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
This video makes me think that actually Country Dances
must have been imitated, you might say"refined" or you might say "stiffened" by the elites wanting to have some of the fun they observed among the lower classes. Similarly, many of our much-loved classical composers stole themes from folk music. I really doubt the servants were watching these dances & decided to imitate them in livelier form out in the barn with their fiddlers. I vote for the folk setting the precedents.
To quote Bernie Sanders,
"Change never takes place from the top down, it comes from the bottom up."
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
That is a very valid point. nt
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Well...
I've decided to make a conscious effort to broaden my vocabulary and find more effective means of communicating my sincere disgust, utter contempt and polemic disdain, with out having to always resort to using one the 7 words you can't say on TV, which of course the B word, didn't make the list as Mr. Carlin correctly point outs. (
)
I did graduate the 8th grade ya know, at least according to the military, that's the last grade on paper they can find I completed, and validate! (lol) (
I went to a private school that went bankrupt years later, records trashed etc..)
I know for myself, I am emotionally raw, physically worn out, mentally drained, spiritually wounded, not to mention (expletive) mental about now, and while that is no excuse, I do humbly apologize to anyone I may have offended by some of my rather, shall we say "blue", "off color" use of particular language one can't say on TV.
That being said, I do reserve the right to let loose once in a while, because after all I'm not perfect ya know. The last guy that was, if he really existed at all, humanity crucified his young ass, and choose to save a criminal instead.
I think the administration of this site can do what the heck they darn well please, it's their site and can make the rules however they see fit.
I am blessed they have developed a place where I can have a voice and freely express, basically what ever I want, but that does not mean I should abuse it or create an environment where I drive others away, when my goal, if I remember correctly, is to connect with others (common ground), and come together (stick the the issues), so we can effect positive change in this world (fight the Oligarchy).
To the site administration: Thank you for being here!
(caution, this video contains language that might be offensive to some!
)
[Video:https://youtu.be/LHV8r4DxxDE align:center]
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
You're doing well on the broadened vocabulary thing!
I don't even know what polemic means, but I think it sounds good!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
see below
emphasis mine.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Thank you! And if you ever want a name synonym, you now
have one, complete with alliteration: PolemicPoultry!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
that's coffee out the nose worthy!
n/t
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Beautiful comment, RR.
I find my truth in your words, as well. You expressed/conveyed your thoughts eloquently.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
THIS!
I wonder....maybe this is more about "volume" (how much of something, not how loud) and it's not about the actual word itself (in this case, the B word). I am as all of those things as you are and that's primarily where those seven words fly from, every single time, when I speak (or type) anymore. Regularly. It is seriously all I can manage, most times. I refer to myself as "sputtering angry" very often lately, and the blue language just follows. (I do do a lot of editing, if that helps, both before and after posting--I try to note that 'after' thing now, btw, cuz I see others doing it, but I digress).
Plus I had a bunch of brothers, and I'm married to a musician and I work in a repair shop that's mostly guys--20 of them, and then there's me and two other women. We all talk like old sailors. F-bombs have practically achieved personal accessory status in my RL space. And I'm an English major. I should be ashamed, and I'm not. I'm that pissed off.
Yes, these are all excuses and I brandish them proudly. The fact that I can feel anger means I am still feeling something
I think so
I spent most of my 20s running a fishing boat in Alaska with an all male crew. When a person spends months sleep deprived, smelling like the catch of the day wearing more fish scales than the fish nerves fray, tempers flare and words fly. I have been called a bitch so often that it's almost my middle name. Yet I have no doubt that these name callers respected me. They were simply venting overwhelming mental turmoil that went with a really rough job. It is one of those words that tends to fly when mental process fails in its attempt to describe very powerful emotions that involve heads exploding.
They also trusted me enough to let me see their worst side and still like them.
Having said that I also come from a very weird family of Northern Canadians that is traditionally matriarchal and half native where the women have been making a splash following their dreams for several generations. If someone told them they couldn't they did it anyway. My view of the world and how it works looks much different than to most women. I have to that into account because how we see the world really does shape our experience.
In the times we live in there is bound to be frayed nerves, raw emotions that come from the stark fear of where this country and our world is headed. Sometimes people need to vent so they can go on and do what needs to be done.
Thanks, Joe! I know y'all are making a sincere effort and I
appreciate it.
I do continue to think that one can say "no dehumanizing language" and still leave a giant universe of expression allowed here that would not be allowed Over There, as well as say, "that's it; these are our rules; no more" so that it's not a slippery slope.
Edit to add: I love your title. As soon as I read it, I knew what it would be about. Snark R Us.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Imho, there are incendiary personalities whose essays are
often very cogent and worthwhile. (Shiz, just to be clear I'm not referring to you in what I am about to say).... But those cogent and worthwhile essays become dead to me and pointless when the person uses certain expressions to vilify, denigrate or in any way dehumanize an entire group of people or a single person. The use of such words in particular and in general just undermines and in some ways poisons their own writing and essay. So it's silly and counterproductive.
It is not my responsibility to 'inform' them. The site might have to deal w the fall out but that's not my problem either....
I will say this, the only time someone gave me a verbal side-eye here, I didn't have to privately email the admins or mods. I made it known in my response and in another essay and it was taken care of.
I'm sure the site owners and mods want to keep this place sane and vibrant both.
Now off for a yin yoga class.
Don't believe everything you think.
Well Said Joe. I agree 100%.
Well Said Joe. I agree 100%.
I never set out with the objective of offending anyone. But in a community this big you never know what is going to set people off. I'm thinking of my diary about Hellery's Coughing. Man I had no idea Phlegm would be such a divisive topic.
I don't recall calling Hellery a "bitch" (although it is certainly possible). But I'll commit to NOT call her that as an olive branch to those who find it a too objectionable. Let's hope this issue is finally put to bed and we don't let it destroy the community. Peace to all.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
thanks coe...
i am grateful for the unselfishness of your response.
Here then... this'll blow you're mind
"Hellery" sets me off. I don't expect you or anyone else to stop saying things like that or "repukes" or "rethuglicans". But I absolutely see that sort of thing as helping the enemy and harming the team. It offends me in the sense that I think, "Man, I'm trying to do something here and it'd sure be nice if it wasn't being undercut by my own allies".
So you are correct, people will be offended by any number of things.... if they choose to be. And therein lies the balance, no?
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
And that proves my point
"you never know what is going to set people off. "
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Me too. Hellery, Drumpf, her Heinous. Don't like 'em.
OTOH, I call her "Veruca" and have no problem with myself doing that, LOL--but that's because I think that that epithet will resonate with most people above 30. Using tropes from well-known, beloved movies is actually a strong PR gesture, if you can draw a plausible connection between the person and the trope--and most people already think Hillary is selfish, basically amoral, spoiled, and entitled. Also something of a bully.
On the other hand (I feel like the guy from Fiddler on the Roof!), it's a bit insulting to Veruca Salt, who, whatever else she is, isn't a liar.
"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'm also sorry for having stepped on your toes earlier--
wasn't intentional.
Peace.
"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
Very thoughtful observations, Joe --
and thanks to you for the consideration and courage it took to post them.
I can be a "challenging" commentator sometimes, but I make conscious efforts not to be "incendiary" -- maybe that is a standard for which our community could strive?
Please keep up your sound work --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
well, I don't think I needed to use the word bitch
for anyone yet, neither Clinton or otherwise. But I can stand its usage by some authors, but not by others. So, context and motives and intentions in word usage is what makes the usage to me offensive or not. I try to ignore the cases which I do find offensive. But if the same person makes it a matter of life-style and is repetitively offensive, I wished I could say STFU. But I don't. To not make it worse. But I realize that this behavior makes me a "Good German" bystander and enabler.
Hard to swallow for me as well.
For example, there is talk about Clinton's potential death. Someone used the word "croak" for it. I personally find that offensive, because there was no need for it. Others find it, I don't know, may be cool, because they get a kick out of the "croaking". It's kind of gleeful and cruel in my mind.
I doubt I could ever persuade someone to consider expressing themselves less cruelly.
Some people love to be cruel. I hate cruelty. And I hate people who are destroying a community with cruel behavior.
https://www.euronews.com/
I saw 3-4 categories of people in Sun 9/11 thread (Shiz)
joe, I saw more than 2 categories of stances expressed by people in Shiz' Sun 9/9 thread, although have described the two stances at the farthest ends of the spectrum:
1. People for whom using 'bitch' (or other anti-woman speech) as so intolerable they cannot use this site as long as that usage is permitted (Shiz' position).
2. People for whom their absolute freedom to use whatever speech comes into their mind, and who will not tolerate the least restriction. (I suggest that these people will not be responsive to 'persuasion', no matter how prettily that might be phrased.) These people also feel they cannot use the site if even restriction on their speech is introduced.
3. Those for whom to really doesn't matter who can live with restrictions on anti-woman speech, but are also willing comfortable with the status quo in which anti-woman speech is unrestricted.
4. Those who would (perhaps strongly) prefer that anti-woman speech be restricted, but acknowledge that, as of 2016, society still accepts a certain level of 'Everyday Sexism' use of anti-woman speech.
5. Those who would like to come up with a new means of introducing some control; I saw 2 variations of this on 9/9:
5.a. Some suggested/approved a way of registering community response by using one comment to collect 'Object:(reason)' or 'Agree' votes. This process would at least allow a tally to be created (of something).
5.b. A suggestion was made that a synonym for 'bitch' be permitted, to allow use of anti-woman terms that do not carry all the connotations of 'bitch'. 'Harridan' was suggested, and a few have picked up this word. To me, however, this substitution did not disallow anti-woman speech, and it would be a restriction to the chosen word. Knowing there are countless pejoratives for women,, and being uncertain of the specific meaning of 'harridan', I looked the word up. Several quickly available online dictionaries defined 'harridan' as 'an unpleasant woman'. I found this definition overly broad to become the designated online pejorative for HRC. Synonyms for 'harridan' include words like shrew, termagant, bitch, etc. If substituting a generic pejorative is to be the (or a) chosen way to address the 'Bitch or Not' question, my choice would be 'she-devil'. This would allow people to write sentences such as: 'Her Heinous, the she-devil . . ..' which, I believe, many would find quite satisfying.
I should say joe, that I quite agree with you that the use of anti-woman language is stupid, hurtful, and counter-productive. You and I differ in that I no longer believe that those who use anti-woman language can be instructed or persuaded to do otherwise.
If c99 Admin chooses to try to ascertain community-wide attitudes or preferences, I think that having someone(s) comb through the relevant recent threads to identify the range and number of people's positions, I think you would find that you have more than just the two most opposing positions to choose from. Also, having some relatively correct idea of the numbers and percentages of people you have in each category might help you (plural) discern or discover a solution that can't be found using I/O, either-or, Two-Extreme-polarity thinking.
For now, my takeaway from your piece today is that things at c99 will remain the same. C99 Admin will continue to impose no restrictions whatever on Category #2 above, no matter what degree of personal pain or political distress this imposes on Category #1 people, even if that means that #1 people leave the site, and even though Category #2 people's defining actions run directly against your (joe's) personal moral code and your (joe's) intentions for what c99's climate and discourse should be.
I appreciate the clarification.
evening cw...
but this essay is an attempt to persuade people to make things different and better.
i have pointed out that there are competing values which i am urging those on the polarities of the argument to take into account. it is my hope that maybe something i have said will cause them to see their demands and actions in a different light once they consider the other values in play.
that's not to say that i think that everyone will be persuaded, but i prefer a peace that comes out of people rationally pursuing their values and interests and choosing their own limits over one imposed by an external authority, even when that authority is somebody whose judgement and intentions i respect.
Good comment--perhaps one more thing to point out
in regard to your last paragraph:
It's remarkable how authoritarian the assumptions of this fight are, both from groups 1 and 2. They're all looking at Admin either as "Protect me with your laws, or you're colluding with the bullies!" OR as "Don't you get in my face and tell ME what to say, boss man!"
Whereas Joe is trying to get the members of the community to make a small sacrifice on behalf of the whole, to resolve this issue. And the people he's asking to make the small sacrifice are the people on the "free speech" side of the fight, not the ones on the "anti-bigotry" side of the fight.
He's asking the community to make that choice, in order to lay this to rest.
"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 Category #2 people, as I said,
will not be persuaded or educated, nor will they move from their position out of kindness, consideration, or because of the community's objections to their use of anti-woman language. What you describe as a 'small sacrifice', they perceive as an outrageous invasion of their divinely-ordained right to speak as they will.
I don't expect that Category #2 mindset, or its accepted position in the culture, to change much during my lifetime -- not if the Category #2 thinkers are the ones expected to make the change.
However, there may be a slightly different inflection point in this stalemated argument where a discussion of terms may be useful: the definition of 'Free Speech' as used by the Category #2 people seems to me to be overly broad, and could (imo) more accurately be called 'Absolute License'. In one of the Steven D threads (the second, iirc), a long-known name commented that s/he had been part of the original Free Speech Movement (at Berkeley?) in the 1960s, and that 'Free Speech' (as being used by Category #2 people today) was far from that movement's message.
Since one of c99's stated purposes is to encourage discussion about fundamental issues affecting Progressivism (or The Left), perhaps c99 and the larger Progressive/Left online community would benefit from studying the original 1960's Free Speech Movement and discussing how to interpret it for the 21st Century. Perhaps that c99 user would be willing to write a post(s) introducing us to that history, and/or to gather a few online sources to be used as study guides.
Good idea!
I see absolutists in both categories 1 and 2--but since free speech is the issue, a historical analysis of free speech would be incredibly helpful.
"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
Hmmm
I have this to say to add to your list.
There are those of us who think the words in question are more reflective of the emotions of writer. They are not necessarily anti anything the specific definition someone places on it is honestly in the eye of the beholder.
I have no issues with people venting you all matter blowing steam is going to be necessary in this brave new world going forward it keeps us from freezing up. We really need to be fighting back.
So that's what it is eh. A word.
I haven't commented on this but here goes. I learned early on not to use the B word out of respect. Like I learned not to use the N word or the R word or the S word or other derogatory terms used against groups of people. I do use a lot of fucks, shits, assholes, things like that. But I was taught well, not only by my single mother but by working for the fed govt for 30 years to respect people.
So for me I think those saying it have a bigger responsibility here to listen. If the word is seen or felt as a pejorative toward all women, then back off. Shit, what the fuck is the damn problem.
Actually I was informed back when that my propensity for foul language was turning some people off, so I decided to use less foul language in my writing. Don't know if anyone has noticed.
Good essay joe. You're right, we've got better things to do.
And to add, that to me is not the censorship I worry about.
Censorship would be if I couldn't post an essay about 9/11 on here. Or if I couldn't call Clinton a murderous war criminal. Of if I couldn't say the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished.
Saying the B word or not has zero impact on what I really want to say.
thanks al...
i can't seem to wrap my head around what the fuck the damned problem is either.
Which is why, even before Joe posted this--
some people on that side of the fight started voluntarily giving up saying those words for the comfort level of those on the other side.
Who are now responding with anger and departure.
Well, that's fucking awesome.
This whole thing is a fight in a burning house, and apparently nothing can stop 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
No, I appreciate that some people get it and agree to give up
the words for the sake of making the community more comfortable.
But not everyone will agree, and some have apparently been pretty awful, and what then? Apparently Shiz entered some anti-Hill diaries that were beyond the pale with dozens piling on.
AFAIAC, I will stay because the sexism is rare. If it became common, I'm sure I'd be gone. What's the tipping point? I'll know it if I see it. I don't expect us to reach it, because of people like you who care. If this site becomes a haven for sexists, I am comfortable that J & J will start lowering the ban hammer until we get our reasonably non-sexist site back.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Thanks, Elena.
IMO, that's eminently reasonable.
"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
Though--I don't think I've ever seen the diaries
where dozens piled on, and I went into some of the most graphic anti-Hill diaries.
"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'm taking CS in AZ at his/her word because I don't want to
read such. Check for his/her comments where s/he provided the details if you want to verify. One was something about Hillary's caboose.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I am reminded once again of a saying that I love
I believe that kindness is noticed. It may not seem that way sometimes, but I believe it to be true.
Also, people in pain are not necessarily rational. Now I'm thinking of a time I took a beloved dog who was having seizures to the vet. I was baby-talking Toby in a soothing voice, putting my face close to his while I petted him. The vet thought I was an idiot for doing so, I think, but I kept at it. I think that the vet was right, I could have been bitten - not that he would have "meant to", but who knows what demons were swirling in his head at the time.
~OaWN
From the For What It's Worth dept................
Language is a powerful thing. When I read or listen to a person who uses the "F" word for instant in every sentence, I quickly lose interest in what they have written or said. I don't find them to credible. It has become an overused expletive that we hardly notice anymore and a substitute for language that might actually inform the reader.
Language is being ground down to a handful of words with little power. Many people don't know how to express themselves. If they do know how to express themselves and use powerful words to do it, someone is "offended". Some of us have made a career of being offended. When we cry foul, it is a way of ending the conversation and an attempt to win the argument. I don't know how reading certain words can offend, unless they are directed at you personally. Language used to be colorful, loaded with terms that we can't even understand today. We have arrived at 1984 where adjectives are reduced to good, more good/bad, more bad. As we are robbed of our language by those who are offended on a continuing basis, we become less able to think. We lack the language to reason. We lack the language to express how we feel. Lickspittle is one of my all time favorite words. I guess this is where I am at:
Salman Rushdie
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.
If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
I will read whatever I find interesting. If I get bogged down in language that I just can't tolerate, I have the option to stop reading or responding to the author. Everyone here has that same prerogative. I don't think the owner of the site should have to referee a group of people as though they are in kindergarten.
evening importer...
language is also a thing of beauty and invention. it can be an artform. i tend to blame teevee for the degradation of the language.
In "Scrooged" the people at the party are playing
word games. I don't know who plays scrabble anymore or does the crosswords, but those were ways to expand vocabulary. We had a Thesaurus at hand to find similar words, other ways to say something. My dad had a collection of 10 books, big ones, reprinting some of the finest speeches ever given. People actually read them and tried to speak that way, even if it was a little affected, as with my dad.
TV (in my Yout) had a lot of programming that expanded language, ideas, appreciation of music and art. Over the past 36 years, starting with Reagan, there has been a deliberate effort to dumb down all programming - TV, radio and (worst of all) our public schools. My granddaughter isn't learning cursive writing, she can't read my letters or recipes! I never thought in one generation we would cause a written language to disappear in favor of tweets and texts - all badly misspelled. Reagan went after public TV/radio. He pulled the funding based on a trumped-up indignation, what else is new. Since then we have been in a downward spiral. The only way it will end is if people pull the plug on the propaganda and refuse to allow the schools to give up on reading and writing.
If you blame teevee,
Throw that bitch out.
Three years sober from the tube.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Pushing the envelope...
already, huh. Could you have not used another word?
Jtc
I'm honestly sorry.
My dog. My leg. The teevee.
But not my significant other, a female, or my life.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Would you say the same about someone who calls Obama
the N word?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Great job of speaking to the issue Joe.
We all know what censorship brought us at top. Lots of rules not clearly defined or evenly applied, and lots of wars, insults, time-outs, and bannings. WayoftheBern has no rules except DBAD because they too realized rules were a lose/lose proposition and a 24/7 bone of contention to the group.
I am glad that c99 will remain true to its original vision for this blog and not go down this slippery slope. When we left ToP two years ago, we all said we wanted someplace where we could be open and honest, explore ideas without fear, and remain civil and respectful while doing it.
I hope people will put this ridiculous fight to bed once and for all. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and being a dick. We may not be able to describe it, but we know it when we see it.
Thanks, Joe.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I'm not going to tut-tut anyone
personally I think using certain language makes one's point less effective. If someone wants to do that I say go ahead. Like that Markos guy at a different site. He thinks the more he curses the stronger his argument is. But actually it makes him a laughing stock.
Well...as I've said before on this topic, I hardly ever run into that sort of thing here. The b-word I mean. And I can't recall ever seeing the c-word. So these discussions are just too weird. You know I'm really sad when I see you kicking homeless people in the street, when you just go up to them and give them a swift boot. It makes me really sad and I wonder why you do it (cross-posted to soccerhooligans.com). And if you say "what are you talking about?" I can just be upset that you haven't condemned it immediately.
That's how I feel about this discussion. If all sorts of people were calling Hills a b-word then I'd probably see it differently.
As for what Hillbots think, surely you know that any criticism of Hillary Clinton is equal to any other criticism. That is, it's all forbidden. Calling her a war-monger is equal to calling her a b-word. Saying she's a liar is equal to calling her a b-word. Since, as I've mentioned, I don't see that b-word very much anyway, I'm not sure what you're talking about with visitors thinking we're immature. Don't we think people from dKos are toadies, zombies, sycophants? Are they worried about what we think of them? We have plenty of good discussions on the economy, on labor, the arts. That's what visitors are more likely to see...except I'll say this: I'm more concerned with too many essays about Hillary's health and whether or not Bernie can still be the nominee. I think those are a lot likelier to put off visitors than any word that rarely shows up.
One last thing: People who have complained about the b-word must have seen it more than I have. But if they haven't, if it's just something that we're talking about in general terms, as in "should it be allowed at all?", then I'm not calling them trolls but I would say it's trollish behavior in the sense that it absolutely distracts from the 99% and wastes our time in a discussion that could have been avoided simply by saying directly to anyone who uses the b-word, "please don't".
evening shahryar...
i certainly agree that too many people have wasted far too much time on this issue. i regret having to discuss it.
I find this whole 'debate' very silly.
1) The terms are rarely used here anyway (certainly not by me).
2) When the terms are used with any regularity, it's typically most often by the very same people complaining that other people are using them. Like its only OK to use the terms if you are arguing they shouldn't be used (or something).
3) A lot of the complaining about the usage is simply a pretext for something else the complainer doesn't like people talking about (like Hillary's health).
4) I find the holier than thou attitude of the complainers hypocritical (like women never call each other B's.).
5) In both thought and action, the complainers remind me most closely of evangelical prohibitionists of the 19th Century. So convinced of their own moral rectitude and so intolerant of anyone who does not meet their self-imposed standards.
Sorry if this isn't very kumbayah, but its beyond annoying that we have to keep rehashing this over and over simply because a few busy bodies refuse to let the rest of us say what we want to say in the ways we want to say it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I personally think it's far more simple....
and can be summed up in a question:
Do you think our civil discourse has eroded over the last 30 years or so with the rise of things like FOX News, where no one is called "bitch", but most everyone is treated pretty poorly?
I find the level of incivility in our public discourse is one of the reasons we can't seem to think clearly about what is most important, like respect for humans, our environment, the hell we're going to be leaving our children, and owning our moral failings in this regard.
I just don't see how an attitude of one upmanship and general rudeness (Fox News and a whole lot of blogging) is going to get us from here to there - there being coming to some sort of consensus in regard to the future of our planet and of our children.
I could be wrong, but it hasn't gotten us there yet. I personally think maybe it's time to change tactics. I certainly don't see what we have to loose in trying at this point.
there's another angle - the TOP-ization of c99p
with the influx of a LOT of people in March we're bringing over attitudes that we developed there, and it's not such a good thing.
We got pretty used to arguing, to being snide, to criticizing, to being nasty. We can blame the different 'bots and say we were defending ourselves but let's face it, it cheapened us. Leaving that place was a step in the right direction but we have to get rid of those bad habits and behaviors.
The larger we get, perhaps the more impersonal we become but if we keep in mind in these discussions that we're talking to actual human beings then we can avoid saying things we would never say face-to-face.
Yeah, agree. But boy, do some folks just really, really, want
to hold onto their "right" to be rude.
See below for another comment to my comment.
I've read the responses you've written about how certain words aren't actually used very often. I have no way of knowing, as I'm no longer a regular reader here, so can't form an opinion about that one way or another.
But this subject has sure brought out a bunch of rudeness, and frankly it boggle my mind as to why that is.
^This^
You nailed it shah when you wrote that we need to get rid of the bad habits of being snide, critical and nasty when responding to a comment.
I felt a few times that the person responding to a comment I made was putting me down for it and decided to let it go instead of calling the person on it.
That's their opinion and nothing I could say was going to change it.
That's what happened on TOP and I see that it's still happening.
Yesterday I read a diary over there and if someone had a different opinion 40 people called that person on it while another 40 people defended the comment and I thought it's pretty damned petty that people get so worked up about something and how happy I am to not be involved in those games anymore.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I don't want to argue here
"Arguing" is the exact same thing that happens in the larger sphere and it gets nothing done. I would prefer to discuss, & exchange viewpoints with the intent to learn on all sides.
I don't have to agree with someone in order to learn. But in order for them to talk honestly to me I need to not insult them.
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
The civil discourse on this site...
does just fine without any language policing help from you.
Better, in fact.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Well, there you have it. I never would even try
to "language police you". It's a tad bit paranoid to come away with that impression from what I wrote.
No...
Paranoid is when you claim c99 is becoming like Fox News.
FYI: and if you are going to quote me, you could at least do me the courtesy of making sure the words within the quotes are accurate.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Please quote me saying that C99 is becoming like Fox News?
I made no such claim nor any such comparison.
That is you reading into what i wrote, but isn't actually anywhere in black and white.
What I DID do is broaden the issue to include things like Fox News to make a broader point beyond the use of any particular words, but to the general degradation of our civil discourse, and the potential need for all of us to try to maybe do better.
Anyway: Please provide the quote of me claiming that C99 is like Fox?
Oh, just go away you silly person.
There's no substance behind any of your arguments.
It's all petty misdirection and pedantic sophistry designed to confuse and disrupt.
And to what end? To create conflict and division where none existed before?
What a useless waste of time.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Ad hominems are not okay. If you find debating the issue a
waste of time, then why don't you go do something else?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
(No subject)
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Two things: First, Shiz, I hope you don't leave - for selfish
reasons (more Good News Tues please!;-) But seriously, you have valuable insights and they are much appreciated, even by those of us who don't comment much.
Second, sure don't envy you, Joe. I read the weekend discussion and have to admit, it's a tough one. For me, the real value of the discussion was the discovery that certain words have a much greater impact on others than I expected. And while I bristle at any kind of censorship, it does seem like the adult thing to do is to follow the Golden Rule. I can express myself w/o using certain words if I'm aware that they're upsetting to someone. If I'm not aware ... well, sorry, but I'm not a mind reader.
So I would hope that if I call Hillary a shrew and the president of Shrews Forever! is offended, s/he would let me know so I wouldn't do it again. Personally, I can live with that, although others might find it too limiting. And that's fine. We each have to do what's right for us, yes?
Now, rereading this comment, I see I have used quite a few words to say very little that is helpful. I guess the main point is whatever you decide, I can live with it. So there's one down! Now all you have to worry about are the 1,999 other 99ers -- good luck!!
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. William Shakespeare
Any Time I Write Online or Speak in Public, I Am Not Only
speaking to the person involved in the conversation, but to the wider reading/listening audience. They are like a jury.
I don't use language that is going to weaken my message to the jury.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Thanks Joe...
this is the toughest call we've had to make so far folks. This shit ain't easy.
All I'll say is; before you type that word, check yourself.
yes, but who does?
that's why I'm flipped out by this. Is the b-word commonly used here? I'd say no. Then what and who are we talking about? And if it's minimal then why is this a sitewide discussion? And over and over? Why can't it be handled one at a time when it comes up, in a direct way?
I feel like the entire site is being accused and attacked for something that's pretty rare.
I'm saying if I ever use a word that offends anyone then I'd rather have people talk to me about it and NOT put up some generalized essay that seems to accuse others of whatever I might have done.
and furthermore, re: generalizing the argument...
making it seem like it's a large problem, instead of speaking directly to anyone who might offend you, allows the offender to hide. He/she can think "I'm one of many, therefore there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing, and no one is calling me out!"
Can't say I disagree...
with any of your points.
The reality is that it has blown up over and over. So the question becomes, do we ignore it or engage. There was no ignoring it so the question becomes, do we stay the course of ideals that the site was founded on, or do we change course. It was decided to stay the course, knowing full well that would not be a popular decision with some.
It flips me out as well, shah. People gonna' be people, nothing we can do about that.
well I could be wrong, of course
that is, on how to handle it.
As far as we know it's already been taken care of, in that people have already decided to cool it.
Ideals that the site was founded on
So you would be okay with people writing about Obama using the N word ("Hey, he's a terrible person, it's not directed at you"), repeatedly bringing up the N word, throwing the N word around in comments, persisting in using the N word in the face of repeated requests by minority members of the community for them to stop, because "free speech" and "you're being overly sensitive"?
If so, then lack of action regarding the B word is appropriate. If not, then action on the B word is not a course change, but an inclusion to the list of verboten verbiage that perhaps was an oversight that it was not included from the start.
In both cases, it seems to me, refraining from derogatory language is part of DBAA and thereby enforceable, no course change needed.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Hey...
Do not put words in my mouth.
That just royally pisses me off, whether you're trying to prove a point or not.
I'm not saying that's what you said, I'm asking if that's what
you think, because it's the exact same parallel to what's been going on about the B word.
I'm asking you to take any decision you make about the B word, and see if you would do the same if it were the N word at issue. The words are not the exact same degree of hurtful and derogatory, but they are both hurtful and derogatory.
I tossed and turned all night with my stomach in knots at thoughts of this site breaking up if disparagement of women is allowed. This is not okay.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I knew exactly...
what you were saying.
All right, then. I'm sorry if my phrasing pissed you off.
I am probably too tired and frustrated to be as diplomatic as I should be right now.
I love this site, having a space for old friends and refugees from TOP to gather after the edict, and to welcome new friends of a similar bent. I want to save it and grow it. I don't want everyone scattering to the winds, never to be encountered again.
I love freewheeling discussion and conversation on a variety of issues. I am glad not everybody agrees with me.
However, the discussion can never be 100% freewheeling, because some people don't police themselves.
It seems to me you face two choices:
Limit discussion when it gets nasty and lose a few people who insist upon their right to free speech no matter how nasty it gets.
Or don't limit discussion and lose people who feel bullied and/or dehumanized.
I think the latter will be the greater loss.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
finally
these last two comments reflect a voice of reason.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
well, there was a specific series of comments and an essay that
that sparked this most recent flare up.
Since you seem genuinely perplexed, shah, consider this a PSA.
This started in the recent "Hillary Health" posts from Alligator Ed, first the one about "Hillary's leaks"-- which turned into a playground of people making fun of an old lady. One commenter in particular went out if his/her way to go on about Hillary's unshapely legs, her weight gains and losses, Bill's cheating and how Hillary never wears tight skirts, etc. etc. which, as it happens, was all erased in the database crash. But there was quite the discussion about the sexism on parade in there. Shiz was in it and confronted it there.
Later, that same person posted an essay that called Hillary a Bitch and a fucking bitch, because of the basket of deplorables commrnt.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/makes-it-all-better
It got 42 thumbs up.
Later, alligator Ed posted another essay called "Hillary's caboose" and this same community member made the brilliant observation:
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/171005#comment-171005
Hardy har har! Of course that is exactly what alligator Ed wanted to allude to. Gee.
And if you follow that link, you will see the Shiz did call it out right then and there. She was still pissed about the comments in the previous essay, followed by the special effort to use bitch in a widely approved of post. She said so, and was shouted down. And got angry.
The result of that series of events was her essay yesterday.
I do understand her frustration, although I don't share her emotional reaction to all this. I think the person who posted those comments and that essay is a sexist and is an ass. (And isn't it interesting that we use "ass" here instead of "dick" - wouldn't want to be sexist! Lol)
So there you have it, for anyone actually interested in why this topic boiled up.
Thanks for the background. I did miss all that.
I knew there were reasons not to read those posts!
Even so, I don't think the answer is "don't read," any more than that would be the answer to racist or homophobic posts.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
For your information, I meant exactly what I said.
When using the word caboose, I explained it's use in the beginning of the essay. Caboose is the last car in a railway train. Look it up in wikipedia or anywhere else. No double entendre was implied. If your feelings are so easily hurt by an overt explanation of the use of that term, then perhaps your amygdala needs to be retuned. (Nothing sexist in that term, since both genders posses a pair).
For your information,
Hillary Clinton is not a railway train. Nor was she traveling in a railway train. So the word caboose was incorrect if you're going to claim you used it literally.
I think you know that the word caboose is also used to mean ass, and that your intention in using it was clear. You didn't say anything to address or correct the person who made the sexiest comment I quoted.
You'll also note I specially said here that I don't share the emotional reaction to this, so your comment about my "feeling being hurt" is rather odd. I won't assume you said that because I'm a woman and you think womenfolk tend to be overly emotional. I'll just assume you needed a segue to insult me.
Which really wasn't necessary; you already insult everyone's intelligence by claiming you meant caboose literally.
Well, if an offense has been committed=
obviously the person offended, the offender, and a arbiter from Admin/mods should deal with it.
Choosing to deal with it otherwise is, IMO, poor tactics.
"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
Thanks, joe.
I appreciate all you, JtC, and the mods do to keep us a community. I like it here.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Hey joe. Well said, mate. You have a gift. I have a critique
though of the c99 leadership: the whole lot of you.
I am disappointed to come back and find that the dysfunction I had left has increased exponentially. I'm not mad at the arsonists; I don't read their shite. I certainly don't read any posts about Clinton - or Trump; or anything in the sidebar about them either. But this will tear the site apart, so it would be good if you mods could figure it out. Here's what you have to come to grips with: Leadership. Yours.
I've said to all including JtC that running a site without structure is foolish. It will tear itself apart. Because human nature. You can't raise sheep freely without sound fences and a grazing rotation and you damned well can't let humans do the same either.
You Americans have reified "free speech" to such heights of stupidity that you'll let arsonists set fire to the fucking lifeboat. Get over it.
I propose that you mods and JtC get together and first figure out WTF you want the site to be about and then create a dogdamned structure that would achieve that. Then you turn around to us sheep and you fucking well LEAD.
The poor mods? Forgive me, but could you give them an indication of what they're supposed to do? How the hell are they supposed to moderate when no one knows WTF the site is about or what the agenda is or what the rules, the privileges, and the consequences are?
Seriously, joe. I know you and JtC are good guys, but for chrissakes would you quit wishing and whining and start leading? If you don't lead, the arsonists will. And do.
I'm highly autonomous: I come here and write about what I think is important and I read what I think is important from people I respect. And I don't bother with the arsonists' political stuff because it's rubbish. Lots of folks though, get sucked in by the arsonists and get hurt. That's on you mods and JtC for not fucking well leading.
So well said, joe. Now get to work and lead, for fuck's sake.
And have a good evening too; sorry for swearing at you, mate :=)
Gerrit
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
yes, but who are the "arsonists"?
are they the ones who rant and use language others object to? Or are they the ones who take a minor irritant/problem and blow it up into a major drama? It's an interesting philosophical question.
Exactly.
Like Jar Jar Binks doing Hamlet.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
And/and, Shahryar. But the structure creates the problem in
the first place.
It's simply idiotic to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry the freedom to post "news" items outside of the daily OTs. If Arsonist A has to place his screaming Clinton outrage within the OT, the mods could get a jump on it and place it into context for the members who then read the rubbish. Allowing every village idiot the freedom to just fire up his outrage into the comm-page is very poor.
Its high time that JtC and the mods grasp that the place to moderate first is before the damned piece of inflammatory rubbish gets into the bloodstream. You don't need editors or censors if your site structure channels material into the appropriate fora on the site. If well-known Arsonist B post his latest howling outrage outside the OT, then the day's mod should just remove it and place it in the OT. Simple. But there has to be a damned structure in the first place.
Leadership is creating a vision, then a structure, then an implementation policy, then supervision and monitoring, then processing feedback and outcomes back into the vision and structure. The lack of it here and the endless dogdamned hand wringing and pearl clutching is highly annoying. For the sake of those that get hurt here, it's time to lead.
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
it's an interesting question, but why is it a philosophical one?
If I would say what I think about those who I consider arsonists, they would certainly get to know about it.
But that would cause a blood bath and tear the whole site apart. I am not here to do that. Others use that fact to play with the matches to challenge the community of how close they can come to start a fire.
So, mommy doesn't let the kids play with matches. Reminds me of the discussions among German parents about anti-authoritarian education of their kids in the sixties and seventies in Germany. I had yet to see a parent who could handle anti-authoritarian methods with their kids (small kids) to the letter and in all purity. But we are grown-ups ...
To me it's a practical question. DBAA should be enough of a limit. But then, you can be a direct asshole, a con-asshole in angel's clothes, a smart scientific asshole or a venting man, sounding like an asshole without being one, may be even a philosophical asshole, sounding very humane. And of course everybody is pretendning not to understand with what kind of asshole he/she is dealing with. But they do and then have a little dance macabre.
[video:https://youtu.be/z0glOYQBlSA]
Arsonists appear like that from time to time and have their nightly dance ...
https://www.euronews.com/
Mimi, my dear, you rock :=)
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
I see it as philosophical because it's related to how we think
related to how we see things and how we act.
De Toqueville noticed in the 1830s that the United States was split into two philosophies. One was community oriented, the other was individual oriented. Nearly 200 years later we've still got that split and will probably always have it.
thank you, shah, I lack the education to have understood that
on my own, but you always inspire me to learn something new. And in case I sounded too bluntly uneducated and used the a-word too often, I apologize. As you can see with my video at the end, I have nerves left only for the macablre right now. These last couple of days have stretched my resiliance thin. Then I usually escape to something off the parameters.
https://www.euronews.com/
Nope Geritt...
I know you well enough to be blunt, not going to happen. You are asking for an authoritarian site, we are not authoritarians here.
In my opinion one of the things that makes this site work is the lack of a father figure at the top lording over the minions, that which can be found at most other blogs. This one is different.
i'm not gonna get mad at you again, JtC. You are what you are.
But it's poor form to run a large site without a sensible structure. No one's asking you to be an authoritarian. Read what I just wrote to Shahryar. It's about leadership and structure. We don't need an editing function or a censorship function if you would simply put into place sensible information flow organizational structures.
Example: Create a rule where daily news items must go into the OTs. When Arsonist A has finished his latest howling outrage about Clinton's latest whatever, make him post it in the OT, where the mods can then contextualize it. Don't give every village idiot the ability to fire flaming horseshit into the community's bloodstream in separate posts. You end up with the comm-page and the sidebar looking as pathetically insubstantial and tawdry as it does now. If new Arsonist B posts his urgent bile into the comm-page, because he just can't help himself, allow the day's mod to move it into the day's OT.
That's not censorship or authoritarianism. It's common sense info flow management. There is a difference between authoritarianism and sensible organizational structures according to the changing needs of the community. It really is beyond me that you seem to think that the next step from anarchy has to be authoritarianism.
It's foolish of me to bother. I never read any of that shite. I write my resilience stuff and read the people I respect like joe and all the OT authors and the commenters who have shown intelligence. I'm highly autonomous. But there are lots of folks who get hurt here when they read the rubbish because it's on the comm-page. And that's on you, mate, when you're too stubborn to change. Sell the damned site if you don't want to lead it, but don't allow the anarchists to hurt good people here.
Well, you and I know each other well enough to be blunt and still get along. I'm real happy to be back on c99 and talk Resilience and 3D+ with folks I had missed over the summer. Good luck to you and the mods, g
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
More bluntness...
One of the first lessons one learns when running a blog: some folks adapt to the blog, some folks want the blog to adapt to them. Yin and Yang.
Peace and respect my brother.
:=) Yup, we need all sorts, all tempers. You've done a good
thing with this site. And it's good to see how hard everyone fights for the site's survival. I started out my military career as an NCM before I went over to the dark side and became an officer. My highest privilege in all my career was acting as Company Sergeant-Major on an urban counter-insurgency tour. The officers who did well, usually tolerated the blunt opinions of their Sergeants and CSMs.
Brothers-in-arms, my friend, even if the fucking war is lost, as usual.
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
Pages