General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSelf-censorship is censorship. Advocating self-censorship is advocating censorship.
There seems to be a lot of it going around, on DU and elsewhere. The notion that certain words and phrases, even if legal, should be censored via censure. That people should be pressured to voluntarily cede their first amendment rights so that others might enjoy a greater degree of comfort.
I disagree. The Supreme Court has ruled that even speech as odious as that employed by the Westboro Baptist Church is sacrosanct. That is the law of the land.
Certain people have used "shock speech" for purposes that we may deem good or ill. The KKK used the "n" word to defame and subjugate, and Mel Brooks used it to lampoon racists. Some of my friends say "suck a dick and get fucked in the ass" when referring to their sexual lives, others use it to shock the straights, and some people use those same words as hate speech. Still others use them to make rhetorical points.
Context and the messenger have great weight when a message is decoded. We can not, we must not fall into the trap of isolating words from their contexts when deciding what is acceptable and what is not.
And we most assuredly should not advocate that others censor or be censored, lest we ourselves someday be likewise treated.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I heartily agree with all of it!
valerief
(53,235 posts)as a weapon, despite original intent. Nuance and metaphor are dead.
I think 3-year-olds are that literal, too.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Trying to hold back the tide of binary understanding. But what the hell, I'm too old to give up on nuance.
(PS: Yes, I am aware that the stereotype of Canute is historically inaccurate. But in this context, it can be a useful bit of imagery.)
Hekate
(90,793 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)alp227
(32,052 posts)This is the same argument used by Duck Dynasty fans in response to A&E suspending Phil Robertson for homophobic remarks made in a public interview. Just because has has A right to say something doesn't mean the something IS right.
riqster
(13,986 posts)In the context of American society, the words as used by Duck Daddy are indeed noxious. In CONTEXT.
The words themselves, not a problem at all.
valerief
(53,235 posts)could give two shits if the word is rushing to class or running off for a smoke. Certain words aren't allowed in the halls no matter what.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)the modes of discussion we chose to use. I'm opposed to censorship, both from the government and by boycott, but I see nothing wrong with pointing out that someone uses offensive or stupid language.
Anybody can choose to say whatever they like, but if they choose to use language that is offensive or detracts from their message or hurtful, than I feel free to comment on that. And if they cross the line beyond what DU community standards allow I can understand why people might alert on it. I rarely alert myself (I can't recall ever having done it, but it's possible I have and it's just not coming to me), but I can understand why some might.
Bryant
riqster
(13,986 posts)Because nowhere are you advocating that others should not say x, y, or z. You are saying that you will dispute, debate, comment and such.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If I say that I am going to dispute both the context of someone's comments and how they say it, that means I'm going to say that they shouldn't have expressed something a certain way, which might well include saying "The word C*** is offensive to women and shouldn't be used on a liberal message board."
That's disputing, but it's also saying that they shouldn't say something they have said.
Bryant
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)My fiance uses that word a lot, and she's quite liberal, and a VERY active activist...
But there are those who want to shut down everything that offends them. I have found it MUCH easier in life to NOT be offended by anything. It's made things much easier, and has brought my stress levels down considerably.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)You do seem to be suggesting that your fiance be held up as the standard to which all women should live up to - but I'm not sure that works. If I had a black friend who was find with me using the N-Word would that be an acceptable excuse to use it on this board? or where do you draw the line?
Bryant
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)But only in America's puritanical BS is the C word considered some terribly offensive word. It's a quite common slang word in the UK, and if you watch the BBC at any length, you will come across the word quite often.
It all depends on context. If I was quoting John Lennon, it should be quite ok to say "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World".
Same with quoting George Carlin's seven words ("shit, piss, cunt, fuck, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits" .
In those contexts, it should not be offensive. But I'm sure there will be some who will find offense in that. Even though they are direct quotes. I don't believe we should censor direct quotes.
Now, this is all different from me calling you (or any other DU member) a n**** or a c***. Those are nasty, vicious personal attacks on a DU member, and should be hidden. Also, broadbrushing a group in that manner should also be unacceptable. But direct quotes? Never.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't trash keywords, but if i see it's an article by him, i usually don't click on it. But I was on the jury on that post and I voted against hiding it - because my tastes aren't everybody elses.
It seems like we are talking about two separate things - 1) under what contexts can you quote offensive words and 2) should you be allowed to use those offensive words at DU.
Bryant
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)as it's a verbatim quote. RP isn't a DU member, so his articles shouldn't be held to the posting standards (just as other articles are not).
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)They quickly substituted words like, fornicate, intercourse, feces, etc. and outlawed the native sayings of the very same thing. At one time, they were not swear words.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Can't have grandmother asking to pass the breasts, or little sister asking for a little more thigh...
whathehell
(29,090 posts)it VERY easy to "not being offended by anything", since unlike gay males,
men of color, or Women of ANY color or orientation, there is virtually Zero
in the vernacular or public discourse that DEMEANS and INSULTS you
just for being the White, Male and Straight that you are -- Get it?
It's easy to "not be offended by anything", when you are NOT a target of
derision just BECAUSE of your condition of birth, be that the "wrong" gender or race.
Just thought I'd point that out.
riqster
(13,986 posts)If I say "Bryant, I disagree with your use of 'cheese' in your post" I'm debating community standards with you. (Assuming curdophobia becomes part of our social order. God, I hope not. )
If I say, "no one should ever utter the word 'cheese' regardless of context or intent", or "Bryant should never say 'cheese"', then I am advocating that others practice self-censorship. I am saying that we cannot discuss cheese. I am trying to stop discourse.
Does that make it clearer?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)You say here that not wanting people to use the word in question keeps someone from discussing something in the same way not wanting people to say "cheese" keeps them from discussing "cheese." You have to see how faulty that logic is. No one is trying to keep anyone from discussing any particular topic. The community standards have been that general misogynist, racist, and homophobic language is not an attempt to keep people from discussing topics, and the word the Rude Pundit used was not necessary to discuss that topic the way the word "cheese" is necessary to discuss cheese. At least it would be awkward to discuss cheese without saying "cheese" but it is easy to discuss the Cheneys without the language he used.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)I see your point, but just because one could talk about matters fromage without saying "the "cheese word " doesn't mean the word has no use. In context, depending on the deliverer, audience, etc.
Example from my own experience: my wife was bootblacking at a gay bar last year, and "suck a dick" was said in a number of contexts over the course of the evening. Sometimes it was used like RP used it, sometimes in other contexts. Those present did not try to limit the words or their usage; they just dealt with the use of the words as they came up, depending on who said them to whom and how.
valerief
(53,235 posts)despite context.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Could the Rude Pundit have expressed what he wanted too without using those terms? Or is it impossible?
What ideas does political correctness actually prevent you from articulating?
Bryant
riqster
(13,986 posts)The point is more along the lines of "I deplore what you say, but defend your right to say it".
And let us add, "how you choose to say it".
valerief
(53,235 posts)instead to context? Or do we all have to resign ourselves to the binary thinking of a 3-year-old?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)How well does that actually work in the real world?
Bryant
riqster
(13,986 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)either your hopelessly confused, backpeddling or a total hypocrite.
which of those three choices do you like?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Because the jury is a means of enforcing standards in a private space. DU. By posting here, we all agree to self-censor what we say on this site. That is how the place works.
It is the attempt to coerce a non-DU author into self-censoring that I am objecting to."
mercuryblues
(14,537 posts)aren't Du's community standards censorship?
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)People think the Rude Pundit is crude and should self censor, and then those same people post THIS in support of their opinion.......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5121718
Wait...wut? OK, I kinda think someone lost the plot! Bwahahahahahahaha!
redqueen
(115,103 posts)and homophobic insults.
Seriously, it's almost like a parody...
When TRP uses racist slurs, he uses them to demonstrate what hateful stupid rightwingers think.
When he uses misogynistic and homophobic insults, he's using them himself about rightwingers.
This is a pretty significant contextual difference.
How do so many people here not grasp this?
Seriously...
Anyway, if anyone can find an example of him using racist insults against a rightwing politician (or their relatives, as he did wirh misogynistic insults toward Bristol Palin) please let me know. Maybe he's even more noxious than I thought.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)you can justify anything as long as you agree with it.
Oh.....wait.......ROFLMAO.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Thanks for the heads up.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I swear to Goddess I'm gonna fucking choke... First the concept of 'context' poses a problem, now its differentiating requests from commands...
Holy shit. .. This is an act, right?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I don't even understand how you see that post as parallel. At all.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)From dictionary.com
CRUDE
adjective, crud·er, crud·est.
1. in a raw or unprepared state; unrefined or natural: crude sugar.
2. lacking in intellectual subtlety, perceptivity, etc.; rudimentary; undeveloped.
3. lacking finish, polish, or completeness: a crude summary.
4. lacking culture, refinement, tact, etc.: crude behavior.
5. undisguised; blunt: a crude answer.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Only things that are misogynist, racist, or homophobic. But thanks for explaining why you think they're related.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)You miss the plot.
Dick.......Cheney........get it now?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I didn't even see that post until today and I don't think it would have occurred to me to alert on it.
But someone thought it was homophobic - because telling a man to suck a dick is homophobic, and maybe someone thought it was rapey too? I don't remember what I read about it. And so someone alerted and most of the people on the jury apparently agreed.
What I see is people think the Rude Pundit should be off limits for alerts. So I guess you want people to self-censor themselves when they decide whether or not to alert.
Anyone can alert on anything, and it takes a majority of the people on the jury to hide it. I've seen things get hidden I didn't think should be hidden before, and I didn't start bunches of threads and freak out for hours over it. But you're saying I'm outraged. LOL
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)I don't think his posts are funny, or interesting, or entertaining. I don't bother to read them.
But, I sure as hell don't get all up in arms over a play on words by anyone.
What I object to is that anyone feels responsible for telling ME what I should find interesting, acceptable or humorous.
And, then, spending days and hours trying to justify THEIR behavior.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I sincerely doubt anyone here cares what you find interesting, acceptable, or humorous.
There are community standards based on what jurors generally find acceptable. (Interest and humor are not really what juries are about.) This one didn't pass a jury. Juries don't tell other people what they should find acceptable, only what they feel should be acceptable specifically on DU.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I am calling him a prick. That's just what happens when you are an oozing slimeball who also happens to be named Dick.
"I have a very good friend in Rome named Biggus Dickus...I will not have his name ridiculed by the common soldiery" --Monty Python's Life of Brian
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"Go fuck yourself". An expletive used in anger. It's pretty obvious that the person saying it is not happy. But I really don't think people would find self-copulation to be a punishment if it were physically possible.
Similarly, "go suck a dick" is only homophobic if you believe a man sucking a dick is bad.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)In that he was obviously suggesting they do something he considered bad. If he didn't consider it to be horrible then it wouldn't have made sense in the context of what he was writing.
I wouldn't have alerted because I expect stuff like that if I see the Rude Pundit. I guess when you're expecting stuff, you don't notice it in the same way. But I think it's disingenuous to say it wasn't homophobic, or that if you think he meant it that way it's because you think fellatio is bad.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)People using that are not typically anti-sex....even if self-copulation were possible.
IMO it's just a new "go fuck yourself" - an expletive used without meaning. As opposed to using "gay" as a synonym for "bad".
gollygee
(22,336 posts)of people who enjoy sex.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's plenty of anti-white slurs. Doesn't mean whites are oppressed.
are slurs without power, and therefore not parallel.
riqster
(13,986 posts)People who enjoy "alternative" sex are prosecuted on a regular basis. Check out https://www.ncsfreedom.org for more info.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)There is no oppression of people who simply enjoy sex.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Really? No, I mean, seriously, really?
Slippery slopes don't get much more treacherous than that one.
He asked why "go fuck yourself" or talk of fucking isn't the same as homophobic talk, and the reason is because people who fuck are not oppressed. That's all. "People who have sex" is not an oppressed group. I'm not talking about some subgroup of "people who have sex."
Your rant is irrelevant to the question I was replying to.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Gay people who enjoy sex are still being persecuted, for instance. So for you to say that there is no such persecution disregards the very real denial of human rights that millions of people face every day.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)"People who have sex" as defined only as "people who have sex" - NOT A SUBGROUP of people who have some kind of sex, or who have sex with some people, but simply people who have sex, are not persecuted.
Gay people are persecuted for being gay or having gay sex, but that is a subgroup of people who have sex. The group "people who have sex" are not persecuted for being "people who have sex." The word "fuck" doesn't mean "gay sex." It just means "sex." So talking about fucking is not the same as talking about men having sex with men, as people who fuck are not oppressed, but men who have sex with men are oppressed.
I don't believe you are stupid enough to not understand what I'm saying. I could not make it any clearer. I really think you are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying and claiming it's something else.
riqster
(13,986 posts)We are all members of at least one subgroup, as well as being members of aggregate groups. To attempt to limit discussions of freedom and discrimination by passing over part of the populace is inherently flawed.
So when you say "no one is..." whether it be about discrimination against their sex lives, speech, or any other injustice, it is dishonest in the first place, and disrespectful into the bargain: it minimizes the struggles of the "subgroups" and makes it that much harder for them to overcome.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)for being part of whatever subgroup, not for being a part of "people who have sex."
Just like Jewish people are in some places oppressed for being Jewish, not for being "people who believe in God." "People who believe in God" are not oppressed as a group. Some people in that group are oppressed, but not for being "people who believe in God."
And I care about both, but we're talking about why one group of words is not parallel to another group of words, not about whether oppression is wrong against any particular group. One group of words "Fuck you" is not oppressive because "people who fuck" (or "people who have sex" is not an oppressed group. Homophobic language IS oppressive because gay people are members of an oppressed group.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It's okay to unleash a stream of profanities at a wedding reception because...well, just because. Or in a church. Or at a funeral.
We all self-censor all the time. People who don't self-censor are usually those with Tourette's Syndrome.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
redqueen
(115,103 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)But it's not my job to try to tell you what words you should not use. Nor is it my place.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)This dramafest is turning out to be the most entertaining thing to happen around here in a long time.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)dawg
(10,624 posts)and there's nothing they can do to stop you 'cause they're in the Bible.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)The world must be falling apart. And, and, and, we teach it to children?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)While I agree with what you said, around here you censored for absolutely no profanities.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)"Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove any doubt!"
riqster
(13,986 posts)Especially because it's up to each of us to make that determination.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Some guy trying to dress like a character on the duck die-nasty strolls out ahead of us and gets into his pickup. I was covered with bumper stickers such as:
LISTEN TO RUSH!
REPEAL OBAMACARE!
And other such brainwashed nonsense, and we just broke out laughing. I doubt he heard us but it was so ridiculous. We got in our vehicle and that's when the Twain quote hit us.
riqster
(13,986 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)viewpoints.
riqster
(13,986 posts)All of us here have agreed to operate within those constraints. If Skinner says "thou shalt not", then we can comply or take a hike.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)someone has the right to call obama a gay-married muslim kenyan, doesn't mean i want to share a space with them.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I like being challenged, at times. But not all the time.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)And telling her off ...
No holds barred .... yep
As a species, we self censor ourselves every day ...
riqster
(13,986 posts)But that isn't the same as telling others how they should self-censor.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)First, the Rude Pundit is all over the internet. Having a post where he's quoted here hidden is not censoring the Rude Pundit.
Second, asking people to monitor their language is not censoring people either. Mainly because people can say "no."
Third, the Supreme Court rules on what words should be allowed to be legally uttered, not what should be posted on DU. We have community standards based on how juries generally vote, and juries generally vote to hide misogynist, racist, and homophobic stuff. If you say something that fits one of your boxes, you take your chances. If you quote someone who says something like that, you still take your chances.
I'm glad most people at DU find that kind of language unacceptable here. We as a community hold ourselves to a higher standard than the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't see that as a bad thing.
840high
(17,196 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)but the mass freakout seems downright impervious to logic.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)By someone who is freaking out post after post after post that the community doesn't allow any language at all here. I am trying to think when I've seen more outrage at DU than I've seen today over this issue - all by people claiming everyone else is part of "the outrage brigade" or whatever.
This is like performance art. I'm not outraged at all. I am very amused by how upset people are over one jury hide.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I'm so glad I didn't miss it
savalez
(3,517 posts)Except performance art it still art. This latest DU rage is just stupid.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Rec.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)The odious speech of the Westboro Baptist Church is "sacrosanct" but only insofar as the government cannot censor it. However, if the members of the Church tried to take their message off of the public sidewalk and display their signs on the private property of a cemetary, the cemetary could demand that they leave and if they refused, could call the cops and have them arrested for trespassing (but not for their speech).
Put another way, if I invite someone to my house and they start telling jokes about "n*****rs", and another guest comes to me and requests that I ask the person to stop, the second guest is advocating that I engage in private censorship. And if I do ask them to stop , I am advocating that they engage in self-censorship. And if they refuse to stop, I can engage in private censorship by demanding that they leave my property. If they refuse I can call the cops. They would be subject to government action not because of what they said (although that was my reason for demanding they leave my property) but because they were on my property without my consent.
In short, to the extent the OP blurs the distinctions between government censorship, private censorship and self-censorship (and the distinction between advocating those different forms of censorship), it blurs important distinctions.
valerief
(53,235 posts)cops got there. And that would be a whole other kettle of fish.
riqster
(13,986 posts)On DU, the owner can make certain speech off-limits. It's privately owned.
In the public space, far less control can be mandated by law, because of the fact that it is public space.
All of that is true. So consider my OP as existing within those confines. And take the example of RP's recent Cheney post. Within the confines of DU, it got alerted, adjudicated, and hidden. Perfectly fair and reasonable: it is in DU space and is subject to DU rules. I might well have voted to hide, had I been on the jury.
It is quite different to posit that a DU jury verdict be applied outside of DU, in public space. To urge and outside entity to conform to standards not of their own devising, in a context in which those standards do not apply.
I would never say, "bitch", "cunt", "suck a dick", or many other words/phrases. I find them misogynistic, homophobic, racist, etcetera, depending on the word or phrase, and in my mind, it's never OK for me to say them.
That is a long way, however, from my demanding that no one else ever say them.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Seeing swearing and children and silence in church as examples, I don't think it's the same. Due to the history of suppression of political speech, I give it a special place along with art, film and literature as something that should be freely expressed.
And it's fine to say "I disagree with that viewpoint". Or to ignore it. But to opportunistically stifle speech with jury systems and pressure groups is against free speech. A few have argued that trying to stifle speech is a form of free speech. That isn't the same. One is a free expression, the other is speech attempting to suppress free expression. And using a jury to shut down speech is certainly not free speech.
Even more curiously, every DU member can moderate what they see using trash thread, hide user or hide keyword. They could have used those functions but instead chose to shut down discussion for everyone. The language police are just causing problems on this forum and contribute nothing of value.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)They can protect themselves via the ignore or trash features and leave the "protection" of others to themselves via the same methods.
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken
riqster
(13,986 posts)Calls for a
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... what you say is true.
It does not make sense that you can come to my home or business and expect to be able to exercise your rights to free speech without repercussion and without limit.
At work I have the governmental sanctioned right to say what I want (with the limits established by the court) ... my employer does not have to respect my 'free speech rights" i.e. I have the right to say (tell clients) Engineering Firm X is far superior to the company I work for ... my company does not have to tolerate that speech.
One can be a raging racist, xenophobe, homophobe, misogynist ... etc and engage in all the hate speech you want ... I do not have to tolerate or allow that speech in my home.
DU, as it is constructed, is a private place in which the community is allowed to establish their standards ... if the community decides certain words/ topics are offensive to their collective sensibilities ... then it is.
I realize your post is intended to provoke thought (especially about "words" in isolation); however, there are some words (even in isolation) that the community can define as too odious to be used in our 'house" ... I draw the line at racial, ethnic, homophobic, etc slurs
riqster
(13,986 posts)But when people say that an extra-DU source should self-censor so as to comply with DU standards, I see a problem.
RP doesn't post his own stuff here. Others do. So his writing really shouldn't be held to our standards, except when reposted here. Then they can go through the DU jury process.
And I'd say that is true of many people's speech.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... should censor themselves.
I was speaking solely about what we say at "our house"
riqster
(13,986 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Free speech is indeed, free speech. However, I have few problems with anyone realizing the social consequences of what they say, regardless of how they may rationalize those very same consequences as being inappropriate or discriminatory...
Mel Brooks was a comic genius, and would comically lampoon those who intentionally offend. Many others however, who cite him as an example though? Well... not so much genius as simply attempting to justifying a narrow-minded provincialism.
Response to riqster (Original post)
Tuesday Afternoon This message was self-deleted by its author.
msongs
(67,441 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Therefore not the job of others.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Should people be allowed to post anything here?
There is no question that virtually all speech is constitutionally protected. That isn't the issue here. Rather it is what is in keeping with community standards. A jury decided the rude pundit's blog entry wasn't, just as two juries decided my use of violated community standards. I didn't appreciate those hides, but there wasn't nothing I could do about them. The same constitution that protects the Rude Pundit protects my right to speech, and that of every other member on DU who has had hidden posts.
I really don't care about the Rude Pundit. I haven't read much by him, and from the entries that I've read as a result of this controversy, I can see I'm not missing much. Stripping away the insults, his essential point was an objection to the Cheney's editorial and their hypocrisy toward Obama. I certainly have no objection to that basic message, but it's not exactly insightful. The only thing that distinguished it from any of a thousand other comments saying just that was its vulgarity.
I find fascinating what some people decide is censorship vs. righteous hides. Stuff is hidden here all the time. One of the common kinds of hides is for people who object to sexism, racism, and misogyny. Yet those hides don't generate that hides for sexism, racism, and misogyny do. That tells me one thing. People are more comfortable with bigotry than they are with confrontations to bigotry. In fact, to look at this controversy, it seems people believe that bigoted slurs about subaltern groups are so justified, they should be protected above other forms of speech.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But when we have people telling non-DU posters to self-censor so as to comply with DU standards, I see an issue.
RP doesn't post his own stuff here, remember.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)as he does to express his own. I have no doubt he will disregard them entirely, even if he does see them.
I think her point was that rudeness need not be bigoted. Others here clearly disagree.
riqster
(13,986 posts)...and urging that others self-censor so as to be in compliance with an opinion external to their own. Had she said "that speech is offensive, and I won't listen to it", that is fair. When people say that others should not even say things that offend them, it's not.
At one time, my ancestors spoke their prayers in French rather than Latin. It was said that demanding we follow the Catholic form of speech was not a hindrance to our expression, we could just as easily speak in a way that did not offend the dominant class...
During the Vietnam war, some people grew their hair as a protest. Some said that was wrong, that there were other ways to protest...
The right to free speech is there for a reason. Indeed, it is often the right to utter the speech we like the least that we need to protect the most.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Everytime they tell someone off for their opinion. It has happened to me a zillion times and no one gives a damn.
The people who said growing long hair is wrong have the same rights as those who grow their hair. It's the same thing. The only difference is you agree with one and not the other. If you don't grasp something so basic, how can you claim to be for free speech? You're essentially advocating for the freedom of speech you agree with and not speech you don't.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Telling me that I am full of shit is fair and happens often.
On the other hand, telling me that I should not speak as I do is censorship.
One is arguing, the other is suppressing.
kcr
(15,320 posts)Not any more than telling someone to stop being an asshole is censorship.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Expressing her views: "That phrase is homophobic".
Censorship: "Don't say that homophobic phrase".
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Therefore it is not censorship. The only difference is that you don't like her opinion.
(As a reminder: I so don't give a fuck about the Rude Pundit).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But both it and legal censorship is attempting to control what someone else says.
riqster
(13,986 posts)A reminder: Prohibition did not start as a government-mandated, legally enforced method of control.
It started off with a few private citizens trying to control the actions of others. It did not stay that way.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)themselves according to his opinions.
He is doing exactly what you are saying is unacceptable, and yet you call that the thread winner.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Her opinion, the one you have declared illegitimate by claiming it is censorship. Why is it so difficult to accept that people can hold differing opinions and that the fact you disagree doesn't make the other person authoritarian?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Stating that list of reasons is fine. Those reasons may convince the author to no longer use an offensive word or phrase.
"Don't say that" is a step beyond opinion and into control.
ETA: I'll fully admit it's a fine line, and the intent of "don't say that" is not always clear. It is a message board after all, and we don't have the social cues to indicate if it's just a throwaway phrase or an attempt at control.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Why is that so difficult to accept?
"I don't like these words" = opinion.
"You should not use these words" = admonition.
One is a statement from one's self. The other is an attempt to impose those opinions onto someone else. These two things are not equivalent.
She needs to censor her speech so that the folks who hate everyone but white men should not be called on their shit?
Do you not see you are advocating for her censorship because you don't like her opinion? Advocating for free speech by calling for people whose opinions you don't like to keep their mouths shut is the ultimate irony.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I have said continuously throughout this thread that I object to the imposition of our opinions onto others in order to limit their freedom. And that I support the free expression of ideas. And that I support the rights of people in a private space to regulate conduct within that private space. Not much to object to, really.
I stand in good company with supporting someone's right to speak freely, while deploring what they say. (Google it.)
If someone differs with that basic tenet of freedom, then they are in fact arguing for censorship. And I argue against that. Generations of my family stand as an example of what happens when you allow censorship to take hold. Or, technically, not standing: they were sent to lie in their graves early because of censors.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)I call censorship!!!!!!1111!!~!!!
Response to riqster (Original post)
AngryAmish This message was self-deleted by its author.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It doesnt give you the right to say whatever you want anywhere you want. Quite the contrary. It also doesnt protect you from the consequnces of your speech...,
riqster
(13,986 posts)Look at Duck Dynasty: they are paying a price for exercising their free speech rights. No one is censoring them, people are just refusing to listen to their hateful crap.
The same is true of other controversial speakers. We don't need to censor them, or urge that they self-censor. We can boycott, and do other things from the listener's side. It is unnecessary and ill-advised to try and restrict legal speech at its source.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)But (assuming I was that kind of misogynistic asshole), that fits in with my OP. And free speech law in general.
I can't shut you up (not that would I want to). You can't shut me up. We can choose to listen or not, to engage or not, to support or oppose.
At the end of the day, my world would be horribly boring if nobody argued with me. I would learn nothing. That would stink.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Give up you lost this battle...
riqster
(13,986 posts)You cannot stop me from speaking.
Same in reverse.
We should encourage each other to speak and to to ignore, as seems best to us.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Your argument makes no sense....
riqster
(13,986 posts)The smoking analogy didn't seem applicable. Perhaps you could explain it?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You are NOT protected from the consequences of your "free speech"
riqster
(13,986 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DU is a private entity and can censor you all the want. You dont have a leg tio stand on...
riqster
(13,986 posts)I agreed to that when I started posting here, as do we all.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)there is no govt censoring you...
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)as if me not using the N-word is somehow equivalent of me giving up free speech?
since you're advocating for me to not censure myself, let me just say that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read.
and now that I've said that, I will from here out ignore the directive in your OP and restrain my language and word choice when I think it is appropriate for me to do so.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)because if nobody said it was offensive, then I wouldn't know it was offensive and therefore wouldn't know to self censor my language to exclude it.
i swear i only have stupid ass arguments like this with other white people (I'm white) who never experience racism as a racial minority in this country does.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You deciding not to use that word:
Person A (or a book, or whatever): "That word's history is (history). It's offensive to (list of people) because of (reasons)".
You, in your head: "Hmm, I shouldn't use that word."
Someone telling you to not use that word:
Persion 1: "Don't say that! It's wrong!"
In the first case, you learn it's meaning and decide not to use it. In the second case, someone is trying to control you. Those are very different.
Not to mention, the first is far more effective if one's goal is to actually drive a phrase out of common use.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I can choose to read your words or not. It's not my place to be your conscience.
Nor is it yours to be mine. Nor is it any of ours to be anyone else's.
There are laws in the public sphere that restrict speech. There are TOS in private space that restrict speech.
That is all we need. Trying to make other people self-censor has a chilling effect.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)why not?
riqster
(13,986 posts)The people I know who do use it have inspired me to not use it.
The black folk I know who use it, it seems like something that is part of their shared experience.
The white folk I know who use it look like pretentious fools or bigots.
So I don't. Nobody had to pressure me.
cali
(114,904 posts)wryter2000
(46,081 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)are generally the first to demand you listen to everything they say, without argument, because free speech and stuff.
Funny how that works, ain't it? I wonder if there's a reason for that.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)That literally makes not one whit of sense.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you're telling those who think something is offensive to shut up about it.
while telling others who would offend with their words to not shut up.
and i'm not even sure you even understand what your OP says.
wait, i was self censoring there...oops.
I'm SURE that you don't even understand what your OP says.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)I do not advocate illegal speech.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)You should be smart enough to figure out what your own OP says, but I don't want to assume.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And that is a pretty obvious difference. If it's not, I recommend a course or two in Ethical Theory and Logic.
The difference is between: controlling yourself, and controlling others.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)This is just silly.
But have a great weekend.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But the only way to not have an impact at all is to say nothing. In a text medium, anyway.
To say "don't take away other people's freedom" may indeed be a method of persuasion, but it is pretty benign.
And a very good weekend to you and yours. We are attending a solstice party (fun) and building a fence (not).
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Words have power. And with that power comes responsibility.
Words have the power to do good, and they have the power to hurt.
It is honestly the tiniest sacrifice I can make, in light of everything I know about the unnecessarily destructive power and inhuman cruelty of certain words, to self-censor and spare some poor LGBT kid or young woman that anguish.
Westboro has the right, but they're universally hated for a reason.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And each of us has the individual responsibility to act with that awareness.
If one were to read more than a few cherry-picked posts from the RP (or Lenny Bruce, Socrates, etc,) the overall thrust of their work is clear. And RP is not a homophobe. Indeed, he excoriates them on a frequent basis.
The fact that I deplore the manner in which he fights for LGBT rights should not blind me to the fact that he is fighting for those rights.
And it certainly shouldn't make me claim that he isn't fighting for them. But there are people on DU who are making just such an absurd claim.
I would not speak as some people do. Others would not speak as I do. But we are individuals, fighting for a common cause, in our own individual manners. And at this time, we do not know which "weapon" will win the war.
In the 70's, some feminists wrote reasoned treatises. Others burned bras. Should either have been censured or or censored? I remember the bra-burners being urged to self- censor at the time.
Looking back, should they have self-censored? I would say not.
Kaleva
(36,341 posts)Legion are the tombstoned and ppr'd members who thought they could say whatever they wanted.
riqster
(13,986 posts)A post from an outside source got hidden here for using offensive language. Fair enough. I would have voted to hide, had I been on the jury.
But we have posters here trying to export those standards OUTSIDE of DU. Urging the public space to self-censor to accommodate a private space.
That is the paradigm I'm addressing in the OP.
Kaleva
(36,341 posts)However, I don't think it's much of a deal for a member advocate exporting those standards outside of DU as each and everyone of us can decide to do so or not. The member you are referring to can talk all she wants but in the end, my guess is that very few will actually go along with it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and yes, DU is a private site and the owners can do (or better yet not do) whatever they want with it.
These standards are nebulous as hell, because it changes from jury to jury. The system is so damn broke that some of us will NOT alert, on principle, no matter how bad the personal attack is. Nor will we play in Juries, becuase they don't work
We really do not have community standards. We have warring factions, and two of them have used those juries and nebulous standards to try to silence others. They have become our own version of the comic code. They have done it so affectively that some of us don't post at times material here. I know I don't. This is to the point that my ignore list groans with participants of two of the major factions and at least one whole group is blocked. With good reason mind you.
Those tools I am using to make my experience more tolerable, they can use them too.
It is worst than that, those "community standards" have led to a lot of cyberstalking and bullying on this site, if the victim is the approved one. Hell, I have one cyberstalker that follows me like a puppy. And I mean that. The classic definition, and two of them have been banned for OTHER offenses, not the stalking that is fine. That apparently meets those standards.
There is a reason my wallet got closed to DU, actually many of them. Pick from above a few of them. Oh and this post violated GD standards, you are not supposed to whine, but you cannot take it to the owners either, since they do not want to hear it, or the juries or the alert system. And now we have a small group of people trying to control words. I find that amazing, that is defended.
Now enough of this, we just had a nice ride and I have a lot of Picketty to read still, and NEBR documentation.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Thank you for saying what needed to be said.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)expressions to suit the environment. I know that I do. I think about my audience and the venue every time I sit down at the keyboard, both in my work as a writer and on forums like this one. Each venue has different standards, expectations, and a unique audience. I don't really consider that censorship, but as adaptation to my environment. I want my words to have a useful effect, so I try to suit them to the venue.
DU is an interesting venue with a very broad tolerance for forms of expression, but even DU has some standards that will get a post hidden if it goes beyond the boundaries of those standards. The trick is to know where those boundaries are. One way to learn that is to push them until they break and a post is hidden. Many people do just that. Others set their own boundaries well within DU's boundaries. How do you tell the difference? You can look at anyone's profile. The boundary testers usually have a few hidden posts. The people who have set their own boundaries within DU's boundaries do not.
It's all a matter of choice.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I say plenty of stuff around certain people IRL that I would never say on DU. A message board, like it or not, is a far more public space than a friend's house.
For the record, I disagreed with the hide of RP's post - and I think it's a shame that his main point kind of got lost in the scuffle. But requests for discretion and civility in an online space hardly violate the First Amendment.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Just as you don't have the right to come into my house and start preaching to me, you don't have the right to come here to Skinner's house and say whatever you wish.
riqster
(13,986 posts)DU is private space. But when people try to control speech that originates in public space, that is something quite else.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If I say, "Don't come into my house and preach that crap." that doesn't imply that I don't want you to preach- just not in my house.
Same with DU. If your preaching doesn't meet DU's community standards, it doesn't mean you can't still preach, just that it may offend enough jurors to be hidden.
Why speak of 'rights' as you did in the OP, if 'rights' don't apply here?
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)"We can not, we must not fall into the trap of isolating words from their contexts when deciding what is acceptable and what is not."
Squinch
(51,004 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)Otherwise, it's quite reasonable to infer a connection.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)Language works that way.
I am going to guess that when you go to, say, a barbecue this 4th of July, you're not going to pee in the punch bowl or insult the host's bratty kids. When you refrain from doing those things, it won't be because someone is censoring you.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)Dictionary.com disagrees with you, for one thing.
The fact that you can come up with examples of alternate meanings of other words doesn't mean that self-censorship isn't a form of censorship. By that reasoning, we can call a woman a bitch without comparing her to a dog.
If you disagree, then please educate us as to true meaning of "self-censorship," and explain exactly how it isn't censorship.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)censoring you. You poor dear.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)Censorship entails the deliberate curtailing of expression in which one would otherwise engage if not curtailed. Since I'm not inclined to pee in the punchbowl--not even in yours--then no censorship is involved. If I were to attempt to pee in the punchbown and were struck down by a meteor, then no censorship would be involved, either--that's not a deliberate curtailing, see?
If I am inclined to express myself in a certain way but I am prevented from doing so, then that is censorship whether the agency is external or internal.
I imagine that you'll now engage, as you often do, in a rhetorical throwing-up-of-hands to express your disbelief that someone could possibly fail to be persuaded by your assertions. That's fine, but you still haven't explained while self-censorship isn't censorship.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)External and internal agency are two very different things, making censorship and self censorship very different things. In one you have choice. In the other you do not. One is a decision you are free to make. The other is not. One is imposed by someone else upon you, possibly against your will. The other is not. In a very literal sense - and yes, I see that you are using that very literal sense to frame your argument, even though it is meaningless in the context of the larger discussion of censorship that is taking place on DU the last few days - in the very literal sense, each involves curtailment of behavior. But that is where the similarity ends. The two concepts are worlds apart.
And it isn't that I am in disbelief that someone could possibly fail to be persuaded by my assertions. It's that I can't believe the inanity of an argument that says that a person choosing how they are going to behave is akin to someone being silenced against their will.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)In the interest of avoiding confusion, my subject line is metaphorical and should not be taken to mean that a large canvas structure has been erected as part of the discussion.
I wonder what you think you're accomplishing by insisting on this sharp delineation, rather than recognizing that we're talking about a spectrum. "Being silenced against their will" isn't the bright line that you seem to think it to be. Maybe it's only oppression if it involves machine guns and billy clubs, but not if it involves tear gas and watercannons?
Don't be so quick to call other people's arguments inane, or you will invite comparisons to people living in glass houses. These would be metaphors, by the way, rather than a suggestion that you actually live in an actual house of actual glass.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)when they very clearly are not.
And it really is a very bright line when one is a choice of how to behave, and the other is something that is imposed against one's will, though you don't seem to see that. Not sure what your "billy clubs vs. tear gas" distinction is supposed to mean. I'd say both can be used as instruments to enforce censorship. But neither is going to be used to enforce self censorship.
You call my objection weak, I will say the same about yours.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
And thanks for the instructions about how to express myself in the face of astonishingly inane arguments, but not to worry. I'll be fine.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)They are different points on the same spectrum.
If one refrains from expressing oneself out of fear of reprisal (e.g., fear of a beating, or fear of being labeled a feminazi or an MRA, or fear of having a post hidden), then that's self-censorship.
Response to Orrex (Reply #191)
Squinch This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)Would that be a sort of censorship, too?
cali
(114,904 posts)to me it's just that simple.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)And I think anyone, by the same logic of free speech, has the right to object to it.
Simple.
I also think that I do one hell of a lot of self censorship, and I'll bet a dollar you do too. It's the choice to do so, that's at issue it's certainly not mandated.
Words words words. They do have incredible power.
"Censorship" is a powerful word. It can be used honestly or dishonestly, it can be used to make a point, or as an attempt to silence those with differing opinions.
I love words. Told a friend that one time and he said "Oh yeah? Go watch the Documentary on the joke "The Aristocrats". I was squirming a bit watching it--slightly uncomfortable until Whoopi Goldberg did her version. Then I got it. Because it was no longer male/female it was about being as no holds barred disgusting and offensive as you could come up with. No filters, no self censorship. Just go for it.
That's what you end up with, without self censorship-- and while I've heard many versions of the joke, I'm not going to ask my mother to listen to it.
riqster
(13,986 posts)A point that in my mind deserved a word with such impact.
When one of us agrees to be silenced, or moved in that direction, we all suffer.
To respond to language is fair game. To throttle it, not so much.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)have to follow those rules here.
riqster
(13,986 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)on the internet. Your first amendment rights are not being curtailed,you're on an internet forum with moderation and rules that you agree to when you sign up. Go to any discus based comment section and watch as racists,anti semites,skinheads and assorted nutcases make this same incredibly dumb "first amendment" argument when their posts get hidden. ATTENTION INTERNET:Moderated forums do not curtail your first amendment rights,this right is the right to speak without being arrested for said speech! It's got nothing to do with your ability to say stupid shit on forums without consequences.
riqster
(13,986 posts)So your response isn't really very illuminating.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)I've been threatened with it after posting a popcorn smiley, had it done to me so someone else could prove her point without "my words" to mar her reality, it happens a lot, It's automagic. It's filth of a different kind. But hey, what does it matter, I'm just white trash.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I don't know many people who would use profanity in formal environments or around their grandmothers. Why does the idea of being polite offend people so much?
riqster
(13,986 posts)But just because it offends my personal standards is no reason for me to try and impose my 1960's small-town Presbyterian sensibilities on others.
I am hip with deploring and debating what others say: that is different from trying to make them not say their piece, or to only say it in a manner that I find comfortable.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Because Freedom cries and a Koch makes another million $$$ if you go back and rethink what you wrote.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Just checking.