Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Some other words we need to ban, while we're at it

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 » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:14 PM
Original message
Some other words we need to ban, while we're at it
Dick, prick, tool, schlong, dickhead, dickwad, dickweed, etc. You get the idea. They are so obviously degrading, offensive terms that are intended to be offensive with reference to gender.

Of course, they are terms that I, as a man, use frequently: "Cheney's such a dickhead." "Smirk is such a TOOL!""Powell is such a prick." You get the idea. I had no idea I was being so P.I. And I don't know how I'll ever drive a car in traffic again, if I can't yell at an offending fellow motorist, "Way to go, you DICKHEAD!"

But if we're going to ban "bitch," then by God we'd better ban all the pecker references too! Unless of course (as is so often the case when I have the occasional argument with my wife), "THAT'S DIFFERENT!"

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. How about we just ban bitches.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyrical di Donating Member (181 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. you should use symbols to indicate when you're joking
Otherwise someone may presume that you are unintelligent and bigotted. I agree that female dogs shouldn't post here. I have set my little mixed mutt Lucy to the side and asked her to please stop pressing the space bar in an attempt to get me off the computer.

I do believe women have the right to express their opinions in any manner needed to convey the depth of their experiences and intellect. If other pets need to resort to name calling, perhaps their owners also need to ban them from typing on the keyboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. If all were equal, I'd agree in theory
Unfortunately, women are still struggling here in this society. Yes, we have progressed more than the countries where we can't drive legally and are covered head to toe in a burka, but women still:

1.) are paid less
2.) are only in small amounts as CEO's of Fortune 500 corporations
3.) are more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner
4.) are more likely to be victims of sexual violence by a margin of 1 in 4 as opposed to 1 in 10 men
5.) are often not covered by their insurance for contraceptives, whereas drugs like Viagra are
6.) are apparently lucky to even get their birth control prescriptions filled these days
7.) don't not have access to abortion in 85% of the counties in the US
8.) have historically been looked at as property of men
9.) have only had the vote for 37% of our country's history
10.) are still judged first and foremost by external factors

I'm not sure if I agree with censoring any words completely, but there are terms used to marginalize and silence women, who, as a whole, still have less power in our society than do men. One should proceed with extreme caution in it's use. I don't think that it should necessarily be banned, but this is a healthy discussion nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drhilarius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Slippery Slope
Extreme caution can easily become censorship. Also, censorship doesn't have to be by authoritarian mandate, it can be internalized (one may, while writing, not use the word that would pack the most punch...art would suffer). look at Tropic of Cancer. Miller's use of the word "Cunt" is effective in his characterization, for the overall themes he's trying to develop. "bitch" might be used ironically, or for satire's sake. Also, let's not forget language is a two way street, and although it can be used for oppression through one usage, it can be used for empowerment in the next. Take, for example, hows gays and Af. Am. appropriated, respectively, the words "Queer" and "nigger". All I am saying is that a binary approach to one word has a negative effect on language as whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I'm aware of this
Edited on Tue Apr-06-04 11:46 PM by SarahBelle
That's why I can't agree with the concept of any banning words in theory with the exception of blatant insults directed toward other members. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that while I disagree with censorship, having serious discussions at times here regarding gender issues can be of value.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drhilarius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I agree.
But shouldn't those points you brought up in your previous post be discussed head on rather than indirectly through whether or not we should ban certain words? Watching two people argue about whether or not to ban a word is like watching an atheist argue with an Evangelical. I just think it would be more productive to put up a post "how do we correct the pay inequality between the sexes" rather than "should 'bitch' be banned".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Frequently they have
Often women's issues or sensitvities regarding them are mocked. That's the inherent problem I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOteric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #3
24. That is a moot point. Skinner is not proposing to entirely ban the word.
He's clearly and plainly stated that the context of the word will still be acceptable in the form of "griping" and that means that the moderators and the admins on this site will have the ability to make a judgement call. It will not be substantially different than the N-word or any number of epithets hurled at ethnically, racially or sexually diverse people. In context of a quote or in satirical speech the words are still acceptable on this site. In general usage, notsomuch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. but men...
1) pay more in auto insurance simply for being male. (If the genders were reversed would feminists let it stand?)
2) are executed at a grossly disproportionate rate
3) are the only gender who is subject to the draft.
4) must become gainfully employed, as society frowns on men choosing to stay home and take care of kids.
5) are at a disadvantage when it comes to child custody disputes
6) have a lower life expectancy than women
7) have zero reproductive rights (society forces men to take care of kids should the woman choose to have them (child support), whereas a woman may choose to abort any kid she does not want.)
8) are judged primarily by height (shorter men make less than taller men, shorter men are less likely to have girlfriends)
9) are more likely to be killed at work
10) are punished more severely for statutory rape on girls than female statutory rape on boys.

My point is, both genders have specific disadvantages. Do we want a society free of those on all sides?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. but men....
1). are statistically more often in auto accidents.
2). commit capital crimes at grossly disproportionate rates (still oppose the death penalty though)
3.) are the only gender who can't get pregnant in combat due to consenting sexual activity or in the hands of the enemy
4.) That's a personal decision and not everyone would agree.
5.) unless the have a better lawyer
6.) perhaps take more risks or take less care of themselves and this is fairly recent as historically, women had shorter life spans
7.) have zero reproductive capacity or capability within their bodies; when they do, they have every right to control their bodies as well
8.) :shrug: Nothing I can do about genetics, but I'd have to say, I have an attraction to tall men, but married a man who's just under 5'9" because intelligent woman look at multiple factors in a partner. Intelligent employers do as well.
9.) men are more likely to choose dangerous jobs
10.) It far more difficult for a woman to have sex with a man without consent.

Why wouldn't we want a society free of gender specific disadvantages? There are differences, but primarily they include your lack of ability to give birth or breastfeed and my lack of ability to effectively pee standing. Neither should affect my right to contraception or equal pay NOR your right to choose to be a stay at home dad or be gainfully employed while height challenged. You brought up some thoughtful discourse and I'm not entirely trying to continue an argument, but point a few things out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Your response to #10 is totally incorrect.
Were you atttempting to argue on a FACTUAL or LEGAL basis, you would know that statutory rape, which was the subject of point #10, has nothing at all to do with whether or not the minor cooperated in the act -- which blows your response out of the water. The reason it is statutory rape is that, by definition, a minor CANNOT legally consent to sex. That is, even if the minor was a wiling participant in the act, there is no legal consent and the perpetrator/adult is still guilty of the crime.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. As is so often stated, rape (in the general sense) is not about sex. It's about power, abuse, etc. Your argument is equivalent to a man saying that the woman "wanted it."

You're just wrong.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. I know the legal definition of statutory rape
I think perhaps because it is more difficult for a women to physically rape a man, leniency is shown more. I'm not saying it's necessarily right (and if some women went after one of my boys when he was a young adolescent, she'd face quite a wrath), but that's likely why it is. However, there are women in prison for this very act. There just are less of them. Think Mary Kay Leturno. Find me some statistics of percentage arrested (not even prosecuted or convicted) on crimes of sexual violence. I'd be shocked if it's even 5-10% women. It's almost always a man. I'm not being sexist. It's a statistical fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Are you suggesting...
that women commit capital crimes at the same rates at men and are not being prosecuted? My "opinion" has nothing to do with race or being sexist. These are statistical facts. If you have data that shows otherwise-> post your data. I'd be happy to retract my statement if you can show statistical evidence to the contrary. Not individual cases, but overall statistics.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. well put!
all this poor oppressed men talk is so silly. its not even in the same ballpark. although mens life expectancy is due to some annoying socialization that makes them feel the need to prove manliness by taking dangerous jobs, doing stupid things and working in manual labor to make a living for the family at home for 45 years. just as many of womens problems are due to insistance on societally defined gender roles for men and women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. If men don't take the dangerous jobs
then who will do them? Women? I don't think so. Also, these "dangerous jobs" include police, firefighters, construction workers, truck drivers, etc. Fortunately some women are taking these jobs and more power to them but just insulting men brings nothing to the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Don't be silly. I'm not insulting men.
The socialization of men and women into gender roles which are societally defined is the cause of many problems for men and women. men die younger because of this socialization leading them to more dangerous situations. women get the short end of the stick on most gender role issues.

the fact that you accept these constructed roles so readily and without question shows how deeply ingrained they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. I would say this is an insult
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 11:38 AM by camero
although mens life expectancy is due to some annoying socialization that makes them feel the need to prove manliness by taking dangerous jobs,doing stupid things and working in manual labor to make a living for the family at home for 45 years.


What you don't say is that suicide is the 4th leading cause of death among men of all ages while it is 19th for women. The low rate of suicide among women does not portend a group that would be oppressed.
Suicide is also seen as an escape from oppression. Also in alot of states, welfare is available only to single women with children. Men in poverty stay in poverty, while women in poverty do get some help.

While I agree that there is social pressure to conform to certain traits, that is not the sole cause of death among people and the simplistic argument fails. Calling me silly does not lend any credence to your argument but detracts from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. we are agreeing mostly
the suicide arguement only adds to what I am saying. I am saying that gender roles are socially constructed and that this is a negative thing as it stands now both for men and for women. suicide is rarely about oppression regardless of what durkheim had to say about it. I may be being a bit simplistic but no one wants to read my thesis.

I think that government attempts to redress the balance are always going to fall short or over reach as is the case with any attempt to redress an overarching societal attitude that negatively impacts a group in society. The welfare situation is not ideal neither is the SS situation where widows recieve less than widowers. how to fix it? i dont know. but recognizing the constructed nature of gender roles - that they are not "real" is a good step towards preventing the negative impacts of those assigned roles on men and women.

If I injured your pride by saying silly I am truly sorry however it does seem to show a societally defined male trait at work - one which leads to higher blood pressure, increased emotional stress and a higher likelihood of early death. I do not mean to imply that you are in any way daft, I was trying to keep it light and say I was not disagreeing or argueing merely looking at a different side (only one of many sides of the issue) which is that of socialized gender roles and their negative effects on individuals much the same as any other class structure seen as absolute and inalterable.

I am sure you are a very smart chap - you post here and vote democrat dont you? :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Yes I do vote democrat
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 03:46 PM by camero
In fact it's my mother that complains about me voting a straight democratic ticket. I just don't buy the BS that petty bourgeoius women are oppressed in the definition of the term or that women are going to take dangerous jobs in droves tomorrow and yesterday. And conscription is also a part of male's lower life expectancy. It's a credit to feminists that they have protested the draft.

But men do not have a monopoly on doing stupid things and violence as I have seen way too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daveskilt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. see I knew we were agreeing
the gender roles hurt everyone - male and female. women who are socialized to be submissive to men or to not go to school and men who do daft things - same difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. It's the power struggle that hurts
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 05:55 PM by camero
I think that both can be equally sexist. That's where we differ. The rest I agree with. Neither sex (and that would include me) deserves a pedestal. I would leave that pedestal for Mother Theresa and Gandhi.
MLK and Susan B. Anthony to name another.


And just repeating the all boys are stupid point over and over again gets ya nowhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fight_n_back Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Its not equal..Women are in the majority
you can vote in whomever you want.

Quit whining and do something for christ sakes. Vote or something.

And then ask a guy out on a date.

1.) are paid less
Ask for a raise...its what a man would do

2.) are only in small amounts as CEO's of Fortune 500 corporations
Start a company, its illegal to deny a loan based on gender

3.) are more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner
Stop going out with pricks

4.) are more likely to be victims of sexual violence by a margin of 1 in 4 as opposed to 1 in 10 men
See number three

5.) are often not covered by their insurance for contraceptives, whereas drugs like Viagra are
Yeah, well, you got me there

6.) are apparently lucky to even get their birth control prescriptions filled these days
Hey, Im all for women having a lot of sex

7.) don't not have access to abortion in 85% of the counties in the US
Then VOTE FOR BETTER CANDIDATES...Women are the MAJORITY in the WORLD

8.) have historically been looked at as property of men
Thats like saying Greeks were traditionally the property of Romans

9.) have only had the vote for 37% of our country's history
But now you are THE MAJORITY and could elect any candidate they want

10.) are still judged first and foremost by external factors

By other women and themselves...first and foremost. Fashion models are on the covers of women's magazines. Athletes and cars are on the cover of mens magazines.



1) Men die sooner
2) Men are more likely to be murdered
3) Men are more likely to die in a mining accident
4) Men are more likely to get the death penalty
5) Men are more likely to lose control of the TV
6) Men are more likely to drink themselves deaf so they don't have to hear your top ten
7) Men are more likely to be judged by their professional success
8) It is 150% more likely that a man will suffocate in the thin atmosphere of Mars than be asked on a date by a woman
9) Men are 90% less likely to finish a top ten list


Lighten up...hardly anybody here is your enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Reply
you can vote in whomever you want.

Quit whining and do something for christ sakes. Vote or something.

I do, as do other women here.

And then ask a guy out on a date.

I'm married, but I used to.

1.) are paid less
Ask for a raise...its what a man would do

I would and have.

2.) are only in small amounts as CEO's of Fortune 500 corporations
Start a company, its illegal to deny a loan based on gender

Yes, but they often do not have access to investors like men in the wealthy elite circles. Every woman here is smarter than W. He got plenty of investment for the companies he was involved with and smarts had nothing to do with success. It's old school male upper class nepotism (but I concur this is as much class as gender based often).

3.) are more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner
Stop going out with pricks

I never was into men like that. The women who make bad relationship choices still don't deserve it.

4.) are more likely to be victims of sexual violence by a margin of 1 in 4 as opposed to 1 in 10 men
See number three

So because so many young girls of victims of incest or other forms of sexual abuse, they go out with pricks? It's one in 4 by age 18 who are abused.

5.) are often not covered by their insurance for contraceptives, whereas drugs like Viagra are
Yeah, well, you got me there

Yup :7

6.) are apparently lucky to even get their birth control prescriptions filled these days
Hey, I'm all for women having a lot of sex

Me, too, so what's up with the executives of insurance companies?

7.) don't not have access to abortion in 85% of the counties in the US
Then VOTE FOR BETTER CANDIDATES...Women are the MAJORITY in the WORLD

I do as do most women here.

8.) have historically been looked at as property of men
Thats like saying Greeks were traditionally the property of Romans

What does that have to do with it?

9.) have only had the vote for 37% of our country's history
But now you are THE MAJORITY and could elect any candidate they want

So, women need to not fear taking their power. Most of the women here do not.

10.) are still judged first and foremost by external factors

By other women and themselves...first and foremost. Fashion models are on the covers of women's magazines. Athletes and cars are on the cover of mens magazines.

In a sense, you're right, but why do you think we can get this way?



1) Men die sooner

they take more risks

2) Men are more likely to be murdered

see #1

3) Men are more likely to die in a mining accident

more likely to choose jobs as miners

4) Men are more likely to get the death penalty

more likely to commit capital crimes (I'm opposed to the death penalty for anyone though)

5) Men are more likely to lose control of the TV

that sounds like your personal issue

6) Men are more likely to drink themselves deaf so they don't have to hear your top ten

These words are written. Are you hearing strange voices or something?

7) Men are more likely to be judged by their professional success

Men are more likely to judge each other by this. Not all women are shallow.

8) It is 150% more likely that a man will suffocate in the thin atmosphere of Mars than be asked on a date by a woman

I'm an attractive woman who has asked men out and is assertive. I find it freaks them out.

9) Men are 90% less likely to finish a top ten list

hee-hee! :toast:


Lighten up...hardly anybody here is your enemy.

I am light. 90% of my DU posts are light. Sometimes though, I just got to say what needs to be said. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeyboy75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I agree with most of your points,
but if you think it's fair to say that men die more frequently, have more dangerous jobs, and live a shorter life than women because they "take more risks," then isn't it also fair to postulate that it is one of many reasons there are, for instance, more male CEOs than female CEOs? After all, career advancement like that is usually a product of risk taking.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's the primary reason men make more and have more leadership positions, but it's certainly a factor.

One of the biggest problems I see is in corporate America is the branding of an aggressive professional female as a "ballbuster," while it's a good quality for a male.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. I think you do have a point
Too many women do not take risks in our society because it isn't as socially acceptable. You are correct in this assessment. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. this is probably not due to discrimination
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 12:27 AM by darboy
"1.) are paid less"


the reason I know is that in economics, a firm's purogative is to minimize costs, part of maximizing profits. If a firm can get equal services from a man for $1 as from a woman for $0.75, he would never hire any men until all available women were employed.

Here's why.

Firm A and Firm B need 4 workers each to make pizzas. The wage rate for a male worker is $1 per pizza made. the wage rate for a female worker is $0.75 per pizza.

Firm A hires only male workers. Its costs are $4 per pizza (4 workers * $1 per worker).
Firm B hires only female workers. Its costs are $3 per pizza (4 workers * $0.75 per worker).

they have to compete for business. Firm A sets the price at $5 per pizza. It would get $1 profit per pizza. But then firm B sets its price to $4, which would BOTH draw ALL the business from firm A and give firm B a $1 profit.

Frim A responds by setting its price to $4 as well, so it barely breaks even, but the two firms share the business.

Then firm B goes for the kill, it sets its price at 3.75 per pizza. It gets all the business and makes a $0.75 profit. If Firm A set its price to 3.75, it would lose 25 cents per pizza, so it can't do that. Firm B makes a profit because they hired the cheaper female workers, and firm A goes out of business.

If women really made 75 cents for every man's dollar, in a particular job, no one would hire any men and be able to stay competitive.

The reason women earn 75 cents on the dollar, in the aggregate, is because women tend to take lower paying jobs (would could likely be discrimination),and they tend to take time off from earning money to raise families.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Christian Donating Member (746 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. Your analysis fails
The issue is not so much that a man and a woman doing the same job for the same employer are making different salaries, although that used to be the case in most businesses.

The issue remains that overall, on average, women's pay is still lower than men's. This happens because more jobs traditionally done by women are still low-wage jobs -- child care worker, teacher, bank teller, retail, restaurant server, part-time cashier at a discount store, to name just a few. True there are men doing all of these jobs, but there are more women in these jobs, which pulls down the average wage.

There are not nearly as many women at the high end of earnings as men, which also skews the average. It takes a hell of a lot of part time Walmart salaries to equal one $12,000,000/year CEO salary.

Now, often these jobs supplement the wages of another household wage earner. Often they don't, however. And that shouldn't enter into it.

There is often somewhat more flexibility in scheduling in some of these jobs which enables those people who do them to also be home for kids after school, which is choice that some people make.

All kinds of factors enter into the wage disparity which your analysis complete fails to consider. The world is not as simplistic as you want to make it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
17. Let's get rid of the F word. I hate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polazarus Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
18. I think that this is not a good Idea
To ban certain words. I think that the current rules in place are sufficient enough to handle offensive and rude behavior. When you ban profanity or any type of speech you go into that grey area of "thought police" which becomes counter-productive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
20. I totally agree
If "bitch" has to go, words that pejoratively denigrate men should be eliminated as well.

:yourock:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Evidently it's still OK to insult men based on gender alone.
Is that because we're a majority? I'm sick of all this bullshit! "ALL men are dicks, tools, schlongs, pricks, etc., but you'd better not call anyone a bitch ..."

And this place has the gall to talk about free speech. About as free as freeperland. And the deleted post above was mine. Not a personal attack in it. Directly related to the issue of discussion, but apparently I offended the mod by comparing the argument about statistical frequency of crimes committed by men to crimes committed by various racial groups, and of course that's over the line. The POINT I WAS MAKING IS THAT STATISTICS DO NOT EQUATE TO RIGHT AND WRONG!!! Oh well, censor first and ask questions later.

I'm just about up to here with the censorship on this board.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Westegg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
29. I'm sorta late to this thread. Is this serious?...
We're really talking about banning words on DU now? I'm a bit stunned by that one. I'm supposed to start censoring my posts before I send them? I don't THINK so. In my humble opinion, the moderators here do an extremely efficient job of yanking stuff they feel is inappropriate. That's okay by me, as the rules of DU were in place long before I signed up, and I made a conscious decision to adhere to them. But if we're now going to start parsing language, hell, where does THAT end? Sounds like a very slippery slope indeed, and not what I came here to experience. I came here to enjoy a free exchange of ideas and opinions. To my mind, that includes the language that a typical DU'er will choose to use.

Please inform me if I've somehow misunderstood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Yes, we're really talking about banning words here
The terms bitch, bitchslap, etc. are offensive to some, perhaps many DUers. Where you been? Over in GD yesterday -- maybe even today (I've been scared to go in there) -- there were at least eight threads, with at least 1000+ total posts, arguing about whether to ban any use of any term derived from "bitch" that does not refer to (a) a female dog, or (b) complaining.

Since I oppose censorship of any kind, particularly in a forum such as this which is supposedly designed for the free exchange of ideas, I suggested that IF we're going to ban such words, we be consistent about it and ban derogatory sexual references to men, as suggested in the opening post of this thread. But of course, THAT'S DIFFERENT!! So it is apparently still OK to insult people by referring to them as dicks, dickheads, tools, schlongs, prongs, (although cocksucker is probably out).

I wasn't seriously advocating banning anything. I was trying to make a point, and it flew right over the heads of the censor-types.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge 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