Geez Louise -- Looks like a great big Pity Party here!

[Sparkly]

I'm sure that'll make some people mad, but that only goes to prove you can still make people mad here. You can say things that are provocative. You can disagree with an angry red face if you want to. There are plenty of threads doing just that, while essentially complaining that they can't do that.

You want a board where people can call each other names, post spam, show hateful bigotry, repeat rightwing slurs, etc.? They aren't hard to find.

If you want to argue a point -- from the left or anyplace else -- argue the point!! Do you need all that to do it? Or does it get in the way of a good discussion?

Sorry to be Pollyanna, but I think the rules HELP the debate here.

Sheeeesh... :nopity:

[LynneSin]

1. You're just mean!!! I'm gonna hold my breath until you take that back!!!

:hide:


(j/k :pals: )

[redqueen]

2. I agree.

K&R

[LeftyFingerPop]

3. Agreed...

Without any rules, this place would look like a bunch of monkeys and 12 year olds hopped up on sugar flinging shit on the walls.

[Silent3]

7. That's what we have now. The new rules will greatly improve...

...DU's 12 year-old to monkey ratio. :)

[Vickers]

4. "They aren't hard to find."

I think that's the funniest part...the people clamoring for some sort of unrestricted "free speech" on DU only have to look at websites that *are* unmoderated to get a taste of what they are asking for.

I've had plenty of posts deleted, and I've alerted on a whole BUNCH of posts that were subsequently deleted, so for me the system is working perfectly.

K&R

[lunatica]

5. civility is just soooooooooo oppressive!

Some people need to piss on everything

[SidDithers]

6. K&R...

all this navel-gazing and intellectual masturbation is maddening.

Sid

[redqueen]

8. It's kinda funny, too.

Not as funny as the outrage-a-thon caused by the unrec stuff, but still kinda funny.

[blondeatlast]

11. Indeed it is. This place can be unintentionally VERY entertaining at times. nt

[dionysus]

35. is it roffle-worthy?

;)

[SidDithers]

39. Don't even think about it...

the power of the rofl should be used sparingly. Your restraint may just save some pimply faced kid in Topeka.

Sid

[dionysus]

40. DAMN. i keep forgetting that. an actual roffle might drive someone over the edge,then i'd have blood

on my hands!

[Silent3]

9. How do you feel about...

...intellectual gazing and navel masturbation?

[SidDithers]

19. Having worked at a University for several years...

the intellectual gazing got me through a few summers.

I've never tried navel masturbation before, but am open to new experiences :evilgrin:

:hi:

Sid

[blondeatlast]

10. I'm guilty of violating the new rules and toeing the line on the old. I APPLAUD the new rules.

If we can debate our differences in a respectful way, it makes it that much easier and more effective when we have those debates with the ReBPublicans in the real world.

[JTFrog]

12. K&R!

[el_bryanto]

13. I propose a feature in which we can give each other mild electrical shocks if we disapprove

of each others opinions.

Bryant

[demtenjeep]

14. agreed

I just had to laugh at the "but but but what if I wanna support a thrid party bla bla bla" I would say then ...Start or find a Third party underground. This is the Democratic Underground!

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Ah jeeze ......

(Just kidding!

For those who may not know, I have a special relationship with Sparkly. One that some would say could be hurt if The Gays get to marry, too.)

[notadmblnd]

16. No one is clamering for no rules.

There was a discussion in regards to clarifying the rules and there are those that feel that this is an attempt by some to shut down participation from those with views that are are further left than center. No, we don't need to call names or engage in personal attacks. However, many of those clambering for the clarified rules are often the ones violating them.

Here is another thread that I think expresses some of the "whiners" concerns if you care to peruse it.

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

Personally, I think some over reacted to the entire discussion. But I think this thread does well in expressing their concerns.

[Mojorabbit]

17. I still think it will effectively close

down discussion of the Florida senate race. I agree with a lot of the new rules but not those which close down discussion of issues that affect my state in this race and those that affect discussion of rifts within the party. I am a progressive and do not support conservative Dems that vote with the republicans to block progressive legislation.
But then I don't have an authoritarian bent and am for adult thoughtful discussion without being censored. Shrug.

[Sparkly]

18. I don't see why.

:shrug:

Don't promote somebody running against the Democrat. (See name of message board.)

[Mojorabbit]

21. It is not that simple

and of course if you have been following the discussion you would be aware of why. It will be a nationally discussed race but there will be censors on what is said here with the new rules. The Dem has a 14% chance of winning if that and that is why there are whisperings of the admin in back room talks with the next best thing to the Dem. The world is not black and white and this race personally affects me and other Floridians. I am fully aware of the name of this board. I have been a member for many many years and I feel that was a snarky bit to post esp since I am being really sincere in my comments.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Mojo, you're right, of course.

Even before the latest pogrom from on high, I was wondering how the Florida race would be handled here. We have a far right, teabag lunatic wearing the Repubican colors. We have a mildly attractive, but largely uninspiring lightweight wearing the Democratic colors, and we have a lifelong, right up the middle Repubican who now says (expediently, self-servingly, and suspiciously) he'll caucus with the Dems if we grace him with our votes.

It is one of those situations that makes the rules too inflexible. I think we should be able to serious and openly discuss a Crist candidacy.

[Dappleganger]

30. In agreement with you.

I want to discuss the active destruction of the tea party candidate in this state.

[Sparkly]

31. Sorry if I was snarky.

And you're right, I'm not so familiar with that race.

[Mojorabbit]

42. No worries a;nd

I apologize if I was snarky. I have been fighting off a migraine all day and losing the battle which is just about guaranteed to make me bitchy. I really do feel like the rules are just a bit too restrictive esp in cases like I mentioned above and I am sure our case is not the only one in the country.

[TheKentuckian]

20. Rules of order and decorum are certainly not at issue

Many of us were brought up to distrust and resist broad efforts to control which words are used and various filtering techniques.

Words are labels for ideas and if you restrict words then the goal is to kill the ideas they represent.
Of course such a filter can be overcome by those who still hold the ideas but there is generally the side effect of much verbal peregrination and near certain long windedness. Which means that in order to express the taboo topics one is forced to author long tiresome screeds that tend to be ignored so the ideas are not heavily disseminated.

Add in some traffic directing filters and the reality is the content is dictated far more so than tone. The tone is only the excuse given for restricting content, such things must ever be dressed up in other guises than the truth or the red flags start flying.

Rules for civility and order do not require such focus on expression and taboo terminology.

If I tell you fruit may be discussed but take away all the corresponding labels representing things like apples, berries, bananas, pomegranates, figs, tomatoes, oranges, and so on, then your ability to directly discuss fruit is meaningfully restricted. It certainly will be difficult for you to clearly express to another if you are talking about a lime or a lemon.

[Spazito]

22. I disagree....

I find the use of 'labels' to be rather lazy and vague in their reference when it comes to discussing issues. Labels are, on the other hand, great for broad-brushing, making personal attacks, dismissing another's opinion without bothering to actually debating the opinion. I do not understand the umbrage being expressed by some over a restriction of some, very few actually, 'labels' that have, historically, done nothing but devolve into flame wars that results in nothing of substance.

It is quite bizarre to me.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Each and every word is a label for an idea, object, person, or thing

or to connect or elaborate said ideas, objects, persons, and places.

You dispute that Spazito is a label to act as a place marker for you, that the word paper describes a certain thing, or pear, or stapler, car, mountain?

You deny that labels like justice, liberty, or freedom are labels to describe certain ideas?

Louisville is not an identifier of a specific place?

Go ahead and try to describe red, white, blue, green, or magenta without using the labels that language puts on them and colors in general, go ahead and give it a whirl and I bet your audience will have a hell of a time telling between purple and orange and it will be all but impossible to differentiate between red and maroon.

I think you are denying the need for language. Language is almost all labels and the connections to tie them together.

Maybe you might wish for more precise labels but labels or don't agree that this or that label is accurate but language is the expression of thought in a common format.

[Spazito]

24. If I were denying the need for language, I would not be using language to express my disagreement...

with your premise. Language is not made up of labels, labels are, however, a form of language and, I repeat, a lazy way of expressing oneself. One can make their point without using labels which are too often used to disparage/brand as opposed to debating issues, ideas, etc.

Your example of colors is a poor one, imo. I do not see the use of colors prohibited in the DU rules and they are not labels, they are neutral descriptors. Descriptor=athletic shoes Label=Reeboks. There is a very distinct difference.

[TheKentuckian]

33. Does it look like I require any lazy shorthand? ALL WORDS ARE A LABEL

or the connectors for them like to, when, who, and so on.

I did not indicate colors were banned but was using them as an example of my point which apparently you lack sufficient imagination to understand much less actually perform the excercise.

It is a couple of stops past silly to pretend Reebok's is not a descriptor for a specific set of athletic shoes and nobody is being lazy if they call them as they are it would be lazy to describe all athletic shoes as Reebok's.

[Spazito]

36. Reebok is a label, athletic shoes are neutral descriptors...

you may choose to deny that but it does not change the facts. Language is NOT made up of labels, labels use specific language to brand. It is clear you and I have a very different understanding of language and it's usage so further debate is not beneficial.

[Sparkly]

29. Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about.

What words, as labels for ideas, are you talking about?

[TheKentuckian]

37. shit like nouns and verbs all labels

[Tailormyst]

26. This helps

[pinboy3niner]

27. Thay, Thelma--ith that a cliff I thee up ahead? nt

[Hekate]

28. Hi Sparkly. KnR -- and wow, the Unreccers have certainly been busy. nt

[Sparkly]

32. Well, it's their party; they can cry if they want to!

:hi:

[EFerrari]

34. I don't see anyone calling for more incivility. There's plenty of it still around.

[Born_A_Truman]

38. Next, they'll take away

our smilies!

x( :( ;( :mad: :puke: :wtf: :spank: :grr: :nuke: :thumbsdown: :rant:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

:hide:

[Spazito]

41. Damn, that would be the 'straw that breaks the camel's back' for me!

I accept the need to curb my tongue, virtually speaking, but NEVER, NEVER would I curb my use of smilies!

:rofl:

[lunatica]

44. I live for smilies!

[Spazito]

45. LOL!

I love your smilies they say everything and make me laugh at the same time, what could be better than that!!

[KonaKane]

43. Couldn't agree more. But as you can see....

there is a certain element at DU that just cannot live if they can't throw poop around the room.

[babylonsister]

46. Rec'd. Yup. nt