Anything else is censorship--that's the opposite argument.

I like to split things down the middle; rather than publish the entire rant on site, provide a short tidbit to illustrate the sense of the article, and a link for the rest. That way, the tender-hearted need not avert their eyes, and the interested can click the link. Win-win.

entire issue had been put to rest.

YMMV, of course.

Not that one speech-act erases another, but if you object to something someone says, your objection helps promulgate the idea that maybe they shouldn't have said it.

'nuff said.

Look at the words in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, some of the more compelling speeches throughout history...words can often be very powerful. You can't make them not powerful by decree.

Keep your 'we' to your self, thanks.

Are you saying that Rude Pundit was using these slurs innocently?

Because you are not and don't have any final say in this, sorry but take it elsewhere with the 'we'. Why don't you go ask the RP what he meant...oh right, that would mean you would have to have an honest discussion about words with the source.

I understand, much easier to pretend you know what you are talking about...my bad.

That is what I'm saying. I don't need to debate over the underlying motivation for using slurs in text because the very usage of the slurs defines the motivation. Does that make sense?

If I call someone a cunt, I don't need to explain my motivation any further. The motivation lies in my usage of the word. The reason why I called someone a cunt was to infuse the subject with the objectivization of the slur. That is why we use slurs; to remove the agency of the other.

You think all of that just evaporates because someone self-identifies as being rude? Does admitting you're an asshole make being an asshole any less like being an asshole? That seems kind of ridiculous.

Goodluck with that.

And this OP is just another in a series of, LOOK AT ME TOO threads which seem to populate GD atm. Like I believe for one second they are sincere posts about the words we use.

Like I was born yesterday...

Feel whatever you want, just don't pretend other people must as well.

Needed to be repeated.

Belgium, man, Belgium. This is one whole joojooflop situation. It's swutting well a turlingdrome.

I realize that it can occasionally be humorous, but a steady diet of foul name-calling can be numbingly tiresome and lose its impact, even. At that point, in excess, it just becomes ... disgusting piggishness in itself.

If you have an argument to make, try making it in a logical, convincing, non-hysterical, non-offensive way. And if, to express your anger you need to throw an f-bomb or two, so be it. Unmitigated cursing is NEVER, however, a substitute for real thought.

I remember quite a number of years ago, when the expression "whiny ass titty baby" cropped up on the blog Eschaton as an epithet for, well, almost anybody its author didn't like. He even began a "Whiny Ass Titty Baby of the Day" rubric (see http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008/04/whiny-ass-titty-baby-of-day.html ) I found the phrase so incredibly offensive, even when applied to people with whom I disagreed violently, that I stopped reading that site forever. Really.Buh-bye. It was that bad.

That said, I can't stop remembering a cartoon I saw in the New Yorker a hundred years ago (well, maybe in the 1980s or early 90s). It was an image of a man hunched over in a pay-telephone booth, and the caption read something like: "Is this Miss Johnson, the kindergarten teacher? This is an obscene phone call: sissy caca tushie boom boom." I laughed so hard I've never forgotten it. Was it crude? Yeah. But it was also a reminder of how truly juvenile such name-calling can be.

with some of his word choices - repulsive language being arguably appropriate when applied to repulsive people or ideas (like the Cheneys for example).

There are plenty of things to say about Dick Cheney that are biting, acerbic, and express appropriate outrage without using insults that are directed at women, gay people, or the developmentally disabled. Or that simply make people's eyes glaze over. Thinking up a string of crude insults isn't all that hard, so I don't really bother to read it.

for themselves. But IMO The Rude Pundit brings too much to the table, to be dismissed based on occasional bothersome or tedious word choice.

Then knowingly disarms his rhetoric by introducing it with outlandish slurs.

So there are two surface arguments. The first is that we must overlook the outlandish slur to dive into the meat of the argument. The second is to disavow the argument because of the very nature of the slur.

I think there is a third argument that isn't popular because it gives the agency back to the writer. That argument is that we should take the meat of the argument seriously and then turn to the writer and ask "why the hell did you say that first part?"

Just like the rest of us.

In the examples I've seen where TRP used racist slurs, he used them to demonstrate what hateful stupid rightwingers think.

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

There's an argument to be made about the former. The latter is simply indefensible, full stop.

And I certainly wouldn't be inclined to throw around such expressions myself - if nothing else, I have too much respect for other people's sensibilities to behave that way.

Much of what I have seen the last couple of days on this episode has been very juvenile. I can only think the middle schoolers are out of class and coming on DU to cuss and giggle.

I agree with the sentiment the Rude Pundit harbors towards the Cheneys, despite the words he used to express it.

I think the epithet is not only a clear departure from a reasoned argument against her positions but is actually the exact opposite. It in a way endorses her wrongheadedness by making opposition to her a matter of gender.

I mean, it is the equivalent of disagreeing with Michael Steele by calling him a racial slur.

On Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Thinking Ann Coulter is a cunt, for instance, is not part and parcel to thinking she is wrong.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5128387

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I am SICK of seeing men throwing around that hateful misogynist word! Please! Enough!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:53 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There's never a justification for use of that word. Dead wrong.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter should probably read the post. The author was actually agreeing with them. Deep breaths, alerter. Not everything is an attack on women.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How is this different than calling someone a dick, which happens here frequently?


Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I vote to leave it alone because this is what DU has become. A bunch of potty-mouthed adolescents (in thoughts and words if not in chronological age) and they're welcome to it. Beavis and Butthead live!!!!
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Whatever GC meant to say, if he didn't know that "cunt" is offensive to many on DU, especially on a heading, he hasn't adjusted to his environment. Note that I'm a man and I'm being harder on GC than on a woman who used "prick" in a heading because I'm tired of false equivalencies.

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

That difference is between weaponizing a word and presenting the usage of the weaponization of a word.

The latter follows the former. Equating the two is like saying that recalling the history of slavery is an implicit endorsement of slavery.

Or is such a statement offensive to the mentally challenged, people with eating disorders, or people with substance abuse problems?

I think stupidity is too broad a term to say it is specifically disparaging those with intellectual disabilities.

Rude Pundit is FUNNY in the same, over the top way is/was Commedia del Arte....use of cock jokes to poke fun!!!! Get a fucking grip!!!! Get some laugh going!!!!! Can't stand liberals so close to being totalitarian...where is your joy?????

TRP is hilarious and usually dead-on, but his language isn't for all tastes.

He uses naughty words
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!


+10000!
I heard a word and my spleen ruptured! I am harmed irreparably!

And that was they way she usually expressed it.