Well, another cowardly attack...

[TreasonousBastard]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125553255

This is about something I said in JaneQPublic's thread calling Cheney a pussy. Apparently, calling Cheney a pussy is worse than what Cheney did and the fight was on.

Now it seems I'm a liar, a sexist pig, and such a bad guy that I singlehandedly managed to get at least two people to turn in their Democratic memberships. So far, it looks like alerts have failed (of course I assumed they would be alerted on) so I'm attacked in public on a private "protected" forum where I can't respond. What a wonderful place this can be.

Since I'm one of over 50 people banned from that group I can't defend myself (although the truth is I don't really want to deal with that crowd) but I am fascinated how they have managed to strike enough fear into the hearts of DU that no one else is going to go in and strike a blow for reason.

I'm not asking for support here for my posts, or not much, anyway, but there might be some cause for more discussion about alert stalking. And extremism in defense of polite speech.

Should the expected alert be successful, I will assume m y point proven.

[libodem]

1. At least we are not blocked from here

You have a platform. Even though I consider myself humanist and a feminist that group has never made sense to me.
It's more about defending the personalities and less about equal rights over there. To be frank I think of them, as a junior high mean girls clique, that survives by humiliating others while defending and protecting each other. Let 'em have at it.

[Doctor_J]

44. and dusting off old platitudes and rec'ing them onto the greatest page

I guess there is some comfort to be taken in having a group of soul mates who agree with you on every issue, but the safe havens might be adding to the cliqueishness and divisiveness that the party's disarray and failure have spawned. Campaign 16 will be interesting

[libodem]

45. It's a curious phenomenon

NPR had a radio program about a mean girl school clique and what it meant to be in it or out of it. There is safety on the inside and hell to pay if you are on the receiving end of the taunting.

Sometimes protection is a racket.

[malthaussen]

2. Oh, I don't think you were attacked by cowards

Or harpies, if it comes to that. Funny how certain epithets are useable in polite discourse, and others are not. Since your post was contested in open forum (as well as in the Group That Shall Not Be Named), "cowardly" would seem to be a reach. Well, perhaps your definition differs from mine.

Now, if you want to call Cheney a coward, you won't get an argument from me. But so far as I am able to determine, that isn't under question. And by conservative count, there have been a hundred or so posts calling for Cheney's head, but the only objection has been to the use of sexist terminology in the thread in question. Given the lack of objection to the other 99 threads, what, I wonder, could have caused the reaction to this one? Somehow, I doubt many denizens of DU consider the use of a word to be more criminal than Cheney's actions. Perhaps you exaggerate or misinterpret the import of the posts written in opposition to the use of a sexist term. And you might want to reconsider your own use of sexist characterization, unless of course your motive is more to salve offended amour propre than have a discussion.

-- Mal

[TreasonousBastard]

5. In a protected group where I can't reply...

would fit in with my understanding of cowardice. They got on me in the original thread, but then took it to their own little domain. And it was specifically about me, with less about what I said. That's a personal attack-- and it got worse in both threads with their assumptions about my character.

I already defended my use of "harpy" and see those objections as simply another ploy to direct and censor discourse.

A famous British lawsuit (perhaps redone on "Rumpole&quot I remember from Copi's logic text involved a barrister who ignored the case until the day of trial. The solicitor left a single page in the brief-- "We have no case. Insult the opposition."

I understand some people have objection to "pussy" just as other people have objections to other words. But to derail a thread to concentrate on that word for hundreds of posts is simply ridiculous.

In a word-- get a life.

[malthaussen]

7. I'd advise you not to confuse grousing with attack

The protected group in which you are not welcome is a support group, after all. The same points made there were made in open forum. If there is one thing those women are not, it is shy.

-- Mal

[Veilex]

16. I agree with most of what you've stated...

thus far within this thread...up until this point: - "I'd advise you not to confuse grousing with attack"

In exactly the same way some of the more unreasonable elements of that certain group would take umbrage at an implied slight, real or imagined, I would take umbrage with that certain group's unspoken directive to attack any and all individuals who do not agree completely with those denizens who dwell there, particularly when they opt to attack messages or messengers that are supportive of men.

That said, calling Cheney a "pussy" is a bit sexist... specifically because of the negative connotation attached to the word "pussy"... which is a perfectly wonderful word that should be seen in a positive light.

In the immortal words of the ever lovely Betty White:

[NCTraveler]

3. "Should the expected alert be successful, I will assume m y point proven."

Since the alert was unsuccessful, is your whole point mute or was it a one direction only thought by you?

How do you get cowardice out of this? Strange use of that word. Doesn't fit your whole grievance here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I avoided that thread, but I do try to be consistent.

Slurs are often defended by some variation on this theme "What? You're defending Cheney? After all the stupid shit he's done, calling him retarded/gay/a pussy is an understatement"

They never can seem to get their heads around the issue that this isn't about Cheney.

At risk of understatement, I'm not at all a fan of the mean girls club, or their tactics. But I didn't like the thread in question because it's illustrative of the point in my second paragraph.

One of the things that I appreciate about DU is the fact that after I and others expressed how hurtful "retarded" is when used as a slur, people generally stopped doing it. Therefore, I feel some obligation to reciprocate, even on behalf of people who have called me every sexist slur their limited vocabularies can summon.

Dick Cheney is a cowardly, pigeonhearted, pusillanimous, shrinking, scared, weak, worthless, yellow, fainthearted, diffident, base, cowering, gutless, spineless, timid hypocrite.

If I've offended anyone who actually has had a heart transplant from a pigeon, I'm happy to change my post because there are still plenty of synonyms.

I'm not sympathetic to the idea that a term must be offensive to *everyone* in a community before it should be avoided. And yes, I'd apply the same standard to "dick" and "prick"

[Major Nikon]

6. I'm just not really into word policing

Categorizing a term or word as offensive if it offends everyone is one standard. Categorizing a term or word as offensive if it offends one person is another standard. At some point reasonableness has to be inserted, unless we want to keep a sticky list of words we can't use. There are some on DU who claim the word "hysterical" is sexist due to its Greek and Latin origins. Would you discontinue using that word on that basis?

The problem is the perpetually offended will find reason to be offended regardless of what words you use and they certainly have no problems employing strawman or other fallacies to do so, and those are inevitably the same ones who mindlessly argue that "prick" isn't sexist while "pussy" is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. As in many things, it's not binary.

I think that a minority of people made a compelling case that we were significantly and profoundly hurt and offended at "retarded". This was apparently enough to convince others that it wasn't a big imposition to change their language in light of the honest and compelling harm experienced by those affected.

"Hysteria"? "Douchebag"? "Shrill"? I think there's a perception that the motivation behind some of these is not an experience of personal offense, but an agenda of controlling the debate by controlling the words used in it.

YMMV. In my mind "bitch" and "pussy" pass the R word test and are therefore reasonable words to avoid.

But like the example of DU's disuse of the R word, I think the most effective form of word policing is self-policing.

[Major Nikon]

11. That's why pointing out the motivation is important

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Agree. n/t

[kjones]

14. Wait, what's wrong with shrill? And hasn't "hysteria" developed well beyond it's origins by now?

Douchebag is certainly a word for certain contexts, but I'm also not quite sure how that's
particularly offensive. Maybe there's something in its origin in pejorative use that I'm not
aware of, but all you can really connect is that it is an inanimate item used to hold inanimate
items used by women.



There's an article I read during research:
Title: "Thieving Buggers" and "Stupid Sluts": Insults and Popular Culture in New France
Author(s): Peter N. MoogkSource: The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp. 524-547

Basically, the paper used old correspondence, records and such to look at 17th century insults used for men and women,
and found they breakdown along general trends. Male insults attacked for business worth and honesty....financial conduct ("thief" "scoundrel" "cheat&quot , whereas female insults attacked sexual fidelity or promiscuity ("whore" being the leader by a wide margin).
Perhaps similar trends are often in play for modern insults. Women are frequently attacked for promiscuity (though men are as well)
and men are often attacked for economic, intelligence (often related to economic factors), and honesty. Seems males insults are more evenly distributed, while female ones focus heavily on the sexual, which is also what the study showed, though it's pretty anecdotal. So, women are "slutty whores" and men are "broke, lying dumbasses." Both are pretty harsh targets. Common sense (knowledge? though sometimes certainly inaccurate) seems to show that women value men who are honest, hardworking money makers and men value women who are healthy, attractive and sexually loyal. Again, big anecdotal generalizations, but it's at least something to think about. Insults are obviously meant to be aimed at where they will do the most damage. If one or the other sex (or others?) are disproportionately targeted by specific genre of insults, it's probably because those are the things that they or others value in themselves. Maybe an updated version would be "Gold-Diggers" and "Parents' basement Dwellers."

[Veilex]

17. Darnit! You beat me to the Betty white posting!

Its a great post

[Goblinmonger]

8. I was on the jury

I was #7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:20 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Baiting, from one of them "real feminists"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125553255

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a call-out and attack of DUer Treasonous Bastard from that massive GD thread where the OP called Dick Cheney a pussy. They tried the proper way to handle this by alerting, but that failed 6-1. This is a host of this group breaking the rules of the group, as well as community standards. From her own pinned thread -
Rules
There are some very basic rules all participants are expected to follow:
1) No bringing personal fights/issues/problems from other groups or past grievances with a particular member or members to this group
2) No individual personal call outs of any DUer
3) Be respectful at all times, even if an opinion is at odds with that of another poster
4) No bullying
5) Repeated violation of the rules or a refusal to adhere to them when approached by hosts will result in being blocked from the group.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:37 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: agree
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I was not involved in the "massive GD thread", unaware that this is "bringing a personal fight " . It seems ok, probably alerted on over some ongoing spat between a few members.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: My role as a jury member is not to decide SOP violations. That is (ironically in this instance) up to the hosts. And, as Skinner has said numerous times in ATA, hosts can run a group however they wish. So, sorry, this isn't mine to deal with.

[Veilex]

18. Hmmm

Suggesting a double standard by one of the most hostile elements within the group-that-shall-not-be-named? But, that never happens with members from that group... http://www.democraticunderground.com/111414253

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Just for the record-- this is not my alert...

I rarely alert and consider alerting as a last resort and not for something I just don't agree with or like.

Or as some sort of game.

[Major Nikon]

24. I wouldn't have voted to hide that one

If the hosts of the group wants to break the group's own rules, more power to them. It only goes to show that their rules are only sacrosanct when a violation comes from someone they don't like or agree with, AKA an echo chamber.

[Doctor_J]

9. a couple months back I posted that someone offended by the sleeze at DI

should stop going there. For this I was called a rapist. Zealots tend to lose touch with reality when their pet issues are being discussed.

[Veilex]

19. Times when the words "echo chamber" is apt.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

12. Dick Cheney doesn't bother them.

That's part of the problem.

[JTFrog]

29. Bullshit.

A great big steaming pile of it.

[kjones]

13. Can't we just agree that he is both a pussy and a Dick?

[Veilex]

20. No.

I'd rather agree that both terms used as slurs are offensive.

[kjones]

25. Personally, I think people take things too seriously.

And of course, as I've often said, the nicest things said insultingly can sting...and
terms of endearment can be repulsive out of context.
In other words, it's all about intent and context.

Personally, I don't find them to be slurs. I've never used either (or received either)
as an insult and thought about their literal meanings. If most people do, then that's
news to me. Of course, I understand some people are highly offended by them, and
so, I just don't use them around those people. It's just common sense.
I'm a very un-PC PC person. To me, they're just words, but if it is someone who is
actually bothered by them, I'll try to censor myself. Assuming I care what they think.

I've just always felt that words and language were the lowest of the low hanging fruit
in terms of advocacy.

[Veilex]

26. We differ a bit on this...

Words have an enormous amount of power for something that is so frequently cast off and casual.

Words are on the frontlines of our communication. I do agree with you in that how something is said and the context in which it is conveyed makes a world of difference in how something is perceived.

There is an enormous amount of communication in how we say something...in fact, its often how we say something rather than what we say that matters most... at least in communication that includes voice and, possibly, body language.

The problem that comes into play when dealing with message boards, is that the context and inflection that is present during face to face communication becomes absent, and is quite difficult to insert into text-based communications.

Consequently, the messages we relay are exponentially easier to take out of context. We, in effect, end up having to take extra steps to ensure what we say does not come across as insulting or offensive... because we don't have the benefit of taking the sting out of a comment by smiling through either body posturing, an up-turn of the lips and eyes, or through inflection.

Where you think people take things too seriously, I'd argue people are being far too casual about what they say.

To say "They're just words" absolutely baffles me. Words have an enormity of power. You can literally alter lives with a single sentence without ever even meaning too. To me, that alone makes words no mere low hanging fruit.

[Veilex]

28. Getting the menu mixed up with the meal, as it were. Confusing the map with the territory.

I disagree. We're not comparing a tangible with an intangible... rather we're talking about two intangibles: communication and respect. You're absolutely right that they are both constructs within our minds... but you're suggesting our constructs have less power than a physical object. I would firmly challenge you on that notion.

Our entire sense of being and personality stems from exposure to the constructs that we subject ourselves to on a daily basis. Laws, societal norms, unspoken rules and courtesies, implied and subjective values, implied threats and dangers, the vast majority of our culture and society... all these things are constructs that we use in our daily lives to govern nearly every single action we take. Some of them are backed by actual physical things... but its the thought of those objects, not the object itself, that governs us.

The constructs are literally so powerful, there's an entire section of science explicitly dedicated to understanding their impacts in our lives, and how to handle them.

As to your comment regarding fundamentalists, we all have levels of seriousness and irreverence... the clashes erupt when hot-buttons for specific persons/people get hit while another person or people discard or play it down as unimportant. We all have em... issues we just cannot let go for whatever reason: Politics, Religion, Sexism, Rights, Racism, Money, Children, Guns, Sex... the list goes on virtually forever.

The difference here is we're talking about a basic respect issue... or perhaps common courtesy. This isn't merely a case of policing words so much as it is a case where people would rather not have their anatomical bits relegated to being a mere epithet. Something I think is more than reasonable... much in the same way that avoiding the use of a racial epithet, and calling out anyone who does, is considered good form.

Fortunately, this isn't likely an issue where continued use of words such as "Dick" and "Pussy" in a derogatory manner will lead to "Fundamentalists massacring schoolchildren".

[Veilex]

33. *Shrug*

We all have to decide what is reasonable and what is not. I choose to exert a little extra effort to avoid offending. You'll either agree or you wont... either way, life will continue.

[Major Nikon]

31. Demands for a double standard aren't reasonable

If it's sexist and inappropriate to reduce a female to her genitals, then it's sexist and inappropriate to reduce a male to his genitals. I can certainly understand and respect a person who advocates for a standard that excludes both. I don't feel the same for those who only advocate against one of those things.

As far as respect goes, this isn't a case where people are having their anatomical bits relegated to being a mere epithet. It's a case of someone else being reduced to a set of genitals with naughty words substituted for the anatomical nomenclature. So while this may be crass and I don't engage in it myself, I have a hard time condemning something that was never directed at anyone on this site, not to mention that pretty much the same people who are clamoring for condemnation aren't able to check their own crass behavior.

[Veilex]

32. "Demands for a double standard aren't reasonable" - But that is not what this is.

I think perhaps you're a little out of context with your first paragraph. You seem to think I'm replying to the Op... where, in this case, I'm replying to kjones's post # 13. "Can't we just agree that he is both a pussy and a Dick?"

"this isn't a case where people are having their anatomical bits relegated to being a mere epithet. It's a case of someone else being reduced to a set of genitals with naughty words substituted for the anatomical nomenclature" - The two cases are related... the difference here being that I didn't go as far as to explain the notion of genders being reduces to genitalia. I figured that was an implied.

Regardless, I've posited my opinion on the matter, and I'm okay with others disagreeing with me. People will either refrain from using those terms, or they wont. The world will still turn, the sun will still shine, and this isn't my "hill to die on".

Cheers

[kjones]

35. "The world will still turn, the sun will still shine..."

"People will either refrain from using those terms, or they wont. The world will still turn, the sun will still shine, and this isn't my 'hill to die on.'"

I think that statement pretty much embodies some aspects of my perspective, both when I've
been on the giving and receiving ends of insults.

[Major Nikon]

36. I was responding to your post, but perhaps we both misunderstood each other

Last edited Wed Dec 17, 2014, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I understood the context of your reply and I agree that the use of those words are both a slur and can be offensive. However, lots of words used on DU fall into that category and nobody has a problem with them because they aren't directed at anyone here. So the question becomes to whom should they be offensive to, and I think the answer is to those in which they were directed.

The argument you are employing against using those words may very well be a good one that I would not challenge, but that's not the argument that's being made elsewhere on this site. Their argument is the words are "misogynistic" (not sure how words can be misogynistic, but whatever). In other words their argument is that we can't use naughty words that describe female genitalia because of misogyny, which I find nonsensical and certainly not reasonable given that naughty words used to describe mail male genitalia aren't considered misandry.

[Veilex]

38. "that's not the argument that's being made elsewhere on this site" - true.

This comes back to what said about how these words are used rather than what words are used.
But then, as has already been stated, there are those who'd object to one of those sexist uses while ignoring the other... thereby giving rise to the double standard you mention earlier.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. Very well said. n/t

[kjones]

34. "I do agree with you in that how something is said and the context in which it is conveyed..."

I don't think we disagree that much.

I'm an anthropologist (the field that includes linguistics, symbolic and otherwise, and
which championed cultural relativity). I'm definitely aware that meaning has power.
Meaning is based on context of both or all people involved. So, I'm free to change
what I say to fit who is hearing it.

The message board example illustrates that. In that example, you're not pointing out the
power of words, you're pointing out the power of ambiguous meaning. Of course, some
people really are simply opposed to the word itself, meaning or no.
If the history of language has shown us anything, it's that words and meaning don't have to be
too closely aligned (ex. "faggot" as a bundle of sticks, or obscenities becoming acceptable
words and vice versa).

Communication is a lot more nuanced than most people would make it out to seem (so I guess
you are right, they aren't "just words&quot . The meaning of words is neither stable across time, or
even currently agreed upon. Even when meaning is generally agreed upon, people are still free
to appropriate language as they see fit....their only bounds are the limits of understanding
between sender and receiver. Hence, I would not try to use the language I use with
my best friend (playfully abusive) with someone like my colleagues or, I guess, you.
I suppose it's not that they are "too serious" or I am "too casual." We simply use different
sets of language and meaning. People can always adjust though, to the context.

I still think that focusing on implicit insults is low hanging fruit when you compare it to
discrimination/persecution/sexism which allowed to continue because it is deemed
socially acceptable...things that seem to always fly under the radar.

Basically, just because you use slurs doesn't make you a bigot, and not all bigots use slurs.
The words are, at most, a symptom. So why focus on words when you can focus on bigots?
That's my perspective anyway.

[Veilex]

39. "So why focus on words when you can focus on bigots?" - perhaps its because...

Words are usually our first indication on if we're dealing with a bigot or not. Actions always speak louder than words, but words are generally a precursor to actions.

I suppose in the absence of a clear way to impact issues such as bigotry and sexism, people, perhaps, focus on addressing what they can identify... in this case, words. I certainly agree that when compared to acts of discrimination and sexism, words are indeed low hanging fruit. Though, they serve not just as the proverbial canary-in-the-coal-mine of our culture, to see where our level of civility is at, but also end up being a guiding light to younger folk. In this way, we can think of these words as being seed stock with which we're raising the next generation.

At least, that's one perspective.

[kjones]

40. Fair enough

Though I still think that there are a lot of bigots that don't use them and
a lot of people who do that aren't bigots. After all, there are so many
euphemism and such. Or why do we have the term "dog whistle?"

[Inkfreak]

22. I'd like to start a pool. Whoever guesses the correct amount of replies to such threads, wins!

Or closest as these things tend to extend quite a bit. Prizes to be determined. Admins & their relatives are not eligible. Also Wisconsin residents and people who used to live in Eugene, Oregon. Contest rules subject to change. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary.

[Major Nikon]

41. 619 and still growing

As expected numerous hides, pearl clutching, finger waging, and at least one GBCW.