Censorship

[Pacifist Patriot]

Could someone please explain to me why asking people to consider the manner in which they choose to express themselves is equivalent to censorship?

Thanks!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Because it's fucking ridiculous.

It's being fucking uptight about a bunch of stupid fucking words.

*t's l*k* r*m*v*ng th* g*d d*mn v*w*ls **t *f c*ssw*rds. Wh*'s th*t f**l*ng?

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. You know what I find absolutely hilarious about this?

About a year or so ago I referred to Karen Hughes as an obnoxious bitch. I received three PMs from people lecturing me about the use of sexist language at DU and one person said it outright in a response to me on the boards. I was specifically instructed that the word was not to be used. Asshole or bastard was okay, but bitch was definitely off limits.

So one person's plea to tone down profanity and consider how it looks to others is fucking ridiculous. :) Yeah, I get it.

[titoresque]

21. so what you're saying is that you're still

pissed about something that happened in a thread....a year ago?

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Actually, I don't believe I made any emotional statement whatsoever.

I wasn't "pissed" then and I'm not "pissed" now. What's with the strawman?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[texasleo]

2. Because people get shouted down by a group of angry people.

[dogday]

3. Because it is a slippery slope

Ask one thing to change, not a big thing really, how about another? Then another and so on, and over again... There is no stopping what will be offensive.. What about my typing, my use of grammar? My saying one word that is not a cuss word but is still offensive? Where does it stop?

One should not ask for other people's opinions, if you are not willing to hear them, good words, bad words or otherwise?

[Posteritatis]

7. Slippery slopes are fallacious, though

"A might lead to B, which might lead ... to Z" may be true, but it doesn't mean A will lead to Z.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Not all slippery slopes are fallacious.

[Posteritatis]

15. Yes, *all* slippery slope arguments are fallacious

The fact that things sometimes do work out that way doesn't mean the slippery-slope argument is any less of a fallacy, just like calling a stupid man stupid is still an ad-hominem.

[blonndee]

42. Wrong. Not ALL slippery-slope arguments are fallacious.

It depends on how far one goes and whether or not the "slope" is presented as absolute.

[dogday]

14. Doesn't mean that it will, but it does mean

that it could, because the exception has been made for one instance, why not another???

[JuniperLea]

13. You nailed it, dogday, as per usual

Sometimes I just don't know where you find the calm...

[Greyhound]

4. There's a difference between asking and demanding.

Ask all you like, but when the answer is no, accept it and go from there. Anything else is censorship.

[bananas]

5. censorship is censorship, even when it's self-censorship nt

[Touchdown]

6. Because if you have to think about what you say,

what you do, how you say it, or who is listening, then we're really not living in a free country then, are we?

[Posteritatis]

9. So you never think about what you say? At all? (nt)

[Touchdown]

25. Of course I do. I live in Bush's America

What, are you new?:silly:

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. Now see, that's one person to whom I'd speak without...

pausing to think about what was sliding past my lips. ;)

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. So verbal diarrhea is acceptable?

I don't know about you, but I do give consideration to what I say, how I say it, when I say it, etc. I don't consider that self-censorhip, I consider it a means to effective communication.

When I write a letter to a congressman, submit a letter to the editor, or compose a sermon I first write a rough draft then I revise and revise again. I express myself very differently when I'm among friends than I do when I'm speaking to a room full of strangers.

It has nothing to do with living in a free country and everything to do with being a courteous and intelligent human being.

[Touchdown]

28. Maybe I wasn't clear on this.

You are doing those things (as I do) to have yourself taken seriously by those your communicating with. That is valid and very good for a civil society. The Ann Coulters of the world in any given time other than this upside down one wouldn't be taken seriously, as she would be labelled a crank, just like that embarassing uncle that grabs you by the arm to rant on about some UFO sighting every family gathering. Now she is being taken seriously for what she's saying and who benefits from it, much more than how she's saying it. If I use her type of language to criticize the Right, the way she does us, then I would be hauled into court for threatening to kill conservatives on a weekly basis. Her speech is free, mine isn't.

Manners is something that comes from you. When others try to tell you how to behave, that's control. If you rant on and on and on, and not making any sense, then people will stop listening to you of their own accord. You either clean up your act, or continue to be ignored. If some goody-goody on the board wants to create a blanket rule about what words we use, that's censorship.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Possibly not, but if not then I don't want to live in a free country.

Just try and imagine what a society where people didn't have to consider what they said or did. Conversation, friendship, and indeed civilisation would be impossible; murder, rape and anarchy would be common-place.

Clearly, a line has to be drawn, but it's not at "you shouldn't have to think about what you say or do.

[Touchdown]

31. Bring it home a little more...

...and a journalist doesn't have to worry about losing his/her job when reporting bad news about the powers that be.

[theboss]

34. I always think about what I say

Even when I say something stupid, there has usually been some sort of thought process behind it.

[porphyrian]

8. You misrepresent the situation.

No one is claiming that "asking people to consider the manner in which they choose to express themselves is equivalent to censorship." Asking people to CHANGE the manner in which they express themselves is.

Censorship, by definition, is the act, process or practice of censoring, which is to remove or suppress things considered "objectionable."

There is no universal definition for what is objectionable. There isn't even a consensus. Thus, any censorship is an attack on freedom of expression. Despite this, most people accept a certain amount of censorship (especially when it doesn't affect their own forms of expression), and some censorship is even enforced by law (you can't scream "bomb!" in an airport).

DU has a feature which allows you to ignore people and threads you find objectionable. This allows you to experience DU's features in their entirety without having to read things you find personally objectionable while still allowing all members their freedom of expression (within the constraints of DU's rules, that is). Asking DUers to censor themselves in light of this is doubly offensive as it proves that you aren't happy with simply not reading posts and authors you don't agree with, but that you wish to control the behavior of those people as well and limit their freedom of expression beyond the rules by which we must all abide. That is elistist, unfair and just plain fucking obnoxious.

Did that answer your question?

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. It's not misrepresentation...

it's simply how I interpreted it. A plea is not a demand. It just seemed like a leap to go from a response like "You're wrong, I don't think that's necessary" to "ack! Censorship!" seems a bit extreme. But that's just my take on it. I know that.

[porphyrian]

16. I assume you're referring to that other post...

And, if that is the case, it is misrepresentation, though not necessarily intentional. There is a difference between asking someone to CONSIDER something and asking someone to DO something. The OP in the other post was asking people to limit the way they expressed themselves, not to merely think about it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. I don't know. I consider a "plea" very different from an "order."

Connotation v. denotation. I understand that varies from person to person.

Re-read the other OP. The "plea" was simply followed by an opinion as to the impact of profanity. The person never once ordered or asked anyone to cease and desist.

[porphyrian]

19. Irrelevant.

They wouldn't have bothered to post it at all if they didn't want people to act on it. Whether that makes it a plea or a command is irrelevant - it is censorship, as I defined earlier, and doubly obnoxious because of the ignore features and existing conduct rules of DU.

[Pacifist Patriot]

20. Irrelevant requires a subject and predicate. What is irrelevant to what?

I'm sorry, you lost me with that.

Wanting people to act is not the same thing as requiring people to act. I guess I just don't understand your definition of censorship. Fair enough.

I would completely understand responses that said, "if you don't like profanity than use the ignore function. That's what it's for." I'm still struggling with the concept that the post was considered an act of censorship.

[porphyrian]

23. Your distinction is irrelevant.

The OP wasn't simply wanting people to act. The post itself was a passive-aggressive command to action, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. If they just didn't want to view profanity, they would've quietly ignored it and went about their business. However, in creating a post addressing everyone, "asking" us to change our method of expression for them, despite the ignore features, they were absolutely expecting action, thus it was censorship. I'm having a hard time understanding what part of this you still don't understand.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. Authority?

Maybe that's where we differ. I don't know. If a mod or admin had written the post I'd be agreeing with you. For a peer to post it, I don't.

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what part of this you still don't understand. It just comes across to me as a bit overstated to cry censorship in response to someone's opinions about the use of profanity. Just my perspective. Nothing more or less.

[porphyrian]

29. OK, they weren't simply expressing their opinion.

A simple expression of opinion would've been "I really hate all the profanity here." Instead, they were asking us to censor ourselves, which you should know by now is an accurate statement, by definition, as I posted earlier. But, that isn't the entire story, as there are other, simpler ways of avoiding the profanity that don't involve anyone other than the OP, by using the ignore feature. So, either the OP is unfamiliar with this feature of DU, which I doubt, or they INTENTIONALLY CHOSE to try to MODIFY OUR BEHAVIOR INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN through the post you find innocuous and I see as passive-aggressive bullshit. It has nothing to do with authority, but with acting to control the behavior of others. Censorship.

[bloom]

32. I disagree

"Asking people to CHANGE" is not censorship - it's a request.

And if you read it - he didn't even really even ask - he just stated his opinion about is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1622054

"Surely DU need not sink to his level of crudity." was as close as he got to a request.


I expect that there were more direct requests to censor him - than what he made. Not that anyone has the authority anyway - or were asking for it.

cen·sor (s?n's?r)
n.
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.

One that condemns or censures.

One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.

Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

http://www.answers.com/topic/censor

Maybe what some people fear is that "The agent in the unconscious" will start acting and they will start thinking about censoring their own language. And so some people are being belligerent about it - so as to stave off the possibility. That's rather what it sounds like - to read some of the posts.

[porphyrian]

33. I'm not surprised you disagree with me.

However, as I've illustrated elsewhere, it doesn't matter whether they are physically altering the language or using a passive-aggressive post in order to convince others to do it for them, it's censorship. And if you read the definition of the word that you posted, you'd see that it applies.

[bloom]

36. As in the quote that I used

I could see that some could take it as an insult - that they not be crude - and that he was saying that some people are.

And while you could say that he was condemning certain types of words - since he has no authority - it is not censorship - it is his opinion. An opinion that he is freely giving - just like you are. You are "censoring" every bit as much as he is - as you disagree with what he says.

[porphyrian]

37. There is no requisite of authority in the definition.

That's some bullshit you and others want to put in there that doesn't exist. Acting to censor is censorship by definition, and pretending this is not the case with that post doesn't change the fact.

I am not at all censoring, because nothing I am saying is in any way attempting to change anyone else's expression, so you're just wrong again.

[bloom]

39. The way I see it

he said "you" were "crude" and you said he was, "elistist, unfair and just plain fucking obnoxious"

Tit for tat and all that. He has an opinion - you have an opinion.

The only difference that I can see is that he is calling on people to consider others who might not like one type of obnoxiousness - you are calling on people to condemn what you think is obnoxious.

You would like for people to be obnoxious in your way - he presumably (if you think that self-censorship is obnoxious) is calling for people to be obnoxious in his way.


I think that you are more pro-offending people that he is. But you see his ideas as offensive.

I don't see the big difference that you do. I just see it as different opinions.

And you are trying to censor him as much as he might be trying to censor you.


The question is - should people be civil? And actually - the DU rules say that we should be. (It sounds like YOUR argument is that we shouldn't be). Any questions about censorship would have to start there.

[porphyrian]

41. So you just don't understand what I wrote.

I'm not calling on anyone to do anything. If you think I am, you're wrong.

Civility, like profanity, is relative, not universal. The rules of politeness are based on the idea that the speaker should adopt behavior which puts others at ease. I contend that it is the listener who should be flexible and open rather than putting unnecessary requirements on the speaker which can alter their preferred method of expression. Not that it matters, since you'll probably invent your own meaning for what I've written anyway.

[bloom]

43. It sounds to me

that you think that people who think that other people are being more crude than necessary should "self-censor" themselves and not say anything about it.


I agree that civility is relative. I disagree that it is completely up to the listener. I think that the DU admin would disagree as well. Otherwise - they could just about get rid of moderators. Except to look for right-wingers. The moderators do a lot of civility control. It would be easier for them if people practiced more self-control.

[porphyrian]

45. As I said, you don't understand what I wrote.

But this seems to be our relationship.

[Pacifist Patriot]

46. Ours too I guess.

I'm interpreting your posts the same way Bloom is. I suspect we're at an impasse and will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

[porphyrian]

48. Sometimes knowing there is a difference of opinion is enough. - n/t

[Just Me]

35. Being decent, treating people with dignity isn't popular?

:shrug:

We live in BushWorld, now,...where verbal abuse or abuse of language is the trend.

Hope it ends soon.

[sandnsea]

38. "Nice" people can be dicks too

It is snobbery and denigration when the "nice" people come along and decide how everybody is supposed to talk. You're uncouth, uneducated, uncivil, or some other "un" if you use words the "nice" people don't like. You may say whiz but not piss. You may say friggin' but not fuckin'. You may say damn but not goddamn. Nobody should ever say anything that doesn't meet with the approval of the "nice" people. Everybody but the "nice" people should just go away or shut up.

Despite the fact that the "nice" people never seem to notice that they're just as capable of being dicks despite how "nice" they think they sound. These profanity threads have been full of vulgar posts from people who didn't raise their voice or utter one "foul" word. I personally wish they'd go away, they give me a headache and always have.

And yeah I know I can be bitchy and rude, but when I'm doing it, I know it and admit it. The "nice" people never ever do.

[readmoreoften]

40. Exactly. I'm sick of all the passive aggression and faux "cilivity"

Rhetorical "civility" is just a ruse to gain the upper hand in an argument, usually used by cavalier people with no connection to the effects of their language-- or the people in power.

Example: I don't think there should be gay marriage. Marriage *is* after all a sacred institution and we simply cannot risk alienating Bush's base.

Gay Poster: WTF???!!! So I can't visit my goddamn partner in the hospital because you want to cozy up to the RW Christians???? Fuck that!

Example: I think that a woman's right to choose is a complicated issue. I do believe that the husband should have some say in whether or not she has the right to abort. If that means permission slips, so be it.

Female, Pro-choice Poster: I had to go to a battered women's shelter because my goddamn ex-husband beat me into a coma and you want me to ASK HIS PERMISSION! I guess all the battered women are just shit-out-of luck, huh!

All of these "nice people examples" usually respond with posts that say "I was merely...." and then they follow up with "And if you can't have civil discussion..."

It's always the privileged people with no issues: the men, the straight folk, the wealthy, the christians, who get to be staid, calm, and emotionless. Because everything is ALWAYS an intellectual exercise for them: justice, bodily integrity, and freedom from persecution especially. That's why they called it "acting classy", because only the upper classes have the luxury to be so emotionless and proper.

[Pacifist Patriot]

44. I disagree.

I've seen exact opposites of the situations you present in which the person with the "conservative" stance is belligerant and profane and the person with the more liberal position is courteous and rational. It has to do with how individuals choose to present themselves. "Acting classy" has nothing to do with a particular political or social stance.

[readmoreoften]

49. Of course it does! It's inherent in the word itself: class.

You are correct, though. It is not dependent on political stances. It is dependent on political reality. If you are close to a difficult, terrifying political reality, you are more likely to snap because it is REAL. You are also more firmly entrenched in the battle, so you hear the same arguments all the time from people chiming in half-informed. People may be able to be patient, but after the 5th ot 6th similiar thread in a week, people lash out in frustration.

Example: Why does it seem like all our soldiers are doing in Iraq is raping and killing little children? That's all they seem to do over there.

Former Military: All they ever seem to do!!!! Listen, I was over in Iraq and you don't know how fucked up the situation is and you don't know how many good people are over there dying to make this right! I was rebuilding schools! I know a lot of soldiers over there have behaved in ways that are despicable and there's no excuse, but don't say "everyone!"

Some people here are emotional. Emotional people use emotional language.

[bloom]

47. "acting classy"

I know people from a working-class backgrounds who are more against "cussing" than I am. I was raised in a professional class type neighborhood. I will swear if it fits the situation.

There is one who wants everyone to be emotionless. In extreme cases (which he might be one) - there can be an aspect of extreme control which is unhealthy. Extreme emotions can also be a way to control as well.

I think moderation is a good idea - but it depends on the circumstance.

I know a lot of people like to blow off steam here. I think that is expected.

There is also a way to do it that isn't about disrespecting others.

I think people who want to be clueless about their disrespect of others have boundary issues.

[sandnsea]

51. Anybody can be self-righteous

Which is why I categorized them as "nice" people. Anybody can make up a set of rules that serves to denigrate and marginalize another group of people - religious, conservatives, liberals, rich, poor. Nobody is talking about disrespecting anybody, that's a whole different issue. The OP is specifically about using foul language which some interpret as disrespectful when the truth is you can be horribly disrespectful and never utter a foul word in your life. People who define "niceness" by word choice instead of maliciousness rarely see the maliciousness in their own behavior. In fact, I see their "niceness" as a defense mechanism so they can blame all their problems on the one who used the foul language or got mad, aren't they such victims, boohoo.

[bloom]

53. I don't think that THIS OP

is necessarily about "using foul language which some interpret as disrespectful when the truth is you can be horribly disrespectful and never utter a foul word in your life" - I think it's more about the concept of questioning - and then having questioning turn into cries of censorship.

I agree that people can be completely rude and obnoxious - sometimes esp. with a pseudo-niceness and elitist superiority - and not one "foul" word.

And that may be the place (attitude) from which this debate was instigated (on a different thread).


I think language can get into disrespect pretty easily - but I agree that that isn't what started all this.

[Zhade]

50. Asking isn't, forcing is.

NT!

[Odin2005]

52. I'll cuss any God-damned time I fucking want!

:dunce: