I tried to make a point earlier and did so rather poorly

I also was unavoidably interrupted right after posting so I couldn't engage in discussion with many of you. I'm probably on "Ignore" with a whole bunch of you now, but here goes anyway . . .

my previous post: another leftofthedial cat flame

My point was not to flame cats. I've now been living with a cat in the house for about a year and have grown tolerant of the little bugger, if not actually sort of grudgingly fond of him.

My point also was not to defend sexism and misogyny. I adore women. If it weren't for women, I'd have long ago offed myself.

My point is that we, as a culture--liberals, conservatives, DUers, Freepers, neocons, Greens, Dems, repukes, religiously insane nut jobs, atheists . . . ALL of us--seem to have lost the ability to live and let live.

It is not enough anymore to simply believe what we believe, state it, discuss it, defend it and promote it. We feel we have to attack anything that offends us and call into question its very right to exist. We see something we find offensive--we immediately call the mods or hit alert or start complaining to all our allies that the evil thing must be expunged.

Attempting to proscribe speech, and therefore ideas, by drawing boundaries around anything that is subjectively offensive is a bad idea and antithetical to progressivism. There is no telling where good new ideas might come from--perhaps even from what we perceive at the moment to be a cesspool.

I think we should be far more tolerant and more focused on the evil that is consuming the planet, instead of lesser things that merely offend us.

is one of the attitudes which leads to all of the ills you mentioned


Some day you may see it.

I saw it long ago.

quashing the exchange of ideas is also indefensible.

"Hey everyone! Those ads suck because they denigrate women. Don't buy those T-shirts," is one thing.

"Those ads suck and I demand that they be removed," is quite another.

Some day you may see it.

The t-shirts were indefensible, but those who were so offended that they wouldn't stay/donate if DU kept them are also acting in an indefensible manor? Just exactly how does a person take a stand? This wasn't a call to make the damn shirts illegal in public. It was a call to remove an ad from a website. Something that is perfectly within acceptable bounds, certainly from an activist standpoint, whether you agree with it or not.

but it's a pattern of behavior here.

What are you talking about, exactly? How many times has there been a call to remove an ad, for instance? Or, are you talking about people expressing their offense at certain topics. Because you're going to get that no matter where you go, message boards, real life, whatever. Not everyone is going to agree with you and think the way you do and have sensibilities exactly like your own. All anyone ever does here at DU is express their opinion when it comes down to it. And you aren't going to like everything you read.

alert on a post that doesn't meet the local standards of orthodoxy

alert on the post that offends you

It happens so frequently that the admins shut down the ATA forum because (in part) it was a nonstop whine fest.

I'm just suggesting we live and let live. Do you know what that means?

I don't think you're acting in the spirit of live and let live, however, message board wise. You seem to be telling people that they should do nothing when faced with things that upset or offend them. You seem to be offended at the notion that a person would feel so strongly that they would no longer want to hang out at a place that openly expresses an idea they find repellent. Why on earth would you want someone to do that? Should they have just left silently and said nothing?

You know, most who spoke out really just wanted answers. Most probably were unsure how aware admins were of those ads, if they were going to do anything about it, and if not, was this a place they really wanted to hang out at. And what is so wrong with that? I'd hardly call that indefensible, particularly on a political board of all places. I certainly would have no beef with anyone who was so upset that the t-shirt ad was removed that they left DU. In fact, I'm sure I'd applaud their decision.

Live and let live to me means that no one should have to put up with anything they don't want to, and for others to be fine with that.

I disagree that step one is to ask the mods and admins to remove whatever offends whomever. Pretty much everything (and probably 90% of Lounge content) is offensive to someone.

Should we ask that everything that anyone finds the least bit offensive be removed?

Live and let live means if I'm not causing you actual harm--not offense, harm--you should mind your own business.

Which is EXACTLY why the advertiser tricked them by first giving them an anti-bush ad, then switching everything to sexist merchandise last night.

Why on earth do you think it is not harmful for a progressive site to (inadvertantly or not) promote sexism?

I for one am grateful that someone noticed the BAIT and SWITCH by the advertiser and alerted us to it. Otherwise they would have gotten away with this for many more hours. Why would you NOT want this progressive site's members to express their concern for something so outlandishly sexist?

DU is free to set and enforce its own standards for advertising and other content.

But why do alleged progressives here at DU so frequently try to ban (not debate, discuss or persuade change) whatever they personally find offensive?

:banghead:

:wtf:

DU can set and enforce its own standards for accepting advertising and other content.

I used this episode as an example of alleged progressives trying to establish an orthodoxy in a way that I find antithetical to progressivism.

A big part of the polarization in America is that we have utterly (it would seem) abandoned the concept of "live and let live."

We don't HAVE to agree on everything. We don't HAVE to go through life totally unoffended. We don't HAVE to strive to be inoffensive at all times at all costs.

We can complain and argue and discuss all we want. But we shouldn't try to halt things because they offend us.

It was my impression that the original poster in the first T-shirt thread did call for DU to ban the ads. If I'm mistaken, then so be it, but it has little to do with the gist of the "live and let live" problem that concerns me.

for their intended purpose?

"we shouldn't try to halt things because they offend us."

What else could that possibly mean?

I think you "misinterpreted" that on purpose. How on earth could anyone here ban an ad? :wtf: What a lame argument, and entirely disingenuous.

If the whole "live and let live problem" bugs you, then start a thread discussing it, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this controversy.

does not mean having to keep your mouth shut. And, for the millionth time, no one was trying to ban anything! Advertisements are protected free speech to an extent (can't falsely advertise and all that). Guess what? So is expressing criticism of those ads! Yup. It's true. And not patronizing anyone who uses those ads. That's protected, too. And, you still get to be a progressive, to boot!

You're beef isn't against free speech. It's against not wanting to allow others to share the label of progressive with you because they don't think and have the same sensibilities as you do. So, you want them to shut up or you'll throw "Alleged" at them. God. If being an alleged progressive means sitting quietly and not voicing my opinion, then you can shove alleged progressiveness you know where. Fortunately, I don't think a vital tenet of progressiveness is keeping quiet and saying and doing nothing. So, I'm quite confident in my progressivity, "alleged" and otherwise.

I'm done.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable at some no-holds-barred site where there are no mods, and no rules.

I completely disagree with your definition of "live and let live".

If you enjoy anarchy, then find someplace with no rules.

and it's not what I advocated.

how many rules do you want? Do we have enough rules? Do we need more and more rules until nothing that is the slightest offensive to anyone is ever allowed?

was the ad against the "rules"?

:shrug:

:eyes:

I don't know if we have enough rules, honestly. I think the ones they have now work just fine, though, and I never go around saying that it's a bad thing that they enforce them, or that others shouldn't utilize the alert option for its intended purpose.

The ad was the result of a lie, so they pulled it. So yeah, I guess you could logically infer that it was against the admin's "rules".

... that has finally marginalized the left to the point we may well never recover.

People telling people what is ok to think rather than persuading them to change their minds.

You cannot TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO THINK, YOU CANNOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS BY TRYING TO HIDE OFFENSIVE IDEAS FROM THEM AND WHEN YOU TRY YOU LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY.

:thumbsup:

having the right to do whatever the hell they want. The continued pretense from people who keep framing it as a freedom of speech issue, despite the posts explaining that that is NOT what we are protesting, is quite humorous.

why must we immediately try to ban everything we find offensive? that is fascist and totalitarian behavior.

:banghead:

I'll join you:

:banghead:

Nothing short of we should have just kept our damn mouths shut will appease the OP. The OP who thinks they're advocating free speech.

and again

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S PATOOTIE ABOUT THE T-SHIRTS! I never even saw the frigging ad in question. If they said what I've read, they suck and so does their message.

Do we or do we not have a problem living by the notion of "live and let live" at DU?

I say we do and big-time. And this thread is proof.

Do you honestly not see that that's what you're expressing to the group?

I've explicitly and repeatedly encouraged discussion, argument, even condemnation

can't do any of those with your mouth shut.

When you tell people that they aren't acting in a progressive manor, ON A PROGRESSIVE BOARD, because they didn't like an ad and wanted it removed, then you are essentially telling them they should have shut up about it, or they aren't progressive enough for you.

and again

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. No one asked to ban the t-shirts (therefore, we are living and letting live). No one advocated banning them in any other manner. The advertiser TRICKED DU into accepting the ad, and we objected to it when they SWITCHED the link to show their sexist, hateful SHIT. DU did the right thing in yanking the ad as quickly as they were made aware of what happened.

What part of that do YOU have a PROBLEM with?

clearer?

They pulled it. Why are you so stuck on this word "ban" ???

.... has every right, and probably the obligation, to not link to a site like that. Even more to the point - that site was not advertising to their target audience by putting an ad here, so it was not likely to be a good business decision by them, kinda makes you wonder.

That is not my point - my point is all the nonsense postings in the various threads discussing this that remind me of the late 70s leftist watchphrase "you can't say that".

That phrase was the beginning of the end of what could have been an enduring movement. Well-meaning but clueless people telling everyone what they should think cost us a lot of credibility. I'm sure you disagree, but I was there and I watched it - the term PC did not spring up out of thin air, it was the right cleverly exploiting the achilles heel of the left. And they're still doing it. And many on the left have not learned a fucking thing.

The logical leaps the people who are offended by offense are using to make their points are really astounding.

Disagreement is not the same thing as trying to change someone else's mind.

Objecting to the advertisement of sexist shirts on a progressive board is not trying to change anyone's mind.

You're telling people what to say and do with this very post.

Please. No one is going to change anyone's mind who thinks those t-shirts are great. But what they can do, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, is voice their objection to the ads. And if it bothers you so much, go to websites where that kind of thing is welcomed, there are no rules, posts don't get deleted and no one can alert. There are plenty of them. You can stay, but understand that if you're going to tell people here that they can't voice objection or alert on anything, then they're going to tell you you're full of shit.

If anyone is marginalizing the left, it is the people who want us to be just like the right. The right that wants women to shut up and not complain. It isn't women who would like to continue to frequent a board they love without shit like those t-shirts shoved in their face.

wants to take your daughter out, will you want her to be seen running around with a guy whose shirt talks about having his cock in her mouth? Or that the easiest way to her heart is through her ribcage?

Maybe you'd be fine with that. Other parents, like me, wouldn't really want our daughters out with guys who enjoy such sentiments.

No one here shut down the fucking site. No one censored them. We just don't want its stupid messages given any blessing by DU. They can continue to sell you all the misogynistic messages you can stand. Just not here.

but it's like we're whistling into the wind.

Every post I see explaining that the issue is with this site advertising a vendor who sells such crap, and not about the vendor itself, is followed by a response saying something like "but they have a right to sell whatever they want." Ugh. :banghead:

difference, so it will just have to be explained to us. Over and over. Ad nauseum.

You can point it out over and over... but...

you accuse me of a sexist attitude toward women. that's not true.

HERE'S A CLUE ( not for you Mis, for the "others")

NO ONE IS TELLING THIS COMPANY THEY CAN"T SELL THEIR CRAPPY SHIRTS.

THEY JUST CAN'T SELL THEM THROUGH DU!

Not hard to get, folks. C'mon. You can figure this out.....

without the trumped-up outrage.

Please explain to me how ANY amount of outrage can be too much to feel over "If I wanted to hear what you have to say, I'd take my cock out of your mouth".

And thanks again for letting us idjit wimmin know our feelings aren't really real.

as if they have some kind of magical power to decide what matters to other people.

Fucking tiring, that is.

substantially different in meaning, not in offensive imagery, from the slogan to which you refer?

I don't defend misogyny, but I also can't defend calling for banning speech solely on the grounds that it is offensive. What is outrageous to one person may be merely offensive to another and merely dumb to another. Where is it appropriate, in a pluralistic society, to draw the lines of what is allowed? Not accepted. Not endorsed. Not forced on anyone. Just allowed.

Those ads might have had the opposite effect that you seem to assume. Namely, they might have strengthened the resolve of some to be MORE respectful of women. We just don't know. I contend that it is dangerous in a free society to ban speech unless it is directly harmful or is illegal.

Or not.

You're the only one here who keeps harping about banning anything.

Please stop it.

:banghead:

it be banned from DU. That's what started this whole episode.

It happens frequently here, with offensiveness offered as the reason to ban.

I don't believe mere offensiveness is a valid justification to remove something. "Offensive" is too vague and too subjective a standard.

Period.

I have never defended the statements on the T-shirts or any other offensive speech. I've done three things in these threads:

1. I've repeatedly and consistently condemned sexism, misogyny and the denigration of women. I've stated over and over again that I deplore the messages on teh T-shirts.

2. I've repeatedly and consistently advocated the discussion, argument against and the hopeful result of changing attitudes that support offensive language and supported and agreed with criticisms of sexist language.

3. I've repeatedly and consistently advocated against removing or proscribing speech--any speech, not just sexist speech--merely on the basis that someone finds it "offensive."

PERIOD.

I've been attacked by a gang who consistently ignore items 1 and 2 and twist item 3 to whatever meaning suits their agenda. I have been accused of hating women, of being stupid, of being a disruptor, of defending misogyny, of defending the messages on the T-shirts and of opposing the decision to ban the ads. Every one of these accusations is demonstrably false.

Finis.

Banned from DU, as in the ad removed. No one ever said the t-shirts should be banned. We all agree that DU should not have an ad for them. We all agree that many of the t-shirts are offensive.

There's no gang here. Just you saying the same thing over and over and over that no one else is saying.

Who said they wanted the t-shirts banned? Where is the quote?

live, and let live. leads to a much lower bloodpreassure, as well.

inappropriate? yes, but so is threatening to boil a man's testicles. and they werent up in arms about the (although few) tshirts that were degrading to men. so honestly, im not paying much serious attention to the rants.

because I read that thread in the context of women objecting to sexist T shirts being sold via our front page.

I really can't think of a reason that I should lighten up about that. Are you telling me they may one day invent a shirt that causes world peace to break out spontaneously if I just tolerate and go along with their sexist themes now? :shrug:

Or maybe even some scum who likes those T-shirts now will see one tomorrow and have an "Aha" moment of enlightenment.

I don't have a problem with discussion and (deserved) condemnation of those shirts or the ad. It's the immediate "I demand that it be removed" that bothers me.

And more than a few people would be upset if we did.

I don't think that T-shirt ad got enough response from DUers to recoup its costs and I think the repuke bake sale would draw even less

so why not take the money and run

and use it to make DU even better?

It's an ad. Everyone here knows it's an ad. It's not editorial content.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be upset.

Look..I defend their right to sell their shirts as much as I defend my right to condemn their product.

They certainly can sell them elsewhere to a more willing and receptive audience.

Discuss it.

My problem is with the clear culture here of trying to eliminate anything that a certain strata of DUers collectively finds offensive.

There is no guranteed right to never be offended.

while posting the same thing over and over, completely ignoring the fact that this is about objecting to DU advertising them and not about anyone's right to sell the shit.

:banghead:

Well, hell. If it's revenue you want, call Limpballs and get some of those Club Gitmo shirts over here. We'll sell those, too, and maybe a few by the Klan!

But wait, we were only talking about shirts that denigrate WOMEN. Oops, I forgot that REAL PEOPLE aren't involved in the DU situation. Just girls. MMMhhMMMMMMM My bad!

banning controvesial speech is what fascists do, not what progressives do.

Why do you keep defending having the ad, when the admins of this site have already explained that it was a trick, and that they would never willingly accept advertising for such hateful merchandise?

:wtf:

I refuse to believe you're that fucking dense.

:spray:

i love you.


love,
progmom

"The way to a ******'s heart is through the fucking ribcage."

You still defend it?

never did.

never will.

I defend its right to exist.

Should DU allow porn banner ads?

Yes? :sarcasm:

Look, I don't think the outrage over the t-shirts was unexpected or undeserved. They don't belong on DU.

But I do think there is a small element here that has been overly sensitive to any mention of physical attractiveness regardless of intent, tone or framing.

And I think that is the underlying current of this thread and others questioning people's right to be not offended.

There is a difference between offering your opinion on whether these t-shirts are offensive or make a good fit as advertisers on DU

and

this comment and the ensuing flame war http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4174231&mesg_id=4174832

Can any of you see my point?

Seriously?

and I made my point better in the post lower down in the thread.

It's about picking battles. It's about going after posts regardless of the intent, or the relative amount of incisiveness of the post.

It's this notion that any comment about breasts etc. objectifies women and is therefore harmful.

Yes, saying someone has a nice rack objectifies them. Is it really harmful? Is it derogatory? When said in a humorous context (like the thread I linked to above) - is it an attack?

Human beings objectify each other all day long. It's part of how we process information. Every person on TV is objectified to some degree. Most humor objectifies to some extent. Sexual lust is our own objectification of another person.

I'm not advocating for "who has the nicest rack" polls, or anything like that. I'm just saying that a certain amount sexual innuendo and comments on a sexual aspect of a man or woman, especially when it is germain to the discussion, or even just a flippant or humorous comment is harmless. Certainly, there isn't a backlash against a lot of comments about men.

I'm asking that people cut each other some slack.

I'm saying that this thread is not about the t-shirts, it's a knee-jerk reaction to the gender wars that seem to be going on lately - in other words a poorly picked battle.

I fully support all of you going after any derogatory slur against a specific woman or women in general - the t-shirts are certainly fair game. But there has been a lot of knee-jerk reaction to some fairly benign posts lately.

I just don't think that women achieve equality by wiping out every mention of their sexuality by men.

Does that help, Redqueen? I sure would like to find some middle ground.

However, there's a world's worth of difference between mentioning sexuality and acting like an adolescent.

Yeah, it's jokey. We're supposed to see past the juvenility and pick our battles... I get it.

However, is a little understanding too much to ask? Or should every woman who has been pushed past the breaking point by seeing men proclaim that women shouldn't go to college, seeing the blase acceptance of the fact that she gets paid less for equal work, seeing men get off on torturing women, seeing again and again in the movies that she is "not good enough" based solely on appearance - while men are given approval as their fat and ugly selves... should they all just bite their lips and STFU with their concerns?

Is it too much to ask for a little understanding when that woman sees threads about tits... sees comments about how exceptional jailbait boobs are... that the responses consider the VERY hostile environment we women live in every fucking day of our lives?

about these t-shirts. Is that a start?

Thank you Redqueen :yourock:

Why would they be on this site?

How many DUers would think like them, if you had to guess?

I was practically birthed by one!

Note to OP: Quit while you're behind.

deja vuing all over the place.

I mean I LOVE women.

I don't give a shit about the shirts. I would never buy one. no one I know would ever buy one. Anyone who wore one would just be advertising their own stupidity.

I have a problem with the "I'm offended, therefore we must eliminate the source of my discomfort" attitude.

And leave my behind out of this. We already have deep fried balls to contend with.

A political one at that. I just don't understand the outrage at people who express their offense. I just don't understand why anyone who would never choose to associate with the messages that were portrayed in those t shirts should have to shut up about it. I certainly questioned why those ads were there. I wanted to know if this was merely an oversight, which it turned out it was, or if admins knew those ads were there, didn't care, or even worse picked them. I wanted to know because if it were the latter, I would no loner choose to be here. Why should anyone have to shut up and take anything they aren't willing to take? Again, this is a message board.

I'm here because I like it. But I don't have to stay. I don't have to stay anywhere and put up with anything I don't want to. And, if something offends me, I'm likely to say something about it. And I have no problem with others here doing in the same thing. In fact, I love it when they do. I'm deeply passionate about a lot of things, which is part of why I'm here, and party of why a lot of us are here. So, sometimes people will be offended. It doesn't mean that everyone here wants to stifle and censor everyone else. It means we're a bunch of intelligent people aware of the issues, unlike many other Fox News Watching Want to Know Nothing knuckleheads that most of us abhor. And we're going to get pissed off about stuff. Including stuff at DU.

I'm here because I like it. But I don't have to stay. I don't have to stay anywhere and put up with anything I don't want to. And, if something offends me, I'm likely to say something about it. And I have no problem with others here doing in the same thing. In fact, I love it when they do. I'm deeply passionate about a lot of things, which is part of why I'm here, and party of why a lot of us are here. So, sometimes people will be offended.

step one when offended is discussion, not a request to ban whatever offended.

would you expect people to complain?

self-delete

:)

does it cause actual harm or merely offense?

is it legal or illegal speech?

If it is illegal or causes harm it should be prohibited. If it is merely offensive, it should be criticized, discussed AND tolerated.

I would expect that SOMEONE would complain about almost anything. Does that mean I agree that therefore almost anything should be prohibited because it offends someone? No.

Speech that discriminates or is prejudiced based on race.


Nobody was trying to arrest the makers of the shirts, so questioning the legality of it is a strawman. Nobody is infringing on their legal right to produce the shirts, or people's legal right to wear them.

However, if CNN was directly selling on their website, for example, shirts that said "N*****s must die" we would be outraged and disgusted, and we would NOT tolerate it. We would complain, in huge numbers, and I would expect not just individuals, but also organizations to get involved in campaigning to have it removed. On the job, if you said it to a black person, it would qualify as harassment and get you fired - I think that's a good test of if we ought to tolerate something.

So I'll ask again, more specifically - if CNN were selling a shirt on their website that said "N*****s must die," would people be justified in campaigning to have it removed? Would CNN have an ethical responsibility to remove it?

Way too popular to take some of this "I'm offended that you're offended" shit seriously.

- which I use hesitatingly in reference to the expressions on that site's shirts - and patronization of a commercial enterprise that promotes and profits from the dissemenation of said bullshit. Big, obvious difference here. Your efforts to clarify your stance doesn't yet seem to grasp this. You're criticizing people's reaction here for what exactly? I'm just sensing a whole lot of conflictedness in your own thinking/feelings on this topic...

Also, taking pay for advertising is not "patronization."

I'd guess that the advertiser lost money advertising on DU. Not likely that DUers would buy such shirts. Maybe they caught a few trolling freeper eyeballs, but probably not many.

I'm not criticizing discussion or even calls to boycott that merchant. I'm criticizing the implicit "I'm offended, therefore I'm justified in calling for a prohibition of xyz content" atitude.

"I am offended by what you said about (fill in the blank--cats, women, men, gays, beer, Howard Dean, music, religion, 9-11, whatever). Alert! Alert! Alert! Skinner, please ban this comment! Skinner please ban this poster! Evil poster! Evil thought! Make it go away! Make it illegal!"

That is very different from engaging in debate about why whatever was said was offensive, how we could all become more enlightened by adopting a different point of view, how to change society's attitudes, or how to survive in a pluralistic society.

That's funny... I heard that's what a lot of knuckledraggers think as well.

Thankfully the admins seem to appreciate the fact that rules are necessary.

I'm not mad at anyone. I would personally never wear or buy any of the shirts that were being sold. Some people see no harm in them. I didn't even notice them until this discussion was raised. The shirts were off color and I do know younger people may like to make raunchy statements via their clothing. They are in poor taste and written in course language. The one on the front page was a woman's shirt advertising her "beautiful breasts". No woman I hang with would buy it or wear it. I guess DU found the complaint valid and didn't like the rukus. It's gone.

Be done with it it's over and we don't have to agree about everything we are still all on the same team. Right? :shrug:

and in the same boat

:thumbsup:

a minority group in the place of women on that merchandise. Then see if you think the outrage is justified, or if you would continue to assert that we should all "live and let live".

If a t-shirt endorsed rape and possibly murder (The best way to ____________'s heart is through their ribcage) of a black person or other minority, would you still tell us to just calm down? Somehow, I doubt it. At the very least, you would not openly express the sentiment, because you are aware of how inflammatory it would be.

But when women are the target, we just need to be "more tolerant". Can you honestly say that you don't understand the concern? Are messages like that appearing on a "progressive" board really okay with you? Are they really part of your world vision of tolerance and freedom of expression?

Rosanne Barr famously said, "The fastest way to a man's heart is through the ribcage." It became a signature line of hers. The T-shirt exists only because this joke became very well known.

It's clearly intended as a *joke*, not as an incitement to actual violence.

Were you equally offended when men were the target?

I would argue that probably the only group that it is "safe" (that is, not likely to provoke outrage) to joke about in such fashion is white males. Why is that?

I err on the side of permitting language and ideas to be expressed, whether I agree with them or not and whether I find them offensive or not. If that makes me "evil" somehow among alleged progressives, then so be it.

I, and I suspect most people here, are not trying to stop the manufacture of the t-shirts in question. The manufacturer is free to design, produce, market and sell whatever he likes. If he has customers for that stuff, good for him. The issue is whether certain products should be accepted for advertising here, at a progressive website. If I, or any other poster, advocated what some of those shirts were advocating, I'd probably have that post removed and rightly so. Therefore it's a matter of deciding what forms of advertising is acceptable and not a form of censorship. DU, being a privately owned entity has the right to reject advertising it deems inappropriate, all I was doing was expressing my opinion that they do so.

:hi:

:yoiks:

:hi:

:hi:

But last night, I just couldn't help myself. I just wish people would think before posting...it really would help.

Thanks for the compliment. :hi:

asking that speech be banned simply because they find it offensive.

This site does not allow certain terms because they are demeaning and sexist and as progressives we do not stand for those things.

Is the speech illegal?

If the speech is harmful or illegal, it should be prohibited.

If it is merely controversial or offensive, it should be discussed, condemned, disected, but not banned.

should accept advertising dollars from another company which sells products that a large number of members here find objectionable. That's it.

Now, on to language and its usage, your larger issue. There are certain words and phrases which, on their face, are demeaning and sexist. Much as there are words, on their face, that are demeaning and racist or demeaning and homophobic. These words do nothing to add to the discourse and are imflammatory. Thus, the administrators of this site have seen fit to ban such speech. Once again, this is a privately owned website, if you participate here, you have to obey the rules. If you disagree with the rules, attempt to change them, or forego participating here.

They delete the posts they think break the rules. Period.

that corporations/businesses have some sort of personhood and therefor the right to free speech. It wasn't speech...it was a fucking advertisement.

speech is speech.

If the government was banning the ad, your point would be valid. That is not the case here though.

I'm talking about alleged progressives trying to proscribe ideas on the grounds that they are offensive or controversial.

being allowed in posters' sig lines here on DU?

but I would allow them

otherwise we wouldn't have truth in advertising laws.

And it wasn't about cencorship or proscribing ideas. It's about DU not actively supporting offensive advertising. It's about DU living up to it's mission statement. It's about not having advertising that if posted by a member would be deleted for breaking the rules. And it's about respect for women.

:) :hi:

:loveya:

So what's the prize for that conversion? Do we straight folks even HAVE a catalog?

:hide:

:loveya:

:D

:banghead:

:loveya:

:loveya:

A wonderful opinion. Holmes at his very best.

Did you forget the :sarcasm: tag?

and can't understand why many don't realize how the bully tactics come across.

I always saw DU as a sort of potential think tank. Between what is happening here and what happened to Kos, progressives and liberals are being cast as authoritarian and closed minded.

If we can't debate our own differences, how the hell can we debate the other side?

to sharing in the profit from idiots' financial patronization of such expressions as "the best way to a woman's heart is through her fucking ribcage," even if it "only" appears on a t-shirt, as someone else said in a way maladroit and misguided effort to minimize the issue earlier. Think through the economic process of marketing. The dollars that flow through the merchandising of such garbage is blood money, to me. I don't want it.

What is it about my statement here and the dialogue so far on this topic that you think threatens the spirit of free debate?

Edit for grammar

the OP is talking about the overall tone and how the divisive issues are dealt with on DU.(at least that is how I interpret)

Try to debate pornography, abortion, religion or any issue that requires a compromise or meeting of the minds and you will see what happens.

Relativism is no longer allowed it seems.

how does it apply in this instance? I'm new here; I haven't yet noticed the censorious spirit to which you allude. In any case, in what way does the dialogue on this specific topic seem to exemplify as much to you? I just don't see it. :shrug:

others draw that line differently. we are (or ought to be) a pluralistic culture.

so debate. That is exactly my point.

and I've heard them all on DU at some point from hysterical to feminazi to repressed, is not bullying...but insisting that DU not support sexism is? :wtf:

The inability to see the big picture is the problem. I don't think anyone is defending the tshirt ads.

and that DU should be allowed to have them.

Very well-put. :applause:

See how easy that is?

:puke:

Many objected to not only the sexist nature of the tees but the mocking of the prisoner abuse. It is the tactics used by SOME, and not only on the issue of the ads, that is being discussed.

Please explain.

Most is covered in the rules actually. The only prob is you have to be like the alert team to fight back thus annoying the mods even more. Frankly, if you aren't a popular DUer, you risk getting tombstoned from the obvious entrapment tactics.

My point is it makes the original cause(which has merit)seem petty.

"Ganging up" = you pissed off a lot of people, and they're going to tell you about it. Deal.

"Us vs. them mentalities" = disagreement. When there's a disagreement, in any conversation about that disagreement, it's going to seem like "us vs. them"... meantime we all agree about the big picture, so why all the whining and complaining about outrage?

Baiting? Where's the baiting? Trolls are banned, Finder.

And you don't have to "be like the alert team" (whatever that means) to fight back. Just send a message to a mod or an admin. Whether they find it annoying or not is immaterial. The rules are there for a reason.

What and where are the aobvious entrapment tactics?

I think it's *your perception* of these illusions that makes *you* think the original cause has lost merit. Many obviously disagree...

and maybe even paranoia.(on both sides)

Many agreed Bush should be reelected, but that doesn't mean they were right.

Most people here are not offended by people taking offense.

I think that is the difference between what seems to be "the camps."

Maybe it is age or thick skin or mental stability. Who knows? "Most" people are smart enough to stay out of the whole fray.

You called it "bully tactics" and said it was damaging...

Or have I misunderstood?

It's not age, nor thick skin. It's COMPLACENCY.

Your barb about "mental stability" is nasty and not even worth addressing.

Most are not "too smart" to stay out of the whole fray? Then why are you here? If you're not intending to insult everyone having this conversation as stupid, you may want to rephrase that idea.

I was just stating an opinion.

As far as my comment regarding these "frays", I admit lack of wisdom on my own behalf.

alerted on your thread because of the cats. :eyes:

It was never about the goddamn cats.

is that, although you seem to be trying to make a general point, it is unavoidably -- because of what's going on around here -- going to be linked to the whole t-shirt discussion thing.

Here's the real point: Should DU, as an "advertiser" of this mysogynist t-shirt company, be seen as endorsing the sentiments thereof? The thing is that the banner on the front page with the offensive shirt was seen by EVERYONE, and the content of the shirt itself was kind of offensive.

The thing is that, on a personal level, if somebody treats you badly, you need to stand up to it and point it out and refuse to accept it, or it will continue.

On the T-shirt issue I have to agree with the people who were upset about it being affiliated with DU.

On your other more general point of the overreaction, the cried outrage well I have to agree with that too. See the thread in GD about the bare breast in 'Godfather' that spun out of control because of some persons off handed comment. Its these kind of battles that when they ensue lessen the firepower of other arguments like the T-shirt which was an extremely good argument on how it was offensive. You pull up a thread and its like "ow so and so is whining again".

There are individuals that seem to spend a great deal of their free time during the day searching for any incident at all that could in some way be found offensive and then a dog pile ensues on the poster who may or may not have had malicious intent, who knows. Maybe there is a private message list or something that is used to coordinate. It must be nice to have that kind of time available during the day.

mentally say, "Oh, so and so's being an asshole again."

:hi:

:hi: Misunderestimator!

and then devolve into even more sexist shit.... so yeah, you'll continue to see THIS whiner show up on those threads. And the funny thing is, I pull up those types of threads and it's like "ow so and so is being a sexist ass again."

not everyone on this planet is willing to sell their ideals for a buck... if the link had led to a t-shirt that said "aids kills fags dead," i'd want some blood from the people who were defending its right to exist...

maybe the slogans didn't hit close enough to home for you to perceive the injury...

shit will always exist in this world... it always has, it always will... but it's not a liberal website's duty to promote shit...

that's all... i can't figure why this argument is still going on :shrug:

(And the funny thing is that came up as on autofill on the subject line... I guess I REALLY love you.) :loveya:

:hug:

i needed that my friend

I've seen a lot of "insert another group here" type suggestions but they seem to go over everyone's head. Thank you for thinking of an actual t-shirt "slogan" that accomplished the same thing - a real world example of the type of language that simply is not acceptable for a progressive board to be advertising and promoting.

I can't believe that the people who are arguing FOR the advertising of these t-shirts would be so vehement in their defense of t-shirts advocating violence towards homosexuals, blacks, latinos, Jews, Muslims, etc. It certainly demostrates how far down the food-chain we women really are.

in the various tee-shirt threads, and you know what? NOT ONE defender of the glorious free speech crowd has defended it! NOT ONE! And that shows you EXACTLY where their heads are at! So yeah, for that group, it seems like it's really okay to treat women this way.

First, again - the t-shirts were awful, over the top, offensive, don't belong on DU. OK?

What we have in this thread is backlash against something else. It's from the relentless pushing by the few.

Can you see a difference between the two following statements -

1. BLACK PEOPLE SUCK

2. BLACK FIREMEN HAVE BIGGER HOSES


Because I do. I would support anyone going after someone who posted the first comment (or supported the "way to a woman's heart is through her ribcage", ET, ALL.)

The 2nd comment is humor, and not derogatory.

Really. It's not about the damn t-shirts. There have been so many threads lately where someone gets flamed for making a comment in the same vein as #2 - that this is just backlash. No offense to the OP, but IMHO it was a poorly picked battle. We're all a bit bruised and sensitive on BOTH sides.

I'm really tired of fighting with y'all. We are on the same side 90% of the time. I think the rest of the "sexist crowd" is tired of fighting too. I'm willing to bet you and your sisters are too.

Let's try to cut each other some slack on BOTH sides, and pick our battles more carefully.

Sorry to all I've just offended on both sides. I'm just a tempest in a teapot, I guess.

Love and hugs and fuzzy bunnies all around...

Your examples don't really match the t-shirts being discussed. You said:

Can you see a difference between the two following statements -

1. BLACK PEOPLE SUCK

2. BLACK FIREMEN HAVE BIGGER HOSES


Because I do. I would support anyone going after someone who posted the first comment (or supported the "way to a woman's heart is through her ribcage", ET, ALL.)

The 2nd comment is humor, and not derogatory.


The two t-shirt slogans which were being discussed were:

1. The way to a woman's heart is through her ribcage
2. If I wanted to hear your opinion I'd take my cock out of your mouth

Both of these slogans imply violence - - the second one might imply a consensual sexual act, but to me, and I'm sure a lot of other women, it implies rape. (And if you dissect the "humor", it's a lot "funnier" if the guy is "shutting her up" by force.) The violence and rape imagery are very offensive because of the passive acceptance by society that rape and violence against women are "normal" male behaviors or that women who report the crimes are hysterical or lying or "asking for it".

So a better "compare and contrast" example of whether the t-shirts would be equally offensive if they were racial or ethnic slurs might be:

1. BLACK PEOPLE SUCK
2. JAMES EARL RAY SHOULD HAVE KILLED FOUR MORE SO WE COULD GET THE WHOLE WEEK OFF*

*An actual racist "joke" told to a friend of mine in the army.

You could make the same arguments about the second example - - it's only a joke, so African-Americans who think making a "joke" out of Dr. King's assassination - - or any racially inspired murder - - are overreacting. Hopefully, that argument wouldn't persuade too many folks.

because I was never supporting the sayings on these t-shirts, I don't think they belong on DU.

What I was trying to say was that this thread is a knee-jerk reaction to the gender wars that have been going on lately. It's not about the t-shirts. This was a poorly picked battle - it's a reaction to the general tone of DU lately.

Please re-read my post and my posts above. I never made an argument giving any merit to the t-shirts.

Back to the example:

1. BLACK PEOPLE SUCK - Bad, bad, bad. Should be attacked, as well as these The way to a woman's heart is through her ribcage If I wanted to hear your opinion I'd take my cock out of your mouth bad, sexist, violent.

2. BLACK FIREMEN HAVE BIGGER HOSES - an example of the type of comments in other threads that are getting attacked, but to put it in context, the usual statement is some humorous or flippant comment about so-and-so's breasts.

This thread which has been taken to support a statement like example #1 is a direct result of repeated attacks on statements like in example #2. Again, a knee-jerk reaction and a poorly picked battle, that is an indication of another underlying problem.

You wanted to discuss this specific issue, so I'm discussing it with you. To me this specific issue is straight forward.

1.) People have a right to be offended, regardless of the intent of a post (or t-shirt or ad).

2.) To tell people that being offended is an overreaction, or that what they find offensive is a just harmless joke, is at best insensitive.

3.) For any person to assume they know definitely what is offensive and what is not offensive is at best naive.

4.) DU has the right to set its own rules about what can be posted and what can't. It has rules forbidding offensive material, including sexist, racist and homophobic material. It is the job of the mods to decide what is a violation of these rules and what isn't.

5.) DU has the right to set it's own advertising policies. If it wants to use its banner ads to reinforce it's political message, that's the admins' decision. If the admins feel the t-shirt ads were something they did not want associated with DU, then that's their decision.

6.) People who don't agree with the rules or the ad policy are free to request DU change them. They are also free to leave for a different group which does not have the same rules or ad policies.

There's a lot of talk about alcohol on DU - mostly expressing fondness for it and it's properties.

Now lets say 6 or so recovering alcoholics start entering every thread where drinking is discussed. The tone of their posts is to shame people for glorifying drinking when all it brought them is sadness and regret.

Who has the problem here? Who is being a disrupter? Should we ban all posts mentioning alcohol, so as to not offend these people?

As far as your post goes:
1) True. Opinions are like assholes...
2) Being offended by relatively benign comments is probably indicative of other personal issues.
3) That's my opinion (see #1) I don't really care how you feel about it.
4) True
5) True
6) True

LOL

In case you don't care what my opinion is about this post either, I'll go ahead and offer it. I don't find the alcoholism analogy convincing either, because all you're doing is finding different ways to do the same thing you claim to find so objectionable in others.

To whit:

1. Some people are offended by posts you consider benign.

2. You find that behavior offensive.

3. You want others to stop behaving in ways you find offensive.

How is that different from the behavior you're objecting to?

How is that living and let living?

Also, as an aside to your response to #2... my late Grandmother (who was Caucasian) grew up at the turn of the last century, and she used the "N" word as a descriptive term the way most people would use "redhead" or "brunette". Her children and grandchildren spent many decades trying to explain to her that the "N" word was deeply offensive. She never got that the word wasn't benign - - and thought it was pretty silly that we asked her not to use it.

I'd just like to humbly suggest you remember my late Grandmother the next time you think you know what is offensive and what is benign.


(In case you don't care about why this photo is here, it's in honor of my late Grandmother, who had many positive qualities - - including taking her children and grandchildren on nature walks, teaching us about the local plants and animals...)

Thanks so much!

:applause:

that since fascism is the getting to be "the" insult - that the OP sees fascism in the course of people wanting respect (ooo someone is being stopped from freely expressing hate - as if we should be outraged that people care).

I see the evils of fascism in corporations who don't care about their effects on people or the planet - who think they should be able to use their power to whatever destructive ends they can dream up.

Keep your chin up, brother. Don't let the bastards get you down.

Nice to know where you stand.

I don't even know you or what you posted. Where do you see your name in my post, exactly?

Since you refer to people "getting him down" as "bastards", I assume you are referring to me. One plus one still equals 2.

And yeah, I'm touchy. Sue me.

So my bastards comment was actually referring to the IRS.

When you assume...

:eyes:

*sigh*

:(

You feel that people should not air their grievances over things that YOU define as "lesser" and that we should quit alerting on threads we find objectionable and we should not try to stop the things that we think are wrong with this country or the world (unless they are things that you agree should be stopped).

In other words, we should not do as we feel we have a right to do but should do as YOU want us to do.

Have I got that right?

I think you've nailed it.

i also love you.

love,
progmom

this new thing you do is very cute

Sincerely,
Misunderestimator


P.S. I love you.

I was going to relate the time I made a length of the court asshole luck out shot while trying to pass the ball...

such sweet irony
:eyes:

the term 'offend.'

In the middle of the last century, progressive people stood up for the oppressed and were an important factor in elevating the cause of civil rights in this country.

When we hear someone use the 'N' word, or behave in abusive ways to a person of African descent only because of the colour of their skin, we're not merely offended, correct thinking individuals find that situation intolerable.

In gender discrimination the line gets clouded by sexuality, but it's really not different. I'm no prude. I have laughed at a number of randy jokes and know the meaning of terms which make polite people blush. I have an apron with a bunch of penguins boinking in orgy in a subtle pattern. This would be free expression of sexualised topics. We can laugh at the jokes in Playboy, we can indulge in erotica, we can accept people for their open marriages or variant sexual predilections. Where it becomes intolerable is the point that it demeans any individual simply because of their gender, or predilection, or orientation, or ad infinitum.

Certainly there are people in every segment of society who use any excuse to find offense. I really don't see that as being the majority of what goes on here at these message boards. It's a careful line we have to walk balancing our tolerance and the need to stand up and speak to that which is wrong.

I admire a great many men and women on these boards who speak out against that which they feel is intolerable. I think if you'll read with an open mind, you'll find most of them make a very reasonable case for their beliefs and are not merely speaking from emotion or a need to be dramatic.

It's not offensive to use joking, abusive terms about the gay and lesbian community; it's intolerable. It's not offensive to poke fun of women in demeaning and objectifying ways; it's intolerable. It's not offensive to mock people of colour or ethnic variation; it's intolerable. Yes, we're a tolerant bunch but we will not be the oppressors. We stand against the evil we do not accept it.

We're just fucking better than that.

And I was afraid to use the word "unacceptable". Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I love you even more now.

love,
progmom

:loveya:

Is this joke okay or not okay?

Would it matter if I were an Irish man?

An Irish woman?

Polish?

Black?

British?

apparently many DUers want rules that would prohibit any language that might be deemed offensive to any individual OR any group.

But you don't.

Women are raped quite often in this country. Women are killed by partners quite often in this country. WE HAVE A PROBLEM! You have a daughter, yet these issues do not concern you. Fine. Your choice.

As a woman, however, and as a mother, these issues concern me. The attitide expressed on those shirts is the exact same one harbored by guys who would kill or rape. When a shirt advocates violence of women, I will stand up and be loud in my claim of offense. No woman should have to be abused, raped or treated in the manner expressed in some of those "slogans."

AS others have said, if these sayings were about minorities, you would be outraged. You slid around the questions to that effect by asking some mumbo-jumbo question which never really came out and admitted one way or the other whether you would be offended or not if minorities were the target group. A yes or no answer is all we need from you.

My feeling is that the feminists won a small victory in the minds of some of the anti-feminists, and the anti-feminists are having a very difficult time with this.

Why? You need to examine your own souls. How DO you really feel about ALL women?

It's becoming sorta pathetic, actually.

at least twice in modern history. I think my example is comparable.

the joke I started is about a man. Is it okay for women to make jokes about men? for Brits to make jokes about the Irish? For Germans to make jokes about the Polish? Is it okay for the Irish to make jokes about the Brits or the Polish about the Germans?

Remember, the only reason the saying you all are objecting to exists at all is that it is a twist on a saying that was originally coined by a famous woman before an audience of millions on national TV dozens of times, with all men as the target. Where is the outrage over that? There was none. It was a frigging joke.

A woman on this board responded to a male poster on this subject saying she would castrate him and force him to eat his own testicles after she cooked them. Where is the outrage? I would never tell a woman anything remotely like that no matter how much we disagreed.

Despite your desire to paint me in a light convenient to your argument, I am a feminist. I totally despise the slogans on the T-shirts. I totally defend your right to criticize those slogans. I wish more men could be more like most women in many ways. Exaggerated sensitivity to humor, colloquialisms and other benign, even if offensive, uses of language is not one of them.

why do you hate men so? Has some evil bastard harmed you somehow and turned you against us?

I just sent you a nice PM and now I'm saying, "huh?"

How did you get any hatred out of what i posted? For your info, my three very best friends are men. They would pretty much laugh their asses off to find out I actually "hate" them!

When a woman expresses an opinion concerning rape and abuse of women, it is not then open season on her mental state. There is rampant rape and rampant abuse of women and a better question would be "Why?" to those issues than your " why do you bring up these horrible topics unless you are somehow mentally unstable?" The Old-but-Tired hysterical woman accusation. Doesn't work with me. Sorry.

I bring up these topics because they must be dealt with - for me, for my daughter and for YOUR daughter. And we deal with these issues by examining the very embryonic stages of hatred of women. In my opinion.

Attacking my "past" or throwing out pop psychological tripe is NOT going to protect your daughter.

must have harmed her for her to say what she does. :wtf:

Seriously.... what is your problem?

how dare you not be equally outraged over that?

Seriously . . .

I think I know the answer.

Show me.

What joke? Tell the rest of the joke, because it might VERY well BE offensive. Of COURSE it matters if you tell a joke about a specific group of people in a denigrating way. You're reaching for straws here, and you are completely ignoring SOteric's very well written post.

Try learning something.

Did you hear the one about the Irshman who walked out of the bar?


(pause)


It could happen!

Here's a dollar, run out and buy some.

:applause:

right on the daggum head!

:yourock:

(THE greatest page) ;)

Okie dokie. I think it makes a valid point I'm interested in sharing, so...I'm gonna do that.

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=3736239&mesg_id=3736239

:yourock:

That was beautiful! :applause:

fantastic!

(why can't people get the DU/endorsing the advert. side of this issue? What DU advertises represents us all, and anything you list as intolerable is just that. I will not tolerate a progressive forum that I donate to endorsing crap like that, and I will speak up loudly to say so. This does not equal banning! Why this isn't more clear to everyone is beyond me. I put my money where my heart is.)

time in this society? I don't, and that makes me sad. I think this society has always had it's scape goats, and hate speech, and we're in the process of switching around who gets hammered, not stopping it. I would agree with your statement about proscribing speech if I had more faith in my fellow man.

:kick:

I'm also glad I never jumped into the fire yesterday. :)

There's lots of fiery povs on this.