Word Wars
“Language and song, to me, apart from being pure vibrations, is just like trying to describe a dream. And because we don’t have telepathy, we try to describe the dream to each other, to verify to each other what we know, what we believe to be inside each other. And stuttering is right -- because we can’t say it. No matter how you say it, it’s never how you want to say it.”
-- John Lennon
There has been a great deal of discussion in the past few days about the use of words in communicating on DU:GD. Although I cannot say that I’ve read most of the OP/threads regarding an incident involving the use of one offensive word, it has got me thinking about words.
“The pen is mightier than the sword,” it is said. Yet, like the sword, words can be used carefully, or recklessly. Words can be harmfully or helpfully. Words can wound, or heal.
Some people, like myself, are not generally offended by certain words. They are a stick that I don’t feel. But I understand that a lot of people -- some that I know, many more that I don’t know -- are offended by specific words. This often has to do with the historical context of the word. No matter if the said word bothers me or not, I can respect that it offends others.
Some of those offended may be people I don’t like. That has no bearing whatsoever. There are slurs about sex, sexual preference, skin color, ethnic identity, and many other things, that I chose not to use. My children don’t use them. You won’t hear them said by anyone in my house.
I do, however, find some people offensive. It’s generally more a result of what they do, than the individual words they use to communicate. For example, the people associated with the Westboro Baptist church strike me as toxic.
I admire Lenny Bruce. He understood the necessity and benefit of offending certain segments of the population with words. George Carlin did a similar thing, too. Both seemed to have an instinctual ability to pick their battles at the right time -- even though Bruce in particular did opt for battles he was aware he wouldn’t “win.”
That is distinct from, for example, arguing about the power of such words in a format where you really have no chance -- and not simply no chance to advocate for a position that is sure to result in one being removed from the venue, but even of attempting to discuss context. Pick your battles. There are numerous examples of people’s not honing this skill on DU:GD.
One of the funniest examples of people not grasping concepts of “free speech” -- a valuable topic -- is when someone on DU:GD asks, “Yeah, but what about my right to free speech?” This question illustrates a shallow grasp of both the Constitution, and of this forum.
Saying certain words, or expressing certain opinions, can lead to a post being deleted, a thread locked, and a person being temporarily suspended, or tomb-stoned. One may not agree with the rules here, or may not think they are evenly enforced. But that isn’t a battle they are ever going to “win.” More, they aren’t going to look good trying.
By no coincidence, the DU:GD “word wars” increase in frequency and intensity during presidential primary seasons. Thus, they often play out in the context of a group of people who support candidate A versus supporters of candidate B. This is unfortunate, because sincere beliefs can be mistaken for insincere agendas. Yet, it is easily avoidable.
Let’s consider, for example, if there is a discussion about NJ governor Chris Chistie. There is no possible value to pointing out that he is male, nor his ethnic heritage, nor his weight. None of these things should be mistaken for an important factor. Society’s prejudices against “over-weight” people could be, in a limited context. Yet, it is ripe for abuse, much in the manner that a female’s running for president too often is.
Rather, Chris Christie’s policies, personality, and beliefs are all worthy of discussion. The same holds true of any politician, be they Democrats, republicans, or other affiliations. These are valid topics. We shouldn’t allow other issues to distract our discussions of these things.
= new reply since forum marked as read
anyone else's! 
I am real and you are presumably real and other people reading and writing are real.
The issues that sort of hit you in the face, tend to be the ones you get more active about.
Obviously there is nothing I can say that would be as really damaging to somebody as an actual rape, for example. But sticks and stones are not the only things that can hurt people either. Words matter.
If somebody got drunk and typed "hfojvt appreciation thread - he is a gentleman and a scholar and a shining light at DU" and it got half a dozen huzzahs or even a single reply. Let's face it, that would make me feel pretty good. Or if they even typed a simple "good post" that would too. In the opposite way, if somebody types "you are a vile, racist POS" and other people type 
well that tends to do some damage even if I don't think it is true, it is like a verbal spit in the face.
In a similar way though if you were a black person in this group and it was tolerated for people to use the n-word, that might not be a world shattering issue, but it would also suddenly be an immediate one that should be dealt with one way or the other. I've also associated (through work) with a few black people who used the word themselves about themselves or their friends.
Same thing with some women and some words and language. If you are committed to battling misogyny in the world or fighting against the patriarchy, then the battle right here tends to have more immediacy than most other issues. I don't think that is illogical, and while doubtless it does not matter in the great scheme of things, it matters if a person is gonna spend time here, gonna feel like they are part of an awesome community of political allies.
And one debate technique is "be offended by words". That's one clear way to "win" a debate. And the ultimate "win" over an idea you don't like is to banish the person espousing it.
Debates on-line often become personal. People are very attached to their ideas - myself included. I hate, hate, hate Reaganomics.
However, there are some DUers who don't share this hatred. Some, perhaps DCF's (Deep Cover Freepers) will sometimes even espouse Reaganomics, or, even more likely, think it is okay if major Democrats do.
I have this foolish optimism though. If somebody on this board says "I love Reaganomics" I don't necessarily want to insult them (okay, I do, but I try to restrain myself) or banish them - I want to either a) convince them that they are wrong or failing that mission impossible, b) make a series of arguments and factual presentations such that an objective observer (who is presumably posting from a cave where he/she lives with Bigfoot, Yeti and Santa Claus) will be convinced of the truth of my side.
My finest moment on DU was when I was arguing with an anti-choice troll. I was in top form, and had a series of exchanges (which I put quite a bit of work into) where I just about had this person won over to the pro-choice side. This anti-abortion person was saying things like "I see your point" (I know, unbelievable that I even HAD a point).
Then I went to work, and when I came back, some mod had axed the newbie troll and deleted the entire subthread, my posts included. Some of my best work - GONE 
My convoluted point here being that if I was a Hilary supporter (let's say I got a lobotomy or something (or is that uncalled for?) (yes, I know it was, but it's a friendly dig, meant in humour)) I'd want to win people over to my side rather than banish them. The same would be if I was a Bernie supporter (although I tend to argue more over issues than people).
As such, though, even mild names, tolerated names, would not help my cause.
But then, I sort of go back to transactional analysis. I tend to operate from the frame where "I'm okay, you're okay". I think most people are okay, even ones who sometimes babble on forever and ever, and even people who can say dumb things or rude things or use a bad word. Not being without sin, I am not prepared to cast the first stone.
Many others here seem to think that many, if not most people, are "not okay" and they are eternally vigilant for the evidence and proof. It's like they are Nomad, looking for those imperfections which will allow them to carry out their prime function. And people who disagree with them are almost automatically "not okay". Anti-choice people? Not okay. RKBA people? Not okay. People who would use a spoonerism for the C-word? Not okay. People who vote Republican? Not okay.
I happen to know some very decent people, and count them as friends (and relatives) who are anti-choice and vote Republican. Heck, I have even voted Republican a few times myself (when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish). And some elected Democrats in Kansas are anti-choice and pro RKBA (and I still would love to have them in the legislature to voted against the accursed budget the Senate just passed).
Even people who are "okay" can do some dumb or mean things sometimes. To me, though, a person's worst moment is not their defining feature.
I get extra points for word count, right?
