Really?! So now even the Rude Pundit is thrown under the bus by DUers?

[riderinthestorm]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025117866

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Well, if you're going to have a rule against 'rude' posts....

(Edit: Based on the fact of what the last comment before it was locked says, I think we can guess who alerted on it...)

[WinkyDink]

199. "Rude" doesn't mean "rude to the evil Bush Cabal," fergawdsake.

[JaneyVee]

2. Boo.

[QuestForSense]

402. Says it all.

[Hissyspit]

444. Apparently the post was hidden by only one necessary juror vote to hide,

with that juror commenting that meegbear had posted too much of the article based on the copyright rules. Juror evidently unaware that meegbear has permission from the author to post his entire articles.

[Nye Bevan]

3. A thread which expresses the hope that a woman should suck a "syphilitic dick"

Last edited Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

is best hidden, IMO.

Just because someone sticks the word "rude" in their pseudonym should not mean that community standards are temporarily suspended.

(For clarity, the OP expressed the wish for a woman to "suck a dick". It was a subsequent reply in the thread that expressed the wish for the dick in question to be "syphilitic&quot .

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Where did you get 'syphilitic', other than your own mind?

I just went and read the post, and the word 'syphilitic' never appears. and, in fact, both a man and a woman are told to suck one. RP seems to hold both father and daughter equally in contempt.

Does it surpass community standards? Looks like. But you seem to want to paint it even worse than it is, as bad as it is.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5118057

Yes, it was not in the original article but it demonstrates the nastiness of the overall thread.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. Ah, then you should alert on that comment. nt

[salib]

128. Uh... the thread is still there, hence you can reference it. It is only the OP that is gone.

[Nye Bevan]

130. Correct, but a GD thread that nobody can reply to sinks very quickly (nt)

[bvar22]

235. Yes. It does sink quickly,

but I was still able to add my "REC" to it.
158 Recs now.

[blackspade]

286. Me too.

[sabrina 1]

370. Another rec from me. It's really bad when the Rude One is no longer acceptable on DU.

That was a great rant against Cheney. Should never have been hidden, should be all over the internet. And hopefully even he might get to see what people think of him.

The Rude One speaks for me when it comes to the War Criminals no matter he chooses to say what needs to be said.

[nomorenomore08]

391. +1

[dflprincess]

412. I agree

Unfortunately, I "reced" it before it was hidden. If I could, I'd rec it again. After all, he is talking about the Cheney's and the "offensive" statement may have been a play on words.

I also enjoyed the take on this on Stephanie Miller that Liz Cheney is just so hungry for daddy's approval that she's trying to prove she's just as evil as he is.

[sabrina 1]

416. I am offended by war criminals. Everything else takes second place to that. I see someone slamming

the arch war criminal, Cheney, and everything else becomes minor. Why, because overshadowing any other 'offense' are the images of the bodies, the children the elderly, our own troops, the destruction of a nation, the millions of refugees, the torture, the lies the blood stained profits, and frankly nothing else matters. I am in awe of those who can blot out all those images and settle on as few words to be offended by. Wish I could do that, but I can't.

[Javaman]

184. oh good grief. alert on that particular responce not the original thread.

[Nye Bevan]

206. I was not the alerter (nt)

[Javaman]

223. Okay, my bad.

Sorry about that.

Cheers!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

210. Really, duh!

[TheBlackAdder]

212. On June 8th, I juried one of your posts. Here was my comment to Leave It Alone:

"While the text is religious in content, it does not proselytize but lay down commonly perceived and conveyed points about Christ and states the obvious fact that this one man was the most influential being of humanity. I doubt that this claim can be refuted. Are we now to ban any discussion that deals with religious topics, because they might offend others? There seems to be a resurgence of political correctness, which is sanitizing the boards and discussions. Perhaps having taken a year of comparative religion and religious psychology courses in the 1980's influenced my position. Now, as someone who is returning to college to obtain an English degree with a Political Science minor, I am being exposed to various proses throughout time and Christianity influenced most of it. As a paying EFF supporter, I cherish free speech in any media. Some of it is palatable while others not so much. We should be adult to be able to filter and accept others viewpoints."

While I did not read this particular OP in question, reported to have contained an STD sex act reference, keep in mind that what is offensive to one might not be to another. Your post from June 8th, which was hidden by an equal 4-3 vote, was about as tame as any other post here... yet, it apparently ruffled the feathers of at least one person from California.

I could package up a case that would convince any jury member to vote against almost any post here. It wasn't content, but the packaging of the complaint that did in your post. Some here seem to be flag happy, and they might be shell accounts that are set up by political operatives to alter the conversation. I, or one, rarely flag any post anywhere. By keeping a post up, it serves as a public record that attests to a poster's character. By hiding such posts, people might not be able to build a proper impression on the people they are dealing with.

In any event, this site seems to be evolving into a Nanny State, and that's not good.

[DesertDiamond]

362. Whether or not I agree that Jesus was the most influential person ever, I totally agree that that is

another person's right to express if they believe it. I was asked to be on a jury recently, also about a religious post, this one making statements about another religion that I know that many believe to be true. Because it was the poster's viewpoint, I couldn't decide whether it should be hidden or whether it would be better to leave it and let people dialogue about the fact that the poster's perceptions were incorrect. There have been incorrect posts about my religion as well, and I preferred to simply leave a comment explaining what was incorrect. Well, I debated for so long that I got timed out. I don't know what the jury decided.

[lame54]

131. I bet the rude one is...

kicking himself for not using syphilitic himself

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Is your addition of the word 'syphillitic' an expression of the honesty that comes from having

a strong religious faith? To claim a person said what they did not say is called 'bearing false witness' in the faith tradition in which I was raised.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Nope, I was referring to this reply in the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5118057

[Iggo]

68. Then you should have alerted on that reply instead.

[Nye Bevan]

103. I was not the alerter on the OP (nt)

[Gore1FL]

69. That's a comment in the thread

It's not the thread, itself.

[Nye Bevan]

106. By "the thread" I mean the thread as a whole, not just the OP. (nt)

[Gore1FL]

237. Fair point

But hiding to OP for an offending sub post isn't reasonable.

[Demit]

84. I'll add my voice here. You're wrong. You should acknowledge it.

[Nye Bevan]

109. By "thread" I meant the whole thread, not the OP in isolation.

I am happy to clarify this but I stand by my comment earlier.

[Bluenorthwest]

120. And yet you failed to say so and laid the blame on the OP. The word is 'dishonest'.

It is interesting to see how your faith informs your behavior.

[Nye Bevan]

126. I used the word "thread" rather than "OP" for a reason.

I thought that most DUers understood that "thread" refers to a collection of posts, as opposed to one individual post.

Having said that, I have edited my post to clarify this still further for those for whom this is necessary.

[hueymahl]

92. So sorry your delicate sensitivities were offended

Ignore is your friend.

Censorship is not cool.

[Nye Bevan]

101. I was not the alerter, nor a juror (nt)

[doxydad]

179. Did not see that...HMMM

[WinkyDink]

201. Oh, please. It wasn't written by a DU member. But you knew that.

[Nye Bevan]

209. The "syphilitic" commentary was (nt)

[BlueStater]

4. Not surprised.

I thought it was a great rant. Of course, all the whiny language police cares about is certain words he used in his post.

[underpants]

7. I agree

Great rant though

[2pooped2pop]

53. yes, it's becoming more like Ladies Home Journal

than a political site with all the whining and "proper etiquette" I've served on many a jury and every time I am stunned at the thin skinned whiny reasons for alerting. I really can't stand it anymore and just signed in to say that. Am signing back out now coz this site only serves to piss me off anymore.

Can't deal with the whining but not allowed to say that it reminds me of the republican false righteousness and victim attitude.

Gotta stay off here. that's a bye

[grasswire]

175. yeah, what's the point in hiding anyway?

Everyone reads the hides. I always read a hide when I encounter one.

[Javaman]

189. +1000

and more so, people then comment via a new thread linking to the hidden thread in question.

so I completely agree, hidden posts do nothing more than attract more eyeballs.

[HubertHeaver]

408. "hidden posts do nothing more than attract more eyeballs"

as they should.

[Javaman]

458. it is indeed a double edged situation. nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

236. This

[awoke_in_2003]

373. Yep, I always do, too. nt

[sendero]

328. Exactly...

.... too many folks around here are prone to getting the vapors over the most ridiculous of perceived infractions. If you are that big of a hothouse flower Ladies Home Journal is where you belong.

[silvershadow]

414. Bravo!

(In general. Not a comment on the discussion in this thread or OP, which I only skimmed)

[sabrina 1]

372. The Corporate Media doesn't get hidden though. That is considered 'credible' by the same small

group it seems.

[Exultant Democracy]

379. Spot on, they are exactly like the republicans.

[ctsnowman]

450. lol Love it.

[Eleanors38]

80. Saw "dick" & "viscous goo," thought it was an anti-gun thread...

what with shotguns and all. Thought that stuff was Hide Proof, so didn't think twice about it.

[Paladin]

5. Bullshit.

Rude Pundit columns, in all their gloriously profane bad taste, have been a fixture at DU for as far back as I can remember. And were there ever more deserving targets of RP's wrath than the current ones? First Tom Tomorrow, now Rude Pundit. People, we're Democrats: there is never a time when we don't need all the friends we can get.......

[2banon]

190. Tom Tomorrow has been banned??? !!!!

[grasswire]

257. is that true?

bloody hell.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

288. No hosts locked one of his "gun" cartoons.

Tom Tomorrow's problem was he was three days too early for the latest gun massacre. The cartoon, iirc, fit the subsequent gun massacre to a "T". I forget which gun massacre was immediately following. I can't remember if it was the cops killers, the school shooter(s) or the woman killer(s).

Anyway, it got reposted after the next massacre.

[2banon]

290. thanks.. interesting. strange, twisted logic prevailing in certain quarters.

[Warren Stupidity]

367. it remains a monument to host perfidiousness.

[Scuba]

6. Saw that. Lame alert, lame jury.

[FSogol]

10. Agreed. First nipple alerts and now "Don't be rude to the Cheneys" alerts.

[jberryhill]

158. People are reading DU at work

Therefore all communications on DU need to conform to appropriate corporate communication standards.

Just imagine of that subject line were displayed on someone's monitor when a supervisor walked by.

[caraher]

166. Should be people be reading DU at work?

Instead of, say, working?

(Note: Yes, I do read DU at work... but if I got into trouble about something on my computer because it was on DU, I think that would be my fault, not DU's...)

[FSogol]

176. Yup: "I wasn't doing my job and it's all DU's fault! Damn those nipples! Damn those Cheneys!"

[totodeinhere]

473. I often read DU at work. It helps to relieve the boredom.

And as long as we get our work done we are allowed to do light web surfing. We are not allowed to stream music or video however.

[grasswire]

183. maybe those people shouldn't display rude pundit threads then..

...at work. Skip over it.

It is ridiculous to think that DU should be limited by that consideration.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

218. Good grief, it's a little hard to believe anyone could think that a reasonable argument!

I guess the boss wont' mind that you're reading a non-work related site rather than working if only there's nothing rude about it?

[arikara]

293. Ah, but then the poster would have to use some acronym which escapes me at the moment

so that delicate sensibilities will know not to open the link. I don't get it, if people are surfing DU at work and get into trouble for opening a page that has a photo of say a woman breastfeeding, then maybe they shouldn't be surfing DU at work. Instead of raising a big stink because they saw a boob.

And don't open Rude at work because you know he's going to be rude.

[lapislzi]

191. Not my circus, not my monkeys

If NSFW stuff is NS for YOUR W, then eschew it until personal time.

People need to manage their own shit.

[Blus4u]

266. Here, here!!!

what you said - exactly!!!

"People need to manage their own shit."

Peace

[Hissyspit]

360. Yeah. I've been here a decade. I swear I don't ever

remember people complaining about that before - just requests for graphic image warnings.

I could be wrong, of course.

[Caretha]

394. Wow

and you still have a job? Be glad you don't work for me.

[jberryhill]

469. It helps to be self employed

[mopinko]

424. u just pulled that out of your ass.

that has never, ever been a standard, even under the most draconian mod moods.

[MADem]

200. As I've said--and I've gotten excoriated for saying it--it's called "Trolling from the left."

People take a "caricature" position with a left-'ish' slant, and make an argument that sounds like, "If you don't agree with this POV, you are some kind of 'ist'--sexist, racist, anti-feminist, that kind of thing."

People need to use their own judgment and not always assume that a word or phrase is being used to denigrate a subset of people. It's called CONTEXT...wish people would take more things in it!

[FSogol]

211. Very true. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

272. I bet if Alerters had to include their name...a lot of frivolous alerts would stop.

No real penalty for a few to disrupt the board by using BS distractive reasons to hide good commentary. I agree, there are some very good Port-Trollers here.

[pacalo]

434. I'm not so sure they could be shamed.

(Nice to see you, OAITW. )

[HooptieWagon]

476. Agreed. Alerters should not be anonymous.

[riderinthestorm]

22. One of our most reliably progressive voices... squashed here

SMH

[frylock]

296. this place has become most reliably unprogressive..

but that's what happens when you welcome disenchanted former republicans with open arms.

[countryjake]

313. or determined neo-liberals.

[ctsnowman]

451. X 1000

[RiffRandell]

156. I agree; do you have the alert and results? nt

[Scuba]

164. Sorry, no.

[leftynyc]

9. Unbelievable

I thought the rant was righteous and it gets hidden because someone got their knickers in a knot over some of the language. How pathetic.

[sharp_stick]

28. Alerting!!!!!

Knickers is a totally sexist and inappropriate term.

In the future please use "Undergarments twisted into uncomfortable position". Feel free to add the word "really" in front of uncomfortable to be more direct. Thank you for your expected compliance.

I'm sure the dictionary approved for those with delicate sensibilities will be published soon to make this a much nicer place.



because it's gotta be there or some tool will take it seriously.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. The Old Golf Pants. . .

. . .correctly called Plus Fours were also routinely called knickers. And men wore those, not women.

So, the language police would actually be wrong!

Funny post on your part, BTW

[leftynyc]

81. LOL - that's why I used knickers

instead of panties. I was under the impression knickers wasn't gender specific. No wonder the left gets tagged as the pc police.

[FSogol]

180. Not all Tools!

[ballabosh]

340. Here are the words Not to be used again:

B*m
B*tty
P*x
Kn*ckers
Kn*ckers
W**-W**
Semprini

[A HERETIC I AM]

419. And the naughty bits of Reginald Maudling

[WillyT]

14. You Gotta Be Kidding Me...

[bobduca]

15. Fuck the four trolls on that jury

[Chan790]

54. FYI: "Results of your Jury Service"

On Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:19 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Fuck the four trolls on that jury
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5120789

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Suggesting that jurors are "trolls" because they voted to hide a post advocating that a woman should suck a dick is unacceptable IMO. Please consider hiding.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:30 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Way out of bounds.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Though I don't agree with the commentary of the one asking to hide. Since I have to go with community standards, I don't really have a choice but to confirm the hide.

[A Simple Game]

104. Juror #7, your opinions help set community standards and you don't have to go along with

what you perceive they are. If you don't agree with what they are you should try to change them with your vote.

[truebrit71]

116. No shit....

....oh, and what a pathetic fucking alert that was too....jesus this place really HAS become Ladies Home Journal....now will someone point me towards the smelling salts I feel a spell on the fainting couch coming on..

[MADem]

194. I am shocked that there are people who do not understand how the community standards are formed here

There is something called JUDGMENT that should come into play.

[MADem]

188. Loved the clueless rationale of Number 7!! "I don't really have a choice...?" Uh, no--YOU DO have

a choice.

Good grief, don't people understand what community standards ARE? After all this time?

The standards are developed by the community's sense of what is appropriate. The INDIVIDUALS in the community develop that standard by their own opinions on these matters.

[bobduca]

426. Thanks for sharing that.

And a hearty to the 3 trolls there too.

[NCTraveler]

16. One takes their chances.

In no way does this mean "the Rude Pundit is thrown under the bus by DUers" as you put it.

[JEB]

17. It is a subject that deserves any (and I do mean any) nastiness

the Rude one or anybody else can deliver.

[valerief]

18. Election year = infiltration by Concernbots. nt

[Gemini Cat]

86. Yep. +1

[hobbit709]

19. More crap from the humor challenged here.

[stevenleser]

20. A ridiculous hide. Rude Pundit should have his own version of the Taterguy exception here.

His posts are an artform.

Just like modern art that is sometimes disturbing but has a message, the Rude One's posts are disturbing with a message.

It's understood that you are not supposed to go around speaking this way to your fellow human beings. That's the point.

[mcar]

29. Agreed

Who would hide the rude one? One has the option to simply not read him if he offends. But to be offended by a rant against the Cheneys? Odd.

[A Simple Game]

111. There are a vocal few on DU that purposely look for things to be offended by. n/t

[sabrina 1]

371. Yes there are few here who appear to want to monitor what DUers read or watch. They do seem okay

with the Corporate Media though.

[In_The_Wind]

32. Just for the record:

About taterguy

Statistics and Information


2 posts hidden in 90 days

It sorta looks like the taterguy exception may have temporally expired.

[stevenleser]

71. Interesting. I wonder if those were for the statement by him that was known as the exception.

It was calling someone a dumbass, right? Or calling him a dumbass? I can't remember.

[In_The_Wind]

78. I wasn't around when the exception happened but I think someone called him a dumbass in META.

This was his most recent hide: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025118132

[stevenleser]

114. Got it. No, that doesnt seem like the exception. I looked it up, his exception is to call other

people "dumbass".

[In_The_Wind]

241. D'oh

I guess I didn't get it cause he never called me a dumbass.

[bluesbassman]

273. WTF did that get hidden for? Love to see the alert reasoning on that one!

[In_The_Wind]

277. I agree with you ... would love to see the alert and jury reasons.

You already saw my reaction last night: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018629379

[bluesbassman]

279. LOL. Didn't have a clue what that was about.

Thanks for illuminating me.

[frylock]

298. i recently had a post hidden for replying to a post that i referred to as a dumb-ass post..

never "attacked" the poster, just critiqued the post. evidently, 4 people were offended by the word "ass."

[taterguy]

354. Alerters comments and results . . .

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Disruptive meta. Whining about a jury? WTF? Lounge? either way, hide, IMO

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jun 18, 2014, 06:30 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Meta
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[bluesbassman]

366. Amazing. The alerter didn't even have a clue WTF they were alerting about, but boy it was bad!

Half the the posts in GD are Meta now anyway, so how was that supporting community standards? Plus it's the host's job to enforce SOP and TOS not the jury's.

Sorry you got a hide for that Spud.

[closeupready]

60. Yeah, I think so, too.

Some of RP's rants are unpleasant, but most are brilliantly on-point.

[stevenleser]

244. He's playing a character, like Stephen Colbert, and like Colbert he says outrageous things. The

kinds of outrageous things are different, but it's really the same issue.

Lee Papa is not a homophobe or a misogynist or any of the other things that would ordinarily be indicated by some of the language he uses when posting as the Rude Pundit. The Rude Pundit is a character.

I think when viewed in that context, the objections and the hide are even more ludicrous.

[closeupready]

282. Right. And I'd guess he's likely about my age, because

that particular term ("SMD!&quot used pejoratively was more common in popular culture back in the 70's and 80's (or the manner in which he deployed the term in that thread).

So while some younger people might reasonably resent the term used in that way, most of us born in the 60's or 70's probably have used it ourselves, even gay people like me.

[aikoaiko]

337. I propose a Rude Pundit protected group.

This way the fanboys will be happy.

[stevenleser]

338. I would go along with this. Then we can post a note in GD that there is a new post with a link.

No content other than link in GD to the post in the group. People can read it there.

Still, a shame this is necessary.

[tabasco]

399. I propose people get their heads out of their asses

instead.

[U4ikLefty]

478. Kinda like the BOG?

[sharp_stick]

23. There are times when you realize

it's not that hard to collect four assholes in a room at any given time and a jury result like that is pretty good proof.

[sheshe2]

401. You too were alerted on this morning...

On Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

There are times when you realize
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5120829

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Referring to DU jurors as assholes is hurtful, rude, insensitive, and over-the-top.please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:53 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert has to be a joke. Right?
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Does this hide prove your point?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with the poster that there were four assholes on that jury PLUS ONE, the person who alerted on it in the first place. And then there's the one that made this alert. Lots of assholes to go around.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I agree that it is rude to call the jurors assholes, two others called them trolls and lame. If you are going to hide one then hide the other two. Some civility is needed here.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[sharp_stick]

406. Thanks for the heads up

I sometimes write in the heat of the moment and I was wondering if that one was going to get tagged. A 2:5 isn't too bad.

[hueymahl]

455. Juror #5 rocks. NT

[JVS]

24. I posted a suitably edited version of the thread. Now we can all be happy.

[dawg]

25. I agree with the hide.

I think the Rude Pundit is great, and I enjoy him immensely, but "go suck a dick" is too much. It's homophobic, and probably misogynistic as well.

As if sucking a dick is some kind of punishment. As if something is wrong with people who suck dicks.

While I tend to think that a great deal of leeway should be granted to people like the Rude Pundit, I don't think the homophobic premise of the post should be tolerated.

[JVS]

36. I disagree with the hide because the rule that used to apply before the jury system was that...

language used by articles posted was not subject to as high a level of scrutiny as original content posted by a DUer.

[dawg]

40. I see your point.

While I think the language is hide-worthy, I don't think the person who posted the article is necessarily deserving of the "hide". (Unless, of course, they are also the author of the piece.)

[doxydad]

177. Agreed, n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

37. I voted to leave it

But with the comment you just made (re: homophobic) it makes me look at it in a new light.

I tend to just trash that op's threads because even though I like to drop an f-bomb every now and then - I don't agree with the language (raw, explicit) that is used at times. Still - he (meegbear/rudepundit) has been around a long time.

Thanks for letting me look at it in a new way!

[SwankyXomb]

280. Could you post the results please?

[William769]

39. Bingo!

[whatchamacallit]

42. So you going to alert or vote to hide all RP posts from now on?

Because they're written to offend. Always have been, hopefully always will be.

[dawg]

48. I have never alerted on any post.

But "go suck a dick" is a *special* kind of offensive.

[hueymahl]

79. Really!?!

So you were "specially" offended, therefore we should squelch speech on here. Give me a fucking break.

I guess if I told you to go suck a banana, someone would report me for being insensitive to banana lovers.

Shit like this makes this place suck. And this is a special place.

[dawg]

96. Telling Cheney to "go suck a dick" is making gay sex out to be an ultimate put-down.

That's wrong, homophobic, and I'm pretty surprised that so few people on this thread seem to agree with me.

[hueymahl]

102. And your response shows both an utter misunderstanding of satire and

actually harms our efforts to rid ourselves of homophobia.

[dawg]

115. Explain to me how that part was satire.

n/t

[hueymahl]

121. Might as well explain algebra to a elephant. NT

[dawg]

132. I'm not an elephant. And I understand algebra.

Explain how saying someone should "go suck a dick" is satire, and maybe then I'll understand and agree with you.

[riqster]

129. Ummmm....fellatio occurs in straight couples, too, you know.

As do cunnilingus, anal sex, BDSM, and lots of other kinks.

To assume that sexual orientation somehow grants exclusive ownership of certain sexual activities is narrow-minded in the extreme.

Perhaps that is why so few people are agreeing with you.

[dawg]

136. Dick Cheney is male.

Telling a male to go suck a dick is a put-down of gay sex.

[riqster]

147. And Liz is not.

So does that make Rude a pimp, trying to sell straight oral sex?

[dawg]

160. So he's definitely being homophobic in the comment about Dick ...

and as for Liz, he's possibly being misogynistic. (But I don't want to get bogged down in that side of the argument.)

Oral sex is a great thing! One that is shared by people of all sexes and orientations.

Why use it as an insult to Dick Cheney?

There is only one reason. Our culture still has an inherent bias against gays. Implying that a man is gay is a way of demeaning him. That was the intent of that language, and the fact that it is still second-nature to so many people is a problem.

Understand, I'm not offended by the mere mentioning of sucking a dick. That's not a problem at all. (I can talk about that for days.)

[riqster]

168. Thanks for the in-depth explanation.

It helps me understand. Apologies for anything I said here that was offensive.

[grasswire]

192. so are we going to hide every post with a "fuck you" in it?

That is also using sex as a pejorative or insult.

[dawg]

238. No. "Fuck you" applies equally to all.

It doesn't specify gender or orientation, regardless of who you tell it to.

Just as a side comment, it puzzles me why "fuck you" is the go to insult for so many people. I have pretty much only done that to people I truly cherished.

[grasswire]

255. "suck dick" applies equally to all, as well.

Just sayin'

[dawg]

263. Do you really not see how this is being used as a homophobic slur?

Or do you just not care?

[bettyellen]

427. no, it actually excludes straight men completely. and that is kind of the point.

[snooper2]

250. how about telling him to suck a hemorrhoidal asshole

There, gender neutral!

[dawg]

260. I like that one!

Believe me, I don't mind the rudeness or the bad language. Not one bit.

[AngryDem001]

347. Cheney IS a hemorrhoidal asshole!!!

[redqueen]

308. Sucks to find out how many brogressives are on this site huh? nt

[L0oniX]

87. Men and women have oral sex. Nothing wrong with that. Context may be everything.

[Demit]

107. Interesting, the final post in that thread complains it is sexist.

I have long noticed the contradiction, between how men lovelovelove getting blow jobs but regard telling someone to go do one as a grievous insult.

I suppose what's happening there is that it's great to be the recipient, but demeaning to be the bestower? Is that the part men like, the dominance?

[dawg]

127. To me, the homophobia of the comment is obvious.

As is the misogyny.

This is the sort of thing that so pervades our culture, that most people don't even notice it, or worse, think it is normal and that anyone who objects is somehow in the wrong.

[Demit]

205. Yes, you said that.

But you didn't address why. Why it is so nice to get a blow job, but so insulting to tell someone to go give one.

[dawg]

234. It shouldn't be an insult at all. That's the point I'm trying to make.

By using "go suck a dick" as an insult, we perpetuate all sorts of ridiculous societal notions that are antithetical to what liberals are supposed to stand for.

[Demit]

281. Well we're going to end up talking past one another

I don't know for sure, but are you saying that a gay man has never said, as a retort, "Suck my dick!" or "Suck on this!" or grabbed his crotch in a gesture of contempt?

I'm just wondering how the concept started, and it's my theory, as I said upthread, that it is an expression of dominance: the giver is on his or her knees (a worship position) while the recipient gets the pleasure. I don't think it's necessarily illiberal. I think it's a tacitly-understood universal symbol of submission.

[The Wizard]

456. Perhaps adding the words

"and bark at the Moon" would make the comment more palatable (no pun intended).

[MadrasT]

233. Me too. It was a righteous rant but I couldn't get past the subject line.

And no, I did not alert.

It's homophobic, and probably misogynistic as well.

As if sucking a dick is some kind of punishment. As if something is wrong with people who suck dicks.

I have a huge problem with that phrase for the reason you cited.

It is also incredibly sex-negative. If you are telling someone you hate to "suck a dick", it means you think dick sucking is a horrible, demeaning thing to do.

Pretty weird that as "sex positive" as DU pretends to be, that isn't obvious to more people.

[redqueen]

249. This.

People whining about "Nanny state" shit need to realize you don't get two sets of rules.

If we expect others to not use misogynistic and homophobic insults then people we like don't get a pass.

If they want to say that misogynistic and homophobic insults are ok by them well...

[PoliticalPothead]

381. +1000

I thought the same thing when I saw it. I agree with the point he was making, I just wish he hadn't used such homophobic language.

[sabrina 1]

410. Solution, do not read the Rude Pundit. You will be offended, he is offensive, he doesn't care

whether people are offended or not. He says so, right on his website. He is a breath of fresh air in a world of 'woe is me'.

Funny how posts supporting bombing people in foreign lands are never hidden, they are 'discussed', argued over, rationalized and excused.

On my long list of priorities, right at the top is 'violence' against innocent people. IF I were in favor of hiding everything that offends me, I would start with our Imperial, brutal foreign policies. If ONLY we could hide them, stop them, prosecute them SOMETHING.

But America is a funny place, we censor a mini second view of a nipple, but relish and promote every violent, graphic scene in a movie we can find.

Sex is not offensive to me, any kind, but violence is.

I guess I'm weird ....

[dawg]

413. It isn't about sex or "dirty" words.

It's about the use of homophobic put-downs. It's one of those things that our society needs to get past. And we will never get past it if even liberals make excuses and perpetuate the behavior.

[sabrina 1]

421. We have different priorities as to what is most offensive, obviously. When I see the word

'Cheney' I see tortured innocents, some tortured to death. I see Dahr Jamail's photo journals of dead Iraqi Children, hundreds of bodies, little children, some with their faces burned off, white phospherous, bombs, gunshots, I see pregnant mothers with their babies blown out of their bodies and dogs eating the bodies of the innocent dead, dead because of the monster Cheney and his war criminal cohorts. I see THIS post as extremely offensive, but accurate, true, real, a record of what we did there, there is more, more images that come to mind when I see the word Cheney, or Bush, or Rice or Rumsfeld or Woflowitz, Ledeen among others. I see the women in our detention who were raped, brutally and the children who were sodomized, yes, we know this for a fact.

Yes, there are things we need to 'get past' in order of priorities. And when someone focuses on what, imo, is one of the most important priorities, our brutal, vicious, criminal foreign policy, as the Rude One did in his rant against Cheney, sorry if the words that so offended you, were completely overshadowed for ME by all those horrific images of man's inhumanity against man, FOR PROFIT. Those images, those real, horrific, monstrous images, completely obliterated everything else.

When we begin the process of at least trying to bring some justice to the surviving victims, including our own troops, I guess I'll be able to worry about a few words. Until then, I will keep those images alive, because I refuse to become so apathetic that I can forget them, brush them aside, and focus on some 'offensive words'. I imagine all those who died or survived to live lives of pain both physical and mental would love to have nothing else to worry them than a few offensive words.

To me, but maybe I am strange, Cheney's war crimes and anyone willing to go after him, to refuse to forget his crimes, are way more of a priority than a few offensive words.

But that's me. I barely noticed those words to be honest and I wonder, did those who saw NOTHING ELSE really feel those words are more important than the substance of that most excellent reminder that War Criminals still walk freely among us?

[dawg]

422. I get where you're coming from sabrina 1, but two wrongs don't make a right.

You wouldn't defend using racist language to criticize even a genuinely terrible person, so why should we tolerate the use of homophobic language to do so?

[sabrina 1]

423. I don't think you do, dawg. But that's okay, not everyone can remain focused totally on the evil

of the Bush/Cheney years. It is difficult. The women who were raped, eg. I remember a woman named Noor eg. She begged her 'brothers' in a note she managed to get out of Abu Ghraig, to destroy the prison because she did not want to live because of what OUR troops had done to her! I still feel pain inside when I remember the first reports of that note, later confirmed in horrific photos which we still have not seen. Because yes, she did exist, she was brutally raped and we never found out what happened to her. I am haunted by that.

Sorry, I cannot see any comparison to the horrors we KNOW Cheney&Co are responsible for and a few words.

As Shakespeare said, he was such a philosopher that guy: A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet!

Or as I was told and have lived by, 'sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me'. Unless I let them. Noor if she had the choice would surely have chosen the 'names' over the 'sticks and stones'. I know I would.

All that the hide did was to successfully cover for Cheney and his horrific crimes. That is unforgivable to me.

[dawg]

425. Do you think I'm saying these things to defend the Cheneys?

Last edited Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

To hell with them. Dick should be strung up in the Hague. I don't care about disrespecting the Cheney's in the least.

I'm trying to stand up people who live in a world where even so-called liberals think that they are something offensive, a name to call straight men in order to put them to shame.

It's a serious defect of our culture, and a totally separate issue from the things you are talking about.

If you feel that the hide helped cover Cheney's horrific crimes, then blame the man who put bigoted language in a rant that could have otherwise been much more effective (and way less hypocritical) without it.

[sabrina 1]

428. It isn't about US always, do you understand that? WE are NOT despite our zenophobic notion to the

contrary, the most important people on the planet.

Do I think you were distracting from Cheney's horrific crimes against humanity and against WOMEN in particular, probably not, but that is what the end result was.

Which is why I keep talking about the CRIMES rather than the 'offensive words' because THAT is what became the ISSUE, sadly.

Sometimes it is preferable to put our own issues aside in order to keep the focus on ACTUAL CRIMES, many of them AGAINST WOMEN.

What more important to you, a few words that are sexually offensive or RAPE of untold numbers of women committed BECAUSE of Cheney's crimes?

As a woman, call me anything you want, but don't do to me what Cheney's war did to the women of Iraq. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

[dawg]

429. I don't have to choose between the two, sabrina 1.

I can condemn Cheney's horrible violations of international law and all of the death and devastation they caused, AND I can also condemn the Rude Pundit for recklessly using homophobic and misogynistic slurs, adding to a culture at home that devalues and de-legitimizes people in countless ways.

I don't have to choose. It isn't an either/or decision tree.

Why don't you go start a thread about all of the important things you are talking about instead of hanging out here trying to defend the use of bigoted language by a pundit that you like?

[sabrina 1]

430. You did choose between the two. You put the focus on a few words. Sorry, but that is a fact.

I will start a thread when I feel like it, I don't follow orders from people on the internet as an independent woman I make my own decisions.

Love the Rude Pundit, he hit the nail on the head re Cheney and I will use Twitter to make sure as many people as possible get to read that rant.

[dawg]

432. So, just a smidge of bigotry is okay, so long as the rest of the message is good?

Really?

I'm disappointed that you aren't even trying to understand why someone would be upset by the use of that language (and it's posting on a so-called liberal message board)

But having said my peace about that, I didn't mean to sound like I was ordering you to post another thread. I was just wondering why you were putting so much energy into defending this particular choice of words by the Rude Pundit instead of bringing attention to the (admittedly) more important issues elsewhere.

Oh well, we just don't get each other on this.

I really admire your writing, and the righteous anger you have about the atrocities that were done in our name. I don't mean to minimize that in any way.

[sabrina 1]

437. No, bigotry is the hallmark of our Foreign Policy. So it is not okay, but we, our government,

are allied with the some of the world's worst bigots. Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Ukraine, to name but a few. If bigotry is the issue, then I am confident I am on the right side and have been since I predicted on the day of the 9/11 attacks that we would use those attacks to start a war somewhere where it would be okay to use bigoted language, 'camel jockeys' 'ragheads' etc, just when we had finally silenced the bigots HERE regarding African Americans. They were FREE at last to use all the bigoted words they could think of, in the great and phony 'War on Terror'.

No one spoke out more against our bigoted Foreign Policy than I.

Our closest ME ally, Saudi Arabia, see THEIR treatment of Gays if you want to be justifiably outraged. Or Uganda to whom we still send our tax dollars.

Please, do not dare to talk to me about a 'little bigotry is okay'. Not for me. But for our Government? A WHOLE LOT OF BIGOTRY is okay!

And Cheney & Co are the ultimate bigots, it isn't the Rude Pundits course language we should be concerned with IF bigotry really is what we are concerned about. It is WHY ARE WE FUNDING the grotesque bigotry of the Ugandan Govt?

Our bigoted FP is what anyone who actually is concerned about bigotry should be talking about, NOT a few words that will hurt, how many people, compared to our Bigoted Foreign Wars?

Perspective, I guess I look at the big picture, the atrocities that were okay because they are 'brown people', 'different' from us superior western imperialists.

I am not angry with you, we just don't see eye to eye on what bigotry in real life really is. I prefer to stay focused on ACTIONS of bigotry rather than a few words that are a bit coarse, but pale by comparison to our financial support for the Govt of Uganda, eg.

[riderinthestorm]

472. Brilliant. Can I steal this? You've said it much better than I ever could... nt

[vlakitti]

442. Context is everything

and people need to get over the fact that slang and really ugly comments can be hurtful. In this case I liked what the Rude Pundit said though I winced at some of the language. I'm not young and the fact is younger people today routinely use language I'd have freaked out about 20 years ago. On the other hand they are welcoming to lots of diverse views and people and damned if I have a problem with any of that.

[sabrina 1]

443. Thanks, I just try to put it in perspective. I ask myself this: ACTUAL RAPE and SODOMY of Children V

a few rough words? And the answer is easy. The Rude Pundit is expected to be 'rude'. Anyone with delicate sensibilities should simply avoid him.

Me? I love his stuff, always have.

I wonder how Oscar Wilde, or Shakespeare would have fared on today's DU?

Now well, I imagine!

[derby378]

26. More Rude Pundit, please!

I do admit to chuckling at the WMD "marital aid."

[kysrsoze]

27. OMG! What is wrong with hitting the "ignore" button or just IGNORING the post and moving on?

What is with this stupid, puritanical garbage lately? We're all adults here, aren't we? If HBO took this stance, Maher's and John Oliver's shows would be pulled off the air.

[hobbit709]

31. Because the perpetually offended want to keep YOU from enjoying something.

[corkhead]

70. I used to think that it was solely a right winger trait, so much for that.

[HooptieWagon]

125. A wise friend told me:

"There are two types of people in the world. Those who like to enjoy themselves, and those who are offended others are enjoying themselves". There's an awful lot of the latter on DU.

[hobbit709]

133. You noticed?

[HooptieWagon]

153. Yes, a couple hundred alerts I've juried.

The vast majority are frivolous.. About half are using the alert function to silence an opposing arguement they're losing to. About the other half are just plain thin-skinned authoritarians.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

246. Yep

That's been my experience on juries as well.

[Eleanors38]

134. Now, Lantern Waste gets tagged. Some folks managed the impossible:

Detecting a fart in a whirlwind.

[hobbit709]

143. When you get offended by everything, then you will offend someone.

I find the hide ridiculous, but then I find about 90% of the hides here ridiculous.

[Eleanors38]

155. Well, I'm a Gunhumper: I got High Standards.

[grasswire]

196. another ridiculous hide

absolutely

[L0oniX]

98. It goes against AUTHORITARIAN REPUBLICAN ideals. Punishment can be fun.

[deutsey]

30. Hiding that rant is ridiculous

The only thing I scrunched up my face about was the bit about the sternum, but it didn't warrant an alert.

[ChazInAz]

33. Absurd!

The Rude One is one of my gods. I rank him up there with Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain (In his bitter late life).

[dballance]

34. I read the post. I can't believe it was hidden.

Now it is unacceptable to excoriate the Cheneys? I didn't see anything in that OP that violated the TOS or community standards. Especially our standards concerning war criminals.

[whatchamacallit]

35. Bad precedent

[riderinthestorm]

41. Yup. Ominous and ridiculous nt

[Javaman]

204. +1

this is the kind of thing that makes me give pause in regards to DU.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. The Alert Should Have Been Summarily Dismissed

It was linked original content. The language is not the doing of any DUer and was not targeting any particular people here on DU.

I agree with you on this precedent.

[kysrsoze]

46. Very good point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. 'summarily'? Are you calling for all alerts to be pre-screened before getting to a jury?

Who do you want to get that job?

'Precedent'? Do you really think random 7-DUer juries work on 'precedent'?

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Ok With Me

Too inconvenient? Not my problem to solve. Censoring linked content with relevant political opinion should be something that automatically invalidates an alert.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. 'Automatically'? I don't think you think what these adverbs you're using mean

Are you saying DU should have some artificial intelligence that can scan an alert and the post it refers to, and that could decide if the alert is about something that was quoted rather than something written by a DUer, *and* that the overall content is politically acceptable to DU (eg it's telling the Cheneys to suck a dick, rather than a quote from a RWer saying the Obamas should do that)?

Hell, if Admin could write software that sophisticated, they wouldn't be running websites, they'd be picking up the millions offered for software that can detect sarcasm.

[ProfessorGAC]

73. I'm Done With This

I agreed with another poster. You picked on the word "precedent" and i'm not the one who used it first. You ignored the genesis.

You're picking nits about which i don't care. I expressed an opinion. If you don't like it, that's perfectly fine.

[L0oniX]

99. The admins have never retracted a hide ...that I know of.

[wyldwolf]

44. After 141 recs

Which goes to show how representative those 7 people on the DU jury were of all of us.

[Chan790]

93. It's revelatory of an issue of the jury system.

If you rec or comment on a thread, you cannot be seated on a jury within that thread. Okay, that seems straightforward...but it creates a problem.

Those 141 recommenders and however many commentators almost certainly represent a widely-held consensus that probably even represents a majority of active DU posters. Their standard would thus be the community standard. Not one of them can be seated on that jury. This is a consistent issue with long threads or popular threads.

On the most popular posts, those that have the widest plaudits and engagement...you end up with a jury pool that is rather small and which by its nature is predisposed to a kind of Minoritarianism tyranny; the pool of people on popular threads eligible to serve on juries within those threads are by their nature increasingly oppositional to the majority of posters in the thread...the larger and more popular a thread grows, the smaller the jury pool becomes and the more likely any jury becomes of being populated by those that do not reflect a community standard.

People here are prone to blaming "PC run amok" or "fringe groups" or "trolls"...the issue is none of the above--it's self-non-selection bias. By not posting in the thread because they're disgusted by it or do not support the premise of it, they become more likely to be selected for a jury on it as more posters join the thread. The more out of the mainstream and community standard you are, the more likely it is to happen.

Edit: We've created a jury selection model that does exactly the opposite of the jury itself is meant to do...reflect the community.

[pintobean]

113. Reccing a thread does not prevent one from being on a jury

for posts in the recced thread.

Members are excluded from serving if:

they have their "Willingness to serve on a DU Jury" option set to "Unwilling"
they are ignoring the alerted member
they are blocking DU mail from the alerted member
they have replied to the alerted member within the last 24 hours
they have alerted on the alerted member within the last 24 hours
they have posted in the thread which contains the alerted post
they are on the alerted member's Jury Blacklist

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem

[Chan790]

144. That mitigates the issue slightly.

I admit I was mistaken about the rec. It doesn't change the problem...the longer a thread gets with more posters participating, the less likely any jury within that thread becomes of reflecting the CS.

[JVS]

446. It would be nice if there were a rec override for juries.

For example if a thread gets 7 recs after the hide it gets reinstated

[mwooldri]

365. And because of the "hide", more people will read & rec.

I read that RP post earlier today... I didn't really think it was a great post.... Now it got hidden, and I don't agree with the hide. So I Rec'd it.

[mopinko]

45. rude can cross the line.

i can remember a few rude columns about hillary that were reeeeal tough calls.

i agree that this doesnt make him "under the bus", tho. his next post will be all the more loved.
i have to say i am glad to see anything get hidden around here anymore. maybe folks will wake up and we can a little civility around here again.

[Hissyspit]

307. Yes, let's hide stuff that shouldn't be hidden

and not hide stuff that should be. That's the solution.

[mopinko]

332. apparently.

i remember one where he called a woman, hillary iirc, a cunt. that was though.

it's getting awfully stupid around here. and mean.

[GeorgeGist]

47. Kickety Wrec.

[Orsino]

49. I hope he will recover from the terrible tragedy of having a post hidden. n/t

[malaise]

51. Very unfortunate

I love my Rudie

[rickyhall]

52. Next time just post a link, I got to the link anyway.

[n2doc]

55. Too rude for the prudes

People who complain about how posts like the rude one's mean DU has gone downhill haven't really been here long, or haven't been paying attention. I've been here over 10 years and the Rude Pundit has had many similarly rude rants posted here. This was the first one I've seen banned. Luck O the Draw, I guess.

[Blue_Adept]

59. Or just a sign of the times

The acceptability level of certain phrases is diminishing.

But we can still say "TURN ON THE FUGGING TV RIGHT NOW@!!!!@!$", so we're good.

[Iggo]

74. You spelled "fucking" wrong.

[Demeter]

57. One hundred and 43 recs, and some morons decided to alert and can it?

That is flagrant abuse of a system running open loop.

[The Wizard]

457. Sometimes I think this place

is crawling with trolls. We need a grand jury system here that determines what goes to the jury. Besides that what offends some might be the truth to someone else. Offensive is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

[NYC Liberal]

58. What a shitty hide.

[packman]

61. Well, that's the problem

with the Rude Pundit, he was too subtle in his language, metaphors, and similes. Should have been more to the point and expressed himself in more forceful language.

[kag]

62. The only thing rude about this post is that...

The comment by DeSwiss about "blessing" the post refers to the "Texas A&M Longhorns"!!!!!

The Longhorns are the The University of Texas. Texas A&M are the Aggies. Please do not conflate the two. It is quite insulting to this Longhorn. The hand gesture used by "borg9nine," while obscene in Italy, is the proud "Hook 'em" gesture of the Texas Longhorns.

Confusing UT with the Aggies is a bit like saying "Obama bin Laden", and every bit as insulting.

Thank you.

[niyad]

193. and that "hook 'em" gesture is actually taken from the image of the goddess Isis

[LuvNewcastle]

411. Once again, DU provides a detail I wasn't aware of!

I love it, they've given RWers a reason to hate the University of Texas.

[Blue_Adept]

64. It's sexist to tell anyone, male or female, to do what that subject header had

But we can still laugh and joke about the size of said penis' in thread headers and posts when it comes to men and their guns at least.

[dawg]

75. Those penis-size posts are not okay with me either.

They are body-shaming posts, and they have an impact that goes beyond just insulting the "gun-nuts" driving the big pickups.

[hueymahl]

83. Dude (or duddette) - You are way to sensitive to be on here

Ignore is your friend.

[dawg]

108. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

It's not about me.

It's about other people that I love and care about. And they see post after post that tells them that something about them (that they cannot change) is just the WORST THING EVER. And that it's all a big joke to everyone else. Ha ha ha!

Sucking a dick isn't something only losers do. It isn't an insult. It shouldn't be something a liberal uses to put someone else down.

Likewise, no one can control the size of their penis. No one should be ridiculed for that either.

[hueymahl]

119. Again, you really don't get the purpose of satire

If you defang satire of its social references, no one will get it.

And sucking a dick is not a purely gay reference. I'm actually a little offended that you equate (in a non-satire context) sucking a dick as something "gay" or "negative". Most of the folks I hang out with (who happen to be gay, btw) use it regularly, and usually out of context.

You bestow hatred and power on those words when you make them special. You are the one propagating homophobia by doing so. It is a common mistake us liberals make. We think we are being so sensitive, when actually all we are being is judgmental jerks that push away the folks upon which we are trying to effect change.

[dawg]

141. When you tell another man to go suck a dick ...

and you are using that as an insult, that is offensive. It implies that there is something wrong with being gay.

[hueymahl]

151. No it doesn't.

I guess it could if used in the right context. And that is the whole point - you must use it in context.

Dr. Dre uses the work "nigger" a LOT in his music. The context is appropriate. Does that make him racist? No. He uses it context.

My great-uncle from south Alabama uses the work "nigger" a lot also. Does that make him racist? Hell yeah.

Satire is an art form. If "sucking a dick" is offensive, then so is the word "nigger". Or "redskin" for that matter. You would not call a football team the "Washington Dick Suckers". But you sure as hell might use it to point out the ridiculous.

Here is a parallel example. If RP in his real life walked up to me and called me a cocksucker, I would be pissed and a little offended. But him using it in satire, calling on the very societal taboos of using bad language in public and inappropriate names to make a point, well, that is what satire is all about. You may not like it personally, but it is a form of art, kind of like Maplethorpe's "piss christ".

Again, some folks are just too sensitive to be on this site. They are "satire challenged".

[dawg]

178. There is so much wrong with what you just wrote ...

that I don't even know where to begin.

Let's just say that you and I really don't "get" each other, and leave it at that.

[WillyT]

264. It Never Occurred To Me That One Would Take An Insult Literally...

If I told somebody to... Kiss My Ass... I wouldn't expect them to try to put their lips on my butt.

If I told somebody to Go To Hell... I would expect them to drop dead and descend into the fire and brimstone.

If I told somebody to Fuck Off, or Go Fuck Yourself... hell... I'm not even sure how they'd do that.

[betsuni]

470. I was literally just thinking exactly the same thing.

All the insults that if taken literally ... you want me to do WHAT to my mother?

[WillyT]

471. LOL !!! - I'm Sure "God Damn You!" Had A Lot More Impact Several Hundred Years Ago...

Now... Not so much.

[stonecutter357]

197. K&R

[LiberalLovinLug]

220. Yes it is insulting to the Dick

That is the point.

Just to add to hueymahl's response...

The Rude Pundit was not talking about YOU or your friends. He was talking about Dick (the asshole) Cheney....who is straight. Telling a right-wing straight dude to "go suck a dick" is appalling to not only him, but the other right-wing jerks that support him. Myself, or most others that support gay marriage and orientation equality and have gay friends, it does not have the same bite. To make my point, it would be laughable to tell him to "go screw a woman" (even if said in a more rude way)

Reactions like yours only solidify the ammunition that the right uses to ridicule the hair trigger sensitivity of the bleeding hearts, and stifles honest response from many on the left who are afraid to offend.

[TheJames]

466. Exactly, it becomes Left-Wing Authoritism. N/T

[Puglover]

172. This gay male

who lived through the AIDS crisis and lots of homophobic bullshit agrees with you wholeheartedly.

[Ms. Toad]

165. Thank you. n/t

[truebrit71]

123. No fucking shit...

"Lighten up Francis"....

[Blue_Adept]

202. Definitely. And it's not even what the real issue is, so it keeps us from talking about it.

[Eleanors38]

122. "men & guns:" On the frontlines of free speech!

Still no adequate way to bash women "and their guns" using a sexual metaphor. Any suggestions?

[Blue_Adept]

135. Maybe something with washing machines. or doors can be worked into it somehow.

[Eleanors38]

149. Or, "Always reaching for her revulva."

[corkhead]

66. Kicked for exposure, that post has almost 150 recs This thread needs at least as many.

what a fucking outrage

[nyabingi]

67. Instead of voting to hide someone's post...

...the offended party should engage them in a conversation and have it out that way. If someone offended me by something they sad, you can be damn sure I'm going to let them know about it personally.

Voting to hide someone's post is a cowardly, childish and backstabbing way to deal with those you disagree with.

[Iggo]

72. Totally stupid alert and hide.

To the alerter: Are you new? It's the Rude Pundit, ferchrissakes.

[meegbear]

76. I just found this thread and think I should chime in ...

I've been posting the Rude Pundit's posts, with his blessing, for a few years here.

I remember the first broohaha where he emailed me a reply for the site and it was accepted by the populace. He does come here and reads the posts, and yes, he will acknowledge what people say here - the other week some people complained about "vagina" in the post and he wrote a nicer version and emailed me to let me know.

When you see "The Rude Pundit:" at the start of the post, you (should) know what will follow. I only edit one word (starts with 'c') as he requested that I post his work in full. Yes, they're rude, but that's the gist of the posts. For some, it's a vulgar rant, for some, it's a funny release from a serious topic and for others, like me, it's exactly the way I feel and I want to scream it from the rooftops.

There have been many people who have replied to posts and stated that's exactly the way they feel. The one I always remember was a post where the poster said "Thank you. I consider myself a nice soccer mom and would never say things like this. But to see someone write what I want to yell makes me feel a lot better".

I gonna keep posting his work until he asks me to stop, Skinner asks me to stop, or I drop dead.

If he's good enough for Stephanie Miller, he's good enough for me.

[hobbit709]

82. +1,000,000

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

112. Why not ask Skinner for an explicit exception

to the rude, crude, and whatever rule specifically for RP posts, and have that added to the site rules?

I can see both sides of the hide/leave here - if the site doesn't want RP works to be covered by the more general rules about rudeness, they should just say so.

[Capt. Obvious]

117. Everyone SHOULD know Skinner's answer by now

It's the community's responsibility to police itself.

[Nye Bevan]

118. When you say that you edit out the "c" word, do you mean that RP uses that word?

Like, to describe female Republicans?

[stevenleser]

154. Does he use it in regular real life? No. Does he use it once in a blue moon in his RP posts?

I think so.

Look, his language and imagery make me uncomfortable. But he is playing a part. Lee Papa in his Rude Pundit posts is playing the part of a rude person with a Progressive/Democratic viewpoint.

You know how actors portray jerks who do and say all kinds of things because that's the character? That is the persona he is playing with "Rude Pundit".

If you don't feel the need to criticize Mark Harmon for being a violent Rapist/serial killer when he played Ted Bundy, you should get that Rude Pundit is playing a part.

[LuvNewcastle]

415. You mean, he isn't?

So all this time I've hated Marc Harmon for no reason at all!

[stevenleser]

418. LOL, exactly.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that this is performance art?

[Puglover]

162. We went round and round in the mod forum

about the Rude One. Most of us thought he was fine. A few, not so much.

IIRC Skinner weighed in and said it was ok to leave them be.

But hey, community standards are the way this place is run now.

Pity.

[stevenleser]

163. Not that you need it but I can vouch for you. When I have spoken to him, he said he is aware of

replies here to his posts when you post them.

I don't know why some people don't get it. We don't call Stephen Colbert a repuke. He is playing a character. Lee is playing a character here. He's absolutely not like this in real life. You don't get after Mark Harmon for pretending to kill a bunch of people when he played ted Bundy.

[frylock]

301. we all appreciate you posting his rants here, meeg..

glad to read that you won't be discouraged from continuing to do that.

[Oilwellian]

322. It's nice he allows you to post his entire piece

I always click the link to give his website a hit as well.

The hide was ridiculous. I guess some people here are nuance and context challenged.

[Demit]

77. Rude Pundit uses language to shock. To pick out one image to tsk-tsk it is missing the point.

Rude P was using rhetorical language. Sometimes his images are grisly & I mentally go ewww. But that's what the reader is supposed to do, dammit!

His essays are well-known here. Except to the alerter, I guess, who has a true tin ear for language. I'm very surprised a jury here voted the way it did. But very glad that DU now lets you see hidden posts.

[hobbit709]

88. You just know someone will have a cow and will.

[PDittie]

137. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:04 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

WTF has happened to this place?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5121052

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:24 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post adds nothing to the discussion but is just insulting other people.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Poster is being deliberately offensive. We should oblige him/her and hide the post.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ban the Alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I completely agree with the commenter. The neopoliticalcorrectness police are far more disruptive to the health and welfare of DU.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

=============

Yep. Fucked.

[hobbit709]

140. All that hide did was definitely prove his point.

[NuclearDem]

268. Do you really not understand how sissy is a slur?

That hide was entirely deserved.

[grasswire]

221. thank you

speechless!

[redqueen]

254. Waaaaaaaah we can't use misogynistic and homophobic insults waaaaaaaah!

[lupinella]

295. Amazes me

how many people don't want to acknowledge this.

The default should be empathy, not defensiveness.
You say something; get called out; learn from it - then try to make that proactive instead of reactive.

[redqueen]

299. I'm no longer surprised.

DU is chock full of brogressives.

A while back someone posted a pic from Hustler where a right wing woman had a dick photoshopped into a pic so that it looked like it was in her mouth.

Some people just couldn't for the life of then understand why that was considered offensive.

So yeah, no surprises for me since then when many on this site rally in defense of this kind of shit.

[hueymahl]

90. Alert me too

I back you 100%. What a fucking joke.

[Sissyk]

145. As far as I know,

I'm the only one here.

And I didn't alert or hide it.

[wryter2000]

89. Didn't read that one, but

He has a misogynist streak. He uses the C word. I stopped reading him ages ago for just that reason.

[hueymahl]

97. Which C word? Censorship?

Ignore is your friend.

[wryter2000]

152. The C word that's the equivalent to the N word for women

Is it so freaking hard to understand why that's offensive?

[hueymahl]

161. I respect that

See post 151.

Neither nigger, cunt nor cocksucker are appropriate for polite society. But their use, in context, can be a powerful force for good by drawing attention to the underlying point.

Almost always they are inappropriate. But used properly in the context of satire, they have a place.

I respect your position, however.

[stevenleser]

243. Yes, its hard to understand in this context.

Of course, the 'C' word for women, 'N' word for African Americans, and the 'K' word for Jews, etc. are unacceptable in 99% of contexts not just in DU but in real life.

But an actor playing a role where the character would use such words is not unacceptable. An actor cannot play a believable member of the KKK without using the 'N' word and possibly the 'K' word and various other slurs.

Lee Papa is playing a character when he writes as the Rude Pundit. Lee Papa does not talk the way the Rude Pundit talks in real life.

He has all the same beliefs of course in terms of ideology, but he does not talk that way.

[truebrit71]

146. Attention all delicate flowers...^^THIS^^^ is the correct response...

Last edited Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

....if it offends you, STOP READING IT....being all poutraged that someone used some naughty words that make you cry is NOT a reason to try and ban or block it from the rest of us...

You are JUST like the whiny politically-correct wankers that see demanding the cancellation of a television show they don't like for some reason or another as the proper response rather than just CHANGING THE FUCKING CHANNEL...

[stevenleser]

215. He is not a misogynist. The character he plays has a misogynist streak. And various other issues

but Lee does not have a misogynist streak.

[wryter2000]

284. Would someone who used F for a gay man be a homophobe? eom

eom

[stevenleser]

287. Not if they are an actor playing the part of a homophobe, No. nt

[wryter2000]

291. So, he's pretending to be a misogynist when he calls

Ann Coulter a C? He sounded pretty sincere to me.

Now I am done explaining why calling someone a C is misogynist.

[stevenleser]

292. It's a pretty big hint when someone named "Lee Papa" writes as "The Rude Pundit"

Yes, he is playing a part.

[redqueen]

256. There are people on DU who think it should be fine to use as well.

We have a looooong way to go.

[geek tragedy]

91. some people will alert and vote to hide posts due to potty words being used.

it's happened to me and others, it's bullsh!t (have to be careful to not offend the hypersensitive), it's the jury system

[L0oniX]

95. Alerting "potty"

[ChisolmTrailDem]

100. Well fuckety-fuck! That's fucking goddamned bullshit, I agree. Fucking shitass alerters! nt

[L0oniX]

94. Democracticunderchurch.org

[ybbor]

105. Such Fucking Bullshit!

The rude rules!

[truebrit71]

110. Who was the delicate flower that objected to that?

Fucking idiot...the first clue is in his fucking name...

Stupid, stupid, stupid....

[jberryhill]

157. According to the inter-office memo...

Posts on DU must conform to corporate communication standards.

[mn9driver]

124. It was one of his better posts, and they're all pretty good.

Cheney is a vile, evil subhuman. In a just world he would have been tried at The Hague. Instead, he gets published in the WSJ, pushing his brand of mass killing for money.

This place is pretty lame sometimes.

[zappaman]

138. Dumb hide.

[davidthegnome]

139. ALERT! DANGER WILL ROBINSON

Omg. What the heck? People are saying BAD WORDS at DU!

Apparently, any references to the penis or vagina or what males or females may or may not do with them should be immediately discontinued at DU. I suggest that we ban certain words that might confuse people. Words like, "Shaft", "shafted", "screwed", "fucked", "frig", "frigging". I could go on and on. It's too bad people have to use naughty no no words and ruin this site for those of us who don't like naughty language. My mamma always told me that if you can't say anything nice, then you definitely shouldn't tell someone to go suck a dick.

Anyway, this is a family forum. We should watch our fucking mouths.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

271. Snort! Guffaw!

Fucking noted!

[Aldo Leopold]

142. WTF indeed! Some days this place really sucks

dick.

Or maybe it's just some of the members here who suck.

If you can't take the Rude then stay out of the Rude! (Or rather, if you can't take the dick, then stay out of the Rude!)

[d_b]

148. sucking dick is one of the many tools of the patriarchy

or something like that

[Eleanors38]

185. Can't see that, but I can't see in this forrest.

[d_b]

219. ..

[Android3.14]

150. The thought police cross all party lines

There is no excuse.The alerter on that can

[2banon]

228. FYI, your post was "alerted" I was Jury #2 . :)

On Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:48 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The thought police cross all party lines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5121270

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Over the top.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:28 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Lighten up Francis.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: seriously? I can think of much much worse than this post. really.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The joyless busy bodies around here are getting out of hand. This is a FIRM Leave it ALONE.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While the lesser of two evils is still evil, the poster refrained from using profane language in their post. There was no profanity, no, "R", or "X", rated content on display from the poster. The naughtiness was all in the reader/alerter's mind.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Kids will be kids. Vote to hide.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Android3.14]

341. That's just pathetic

Thanks for posting the results, 2banon, and thank you for your support for reasonable free expression.

[quinnox]

159. Not a fan of them, but there have been more hides lately

in general here at DU, I have noticed.

They might have to adjust the jury system again, if too many posts start getting censored.

[grasswire]

227. it is a way to disrupt and chill speech nt

[libodem]

167. .

. [img][/img]

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

253. Well said

[AngryDem001]

350. YES! YES! YES! YES!

[ctsnowman]

452. Exactly!

[The Magistrate]

169. I Would Never, Sir, Vote To Hide A Piece From The Rude One

The man gets to say what he wants, how he wants to say it, in my book.

"I admire competence, for it is very rare in this world, and especially in this great Republic. Those who have it in some measure, in any art or craft from adultery to zoology, are the only human beings I can think of who will be worth the oil it will take to fry them in Hell."

[LiberalLovinLug]

170. Thanks for the link to the original RP rant

I wouldn't have found it otherwise.

We have some seriously humour challenged posters in here. Yes it is black and angry humour. Very much so. But it is no more than what I have ranted in my own head since 2001....

with each arrogant one sided twist of his mouth that substitutes for a smile,
every dismissal of any talk from peace activists,
every accusation of hating America or "the troops"
every overblown lie about "dire threats"
every no-bid contract he handed Halliburton with borrowed money from American's pockets
every attack on a truth teller (or their wife)
then, after office, every guest appearance chastising others for his mistakes
and now...actually having the gall to accuse a sitting President for failing to continue this treasury draining, soldier killing, pillaging adventure when it was under his administration that signed the troop withdrawal agreement because of all the atrocities committed by private contractor mercenaries that would no longer be exempt from prosecution under Iraq law.

Cheney can go fuck himself! Actually he doesn't even deserve that as that's the one person that would give him the most ecstatic orgasm ever.

[libodem]

171. .

. [img][/img]

[libodem]

173. .

. [img][/img]

[Aldo Leopold]

217. Good one!

[libodem]

229. .

[pacalo]

436. Love it!

[libodem]

438. Why, thank you

I figure it helps get the message out there especially if people share it themselves. Feel free.

[pacalo]

439. If I have to use ignore tools for the ones complaining the loudest & endlessly...

then they can use the ignore tools, also. I'm up to here with their crap -- & so are many others.

[libodem]

440. I hear what you are saying

Seriously.

[doxydad]

174. It is what it is...

He's RUDE
He's a pundit...and

HE IS RIGHT.

This should have never been alerted on.

[samsingh]

181. that post should not be hidden.

[DrDan]

182. I have no problem with that hide - would have voted the same way - over-the-top offensive

[WinkyDink]

207. WTH?!?! TRP is writing about a man WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR CRIMES. WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN

GIVEN THE NUREMBURG TREATMENT.

That Cheney and Bush and Rice and Wolfowitz and the rest are OUTSIDE OF PRISON is more obscene than anything TRP could begin to write.

Sorry for your sensitivity to harmless words.

[DrDan]

214. no apology necessary

[Javaman]

186. this is DU now.

we have our own morality squad.

[NuclearDem]

187. One post was hidden because of a stupid homophobic and misogynistic remark

Boo fucking hoo.

If that's how the Rude Pundit wants to operate, then maybe it's best he's ignored until he cleans up his fucking act.

(See how you can be rude without resorting to bigoted epithets?)

[truebrit71]

247. So go ahead and ignore him, but that doesn't mean it should be hidden from the rest of us...

....there are tools on this very website than enable you to do just that...

[TorchTheWitch]

363. +1

I put him on ignore a long time ago. It's really too bad that he slathers on the same sexist, homophobic and violent imagery in every rant since it only seems to serve to completely overshadow whatever it is he's talking about.

[el_bryanto]

195. I was on the jury - voted against hiding

But I have to admit i considered it - because the bit about the daughter is pretty offensive.

But then again I don't have much time for Rude Pundit anyway.

Bryant

[JustAnotherGen]

300. I agree with that

Re - over the top about Liz Cheney.

She's an asshole of the highest order - and that's a gender neutral insult.

And not a big fan of the rude pundit either . . .

[WinkyDink]

198. WTH?! A DU JURY voted DOWN TRP?! For railing against THE DICK CHENEY?! FTS, man.

[Blue_Adept]

208. But it was filled with misogyny and homophobia. Right in the title.

That can't stand.

[WinkyDink]

213. I get it now. It's time to take down TRP, because he's---GASP!!---"offensive." NS, S.

[KamaAina]

203. EPIC WIN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025120826

[Cleita]

216. Apparently the huffy HOF group don't like the word dick.

This is the second post I've seen hidden that has the word. I guess the concepts of metaphors, censorship and free speech don't resonate with them.

[KamaAina]

222. So the "huffy HOF group" has the power to pack juries?

[Blue_Adept]

226. No Kidding

HOF shouldn't be brought up at all in this instance in particular. The usual prominent members aren't even participating in this thread. A callout to them on it is just plain rude and unwarranted.

[Cleita]

269. No one else alerts on words like the D word, especially when

used by the Rude Pundit. Curious that you know exactly who is involved because they haven't participated yet.

[Cleita]

251. They have the power to alert until something sticks and the jury

selects in their favor. That's what they do all the time and this board is not better because of it. The Rude Pundit's brand is being rude. If you don't like what he says, don't go to his website. There was a warning on the OP that it was the Rude Pundit so those easily offended wouldn't have to click on it.
When a group of idealists uses the search function to glean through all posts and alert on all those with the offensive words regardless of context, the chance that half of them will get juries that hide them is pretty obvious. I for one am against censorship of all kinds and this is not progressive nor liberal.

[KamaAina]

252. Tinfoil hats off, please

[Cleita]

258. Here comes the accusations when you see some uncomfortable truth

presented to you. Just accuse the presenter of being crazy. It doesn't change the truth.

[KamaAina]

262. "alert until something sticks"

as I recall, if you alert too often with a low success rate, you get temporarily banned.

[Cleita]

267. There are more than one person attached to that group and members have

been temporarily PPrd in the past. I could name names but it's against the rules. Also some, who are still wielding their whips here, have been caught with sock puppet accounts.

[Agschmid]

474. Your post is crap.

Unless you have some secret access to who sends alerts everything you are accusing has no basis in reality.

Please stop making blanket accusations against "groups".

It's not fair, you don't have anything to back it up, and IMO it makes DU suck.

[jeff47]

320. A post can only be alerted once.

The second alerter just gets the results from the first alert. So you can't try until something sticks.

[Cleita]

330. I wasn't talking about a single post.

Usually, there are many posts using words they don't like and some of those alerts stick. Too many of them. I already saw two posts today that were hidden because the word dick was used in reference to Dick Cheney and the male anatomy. So what are the odds of that? I'm sure if I bothered to look I would find more.

[Warren Stupidity]

368. well then you would agree that your theory that this alert was a HOF attack is unfounded bullshit.

[zeemike]

224. This place is becoming unbelievably stupid.

but stupid is what you get when you start censoring words out of the language...and creating a fear of saying the wrong thing...soon you wind up with people talking without saying anything at all.

Perhaps this is what some people want DU to be.

[Javaman]

240. +1

DU has become a watered down drink at a cheap bar.

don't worry, once a repuke is back in office, the gloves will come off again...but only then.

[xocet]

445. What a steep price for unity! n/t

[Javaman]

459. isn't it? a sad statement. nt

[Cleita]

275. I agree.

Censorship is the death of equality and it creates an upper class of those who snoot down on everyone else.

[KG]

230. Puritan Underground?

[angel823]

231. kick & rec

Love the Rude One. And I agree that this is a dangerous precedent - material posted from another source should not be held to the same standard as a DU member's direct posts.

And if you don't like the Rude Pundit, don't click on the link and read it.

Angel in Texas

[2banon]

232. Now that I've read this, I'm flummoxed as to why it was hidden.

I'm a woman, I'm a feminist. I have no problem whatsoever with the content of Rude Pundit's rant.

In fact, I'm going to share it on my fb.

Sad, sad, sad that we have people on this board that would ban that OP.

Given the subject, I don't know what to think of the future of this message board.

Must all righteous rants be in the Queen's English to be deemed acceptable?

[liberalmuse]

239. Ridiculous!

What has happened to the DU I once knew? This is one of those canary in a coal mine things. Today is the day a tiny group of people with their panties in a twist decided to ban Rude Pundit for being... Rude.

[SidDithers]

242. If I were meegbear, that would be the last Rude Pundit OP I would make...

and the dude's been posting Rude Pundit articles for years.

Sometimes it's juries that make DU suck.

Sid

[stevenleser]

294. Juries utterly fail at perspective and context and this is an example.

They hide stuff that should not be and fail to hide many real examples of misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism and racism.

[Bobbie Jo]

324. Agreed. nt

[shanti]

245. heh

that post deserved a rec, AFAIC, so I recced! like others have said, don't read DU at work if you're worried about the IT police coming after ya!

the dick is on my top 5 of the most evil and offensive men around. i don't care what kind of language anyone uses in regards to him. FUCK THAT DICK CHENEY!

[Oilwellian]

334. You said Dick

[shanti]

465. yeah

and i've been saying it since 2002, when i became a member. nobody had a problem with it then! ridiculous!

[bpj62]

248. Quite Surprised

Normally I wouldn't get involved in these type of posts because once you state your stance the other side vilifies you. I read the blog and other then the title I was not offended by what the Rude Pundit posted. He simply told The Chaney's what they could go and do with themselves. No more no less. I read nothing that was misogynistic or anti women or was anti-gay. He simply stated what a lot of people feel about the Chaney's. It is a sad day at DU when people take umbrage over a blog about one of the most evil men this country has produced. Sometimes things have to be said in a stark and rude fashion for them to have effect.

[redqueen]

259. 'Waaaaaah waaaaaaah! Why can't we post misogynistic and homophobic insults!'

It's called progress.

Deal with it.

[NuclearDem]

265. I just totally fucking love

that almost nobody sees any irony whatsoever in a thread taking hyperbolic offense about people allegedly taking hyperbolic offense.

[redqueen]

274. It's great isn't it?

[bpj62]

345. Are you in The rude pundits head

Otherwise your comment is just an opinion and while you have the right to state it, it is simply just that. You and several other posters are exactly the people that I was talking about. Anyone who disagrees with your current view of what words should and should not be used are summarily charged, convicted and executed as being either misogynistic or homophobic. It makes people not want to post because you clearly take pleasure in pursuing people who choose to defend themselves from your accusations.

[liberalmuse]

409. Banning an article on DU is progress?

If sitting in a chair clicking your mouse over the "alert" button whenever you see a bad word regardless of context or taking into account that the article is satire is considered "progress", we're in a load of trouble. This isn't Tumblr where every other word is called out as a "trigger". Most of us are intelligent adults who can distinguish if the intention of an article is to promote sexism or homophobia. Rude Pundit does not, however, he is deliberately offensive for a reason, and some of us get it, while others completely miss the point, focusing on a couple words. I get it. Some people don't like vulgarity.

His over-the-top choice of words and phrases are used as a tool to make the reader cringe, then laugh at the absurdity, hopefully releasing some pent up outrage. As angry as Cheney and his ilk make me, I know that Rude Pundit will be angrier, and succinctly lay it all out there in his own unique fashion. If he offends some, then I would advise them to not click on his stuff. It's perplexing how his articles have been posted and enjoyed on DU for years, then all of a sudden a small minority want to censor them. I call that policing, not progress.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

261. the thing about being rude, is that you are intentionally alienating people

some people are fine with that, others are not

rude pundit is prob fine with getting his posts hidden.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

270. This is bullshit...

And proof that the jury system sucks.

Edit: From here on out, I will never, ever, vote to hide a post. I don't care what you say or who you say it to. Fuck it.

[redqueen]

297. The ethical thing to do is remove yourself from the jury pool. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

302. What a singularly bad idea...

To leave the juries entirely in the hands of pearl-clutching denizens of the fainting couch. To allow posts to be hidden for no good reason except that some delicate flower has his/her sensibilities aggrieved.

Fuck that shit.

[redqueen]

305. Hey, if being unethical is your thing, go for it.

Someone has to defend the right to find misogynistic and homophobic insults amusing... might as well be you.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

306. Whatever...

I defend the right of people to speak their mind, even when we don't want to hear it.

[redqueen]

310. Let me guess, you were one of the people defending the fried chicken and watermelon shit, too...

am I right?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

312. I don't even know what in the hell you're talking about

Nor do I care to, frankly.

[redqueen]

315. LOL, of course you don't.

No need. You've made your views about bigotry quite clear already.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

316. As have you...

Anyone with whom you disagree must be silenced, shouted down, and denied the opportunity to be heard.

I trust that people are smart enough and strong enough to hear something unpleasant and then make up their own mind.

Edit: And be honest. You really didn't LOL just then. My response wasn't that funny.

[redqueen]

317. You just said you'd never vote to hide anything as a juror.

That's the only reason I started talking to you.

Not shouting you down, or silencing you or whatever

Fucking drama.

All cause homophobic and misogynistic insults are not ok. What a bunch of whiners.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

318. You're rolling on the floor...

And you accuse me of drama? You're either exaggerating or you're easily amused.

And speaking of whining -- who is it that wants posts hidden again because their precious feelings have been hurt?

I think this is what they call Projection.

[redqueen]

319. Are you fucking serious?

I don't want homophobic and misogynistic insults hidden because they hurt my feelings.

They should he hidden because they feed a culture of oppression for fuck's sake.

And no, laughing at ridiculous hyperbole isn't drama.

Throwing a shit fit complete with 'NOOOO THEY HID A RUDE PUNDIT POST ??!?!!!THAT DOES IT I'M NEVER HIDING ANOTHER POST AGAIN EVER NO MATTER WHAT!!! 1!11!1' ... THAT is drama.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

321. Not often...Not really

Then fucking ignore me. Trash my threads if you don't want to read it.

Just don't think you can tell me what I can and can't say.

[redqueen]

323. LOL

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

325. Seriously. You're not laughing out loud at this...

Respect the integrity of the acronym.

[redqueen]

327. Oh I most certainly am.

When someone displays such obstinate bravado, and on a subject like this no less...

If you were defending the right to do something important it'd be serious. Defending the right to find bigoted insults amusing?

LOL, yeah...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

329. I don't believe you...Not for a minute

I'm pretty easily amused, and this discussion has merited nothing beyond a wry chuckle.

But what the hell, if it's making you laugh, I'm all for it.

[TheJames]

467. OK, is anyone keeping track here? Is this third- or fourth-order outrage? eom

[questionseverything]

477. current potus has stopped bushco from being prosecuted for war crimes

seems like that might

" feed a culture of oppression for fuck's sake. "

[giftedgirl77]

309. + bazillion

[LittleBlue]

433. I'll do the same

I hardly ever vote to hide, but now I'll never do it again.

The jury system is being used as a lottery where the tickets are free.

[villager]

276. In the words of Senator James Abourezk, this place is becoming a "chickenshit outfit"

Perish the thought that any other "Underground" in history was comprised of such timid, tepid souls...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

278. Some people are fucking wimps.

[NuclearDem]

283. Nope, no irony in this whatsoever.

"How dare you take petty hyperbolic offense! I take petty hyperbolic offense at that! Freedom of speech! Under the bus!"

Maybe the people defending that trash can take some of their own advice and just deal with it. Nobody's taken your Rude Pundit toy away.

[blackspade]

285. Agreed.

What's even worse is Meegbear had to eat a hide because of it.

[JEFF9K]

289. It was indeed offensive.

And it didn't have to be, to make the points that were made.

[randys1]

303. I have to ask myself how does a Woman perceive these phrases

As a man, maybe it doesnt bother me as much as it should, but if it bothers Women, at all, then dont say it...

Period.

next?

[Hissyspit]

304. The point of the Rude Pundit completely goes over your head apparently.

[redqueen]

314. Oh no, we get it. Certain kinds of bigotry are ok with him.

Does his 'character' also use racist insults?

Or does he just stick to the misogynistic and homophobic ones?

(rhetorical questions of course)

[stevenleser]

420. Yes, his character also uses racist and religious slurs.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/nigger-haters-for-clinton-rude-pundit.html

The n word for African Americans, S word for Latinos and K word for Jews can all be found in that post.

[redqueen]

462. Dishonest comparison. In your examples he is referring to bigots who think that way.

When talking about Sarah Palin's daughter's vagina, or directing people to 'suck a dick', he is not.

He is speaking as someone we are supposed to agree with.

This is really not complicated. It is depressing to me that these significant differences are apparently not intuitively obvious to others. Oh well.

[stevenleser]

463. No it's not. Now you are moving the goalposts. First, it was "he only uses anti-women and anti-LGBT

language."

Now you have changed that to the subtleties of exactly how he uses the offensive phrases.

[redqueen]

464. All you've shown is that he used the words. Do you now want to claim context doesn't matter?

Find an instance when he makes racist remarks about a right wing minority. When he uses racist insults about them or uses racist stereotypes.

[NuclearDem]

357. Not really.

It's the warped idea that one can earn sufficient progressive points or cred and redeem it for one free slur against a conservative of their choice.

Though, in fact, actual progressives don't use them, period. No Rude Pundit exception, no Colbert exception.

[Hissyspit]

359. Not really.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

311. He's brilliant and one of the first media pundits who considered Women's Issues important.

Important enough to talk about. With NO snark. There are VERY few male political writers, editors, cartoonists or other pundits who speak of women as real, actual people whose concerns are just as important as any one else's.

Just because he uses lady parts words does not mean he's sexist. That is clear because he uses gentleman parts words with equal abandon, and aims his over-the-top, well-deserved insults at BOTH sexes, equally.

I have loved him for years, and still want to marry him!
I also wish I could refer to myself in the third person, as he does. That would be cool!.

[The Road Runner]

333. Well...if he was truly concerned about Women's Issues...

...one might expect that he would refrain from making light of sexual abuse.

When he describes Liz Cheney's having an orgasm in response to the combined stimuli of her father's words and the egg timer inserted up her "snatch", he is describing a sexual exchange between the father and daughter.

Yes- I realize Liz Cheney is an adult and can have consensual sex with her father should she wish. I would still see this as abuse.




PS: I still would not have voted to hide the post. However, I'm not ready to proclaim RP as a literary genius either.

[DeSwiss]

352. The ''abuse'' if any.......

...was to me being forced to envision either one of them having previously had sex.

- With anyone.

[The Road Runner]

358. LOL...Very Rude...But Funny

[The Road Runner]

326. RP's suggestion that Dick Cheney is having a sexual relationship with his daughter...

...seemed unnecessary and over the top to me.

But I would have voted to keep the post up anyway.

I'd rather allow members to discuss these issues than hide them.

[sgtbenobo]

331. All of this brings to mind.

&list=RDhUBAx8jbYNs



What part of rude don't these people get?

[zeemike]

339. Alerting.

Monty Python is showing insensitivities...under the buss with them...

[aikoaiko]

336. It was well deserved.

And should happen more .

The community, as expressed thru a jury, is within its rights to say his language is not acceptable.

[Android3.14]

342. You should wear a badge.

[aikoaiko]

346. The same standards that apply to other DU posts apply to posts that repost RP

That not being thought police. That's just consistent community standards.

It's not difficult.

[Android3.14]

351. Oh, I see. Censoring peope is okay because censoring people is okay

Your logic is unassailable.

[aikoaiko]

355. Juries judging the appropriateness of posts is a feature of DU.

And yes I'm fine with that feature because it is a check on the occasional poor choice, but will punish those who seek to be disruptive.

[aikoaiko]

364. Maybe, but they are not as pathetic as those whining about a hide

[TheJames]

468. Also in reply to #361! Damn, People!

I have not laughed as much in months. This thread is about as entertaining as it gets. #361 got hidden. Talk about irony/sarcasm/willingness-to-face-truth/just-plain-humor-impaired.
I'm 68, "retired" w/SS, Food Stamps, and a negative cash flow. My country is visibly, past the crapper and well into the sewer system. TRP is one of my permanent links.
There's been a few people carrying the concept of semantic framing, and many for whom the concept apparently doesn't exist.

[NealK]

343. Time to call the...

[Enthusiast]

344. I am very disappointed that this wonderful article was hidden.

It had nearly two hundred recommendations!

I cannot believe this bullshit!

[DeSwiss]

348. K&R

[ucrdem]

349. Meta moment:

I'm very sorry meegbear got a post hidden, and I'm certain there was no intent to offend. But speaking solely as a DU member who has sat on hundreds of juries, I think the jury made a reasonable decision based on the sentiments expressed. RudePundit is a very intelligent writer, and I imagine he chose his words carefully and for a reason, but it appears that a jury found them to be in violation of DU community standards. More than that I couldn't say without seeing the results.

Now: speaking solely for myself as a GD host, and not for any other GD host, I foresee three possible outcomes for this thread, which, insofar as it's protesting a jury hide, is whining about DU, one of a very few GD SOP violations:

1. GD hosts lock;
2. GD hosts leave, and let admins decide; or
3. GD hosts politely ask the OP to self-delete, and hope s/he does.

My wish is for #3, but as a GD host, my "one responsibility" per Skinner's GD host instructions is #1:

Forum Hosts have one responsibility: They lock threads which they believe violate the forum's Statement of Purpose.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

Does this mean GD hosts are going to lock? Not necessarily. But if it happens, that will be why.

[Sissyk]

353. Well, this should get interesting.

You probably just kicked it to over 500 post.

[ucrdem]

356. It's done. No consensus. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

369. Oh and in terms of the possible outcomes, 4: the post is fine, it gets discussed, life goes on. nt

[ucrdem]

374. 4 hidden posts and counting = textbook disruptive meta. nt

Last edited Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Meaning: 4 DU members have gotten replies hidden in this thread, and that's one reason "disruptive meta" is not permitted in GD.

NOTE: This explanation is for juries only so please don't start another meta-subthread splitting some hair or other, thanks all.

[Warren Stupidity]

380. who has 4 hidden posts and what does that have to do with anything?

[riderinthestorm]

385. What??!! I have NO hidden posts. I'm pretty sure I've NEVER been a textbook disruptive meta!

Why would you accuse me of that patent lie??

[ucrdem]

386. The thread. nt

[Autumn]

398. See, hosts are supposed to consider only the OP and judge it on it's own merits

some hosts would rather judge by the responses to the OP. Host consensus is to leave your OP, you are not responsible for the replies to your OP. We are not moderators, we are hosts.

[riderinthestorm]

376. You do realize I'm not whining about DU right?

I'm aghast that one of the most progressive, long term writers, who clearly is on "our side", the Democratic side, is being shut down by a small group who would rather censor via a hide rather than discuss or ignore the Rude Pundit's column.

Furthermore, in all of my DU history, meegbear has posted all of the Rude Pundit's columns without anyone targeting meegbear specifically for the hide. That's not the way DUers have ever worked before and I was amazed that DUers have moved in this unprecedented direction.

DUers specifically, not Democratic Underground.

I've been gone for the past couple of hours and didn't see your post. Truly I have no desire to see this become a Meta thread. As a host however, you appear to be asking me to self-delete this thread. Is that what you want? I'm not so sure that that action would "help" at this stage - might actually make things worse...

[Warren Stupidity]

377. hosts have zero authority to demand ask or implore you to do anything.

this host acted on his own initiative. The gd hosts overwhelmingly voted to leave your op unlocked.

[ucrdem]

382. Please read what I actually wrote, thanks. nt

[ucrdem]

378. I'm sympathetic, but objecting to jury decisions is the definition of whining about DU.

I'm not going to quote chapter and verse but it's come up a lot and Skinner has made that clear. I'm not blaming anyone, just explaining that GD hosts have a responsibility to lock OPs complaining about juries. Since we're not going to, all I can add is that in the interest of not getting more members worked up and more posts hidden, the ultimate outcome probably being a not-so-happy admin lock, I'd recommend a self-delete. I think everyone has had their say so I don't see any harm in it.

[riderinthestorm]

387. How do you know "everyone" has had their say?

This is crazy. You want to shut down THIS discussion too even as your fellow hosts disagree with you.

Wild...

[ucrdem]

388. Do what you like. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

375. This is the new DU, more terrible every day. A good place ruined with petty selfish bullshit.

We know who is responsible for this change in climate here and this is just one more piece of evidence of how far we have fallen.

[tofuandbeer]

383. I haven't been here long and I've been on a lot of juries in the past few months.

99% of the time, I vote to keep the post.
I read it over and over and just can't see why they want it blocked.
Most of the time I think two people are having an argument: someone gets frustrated and reports a post on the other party.
Just crazy. DU should limit the number of times you can lose to a jury, or something.

[Warren Stupidity]

384. And this thread now has 4 more hits by the perpetually outraged.

[NuttyFluffers]

389. jury nullification solved prohibition

and obvious failure of an experiment failed. especially with odd juries and pay/post-to-win favoritism. surprise. told you so. project mockingbird.

your roof, your roof, your roof is still on fire, but you don't need no water...

reap another off-year election and wring our hands as usual. predictable pattern seen over the years.

[Babel_17]

390. Oddly enough, I think that as an article on the internet it might not violate DU standards

As an original post by a DU member it arguably would be subject to tougher standards. We are subject to the TOS. But we know that the greater world out there can be crude, and "rude", and we don't usually ignore it when it's pertinent.

On the other hand, just because something is journalism, and has an important point to make, that doesn't mean it can't be inappropriate for a site like Democratic Underground, which has standards, and a mission.

So, this is an interesting case. I'm open to seeing censoring but, imo, it shouldn't be off-handed.

It is odd how we sometimes have different standards when it comes to rants against the worst of the Republicans. Otherwise great posters sometimes even resort to cheering on the prospect of prison rape.

That's not ok for this site.

The language of the Rude Pundit I take as being a performance piece. So, I'd give it a pass but imo that piece of language is archaic and it cheapens his piece. I say "give it a pass" in the sense of leaning towards not censoring the press, not because the justifiable anger behind it excuses it.

I'm sure it's been spelled out why that style of insult is wrong.

[riderinthestorm]

393. Yes, I've been told that this is the gist of the host's conversation about this thread

I think its important to have this discussion..

Thanks for weighing in...

[another_liberal]

392. Almost two hundred rec.s and they still hide it?

Come on already!

[tabasco]

395. Unfuckingbelieveable.

How fucking sad this place has become.

[SomethingFishy]

396. What is amazing is that the post was up for almost a whole day...

before it got alerted on and hidden...

And really, hiding rude posts about Liz and Dick Cheney... The level of hypocrisy and lack of humility in their little op-ed was beyond compare. I thought Rude was letting them off easy.

[MrMickeysMom]

397. Oh, God… I wish I had seen that hidden post before I could no longer KnR it!

And… can see nothing wrong having read it, I see that a jury of 4/3 decided (somehow) that it was … rude and disruptive? (Ha..are you kidding me? it's Rude Pundit, and you have been warned)…

It was nothing but fitting to the Cheney accident of birthright.

Brilliant in a second!

[Autumn]

400. You can still recommend it, I just did.

[MrMickeysMom]

431. Right you are...

Kick to this thread to keep reminding people of that fact!

[liberalmuse]

403. Never thought I'd see the day.

It looks like the censors are combing through DU with fingers poised on the "alert" button. They're going to suck the soul out of this place in no time. Those people who want to scrub everything for delicate eyes and ears are always worse than the alleged offenders.

[Owl]

404. Uhh... No.

[Warpy]

405. The Self Appointed Guardians of Morality and Soldiers Against Bad Words

have completely flipped their lids.

It wasn't as bad on DU2. They stayed in Feminists and I stayed out of it.

Censorship. Remember when it was an ugly word, itself?

[sabrina 1]

407. Community standards say the Rude Pundit despite being hidden, has 198 recs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025117866

Imagine anyone alerting on the Rude Pundit!

[BootinUp]

417. Back Up! Ok, Go Forward! Stop! Back Up Again!

Just kidding. While I did find the Rude's latest effort terribly Rude, I fully support his right to continue writing what he wants to write, what he feels he needs to write. I also discourage DU'ers from hiding his articles.

[pacalo]

435. Not by this DUer, rider.

I recommended his hidden post.

[bobduca]

441. How juries could be packed (a thought experiment)

You will need:
https://www.python.org/

1. Setup N accounts on DU.
2. For each account, setup login credentials in a simple comma separated list.
 3. Pass the csv of user accounts to a python script that browses General Discussion and selects random threads every 1-5 seconds.
 4. If any response has a "jury selection" alert, pause the script, alert the owner of the script immediately.
 5. Owner of the script monitors the Alert email/twitter DM/etc. and clicks on the alert to automatically log in with user x credentials.

[Warren Stupidity]

449. I think the simpler explanation is the switch to a 4 of 7 system.

This is producing more hides, and consequently alerters are getting more satisfaction from pushing that fucking button. Conversely an 0-7 is more difficult so the modest penalty for obsessive button pushing is even less likely. Add to that the supreme stalking reward of banishment for 5 hides and you have the situation we are in now. The rewards are just too great, so stalking and obsessive button pushing are now a pastime on DU. Long time DU'ers like seabeyond and taterguy are obvious victims of DU3.2.

[barbtries]

447. ha

didn't know about that. i knew about the cleaned up version that was posted because he linked to it on fb. said he thought it was funny.
rude pundit, i love you even when you make my face turn red from the vivid obscenity - you illuminate the obscenity of people like the dick and his daughter and the world needs you!
if DU loses the rude pundit it will be a big loss imo.

[mgardener]

448. It's the obscenity

The ideas are sound but honestly?
The obscenity gets me. It's crass and unproductive. It sounds immature.

I don't bother reading it, which is a shame because the general idea is excellent.

[backscatter712]

461. It's easy to choose not to read what you don't like.

But certain people are bound and determined to try to force others, who like said work, not to read it either.

[ctsnowman]

453. K & R

To both threads.

[McCamy Taylor]

454. How exactly does this thread improve the lives of the poor?

[totodeinhere]

475. Improving the lives of the poor is an important issue of course.

But surely it's not the only issue that needs discussing.

[backscatter712]

460. Dick and Liz Cheney can suck a bag of syphilitic dicks.

Let me know how the alert goes...

Seriously. This Rude Pundit article was tame compared to some of his writings.

I'll tell you what offends me. Censorship.