associated with those properties) you're displaying your bigotry. If you use sexual imagery of things stuck inside women's genitals as an insult... you're being misogynistic, no matter what word you're using. If you applaud same, you're applauding misogyny, even if you personally despise the woman in question.
The ironic thing is that today's post from the RP is anti-racism, and quite good. If he would sit back and reflect on misogyny in the same way, and give it the same amount of thought, I doubt he would have written what he did in the post that started the 'tempest'.
And you can certainly object to misogyny without being any kind of 'delicate flower' as so many throwing around childish insults over the last few days have suggested. Misogyny in word adds to the acceptance of misogyny in our culture, and the dismissal of violence against women as being unimportant.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)No advocating third parties, no crackpot conspiracies, no RW nonsense and no hate speech.
The hide was good.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)it is the ultimate in completely random moderation!
freebrew
(1,917 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I got a lot of laughs over all the OTT anger, where the hell have they been all these years.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)of the issues here on DU. I am surprised no one accused alerters of burning the constitution, LOL.
rollin74
(1,952 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)The operating principle here should be, 'this offends me so I chose not to view it' and NOT 'this offends me, I want to impose my morality and opinion upon others, therefore it must be removed'...
Fuck that.
Don't like it? Don't fucking read it. Just don't tell everyone else what they can and cannot see because it might conflict with your* own personal feelings...That's what 'ignore' and 'trash thread' are for..
* when I say 'your', I am speaking in general about a poster that acts that way, not YOU personally...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The operating principle is not 'this offends me', but 'this is hate speech', which is against the Terms of Service.
And given the reactions, it's pretty obvious that the reason so many took offense at the hide was that they do indeed hate Dick and Liz Cheney, and therefore feel there should be an exception to using hate speech against people they feel are deserving of hate.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)What you think "should be" has no bearing on standards here.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)etc., but that's not my lack of understanding.