You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #314: Possibly. However, I would argue that those people don't belong at DU. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
RevCheesehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #256
314. Possibly. However, I would argue that those people don't belong at DU.
You know, rules are rules, and either you agree to follow them, or don't. A thread like this one can serve as a reminder to those who are looking for a chance to start bashing away to stop and think about what they're doing.

You do realize that there are people here who have disagreements about other issues in life, right? Not everyone here is in agreement about abortion, gay rights, use of alcohol, narcotics, or other stimulants, sexuality, gambling, the role of the DNC, the potential candidate for 2008, or the NCAA Championship. There are still certain rules about civility and decorum, rules about how we engage in a discussion with someone with whom we disagree.

I may never convince a Liebermann supporter that I think he is wrong for our party. But that doesn't give me the right to post "Liebermann sucks. Anyone who backs him is mentally deranged."

It would be wrong for me to say with absolute conviction that "men are incapable of using their brain and their penis at the same time." I might believe it, I may have evidence to back it up, but it's still an inappropriate and sexist remark.

I would never post a remark that said "if the African-Americans ever want to gain support, they need to move out of the city; or they need to do something to stop Black-on-black street crime."

It would be totally inappropriate to tell all Native Americans that they are personally responsible for the NA school-shooter in MN. It would be even worse if someone were to say "well, they all probably deserved it. Lazy asshole freeloaders. I say, tax the reservations!!"

My question is: at what point does tolerance of rudeness end?

How much bashing is "acceptable" just because the poster says "I don't mean ALL (fill in the blank), just the nasty ones." And, by the way, this "qualifier" is thrown out as an afterthought, right after someone says "I'm offended by your remark." The implication is, "you stupid git. You should know that I don't mean everybody. Don't be so thin-skinned!" - when the truth of the matter is more likely that the poster never stopped to think that their remarks might be considered offensive (or even more likely, they just didn't give a shit).

* If I say that about a person's ethnicity, it's still a racist statement.
* If I say that about a person's gender, it's still a sexist remark.
* If I say that about a person's religion, it's still a hateful statement, regardless of which religion, denomination, church, or faith you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC