Reply #62: Whore you kidding?

[omega minimo]

Okay, this is weird. Serendipity has intervened. I was about to post on Ugly Head this story of today’s revelations about DU Rules and stopped by a thread about healing the DU divide between “conspiracists” and “skeptics.”

I thought these words were amazing, as they echoed a vision of an egalitarian mutual effort, unmarred by divisions, disruptions:

“I am very very glad to see someone of middle ground try to heal this rupture in our lines....As long as things remain for the most part civil and non threatening and or maligning, DU can be a great force of a think tank.....In fact by our network of left leaning websites we have carved several notches into the proverbial bedpost...."

I couldn’t resist-- I just had to ask: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

He goes on: "To me this is the real gold of DU, learning how to unite and work together has always been the vast Lefts most gaping problem. This thread could stand as a good first step in both sides having respect for eachother as compatriots and partners in trying to bring some good back to this world, not just our country... though that is undoubtedly where we should begin.”

Someone else responded with glowing praise and more of “That Vision Thing”-- but I had to wonder. Are these guys talking to each other as they craft the future? Do men on discussion boards imagine that they are mostly talking to men?

The big problem with bigoted language on DU is that is renders women invisible. And has even made them leave, or retreat, or create a “safe” place to remain on DU..... not conducive to "a good first step in both sides having respect for eachother as compatriots and partners in trying to bring some good back to this world."

Then I open Ugly Head and here’s a response to the “whore” posts:

Iris #61. "drives me crazy.
and is one reason I don't contribute to DU. No star for me, thank you."



After the discussion this morning on the linked thread, I want to thank the folks that showed up and also Admod for allowing it to stand long enough to learn something.
______________________________
“Good Morning, whore you today?”

“Admod: please continue with your "best efforts" to moderate.
DUers and frurkers: Don't try to get away with "cheapening the quality of discourse for everyone else."”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
------------------------------------------------------

I’m apologize. I thought that DU Rules represented established guidelines and consensus opinions ALREADY! I didn’t understand until FINALLY today that everyone has a different opinion about language usage and that the Rules are just sort of THERE. It’s up to the Mods to decide if someone “colorful” has gone too far.... otherwise, MIND YOUR OWN BEESWAX.

When I read the DU Rule “...members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore,"...which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted”

.....I thought that meant that the term “whore” was inappropriate and inflammatory and the use of the phrase “media whore” was a permitted exception.

I thought that “whore” and “otherwise bigoted terminology” were slurs that didn’t belong in DU’s context of “Respect”-- I thought that discussions over whether slurs were “gender specific” or “in context” or with “intent” were irrelevant. I thought DU Rules had already established the criteria.

One person replied on the thread, concerned about losing eyeballs:
“if we're sitting here shooting at each other over every conceivable insult to be taken from every conceivable turn of phrase we're turning some people off with the circular firing squad and entertaining the rest of the world who thinks this is all we do.”

-- “We’re turning some people off” is my concern as well. Turning a lot of people off with bigoted language. I thought we had the Rules to back us up.

My concern was misinterpreted by someone else:
“In this case, omega can say "everyone! don't say 'whore' in any context, it cheapens the discourse! It offends people! It makes us look bad!" and if ANYONE has any disagreement, omega can say "oh so you are ok with cheapening the discourse, offending people, and making DU look bad?"”

-- Um, no.... I thought it was DU Rules. Ultimately, disruptive, divisive slurs are counterproductive to the goals of DU and the Democratic Party. It’s a bigger picture than petty bickering.

“If I have to change the way I think and talk to be a plain vanilla version of what ONE person thinks is appropriate, then I would not be me and we can't have that.”

-- Um, no.... I thought it was DU Rules. One person would not presume, unless they were a “relative newcomer” instructed to Alert or refer to DU Rules on bigoted language.

And there were some other voices:

“Thanks for the reminder, I understand and appreciate  your concern. When I see gutter language and profanity used to buttress a point of view I'm a little put off by it also.”

“...It offended me...I can't speak for anyone else, plus I know chances are that no action would be taken. I try not to get worked up over this stuff because it doesn't do any good and I would be accused of being overly sensitive or something.

There is a certain amount of hypocrisy that goes along with it. People would be up in arms if race was being handled in a joking manner.”

And here we have the Slippery Slope, the reason that I posted about the rampant abuse of “whore” in Titles lately:

“ If Media-whores is allowed, I dont see the problem with these usages.”

So. Slippery Slope. Foot in the door.

Good luck, everybody.