My Take on the Recurring Incredibly Annoying Argument That Absorbs About Half the Site's Energy Every Time It Comes Up and Makes Allies Treat Each Other Like Adversaries, Which I Really Wish Would Stop So We Could Get Back To Fighting the Oligarchy
My biases, stated up front:
Now, my take on the issues of sexism, racism, homophobia and how it relates to people's freedom of speech on this site, with a side trek into how these issues are dividing up the infant Left:
First, as long as we're willing to buy into the opposition between economic injustice and other kinds of injustice--other kinds of injustice like
1) racial bigotry expressing itself some other way than poverty, labor discrimination, housing discrimination;
2) sexist bigotry expressing itself some other way than poverty, labor discrimination, etc--
As long as we accept the idea that those forms of injustice are somehow opposed to economic injustice, or not part of the same thing, we're going to have fights over which one trumps (heh) the others. We'll have a lot of people screaming at the economic activists that they're racist, and a lot of people screaming at the advocates against non-economic racism and sexism that they're contemptuous of working-class and poor white people.
In a similar way, as long as we're willing to buy into the opposition between the problem of political corruption and the problem of other kinds of injustice--sexism, racism, etc.--then we'll have fights over which one trumps the others.
And, no matter which side of this issue you are on--if our main fight is over what we say on this site, rather than fighting the people who are destroying our world, then we have a problem.
I realize you could say I'm buying into the opposition btw this fight over who can say what and the fight to stop the destruction of the world. But that's because the fight over what we can say here tends to consume the attention of the site and make people on here see each other as adversaries. And treat each other accordingly.
One of two things is going to happen: either one side is going to leave in irritation, or the two sides are going to choose to work together, at least on some things. Or, maybe, the whole site will go down in flames. I've seen similar things happen, both online and in Occupy.
My opinion is that, if I can stand with a bunch of "I love capitalism" Republican white guys in crew cuts against the NSA because I believe in the 4th amendment, I can stand with, say, a bunch of sexists if they want to join a fight for clean water against a gas company. That doesn't mean I endorse sexism. Sexism was the first form of oppression I ever encountered. If I don't talk about my abusive ex-stepfather on here, it's because I don't want to, not because I don't know what it's like to be a woman--in this case a girl child--oppressed by a man, and by the culture of male superiority which ensured that he got to hurt me for a long time.
I want us to survive. Both this site, and, more importantly, this planet. That's the bottom line for me.
I'll work with whoever I have to--as long as they are sincere about fighting the fight--so that we can survive.
That said, I think we could use a whole lot more kindness on this issue, and a lot more awareness of the fact that the people on this site are not our enemies.
In other words, if somebody is uncomfortable with something somebody else says, they should say "Hey, I'm uncomfortable with that." And if somebody said that to me, in most cases I'd say. "Oh. OK. I won't say that around you anymore." Now if somebody's "uncomfortable" because I say that I think 9-11 was an inside job, or that Hillary is taking blood money from Saudi Arabia, that's different. But if it's a simple word choice, I'd probably decide in favor of peace and quiet aboard this space station, to quote Jeffrey Sinclair. Like joe said in the first diary that started all this, how about avoiding certain words, not because you don't have the freedom to say them, but because you have the concern for the effect on the community if you do say them? How about avoiding certain words because they make your allies feel like they are scum on the bottom of your shoe?
http://babylon5.wikia.com/wiki/Jeffrey_Sinclair
On the other side, if I were the one who was uncomfortable, I'd probably understand that I wasn't going to get everybody on the site who was using those words to do what I want. If it were only a few people who were unwilling to accomodate me, I'd probably just not go into those few people's diaries. If it's an endemic problem, then I'd have to decide whether it upset me enough to make me leave.
Bottom line: either one side will go off irritated, or both sides will decide to work together and make some accomodations. Or the whole site could crash and burn.
I know what I'd prefer.
UPDATE/EDIT:
This video pretty much expresses how I've felt in my quest, over the last fifteen years, to get America off of this horrible track we're on. I think it also expresses why I want this place to continue to exist.
The beginning of the video is *exactly* what it was like being an activist in DC. With the exception of one dear friend who worked on the Hill.
Comments
Very Well Said
I, for one, tend to "click away" to avoid most of the political stuff as of late.
Thanks, PriceRip.
I've come to the conclusion that most of the time, creating good content for the site is better than wading in and arguing in someone else's diary, but too often, I wade right in anyway!
I have about 5 or 6 essays that I need to write, but being depressed, it's hard sometimes to get them written and posted. I bet a lot of people feel the same.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No offense meant, but why the hell are we bringing it up again?
For being such a divisive, hurtful and worrisome topic, why do people keep writing about it? AAAARRRRRRRRRGGGHHH!
First shiz and now this. First Steven and then 10 response diaries. It reminds me of dailykos with the response to the response of the response to the diary on the rec list.
We've had this same conversation multiple times. Everybody has had ample opportunity to express themselves. Has anyone changed their view in the last 10 days that they need an opportunity to say itl again? I beginning to feel like I'm in an memory care facility being told the same thing for the 50th time. Meanwhile, we have quality content that is scrolling away because we have to redo this pissing match again
I am not questioning your intent CStS. This isn't even really meant for you specifically. It is meant for us as a group. Can we stop beating this horse to death?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
someone said "you don't have to let everyone know
every time you disagree with something. Hey, just let it go. Respond only to the stuff that's really important to you.
To thine own self be true.
Believe me, I'll never do it again.
I don't even mean that passive-aggressively. Obviously, wading in, no matter with what intentions, hurts more than it helps!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The #1 Rule of Elon White
In other words:
https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+white+rule&oq=elon+white+rule&aqs=c...
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
So, don't be a jerk?
Which is what the rules around here already say...
I think sometimes folks are just going to see things differently, and I'm ok with that.
I heard a radio story on schools having teachers identify that 'trigger words' are upcoming so that students can choose to protect themselves (leave or not pay attention) ahead of what's said. I'm not sure we can do that exactly, but I think it's a good idea to be aware of words we choose which may be triggers for others. I think that's common courtesy in general.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
I'm not claiming to have some amazing insight here!
Thing is, the people who use words that upset others don't think they're being jerks; they think that others are telling them what they can and can't say, when in their view, all they're doing is attacking Hillary Clinton, who is a key piece of the machine that's wrecking our world--and a real piece of work individually as well! (You don't need me to tell you that, given your excellent series).
I'm just suggesting that instead of seeing the upset others as adversaries, remember that we're allies here, and proceed accordingly.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I think you summed it up well.
I find this piece refreshing, which would have been more obvious if I had been speaking - my dry humor can read a bit flat.
I think all of us have struggled here with both cognitive dissonance and some depression given the state of things...
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
God, yes.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
There is no moderating this issue...
without pissing some people off, either way. It can be a site killer, I hope folks understand that.
It is a lose/lose situation for moderation. it can also be a lose/lose situation for the site. Please keep that in mind.
That's why I wrote this diary.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Admins/mods...
are in consultation, there will be more said about this, probably tomorrow.
Roger that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well, if you're really discussing this -
I do believe in community moderation in theory, backed up by site admins. I think that there might be a way to get a handle on this in a way that won't alienate people or drive them off in a huff -
How about if: when someone is upset by something which they think legitimately falls outside the parameters of acceptable discussion they simply post a comment that says "Objection"in the title and in the body of the comment they can add "to language (and/or image) used" and leave it at that. I think most of us are intelligent enough to figure out what language is being objected to. Or "Objection" in title and "due to personal attack" in body. What I'm saying is to make the objection but without some long-winded explanation or personal history or long discourse on the history of the word and its connotations, etc. People who agree could give a thumbs up
If someone thinks the objection itself is way off base and overly sensitive, they could simply leave a comment that says "Disagree" and people could thumbs up that.
This would become in effect a mini-poll of how site users think about an objection -whether it is valid or not, without that discourse becoming a thread-jacking diversion of the original essay. I think that might work.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
I like this idea.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Good suggestion n/t
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
A very good idea.
As a general rule, I'd say that stating one's point of view is fine, but squabbling with others to defend it, is divisive.
native
Squabbling to defend a point of view?
If we, as a community, are to define differences of opinion as squabbling, then we ARE doomed. Legitimate differences of opinion do exist. Civil discussion is the hallmark of an effective mode of communication and education. Yes, there are differences of opinion--always. Who is to say which opinion is correct? Present your reasoning civilly. Be willing to listen (or read) to counter-arguments. I may be wrong (and unfortunately have been so more often than I like to admit). The other person may be wrong. And more importantly, we BOTH may be wrong. The number one rule of this site is DBAA--or, put another way: be respectful, be reasonable, and avoid personal attacks.
Sometimes, or more likely,
Sometimes, or more likely, mostly, it may not be a matter of right or wrong but of differing perspectives/histories/experiences/understandings. I like what you said about stating clear, calm, respectful opinions and, then, for the rest of us to listen with open hearts and minds. Potentially, we may expand our worlds of understanding, gain broader perspectives, stretch our capacity to empathize or perhaps, learn that someone truly is a jerk or troll or ...... : ). If the latter is the case, I agree with the person who suggested walking away, politely.
What I meant
by "squabbling" (a poor choice of word, sorry) was lengthy back-and-forth exchanges involving only two or three participants, that have the nature of a debate. The debate format focuses on distinguishing points of difference, rather than on finding points of agreement.
While points of difference are important and do need to be recognized and expressed, they don't need to be endlessly debated or won or lost - IMO - at this particular site. Putting one's own point of view forward clearly and without hindrance or censure is, I think enough. Critiques of another person's point of view should be welcome, but limited to a very few responses.
At least, that would be my preferred policy if I were a moderator, which I am not.
native
Good idea
I must have missed the flame wars on particularly offensive words or Im too potty mouthed myself to have noticed. Mainly I divide comments into those. that are insightful or deliciously snarky vs those that are eh lets say stupid. I really like the idea of very abbreviated objections to usage of certain words.
I'll endorse this idea
"Object" or "Disagree". Sounds like a great way to short circuit arguments. Everything else is extraneous commentary, anyway.
Please help support caucus99percent!
stay cool boys - referring to a comment I made
it's good to watch the video I posted in there. ...
https://www.euronews.com/live
That's one of the reasons I am a near absolutist when it comes
to speech and expression.
The minute you start setting limits on what or how a thing can be said then all focus seems to be on that topic, virtually nonstop.
I agree with JTC's mostly hands off approach on all but the most egregious of offenders for the most part.
If we can agree that pretty much anything can be said and that we each have to choose individually whether or not to pay any attention to a particular writer than we can focus on the core issues that are responsible for or at least enabling of the other problems.
We need to embrace Tim's Rule, it's the only way we will ever be able to move past the differences that we all are going to have, and as the essayist so perfectly pointed out this is crucial if the 99% are ever going to be a force to be reckoned with because 20% here, 15% there, etc... sure as hell isn't going to work.
This has always been Progressive's largest hurdle and the one that always seems to trip up every movement just as it gets started.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I realize that, but I think there are actually just a couple
people who ignore the upset these words cause and insist upon their right to use them. If Joe's comment in Steven D's diary didn't stop these people, personally I think you're better off without them.
I will admit that personally, I have not seen people using those words in the diaries I have read lately, so I'm not sure how big a problem this is. I have no intention of leaving, no matter what your decision.
Still, no one has satisfactorily explained the difference between the B word (allowed) and the N word (not allowed). Except as the difference between one group being called that when they're beaten by "loved ones" and one group being called that when they're hung. Perhaps the difference between personal pain and political pain.
Should that matter? Attempts to dehumanize are the same nevertheless. That women are perceived as overly emotional on this subject is also sexism. Even our requests for respect get no respect.
I know you probably don't want to hear this, but it is what it is. Ask yourself why nobody calls Obama the N word around here, yet some feel free to fling the B word around. I think those few people are Trump trolls, trying to set your site against itself and trying to absorb energy that might otherwise go into discussing political, environmental, and social issues.
Yes, you'll be "censoring" a few people. But you already do that every time you enforce DBAA.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Agree with most of what you said.
It's amazing to me that women objecting to the word bitch being used casually without thought of its potential impact upon others is seen as itself objectionable is very odd.
Words are words, to me.
Some are despripters and modifiers, others used to elicit a response. The B, C, D words are gender neutral to me. I have no trouble calling a guy the C word. I once was a bystander of two brothers arguing. It quickly became heated and degenerated to "you bastard", " you sonuvabeech" back and forth. Until I asked if they knew what they were calling their mother.
Then again, the best dog I ever had was a yella lab named Whore. My Dad's pet name for Mom was Old Heffer.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
I uprated you for the discussion. But words can be hurtful.
And they can set the stage for certain thought processes that tear people down.
I am not against insulting hideous politicians, of which we have plenty. Just not on the basis of the groups into which they happened to be born.
But honestly, if I were your Mom I would probably divorce your Dad! Sorry; I wouldn't stay with a man who calls me a cow.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
She called him steer
so, turnabout.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
Personally I would prefer
if people tried to uphold the standards of our best professional writers. Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn and Malcom X all managed to say a lot, without resorting to ghetto-speak and redneck slang.
I could say truthfully that I don't give a shit about someone's supposed street creds, but I'd rather try to find a more civilized way to say it. But whatever floats your boats folks, is OK by me... I won't come down on anybody's head for writing rude and vulgar. I just don't think it''s very smart.
native
Agree, but would add:
It seems to me that constant public use of vulgar language in our political discussions is not only not smart, but corrupts our civic life.
If we lived in a time where our civic life is not being corrupted by many other forces as well, then maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal. But considering we live in a time of great corruption of our political system with very powerful forces nurturing such corruption, it seems that we have a moral duty to try very hard to fight back against such forces.
Because of the corrupted distribution of power is what it is, most of us have very few means at our disposal to put up a fight.
More civil discourse seems to me to be one of those means, and one that really shouldn't be that difficult to achieve. It doesn't even require us to get off our couch ; )
I completely agree but the thing is. . .
. . .if we find out it bothers people we care about, or hell, don't even like, then shouldn't we be respectful and just refrain?
I don't want this place to turn into TOP with everyone paranoid about saying the wrong thing. I also don't want to run good people from the site for not giving a shit about their feelings.
I can see both sides, and am willing to refrain for the common good. The greater good. It doesn't hurt me if I don't get to call Hillary a bitch. It does hurt some if I do. Common, greater good.
I have been here since March. I am getting a feel for writers
and essayists here, enough that I am usually not surprised by a comment; if one seem curt or abrupt from some posters here, I figure a bad day. I am not into word-jousting. If it's an essayist that I have disagreement with, I don't read or read in a good mood. I see it a we are all here, and yes, some degree of respect should be given.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Are we a community?
That's the central question for me. I definitely feel a sense of community, of possibility here, and that's why I value it. But as with any community conflicts arise and disagreements can flare up beyond reasonable perspective. This is what I've been seeing, and it's caused me to check out in recent weeks more than I'd like. There's great content here, but the overall tone is apparent and is sometimes off-putting to me. I doubt I'm alone.
If we want to be a place where smart people with leftist views congregate, then we have to respect each other. That means realizing our own opinions aren't universally shared, but it also means we should act in such a way that we build the community we value, rather than dividing or harming it. I learn a great deal here about climate change, about resiliency, about behind-the-scenes political stories I don't have the time to ferret out elsewhere. I enjoy reading the thoughts and poetic expression of smart people. But arguments and distractions over words that offend some of us detract from that enjoyment.
I hope we can all come to realize that while we have the freedom to say what we want, we also have the responsibility as members of a community we cherish to express and comport ourselves in such a way that the community is strengthened, not diminished. We're in a tenuous phase of the community's life right now, and we need all the support and all the nurturing we can get.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Very well said.
The off-putting overall tone is, I think, due to massive demoralization and depression--essentially the hangover after having the oligarchy take a dump on our heads.
Enhydra lutis brought this up--the negative feeling's got to go somewhere.
So bringing up the real issue, which really divides the Left, b/c the Left believes both in freedom of individual expression and in NOT being racist or sexist, under these emotional conditions, is like lighting a match in a gunpowder factory.
And people are much more likely to get upset on both sides of the issue, and to entrench on both sides, because of the emotional backdrop: the disgusting, appalling, rotten behavior of the American political system towards us, its people.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It only divides us if we let it
Forget the exact quote, but somebody once said something like "The most damaging addiction in the world is the need to be right."
People who think they can use a word that offends others because it is their self-expression are Right. People who take offense at such words because of a history of oppression distilled in these words are Right. But being Right doesn't build our community or help us find ways to reinvent our political agency after it has been stolen from us. The greater good the community upholds cannot take precedence when all the energy goes into arguments over who's Right. The community will have to agree to, and then enforce, norms of behavior we want to see. The administrators and mods may come up with some rules for us, but then it's up to all of us to live them and uphold them if we want this community to thrive.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I kind of fall in love with your comments ...:-) /nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
Can I just delete my diary and
replace it with your comment?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hell no!
Thanks for giving me space to pontificate, though. I saw Shiz' essay early this morning and responded, but with less diplomacy than I might have wished to. It's nice to take another swing at this question. Your essay is an important and welcome addition to the conversation. Thank you for it.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Thanks, DD.
Hoping this will, indeed, help in some material way!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I ducking hate auto-correct
Would you rather be right? Or would you prefer being happy? This is an old dilemma AA oldtimers use to chill out newcomers who can't stop bickering with another member of the meeting or group.
If you step on someone's toes they will respond or retaliate. The vital questions are: (in no particular order)
1. How serious was the transgression?
2. Was it intentional or accidental?
3. Is the appropriate response verbal or physical?
4. Is your anger doing more harm to you or to the other person? Is your anger eating your lunch or keeping you awake nights while your resentment roladex keeps spinning round and round?
One answer is "Don't sweat the small stuff." A follow up rule of thumb is "It's all small stuff."
Of course "they" say a lot of things don't they? Everyone is responsible for running their own "program" and accepting responsibility for their own conduct and words.
Nobody can make anybody do something they don't want to do. Violence, aggression and ultimatums only harden positions.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
The Married Man's Motto
It's an old saying I frequently cite in my dealings with my geriatric patients:
In the political realm, I guess you could translate it to "It's better to be a coalition builder than a coalition destroyer."
Please help support caucus99percent!
That is a golden rule for successful life
It applies to families and other groupings as well.
ha!
I think I need that tattoo'd on my forearm.
I'm a bit sketchy on the idea of a virtual community
But even so, I'd prefer what that implies... particularly because despite our different spins & viewpoints there really is pretty good alignment here on a lot of core issues.
I'm not even sure what this is all about, but I know that sometimes I express a negative comment. Sometimes that's about word choice (most recently, insults). Sometimes it's about content (most recently, Parkinson's). I see those comments as feedback not demands. I don't expect random strangers on the internet to bow to my sensibilities and I find enough value from enough posters here that the things I dislike don't even come close to driving me away.
Perhaps in short, Can't we all agree to disagree?
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Well...
Remains to be seen, I suppose.
I don't see harm in a well-phrased, generous negative comment that highlights a word or a thought instead of a writer. The harm usually comes from the back-and-forth of argument, when interaction almost inevitably deteriorates. I've tried over years of flame wars over at TOP to cultivate a practice of only one or two responses to someone I disagreed with, then wrapping it up and withdrawing. The times I didn't follow that rule I was almost always sorry. Even when I "won," it felt like I'd lost something.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Some of us can.
But some can't, because the words are (to them) an attack, implying that this place is hostile to people like them.
I suspect what's going to happen is most people will voluntarily give up using certain words in order to preserve the community. That's OK--it's even good--as long as this doesn't turn into a situation where there's always another person popping up and saying that some other additional set of words is offensive. At that point, 1/2 the energy of the site will be devoted toward policing the language of its members, and that will create an inertia we can't afford--and likely more flamewars we can't afford either.
I once had someone jump down my throat online b/c I used the word "gyp." They accused me of being anti-Romany. I had no damned idea that "gyp" even came from "gypsy," and being American, I've never run into a Romany gypsy that I know of. I can lay my hand on my heart and assure everyone that I've never even thought much about gypsies, besides liking the Gipsy Kings, much less developed an entrenched prejudice against them.
I know what people on the other side are afraid of, and it's that they will be asked to alter their speech and behavior over and over, until essentially the entire endeavor becomes a forum for jumping through hoops set by, well, pretty much anybody who gets offended. I have seen this happen IRL, and it destroys communities, alliances, activist groups just as much as people using racist and sexist words does.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I know what you mean
When I wrote a very personal story at TOP responding to Hillary's lie about Nancy Reagan being a hero of the AIDS struggle, I introduced it by referring to Andrea Mitchell as "Mrs. Alan Greenspan." This is an usage I have adopted over the years, to express my contempt for Mitchell and her consistent service to the powerful in her "journalistic" capacity. But some people took offense to that as sexist. I dismissed them because of the well-known tendency for Clintonites to retreat to accusations of sexism when cornered, but I later realized it was an unnecessary distraction from my basic argument, rendering it less effective than I wanted it to be.
Please help support caucus99percent!
It's walking a tightrope
between trying to avoid anything that could give the appearance of one of the various prejudices, and spending so much time doing that that one's own effectiveness is lessened.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
And most of us who migrated from TOP
... are well aware of the tactic of Injustice Collecting -- of manufacturing reasons to be outraged at something, as displacement behavior to avoid talking about something else you don't want to. That's a real thing, and with future expansions of this community I think we can expect to see it imported here. That'll be another set of conversations, of course. But if we have this basic community moderation question answered it'll be a lot easier to deal with.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I read that diary at GOS and thought it was one of the best.
I knew what you meant by referring to Andrea Mitchell as Mrs. Greenspan, which was to explain in not too many words her evident pro-establishment bias. I think it is not sexist to call her by one of her legal names. Is it sexist to call Hillary Mrs. Clinton? Is it sexist to call Jill Stein Jill? Is it sexist to call Senator Sanders Bernie?
I was accused of sexism for calling Mrs. Clinton Hill
But then I responded that I call her challenger Bern. And now Jill. So I'm being as even-handed as I can be.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Well Crap... I should have read further into the thread,
as you had already stated in a much clearer fashion the thought behind a post I had just written.
The last paragraph in particular is one that really resonates. I too have seen this happen in RL on more than one occasion and it always saddens me and leaves me thinking, "I know we are better than this so why does this keep happening?"
I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to that question unfortunately.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I'm going to refrain from using the word out of respect
We females are all sisters in my eyes. If one or some of my sisters prefer I not use the word, I'll respect that. One of my brothers asked that I not use the word in his essay comments. I obliged.
The first person to ever call me a bitch was my own mother. I was 12. I don't get offended by it, maybe because I'm aGen Xer? I don't know. Cunt was my High School best friend's nickname for me. Mine for him was Cock. Cunt doesn't offend me either.
All that said, I shall refrain, out of respect.
That's awesome, Deja.
Right on.
I'll refrain, too, even though my personal response to the words in question is highly dependent on context, so I, too, don't always get horrifically offended by them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That's about where I am, too.
I'm a potty mouth of the first water, always right there with the "colorful phrase." I express myself forcefully at times, when I'm feeling the righteous indignational fire is upon me. That being said, sexism and abusive language bothers me. I'm an abuse and sexual assault survivor and spent almost twenty years in a relationship that featured just about every kind of hell a man knows how to lay on a woman and sometimes things do trigger me. I gots the PTSD, y'see.
So in service to fixing myself I thought about things a while back and decided to try my utmost to completely steer clear of gendered insults. So, no bitches, no cunts, no dicks, no pricks--asshole is okay because everybody has one.
After a time I found that being conscious of my own use of the gendered insult forced me to be very specific and personal in my invective--I had to pick words to describe those who piss me off that aren't from the lazy list. I had to really think about that person and why they piss me off and not just fall back on "she's such a bitch" or "what a dick!" Those are shortcut insults--yes, they do carry a lot of freight that native speakers understand when you use them but sometimes it's at the actual cost of being able to express my full range of detestation and rancor toward the subjects of my ire.
In short, by restricting my own speech I became ever so much better at being really fucking insulting--and that's a good thing. It also means that people who object to what I'm saying can't get an easy handle on it--can't just dismiss me with "Sexist!" or "Racist!" Because I also started filtering out racist dog whistle insults as well. I have to craft my invective and make it ever so personal and individual and it truly improves my rants overall. Anybody who objects to my speech will first have to read it and parse it out to make sure I'm really being as intentionally offensive as I often sound.
Maybe that's helpful, I have no fucking clue.
"Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater
I'm so sorry to hear about your experiences.
Really like how you expressed your feelings.
Thanks!
I'm the lucky one--I got out alive, physically more or less intact and more or less psychologically stable. I have a very good friends who's a therapist and who specialized for quite some time working with IPV perpetrators and she's given me a world of insight into the power and control tactics of abusive partners. Now the asshole lives thousands of miles from me and I get up every morning knowing he's not sullying my lovely state with his unlovely presence. I wish at least as good a recovery to the women still in that horrible mess as I've had--and I raised a boy with not a shred of meanness in him and he's raising a lovely boy to be the same so karmically speaking, things don't suck 'round here no more!
"Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater
Something about your words made me smile ...
I love how "being considerate of others" made you a "better" person
~OaWN
Just goes to show you...
That sometimes the law of unintended consequences works FOR you!
"Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater
I appreciate the effort
but this is a group of people. As in Real Meatspace, not everyone is going to get along. So first of all, I really wish you'd take the words "flame war" out of your title, because that is not the same thing as disagreement.
See, here's the thing about a blog. It's not the same thing as being in the same room as somebody else. So while I will do this in real life every single time,
the only time I'm going to do it on a blog is if I'm in a person's actual post or on their own personal blog--say, Shiz's--and she obviously doesn't like people referring to other women as "bitches". The last thing I'm gonna do is go into her post and start calling her and everybody else "bitch bitch bitch". But beyond that? No! Sorry. This is a BLOG. I don't know when she might be reading elsewhere. Click out of it if it offends you. The End.
This is ridiculous. We are all grownups and we know how to conduct ourselves around other grownups. If the admin feels someone is out of line, the admin needs to address it. The rest of us? We really need to thicken up. If we're going to fight the shitstorm coming our way, we do not fucking have time for this.
A rare moment of disagreement between us, Luna!
But here's the thing: what's happening between you and I, right now? That's a disagreement. Nothing I say to you and nothing you say to me here is going to destroy our respect for each other. I'm not going to refuse to speak to you ever again, or stop reading all your comments. We just disagree.
What's happening on the site is different. This is, I think, the 3rd time this has come up recently. People on both sides have threatened to leave, and in at least one case I know, have done it. If this fight keeps recurring, it could very easily destroy the site. If it doesn't destroy it, it could VERY easily render the site totally useless for any progressive or practical purpose.
As you say--and I totally agree with this--if we're going to fight the shitstorm coming our way, we do not fucking have time for this. If you read my diary, you know that I view this fight over words as, basically, fighting in a burning house--or worse, on a sinking ship, and the fight is stepping on the fingers and hands and feet of people who are trying to bail out the boat!
But it's a flame war, and a recurrent one. It's not just a disagreement. If I disagree with Big Al, for instance, on the value of building a viable Green Party, I don't feel the need to leave the site, or tell Big Al he's a white male middle-class power holder, or never read anything he says ever again. Because the disagreement doesn't make Big Al my enemy.
This shit has got to stop, somehow, and I'm willing--for now--to do what Deja did and forego certain words to keep this place alive.
I'll likely change my position if this ends up being a regular thing, and the site ends up constantly embroiled in a fight to police ever-changing sets of words that somebody, somewhere, decides is hurtful.
My main goals, Luna, are to keep this place alive, and shift the focus back to the fight against the oligarchy.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well then we'll disagree, CStS
because where does it end?
I'm not changing my position now. Sorry. Because the first time you give in won't be the last. If someone is offended by language, someone needs to click out of the post and either let it go or ask a mod to deal with it PRIVATELY.
And this is exactly where I disagree with the original premise, for a number of reasons (not your post, I'm talking about the entire discussion). I'm happy to IM with you if you'd like to know more.
Sure, please do.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Oh, sorry, misunderstanding
how I wrote that (it's okay, I wasn't clear
)
If you had questions or were further curious about my take on it, let me know, I'm happy to answer them. But I think awarding this dust-up the title of Flame War gives fuel to people who would like it to continue. It's only a flame war if we let it become one.
That's two in one day! LOL :-)
I think that's as many disagreements as we've had in the past two years!
After the first diary, I'd have agreed. After the second, yeah. Why throw gas on the flames?
Unfortunately, the flames appear to be self-gassing.
At this point, it looks like a Flame War to me, and me not calling it one can't quell it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
We must be talking about a post or person
in particular that I'm not understanding. I'm incensed that we had to have someone throw what amounts to a temper tantrum in a post, a person who I have always known in the past to be far more thick skinned than this.
That's the only one I know of--or that I gave any credence to initially, to date, that I recall--so, "self-gassing"? What are you talking about?
OK, perhaps I shouldn't have put it that way.
I'm a little worn out, so I think I'm not phrasing things as carefully as I should.
But here's what I meant:
First StevenD, for whom I have great respect, wrote a diary about calling Hillary certain names.
It turned into a big brouhaha, for which StevenD later apologized--I'm not at all sure he had anything to apologize for, really
Then there was a follow-up diary with more discussion.
Now, after an interval, there's Shiz' diary.
In between, (and on the other side) there were a number of diaries that I felt came close to crossing a line with the way they talked about HRC--not b/c they called her a bitch, but because of weird emphases on her urinating on herself, diarrhea, how fat her ankles are, how fat she is, how bad she looks in certain clothes, all kinds of weird stuff that really has little place even in a discussion of her health. FWIW, I'm willing to call some of that, if not all of it, sexist; most of it is also gross; almost all of it is irrelevant to any real discussion of her qualifications for President.
But I let it ride, because 1)I'm not an admin or mod, and 2)I preferred to just leave the diary, because that's how I (usually) roll.
I'm actually not comfortable with either CitizenofEarth's position or Shiz'--I think this would be a better site and criticisms of Hillary would be far more effective, without descending into stuff like weight-shaming, age-shaming, fashion-shaming, or, for God's sakes, diarrhea. But I also, much as I like Shiz, don't like her position that if anybody on this site is "allowed" to say a word she doesn't like, she's going to leave. For God's sakes, what would that entail, policing that? And what would happen if people acting not in good faith decided to use that as a technique to constantly screw up the site?
Really tired, and needing to get food, so my brain is starting to fog up here, and this will be my last comment of the day--hope I haven't offended you, or anybody, beyond being able to talk to me again!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Ugh.
I missed the gross diaries you mention and I'm damned glad for that. There's more than enough reasons to detest Her Heinous just for her policies and her stances and her willingness to do anything for anyone who chucks money her way. Her health is definitely an issue, if she has a progressive neurological disease that makes her unfit to be president, that's a valid topic and needs to be discussed. However, her appearance, her control over her bodily functions or lack thereof and a microscopic examination of what's in her drawers is absolutely beyond the pale. I would be askance at anyone (but most especially a man) who insisted on getting that granular on the subject. I'd feel uncomfortable because there's some things you just don't say and things you don't attack--not and expect to be welcome in polite company. I'd wonder if an inability to understand why that's not okay would go along with other inabilities to comprehend social norms--and I'd be avoidant of that person if they were informed of how uncomfortable they were making people but insisted on continuing unchecked. A refusal to understand and respect boundaries is the sign of someone who's not to be trusted on many levels.
"Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater
Very well said.
It’s hard to draw the line when Trump’s appearance is fair game
Hillary’s appearance would have to be as much fair game as Trump’s orangey complexion, toupee / combover, etc.
Totally agree with the rest, though.
In agreement, Luna.
My personal opinion is many GOS expats are still feeling the sting. I can kinda understand this as i'm still steamed my terpsichorean ecdysiast ex-wife was scrogging everything in four counties--and that was over 35 years ago! (River lover here probably knows me best here, and I'm sure she hadn't a clue). Quite a few here seem awfully thin skinned compared to TOS. When it's obvious someone took one of my posts wrong, I'll try to explain quickly in a reply. If I can't explain concisely, I'll just ignore. Takes too much effort on this device to make coherent post. Nearing 16 minutes on this post alone.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
I agree, luna. This is not a Flame War, nowhere near it.
I read this diary earlier (first as a comment in Shiz' post) and I always enjoy CSSS' work and the open discussion it elicits.
But I agree that the issue of using sexist language against HRC (if that is still the issue!) or even the broader issue of tolerating the 'everyday sexism' use of certain words (which I am strongly against, but don't address unless it reaches high-intensity) have not reached the level of what I'd call a 'Flame War' here at c99.
The threads to Steven D's two recent diaries on the issue got pretty heated, and Shiz' thread has some heat, and I think it will need some applied wisdom to avoid the division-into-camps that could make it into a Flame War.
What we really have here in this, at this time, CSSS, is 'an ongoing argument on whether or not to allow sexist language, particularly in regard to HRC' -- which I admit is not a very good title.
But I agree with luna that using 'Flame War' in the title greatly exaggerates the level of heat involved, and could serve to harden positions rather than to encourage discussion leading to clarification. (And the peple who comb progressive sites for dirt to report -- like some of the people at DK -- could turn that title into a way to diss c99 and its participants.)
I know you really consider the weight and effect of the words you use, CSSS. I'm not asking you to change the title, but I will ask that you consider finding a descriptor that is more accurate and less potentially inflammatory or harmful.
I changed it--LOL--
I considered taking a page from Dave Eggers and calling it A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, but thought better of it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I've read the essays and the comments
I think both sides have made excellent points, but I still figure I can click out of a diary if it offends me. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like the N*B*C*'s (as someone else wrote earlier), and especially as it pertains to women (being an old broad, myself). But it really does depend on the content and context, for me.
If the essay is interspersed with foul language it normally doesn't bother me. But if the essay is so full of foul language that it makes it nearly impossible to read what the essayist is trying to convey, that's when I click out of it. And there have been a few of those since I landed here. Thing is, even THAT is relative, depending on what kind of day I've had, whether I'm depressed or stressed, or if have my dander up over something in the news, or if a guy once again tried to take credit for an idea or project *I* came up with.
My goal would be to let free speech reign, as long as the message doesn't get lost in all the foul language or the inordinate number of "*"'s standing in for omitted letters. As in all things, moderation is key, IME.
But I also stay out of essays with content I don't want to read at the moment, or those I figure will be filled to the brim with the N*B*C*'s and hard to understand. (Whoever it was that coined that, I thank you! GREAT shorthand!)
As for all the Hillary essays concerning health, fashion, etc., I consider it fair game. And I realize that DOESN'T exactly say great things about me, perhaps. But I REALLY got p'o'd at the way Hillary and the DNC did Bernie, and especially those of us who supported him - and, BTW, is STILL doing to us. The Dems chose probably the only candidate who *couldn't* pull off a win against Trump as their standard bearer. I am offended by them on so many levels, that I confess, sometimes a few of the diaries give me an "evyl giggle," in much the same way the old "Guess what stupid thing Bush did today!" diaries gave me, back in the day. I don't think that makes me a bad person, per se... just human... and just tired of being kicked around by the PTB.
And, to try to atone... there's one reason for Hill to wear a catheter no one's mentioned (that I've seen, anyway). Women our age tend to have to go NOW when the urge strikes. It's not unheard of for candidates to be outfitted with a catheter when circumstances might be iffy. Wendy Davis did it when she fillibustered the Texas congress. Many of our US reps do the same thing when they do a fillibuster. I'm willing to give Hill the benefit of the doubt here, knowing as well as I do how many trips to the bathroom *I* take over the course of a day!
But that's all the benefit of anything I'll give her. And I'm still offended at her being the Dem candidate. I have a particular reason I've not seen diaried before that I've wanted to write about. Mayhap I'll do that at some point before the election...
Please do!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Off topic: I did not know that about Wendy Davis
Makes perfect sense, though. And, the incontinence issue is just plain stupid. I despise the woman, but they have a lot more to bring up than that. Just plain stupid.
I think so.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A word about the 'incontinence' issue
in Ed's diaries: one diary contained a photoshopped image, and that diary had far less information in it than his others and used much worse language (as did it comments). Ed has apologized for that one, and followed it up with a much longer, more detailed article on how the brain (and brain injuries) factor into incontinence -- I was amazed at the number of brain locations and chemicals involved in managing those functions.
While I have been distressed by Ed's mocking tone in those diaries, I feel I have benefited from and been educated by the that references he has provided about the possible aftermath of concussion, and the varieties of brain damage that could impact HRC's abiiity to function as president.
I know this may seem off-topic, but it seems to me that most of the complaints about the 'sexist language' issue seem (to me, anyway) to be connected to Ed's articles and threads, where it did appear to me that mockery about 'woman's body' did take place.
It seems the older I get,
the less I get into the bodily fluids type stuff. Could be 'cause I'm now fighting Lupus and my own body seems to have taken on a mind of its own. But scatology and explicit sex talk seems to be all the rage on Comedy Channel anymore. Oh, how I miss Sinbad and Carlin. Just seems the whole world has just grown more course and mean, and truly, anything goes. I don't get it. I managed to enjoy the heck out of hot tub parties and puppy piles in my younger days... but we were discreet and classy, IMO. Everything now is blatantly "in your face." Ah, well... eventually the pendulum will swing the other way. I just don't want it to swing TOO far the other direction 'cause I consider that's far worse a situation.
Personal opinion
I'd rather be uncomfortable and fight the important fight with abrasive allies, than chase off allies for the sake of personal comfort and be left fighting the important fight alone. I'd gladly take the aid of a homophobic republicrat that wants to fight income inequality now, and debate the implications of persecution of others when a future is secured for both of us.
THIS ^^^^^
Holy Jiminy Christmas on a Red Hot Cracker, THIS.
Almost with you, but not quite.
When I was standing with those crewcut Republican guys against the NSA, if one of them had used the word "nigger" in conversation with me--like "that nigger in the White House thinks he's gonna start a police state here" I'd have said "It doesn't have anything to do with his skin color, and prejudice won't get you allies." If he kept it up, I'd probably walk away, thinking I could work against the NSA from somewhere else.
In this case, I'd hate to see caucus99 destroyed by too many people walking away, so my feelings, and reactions, are a little different.
I'm perfectly fine, as I said, standing with a bunch of sexists against water polluters, standing with a bunch of ultra-capitalist Republicans against the NSA, etc. (Because I want to get something DONE, goddammit). But if somebody acts like an asshole, I'm gonna call them out on it--politely. What will I do if they keep it up? Depends. In this case, I care a lot about this place, and I'm trying to stop it going down the drain.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No offense, but
are you an admin? I''m not. And, as a Not-Admin, all I can do is call someone out for being an asshole. If they keep it up? That's what admins are for.
We can't control everything, every word, every action, and we should not try, beyond polite requests to knock off the offensive behavior or speaking. That's how you end up with a Daily Kos. Someone wants CONTROL.
No. Just no. Not my job. Not your job.
I was speaking generally, as an activist,
but as far as this place in particular goes, what I've done is the following: 1)Waded in and expressed my honest opinion about/to both sides in first, StevenD's diaries, and second, Shiz' diary (probably not useful) 2)Posted this diary, which is basically a statement of what I'm afraid could happen to the site, and what we could do to prevent it, and 3)Voluntarily agreed to not use the words people are objecting to, with the caveat that I will revisit that decision if it turns out, IMO, to be the wrong one.
I thought it could be helpful for someone who isn't part of officialdom to speak up for the idea of preserving the community. Having done that, no, I don't intend to do anything except respond with "polite requests to knock off the offensive behavior or speaking." I'm having a hard time figuring out where you got any desire for greater control than that out of my diary, or my comments.
I assume I can make suggestions without people thinking I'm trying to be the boss of them. Mostly because I assume I'm not the boss of them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I was speaking generally about all of us
I'm not an admin. You're not an admin. There's a link to the right there, that says who the admins here are. I think, if I had to do it again, I'd have worded it differently, but the point is, neither you or I are admins. This is not about your post here when I say that.
Let me make this clear--if someone here has such a big problem with "language" being used here that they feel compelled to post about it instead of taking it to the admins, I'm probably always going to have a problem with that. Because THEY are trying--whether they're legitimately offended or not--to place restrictions. The admins here have asked us to come to them with such things in the past.
As far as I'm concerned, if Shiz was that upset, she should have taken it to JtC, not posted about it.
The community can click in or out of such posts. The administrators can turn off comments, ban the poster, or any number of other things. That should be the bottom line. If someone persists, they should be ignored, and if their that big an asshole they should be banned. The rest of this is distraction.
I had another thought
Up to other people to take it up, but I think it could be an agreeable compromise. Respect the wishes of others in their own essays. If an essayist states they don't want to see name calling vulgarities in the comments of their own essays, then it should be respected by the community. But if an essayist themselves has no problem with more abrasive language, that too should be respected, in their own essays' comments. Kind of like respecting a person's house rules.
I like it
don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't give a shit if someone else is offended. What I care about is that someone would come on to this blog--THIS blog--and expect a safe space for words like "bitch".
That's not the same thing as expecting a safe space for the words "bastard J*w" or "ni**er" or any other seriously volatile, already-identified, single-meaning smears. "Bitch" does not fall into that category whether we want it to or not.
With all that in mind, I think this is an excellent compromise:
House Rules - I like it!
I threw a guy out of my apartment back in the early 90s for saying "nigger". He kept saying that it's a free country. I agreed and suggested he scream it at the top of his lungs if he felt like it outside of my apartment.
I like the idea of House Rules.
Pages