The Most Consequential Debate In Human History
... at least you'd think so for all the heated discussion it has spawned.
Sigh. Once there was a dream of a site where a community of smart, kind and decent people gathered to organize and make change.
I've been reading through the various threads from Sunday this morning debating whether the word "bitch" should be verboten on this site. One side of the debate is adamant that its use is hurtful and sexist. The other side of the debate is adamant that it is their "right" to use it, regardless of whether it offends people.
Both sides expect the site moderation to side with them and enforce their rights.
This was my bright idea in a previous set of threads:
i don't like censorship, you don't like censorship - but we all appreciate it when people are kind and respect the feelings of others.
there are a significant number of people on this site that are disturbed by the usage of certain terms that, while common, are not generally considered fit for polite company. they have made plain their discomfort with the use of these terms, even when applied to someone that is broadly disliked or worse.
these terms single out characteristics that identify groups of people, so when they are used to deride an individual, there is collateral damage.
this is my personal observation, so others mileage may vary, but i have found these terms to be without utility that cannot be had by other expressions. the sole utility that comes to mind that cannot be replicated is the ability to offend people and create an atmosphere of discomfort.
so, if these terms could be eschewed, not out of fear of reprisal, but rather out of kindness and care for a large part of the community, that would be the optimal situation.
Sadly, it doesn't seem to have caught on.
From a site moderation standpoint, this is a no-win situation. There are slippery slopes on all sides. If indulged, those who demand to exercise their right to blurt out the inarticulate speech of their hearts despite the discomfort of others in the community will likely find some new limit to push at some later time. If the site recognizes the request to penalize the use of some words, it sets a precedent that will no doubt be raised by other aggrieved groups of people later.
A solution that is imposed by administration, rather than a common agreement from the community can have far-reaching negative consequences.
Here's some music to listen to with this essay:
My first thought on reading Sunday's threads was that this is why the left will never get anything done. We will be arguing about words and policing arguments while the ocean rises and we all drown.
Some people insist that it is their right to call Hillary Clinton a bitch and they must exercise that right come hell or high water. Because free speech, man!
If the intention of these statements is to foster solidarity against the candidacy of Clinton, this choice of language is just stupid from a pragmatic standpoint. When these sorts of statements are made all discussion inevitably winds up stuck in the mud pit that the word choice creates, revolves around the wording and the discussions do not promote solidarity.
Posting these sorts of statements helps Hillary Clinton. If someone is coming to the site looking for serious information about how left/progressive people view Clinton's candidacy, they find a bunch of people arguing in a mud pit over whether she's a bitch rather than making cogent and incisive commentary about things like Hillary's war crimes, the "super predator" racism, the support for globalization and the many other awful things that Clinton has done and stood for.
Further, it makes it easy to marginalize the site as a place for sophomoric content. Congratulations folks, you can be famous, because when Hillbots cherry pick quotes to characterize the site, they will be choosing your deep thoughts.
Beyond the pragmatic, there is also a moral dimension to this discussion.
Language is a powerful thing. If you were to chat with a fully-licensed philosopher, she would probably tell you that our language symbols to some degree create the parameters of our thought processes, that we construct concepts with word symbols. Language is also sneaky. If you were to chat with a fully-licensed poet, he would probably tell you that the associations that words have can subtly deliver sense and meaning that a given set of symbols' dictionary definitions would not convey.
Hold those thoughts for a second while I digress.
For at least the last fifty years or so (give or take) there has been a general social consensus that slavery was wrong. But surely, people knew during the times that slavery was practiced that it was morally suspect to enslave another human being.
The way that many people dealt with the cognitive dissonance of the peculiar institution was to build a conceptual framework of words with the assistance of the intellectual class (see the work of George Fitzhugh, for example) and the clergy.
They created a plethora of words to differentiate those who would be enslaved and to justify the treatment of fellow human beings as domestic animals.
One must wonder at the need some people seem to have to enforce their right to use dehumanizing language to describe others. When one describes Hillary as a "bitch" it is, among other things, a not-too-subtle act of dehumanization.
Many of us on this site are appalled at the way that Clinton dehumanizes others - like the way she cackled with glee, "We came, we saw, he died," at the brutal murder of another human being - a murder she helped create the conditions for.
Please, let us not become what we loathe.
Now to the other pole of this argument.
There are quite a number of incendiary personalities on this site, many of whom are, they say, committed to working to make change.
Some of those folks with incendiary personalities have made it clear that they would like a little authoritarian censorship here - or damnit they are going to pack up their bags and go elsewhere.
Seriously, if that is your idea of how to make change, you are better off in a smaller pond where you are the sole source of authority.
Yes, you can use authoritarian means to change behavior sometimes, but it doesn't work out so well in changing attitudes.
Changing attitudes is what is needed for real, authentic social change.
Changing attitudes takes a commitment to struggle with people for mutual understanding, educating yourself and others and being willing to put up with a certain amount of bullshit in the longer process of building a working relationship between yourself and others. Just as in any community, there are going to be people that you just don't really get along with. That's what happens when you put a couple of thousand people in a room together.
Is it a realistic assumption that in a town of 2000 people you will find nobody that pisses you off sometimes?
By demanding official censorship as the solution to over-indulged expression, it takes the community down the road to becoming that which it loathes. It seems that many people came here because they were deeply dissatisfied with a site that practiced official censorship.
Ok, so that's what I have to say about the issue. I don't care for censorship or coercion, but I'm all for persuasion. Thank you for your attention and consideration.
The moderators and admins are discussing the situation and will be watching the various community posts on the issue.
Comments
There’s something to be said for your idea.
The custom of any member being allowed to post full-fledged essays is a holdover from That Other Place.
If caucus99percent had come into existence ex nihilo, things might be different.
Given the site’s actual history, though, it seems woven into the founding mystique here that people not have less freedom than they had in days of yore.
sheep make lousy revolutionaries...
they are too busy watching the damned dog.
i don't want a site full of people that i have cowed into submission. i want to be at a site with smart, free-thinking, inquisitive people who are actively interested in making change. people who can think for themselves and lead themselves but recognize that there is power in unity with others for which they are willing to struggle to hammer out a collective approach that works for everybody.
maybe human nature doesn't allow that sort of thing to happen, but damnit, i'm going to give it a go anyway.
Sigh. Read my responses to JtC and Shahryar. Mate, if you
think you can raise revolutionaries in this format, you're way more naive than I ever imagined. If all you mods think like that, this site is dead site walking. Damnit, I like it here and like talking resilience. If you lot drive this thing into the ditch out of naivete, that would be a real bummer. Oh well, we'll enjoy the ride as long as it lasts. Good luck, g
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
I think the idea is that there are revolutionaries out there
already, as well as some reformists looking for a new way now that reform is obviously dead.
People like that--people like me--need a place to come and find each other, talk, organize.
This place works pretty well--pretty well--for the first two. It doesn't work so well for the third, for a number of reasons, some of which have to do with the nature of blogs themselves: they're good for meeting ppl, and exchanging information, and discussion and debate--and not very good for organizing action.
There's other kinds of software better for that.
But that kind of ignores the other issue--nobody ever fought a revolution, violent or non-violent, without knowing the people involved face-to-face. We're not gonna get anywhere without a lot more friendship and trust than we have. Just my .02.
"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'd be interested in your thoughts for better organizing
Better software? What?
This might be worthy of a diary post.
Right now, I think the action we need to organize is letting everyone know about Jill, convincing people to vote for her, or at the very least convincing Trumpians to vote for Gary Johnson. I'd love to see us focus on that for the next 2 months.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Well, I've also used Asana,
https://app.asana.com, albeit only once, and MarilynW said she had a good software for organizing actions, in comments on another diary of mine (VotePact idea).
The two things I'd like to work on right now are
1)VotePact--break the hold of fear the duopoly has on the voters (I must vote Trump to stop Hillary! I must vote Hillary to stop Trump!) www.votepact.org
2)An network that connects existing indie media so that the messages of all can spread more widely, so that crowdfunding can better inject resources into those existing efforts, and so that there is a web of mutual defense for reporters and bloggers who come under pressure for their anti-establishment messages.
"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 go to your link and the first thing I see is them quoting you!
You're famous!
#2 would be great and I think needs to be done posthaste. The way this site lists other sites in the left-hand sidebar is part of that effort. What else can we do?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Whoa, really?
I didn't realize that!
Re: the indie network--
What I'd like is to get people from all those sites--and others, bloggers, alternative journos still freelancing in the mainstream system, etc.--to agree to a mutual defense pact of sorts; when one member gets attacked by the suppression machine (fired, banned, stories pulled, threatened) all members start writing about it and publicizing the issue and igniting outrage against it.
I'd also like--but this is, sadly, not within my immediate grasp--to get people to raise money which would then be equally distributed to all members of the network. Cross what we're currently doing for C99 with what we did for Bernie 2016, and you'll get my vision. If we could raise 50 million in a month for Bernie, shouldn't we be able to raise 1/4 of that for an indie media network? Or even 1/10? (This is one reason I'm pissed at Bernie. He could have done something like this easily.)
Because the latter part involves money, it brings up questions of trust, and also of power--it can't be that I, the Grand Envisioner of the Network, get 10 mil/month which I then divide with my mighty (but fair) hands into equal portions....you get the picture. That's the essence of crap masquerading as good works. So there's a complicated question of how to receive the money and make sure it's all aboveboard and fair.
It also brings up questions of visibility, and credibility: Bernie can get people to pour money into his campaign b/c he's a Senator running for President. I'm a writer on a blog. Hmmph. Still, I think people feel the need for indie media like never before, since this campaign (first time I've ever seen large numbers of people protesting the major networks for endemic corruption--rather than one show that pissed 'em off, or something like that)
This is an issue I don't know how to resolve; my thinking on it so far is that you have to get a lot of prominent bloggers and indie media on board w/you, and they can help popularize the idea. If Democracy Now! or even Redacted Tonight decided to promote this idea, we'd be in clover; but those guys are also a hell of a lot more financially secure and sure their jobs will exist tomorrow morning than indie media like C99 or Nina Illingworth or even Yves over at Naked Capitalism, and I don't know whether they will feel the urgency the way we do.
That's my thinking so far.
"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
From your link (for those who for whatever reason won't click
on it):
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Thoughtful as always Joe, thanks. However....
I really think these sorts of debates are good, and not a wast of time for one really important reason: It seems to me that our political debates have become so debased in so many ways that we can't have productive debates about the most important issues - including rapid ecological collapse.
Disagreement almost always devolves into screaming over the other person, confusing a debate about important stuff with a sporting event where one person tries to "best" the other, name calling, etc....
I've come to believe that the issue of how to inject some real civility into our public discourse is vitally necessary, and not at all a waste of time in this sense.
Is it unfortunate that we need to spend some time on this? I think so. But it is what it is.
First Rule of Meta Club
You can't win Meta Club.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
too damn funny : )
for reals, that made me smile out loud
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
yeah, yeah...
but you can't lose the damned thing either, no matter how hard you stomp on the gas pedal and swerve down the road.
True enough
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
I cuss.
Sometimes there just isn't another word more appropriate than an F bomb.
But there's no dirty words in "she hits like a girl, skates like a girl, runs like a girl, cries like a girl".... but I find those words far more offensive and damaging.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
I agree on the "hurtful" issue, but I don't want censorship.
Can we all try to be the wonderful person our dog thinks we are?
I ducking hate auto-correct. I also understand the difference between texting friends and making a public statement for the purpose of persuading. Juvenile profanity in any public setting is self indulgent and childish.
Is it really that difficult to hold your rhetorical standards to the level of a high school essay or paper? If you found the term "Berniebro" offensive then you understand why the "b" word is equally offensive and unpersuasive.
Joe is absolutely correct that even a few childish "free speechers" allow the Hillary camp to brand the entire site as disgruntled Berniebros.
"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
This comment itself demonstrates a certain dilemma
It pleads for a general principle of respect for people and their feelings in public discussions.
But then, in closing, it turns around and injects a new disrespectful pejorative, “free speecher,” into the discourse.
This touches on my suggestion that, if any words are going to be banned, I think the word “truther” and terms like it should be among them.
Using terms like “truther” amounts to — if you will — approved hate speech against people who dare to challenge our rulers’ account of certain events.
Down through history, questioning rulers has certainly been as disadvantageous, even dangerous, as being a woman or a member of an ethnic or religious minority.
It is progressive to encourage people to question their rulers. Ridiculing and bashing people for daring to question their rulers is repression and has always been an integral part of authoritarian and totalitarian systems.
Making the word "truth" into an insult
A crowning life achievement for any tyrant.
"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
Substituting labels for actual thought
Striking a pose whereby, although merely echoing official opinions, one dogmatically presumes to speak for “science” or “physics” itself.
Playing upon people’s natural insecurities and fears of unpopularity or ridicule.
Hard to believe it would work on a nation that, in song, refers to itself as brave and free — yet here we are.
But "truther" does not have a whole lifetime of historical
baggage that it carries with it. And enough people here have open minds that any use of "truther" gets a lot of outraged pushback. So I think banning is unnecessary.
If there were few "truthers" here getting bullied by the rest, then I could see banning the word. Or perhaps better, banning the bullies because of ad homs, for which people are already warned and if persistent, banned.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Profanity is often used
as a way to express aggression. It's the verbal equivalent of an animal growl or snarl... a way of saying, I really mean business here, or I am a physically dangerous entity. It's a way of verbally "getting in someone's face". There's an edge of savagery and implied threat in its use. Using profanity is a way of abandoning politeness in favor of a "taking the gloves off" stance.
It's not an intrinsically literary form of expression, but derives directly from "the streets" wherever face-to-face, vulgar interactions and strong (usually hostile) emotions predominate over reasonable dialogue.
The current ubiquity of written profanity is a fairly recent phenomenon. I think it has been augmented by the widespread use of interactive online forums. Comments on YouTube for example, are positively laced with it. One of its drawbacks is that the more frequently it is used, the less meaningful it becomes.
native
Profanity is often used
as a way to express aggression. It's the verbal equivalent of an animal growl or snarl... a way of saying, I really mean business here, or I am a physically dangerous entity. It's a way of verbally "getting in someone's face". There's an edge of savagery and implied threat to it. Using profanity is a way of abandoning politeness in favor of a "taking the gloves off" stance.
It's not an intrinsically literary form of expression, but derives directly from "the streets" wherever face-to-face, vulgar interactions and strong (usually hostile) emotions predominate over reasonable dialogue. The current ubiquity of written profanity is a fairly recent phenomenon. I think it may have been augmented by the widespread use of interactive online forums.
native
Sorry for double post.
native
You can edit your comments here. I often do that with doubles
to make it look as if I meant to make two comments in a row all along! Heh.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I’ve seen cats who accidentally do something undignified
get this “I totally meant to do that” look, as if they were embarrassed and trying to save face in case anyone was watching.
Yes! That's totally how I roll with comments. That must be
where I learned it from!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Aaargh
Can't believe we're having these same conversations AGAIN that date back to the 1970s.
Compare the N word. Put your mind on some person in power whose opinions and actions are really deplorable to you, and who happens to be black. (Maybe a certain member of the Supreme Court, for example?) Because they are so awful, does that make it okay to use the N word about that particular person? Well, you CAN -- no one will lock you up -- so long as you realize that's like walking around with a big sign reading, "'I'm a racist." And realize that social media may not choose to tolerate it. Because when you use the N word you are never just disparaging some specific person.
B word -- the same. Other sexist pejoratives, current and historical, the same. Hag, harridan, cunt, bimbo, slut, queen (some contexts, like "welfare"), princess (some contexts), ball-buster, ball and chain, man-hater, dragon lady, crone, lezzie, piece of ass, witch, etc., etc., etc.
How to tell they're not just pejoratives, but sexist too? The same way you can tell about authoress, lady lawyer, usherette, etc.
I'm not so sure this is such an inconsequential matter -- that sexist pejoratives STILL seem okay to a lot of people, who would never use racist ones.
OK, that's all I'm gonna say on this topic for another 40 years, by which time I sure hope it'll be a dead letter like the N word.
Euterpe2
welcome to the eternal recurrence...
please tip ourobouros on your way in and out of the door.
I’m Bastian Balthazar Bux, and I approved this message. n/t
I guess it’s too late to turn back the clock
to more intimate and untroubled times, so I guess we might as well, all of us, make sure that time keeps passing along a positive and productive path.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
[video:https://youtu.be/Ivo2HKdWUzc]
I have very rarely ever encountered a more reasoned and big-hearted voice than yours, joe. I fully trust you and Johnny, and the moderators with the heart and soul of this place. Thank you.
evening janis...
thanks for the kind words.
Nice, joe. Thanks.
What a waste of time.
These endless meta diaries remind me soooo much of another place I used to visit. There's an easy fix -- the site can have filter software installed on it that ***** out bad words. It's time to put this meta puppy to bed one way or another.
heh...
i wonder if we could hook the filter up to the shakespearean random insult generator.
I've seen it done on some of the forums I frequent.
On these different sites, all F-bombs and four letter words come out as "drymount" or "Shaq-Fu." Bonus points to everyone who understands what the second one is referencing.
Joe is right of course, the sole lasting, sustainable solution
comes from people self-moderating out of empathy and concern for the feelings of their fellow members. (You do all remember empathy, don't you?)
Meanwhile, I'd just like to point out that language, especially demeaning language, is as much of a slippery slope as censorship. Somewhere on the net, somebody right now is calling Hillary "That ugly fat broad with the big ass and shitty clothes".
Now contemplate what that says about the poster. Lessee: presumptively incapable of any substantive or rational discussion of Hillary as a candidate, politician, or even as a person. Not credible at all. All that poster sees is some anatomy that doesn't live up to certain sub-cultural preferences and "standards" for that anatomy (aka "chicks"). It is an almost instinctive, though possibly unfair, jump to conclude that said poster probably doesn't have anything substantive to say about politics, society, life, humanity, human rights, humankind, or arguably much of anything else. People will readily make that jump.
So whether or not one gives a shit what others here "feel", one might consider what others, here and elsewhere think. Does anybody really want to be seen as being even arguably in the same broad general category as that poster?
As Joe and others have indicated, it is a very broad issue, it isn't just about one word. We can all fling shit, but so can chimpanzees, so we need to ask ourselves if that is really why we are here and what we are all about.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
But be careful, el
Your educational attainment is showing. Have we not lost someone already to felt out-classed by that? There are many folks who are illiterate or just finished high school with a C average who lack vocabulary. It's not necessarily their fault. And they express as they can. Trump uses little words, repeatedly.
I am aware of that in myself, the slightly better-than feeling. It is wrapped in Class. And is not necessarily accepting.
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.
I agree with this:
Every moderated site has "censorship". The trick is to censor lightly so that there can be free discussion of the issues. Without moderation, the bullies take over and there is still no free discussion of the issues, but now because no one wants to speak up, as speaking up leads to being demeaned. See https://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/who-has-the-worst-commenters-on-the-i...
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Thanks for the link ec
I enjoyed reading it, especially the comments
~OaWN
The trouble is, there’s always some group or kind of person
whom one or more of us — or even a majority of us — feel is not deserving of empathy, and is deserving of demeaning language, direct personal hostility, undisguised attempts to lecture, gaslight, or humiliate, etc.
Recent concrete examples: fearful white people — a popular position is that they don’t deserve our empathy. Or people like myself who challenge the official account of 9/11, or the JFK / RFK / MLK assassinations — several posters argued and acted out quite vehemently that they/we don’t deserve any respect.
There are just certain targets where, even with normally polite and well-behaved posters, whoosh! suddenly any semblance of empathy or respect goes out the window.
Those among us who are prone to this — in the usual case, called on our behavior, not only are we not sorry, we defiantly double down, often averring that every progressive (or moral or rational person, or whatever) should do what we’re doing / say what we’re saying.
Self-moderation is up against our strong human tendency toward self-indulgence. We’re just so smart, so moral, so dumb, so innocent, so in the right, so victimized and oppressed, or bound by blood or faith or friendship to those who were or are victims and oppressed — “What, restraint is required of me, too? Can’t be!”
Wanted to comment on "country dance"
but the site ATE my response. Could somebody start a discussion in one of the shorter Open Threads?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
What good does it do --
to dwell on this stuff? I'm bored, and Shiz has already threatened to leave. So there's two negative outcomes. Talk about Margaret Atwood or the "literature of the Anthropocene" or the Big Bang or the positive attributes of psilocybin or millenials who like socialism or Standing Rock or something fascinating.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
if i had ignored it would it go away?
if so, i have made an horrible mistake.
No, it wouldn't go away. But I DO think people need to take a
break and visit Caucus Critters when they're ready to relax a little!
I also think the only way this will resolve is for you and Johnny to contribute to the discussion. Otherwise it will continue to be a free-for-all.
Edit for typo. Yikes.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Seriously, this is the buckwheat of discussion.
I am growing a plant in the Pomona College Farm's modified French Intensive beds. It has been identified as buckwheat. It has produced only leaves so far -- the leaves are edible and boring. I really don't know what nutrient value these leaves contain. I'll post a picture of it here tomorrow morning.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
I've never heard of eating buckwhet leaves, only the "grain",
usually milled, in things like pancakes, crepes (the savory ones), soba, etc.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I don't plan to rip out the bush any time soon.
But it does need to be cut back now and then because it takes over land which could be used to produce more interesting crops.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
French intensive beds
are fascinating. This is a subject I actually care about and know about. I started using the French intensive method of growing food years ago. Buckwheat is an interesting topic that I know nothing about. Is it really wheat? I do know it doesn't contain gluten which is now a no no. I have problems with the dirt my 15 year old French intensive beds and I think it's because after this many years I have refined the clay soil too much. Perhaps a truckload of unadulterated top soil would help.
No, buckwheat is a different sort of plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckwheat
Buckwheat is a pseudocereal and a great first crop
in relatively low-fertility soil. Fertilizer actually decreases yield. Used as a soil buster. And the white blossoms make a good honey.
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.
if you do or doesn't, it isn't going away, it's a long day
let it be.
[video:https://youtu.be/WbtyKo2wlYU]
https://www.euronews.com/
Thank you. Thank you.
In short, it makes us look like EXACTLY what the Clinton supporters accused us of being.... and one might even argue... are.
I just got done with a nice, polite, respectful, and meaningful conversation with a Republican. He's voting Trump. The issue in his mind is gun rights. He acknowledges systemic corruption. He acknowledges that his party is just as bad as ours. But his party offers gun rights. I agreed and said that many liberals were exactly the same but with a different #1 priority. It was an illuminating discussion... with a Trump supporter. You'd think we could do at least as well.
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
As always,
I am again impressed (in the most positive sense) with the administration on this site.
You folks rock!
“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett
Thank you, Joe, and I could not agree with your sentiments more.
I have read your essay 3 times and pondered your response deeply before adding any comment to this topic. I have also read the various essays and numerous comments on this meta topic and refrained from commenting because although I felt rather passionately about it, and even had strong even visceral emotional responses, given all that we have been through with TOP's deeply offensive authoritarian censorship, any shadow of such authoritarian censorship, evokes such a vehement response that I thought better to remain silent than offend anyone with my unbridled words. This is a community that, I hope, will be healing those deep wounds that we all suffered from an abusive authoritarian censorship from someone whom we all thought was a trusted friend. We were all betrayed in the worst of possible ways at the worst of possible times on the worst of possible issues, the future of our nation and possibly, probably, humanity itself. All of our dreams and hopes and prayers are at stake, for ourselves and our families and our children and future generations. This betrayal ran to the deepest places that we hold most dear, from a community we thought was our virtual family. We are all scarred and probably suffer from a degree of PTSD from the abuse we suffered from TOP and its admin. I realize some people here are offended at certain "free spirited words" of anger and disgust directed at an abusive leader, Hillary, but to me, the word "bitch" is meant to say that Hillary is "bitchy" ... not a sexist reference ... not that I personally actually have used that term, because I have not, but just to be clear, that's how I hear that term in this context. Similarly, "Hilllary is a corporate whore" is also not a sexist remark to me, because there are male prostitutes, not just female ones, but we all know that Hillary has "whored" herself to the corporate oligarchy in the worst of possible ways, figuratively, and yes, the use of that term is offensive, and it is meant to be offensive, because Hillary's "whoring" has been so offensive to me. Should I censor my description of Hillary selling our planet to her corporate sponsors? ....because THAT is what censorship is and does. If you censor that free spirited expression, then the expression loses its true potency, a potency forged in raw honest self expression. And, while one might suggest that more artful terms can have potency, when it comes to advocacy, to each his or her own. We really don't get to chose asthetic preference, not if we want each person's voice to be heard. And while one might not appreciate a certain manner of speech or diction, it is the authentic unfettered expression of our emotions that inspires and moves us, and heals us. It is saying what had not been said. Hillary has been many things. Strong evidence suggests that she has been responsible for murder, with a list of body bags and "suspicious deaths" from Vince Foster to Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas to Ashe, and some people here have a problem with calling her "bitch" ... lol ... I am sorry, but that term doesn't even begin to speak the foul names I have for that lady. Show her respect? Are you insane? I want to show her the inside of a jail cell. I want to see her prosecuted for high treason. I want to see her and her husband prosecuted for crimes going back to their Arkansas days, and I wonder if some of the crimes she has committed warrant the death penalty, and people here are offended by "bitch" ... when that lady is complicit in the death of over a million Muslims from her Iraq AUMF vote? Or Benghazi? Or Gadaffi? Who knows how many? Do you? Do I? The evidence is chilling. The facts are chilling. There is no greater threat to world peace today than Hillary Clinton, and that is what is most chilling and offensive, not the use of a word like "bitch" or "bitchy." This lady is emotionally unstable, prone to explosive tirades, with the most irresponsible judgment I could ever imagine when it comes to foreign policy and national security, and she wants to be the CinC of the US Armed Forces? She voted for Iraq AUMF without even reading the intelligence briefing, and she even gave an impassioned speech in congress to promote Bush's war, without reading the intelligence briefing. And this doesn't even include the absurdly stupid irresponsible use of a private email server for the entire tenure of her service as SOS? And further, using insecure blackberry devices in top secret facilities? Losing them? How many times? Selling arms to how many dictators? I could go on and on and on, but yeah, the use of the word "bitch" is the offensive topic here, not Hillary's very nature and actions and the immediate threat she represents to our planet. Hillary is many things, and "bitch" doesn't even begin to describe how foul and offensive she is, but if someone wants to call her that, not only does it not offend me, I find it timid and docile, if you ask me. Hillary is a tyrant. Hillary is a war monger. Hillary is psychotic. Hillary is a sociopathic murderer. Hillary is a pathological liar and should be under psychiatric care, not overseeing world affairs. She is irrational and erratic and vindictive and displays all of the signs that any of this worlds worst dictators have shown. Hillary is a racist and a bigot, too, and I can show quotes to prove this too. Hillary has, I believe, a messiah complex and is narcissistic power hungry selfish bat shit crazy. But you have a problem with the word "bitch" ??? I can say all of those things about her, and provide numerous videos and quotes from reputable sources to back up those descriptions of Hillary, and you don't mind, but if I use the word "bitch" then you're offended? Is that what I am supposed to understand?
Yeah, "authoritarian censorship" is not just a slippery slope, it breeds hypocrisy and falsehood.
On a related note, someone recently commented on my essay, mis-labeling the discussion vetting Hillary's health issues, prior to her fall on 9/11, as "attacking her health" which I found patently absurd. This, too, is the sort of censorship tactic we saw at TOP. We must guard ourselves against all types of censorship if we want our community to have the potency and power of raw unfettered honesty.
Lastly, I keep thinking of rap music and punk music and rock n roll music and all sorts of artistic expressions which express outrage and protest against lies and falsehood and it is in that context that I hear these words of chastisement about the word "bitch" or "attacking Hillary's health" .... and so yeah, I personally error on the side of tolerance and support for self expression, because I believe in the end the greater good is served by free speech. It is the FIRST AMENDMENT for a reason.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
a dream...
Joe, and all, i can't leave this topic untouched, though, I've little time as the knife is upon me, but anyways, here goes.
The shouts and hollers of forced passion during prayer meeting revivals scared the living devil into we children. Blood red, some faces were, speaking in tongues.
Later on, I encountered the newly sophisticated breed, 'evangel-somethings.'
And for many reasons, partly very personal, I grew to despise them, particularly in my mid-years; they having invaded my family. They wanted my knees, too.
Fast-forward a dozen or so years, relocated to the Appalachians, up high and on Main Street and without fail, every Saturday, I encountered an entire family participating in free speech. Daddy preached and the little ones ran up and down the sidewalk passing out pocket-sized religion: their beliefs, or their father's or someone's; forcing the papers upon us almost clinging to our legs; begging, we repent?
And that was hard for me
to accept.
Damned trying for me...the little children doing "God's work?"
I wanted to stop them and the whitewash.
How does one refuse a pamphleteer who is knee-high, big-eyed, humble and biding Daddy's wishes?
...
Fortunately, a wiser person than me, a colleague from the time, reminded me of freedom of speech saying; "I'm so happy they can be there on Main and be safe."
"Once there was a dream of a site where a community of smart, kind and decent people gathered to organize and make change:"
they are here and they are safe!
The reason the left does not win, the reason no one wins,
is because there is no coherent system of analysis.
A website doesn't win anything, any more than a television broadcast station does, per se, or a single person shouting in the agora.
If you have money, your analysis is strictly economic, because of the utility of capital.
Without capital, a system of careful analysis is needed to bring a message that accurately details what people have to do in order to make change.
Otherwise, we wind up with another Bernie Sanders: a politician who can draw crowds, but cannot do anything with them, because he has no coherent plan other than winning an based on a series of truisms.
You cannot change anything without moving more than the ballot paper.
It takes around ninety percent of the population to effect real, permanent, and lasting change.
In the German Democratic Republic, ninety percent or more of the people were united in what they wanted: an end to the Stalinist SED regime.
Even with Gorbachev leading the Soviet Union, anything less would have led to widespread violence.
I cannot see such conditions obtaining in the United States, ever. The conditions are not in the cultural grammar.
Any changes can be repealed. Everything which was gained through civil rights struggles has been challenged, and much of it stripped away, while the conditions for the average worker of any identity have deteriorated significantly, while climate change continues on, the effects of which have hardly begun to manifest themselves.
So I see the problem not as profanity in the sense of certain words which one ought not to use. The problem is all the words, the sentence, the paragraph, the reality to which they desperately try to point but which remains without a clear formulation.
Peace and love be with you, reader.
Then let's develop a coherent system of analysis
Although I would quibble with your belief that it takes 90%. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution)
Loyalists wanted to remain with the British crown.
So it is possible for a passionate, articulate minority to make significant change even in the face of opposition.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Words are just words. It's
Words are just words. It's how you use them that matters. There are some words (racial epithets and slurs for instance) that I don't use because they are hurtful to some people, but at the end of the day they are still just words. You can be just as hurtful with "good words" as "bad words" if you know how to use them. Context and purpose are very important.
I'd also hate to see this site devolve into censorship.
Just for the record--
there were at least a few of us on neither of those sides.
Not that it helped.
"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
This is what I was thinking, too:
My first thought on reading Sunday's threads was that this is why the left will never get anything done. We will be arguing about words and policing arguments while the ocean rises and we all drown.
I think my way of putting it was: Nobody's going to have any advancement, not women, not POC, not queer people, nobody, because we'll all be dead.
"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
Okay, way late,
but did it really get that bad. I read some early and. . . I guess I didn't look. Don't think I will, either.
Very eloquently stated, even if I am a frequent friend of profanity in it's varied forms.
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Pages