General Discussion

gollygee

(22,336 posts)

199. FFS you are intentionally ignoring the point here

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 11:09 AM

Jun 2014

"People who have sex" as defined only as "people who have sex" - NOT A SUBGROUP of people who have some kind of sex, or who have sex with some people, but simply people who have sex, are not persecuted.

Gay people are persecuted for being gay or having gay sex, but that is a subgroup of people who have sex. The group "people who have sex" are not persecuted for being "people who have sex." The word "fuck" doesn't mean "gay sex." It just means "sex." So talking about fucking is not the same as talking about men having sex with men, as people who fuck are not oppressed, but men who have sex with men are oppressed.

I don't believe you are stupid enough to not understand what I'm saying. I could not make it any clearer. I really think you are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying and claiming it's something else.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

201 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Self-censorship is censorship. Advocating self-censorship is advocating censorship. [View all] riqster Jun 2014 OP

Wow, great post quinnox Jun 2014 #1

Thanks! riqster Jun 2014 #8

There is no context in American discourse. Every word/phrase can now be used valerief Jun 2014 #2

I feel like a balding, paunchy, wheezing King Canute at times, riqster Jun 2014 #4

I love it that you actually know who King Canute was. Hekate Jun 2014 #77

I am a fount of useless trivia. riqster Jun 2014 #78

"First amendment rights"? Seriously? alp227 Jun 2014 #3

Fair point. And not at all contradictory to my OP. riqster Jun 2014 #6

That's why I hate political correctness. You have a 'word' hall monitor who valerief Jun 2014 #11

Couldn't disagree more - everything should be on the table for discussion and that includes el_bryanto Jun 2014 #5

See, I agree with what you are saying. riqster Jun 2014 #7

But that's implied isn't it? el_bryanto Jun 2014 #9

The problem with that is the word c*** is offensive to SOME women... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #12

That's an interesting argument el_bryanto Jun 2014 #16

It's anecdotal, you're right... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #30

Well I don't have much time for the Rude Pundit el_bryanto Jun 2014 #55

I was saying that quoting the RP should be fine, Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #69

The Church had a lot to do with making those words "obscene." nilesobek Jun 2014 #130

Sort of like dark meat and light/white meat... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #142

It is offensive to MANY women and btw, being a straight white male makes whathehell Jun 2014 #179

Interesting. I see it as different. riqster Jun 2014 #15

Super bad analogy gollygee Jun 2014 #29

That's a compelling response I have to admit. nt el_bryanto Jun 2014 #38

Analogy is always a tricky tool. riqster Jun 2014 #44

That's exactly my reasoning for hating political correctness. It shuts down discourse valerief Jun 2014 #51

Read Gollygee's post above? el_bryanto Jun 2014 #53

I'm not sure that is the point. riqster Jun 2014 #60

Could people have chosen to be not offended by words and paid attention valerief Jun 2014 #61

And that's the key point isn't it? People should just choose not to be offended. el_bryanto Jun 2014 #85

Pretty well. Just don't read or listen to those who offend. riqster Jun 2014 #97

but you said below you would have voted to "hide" the Rude Pundit post CreekDog Jun 2014 #135

None. riqster Jun 2014 #137

but mercuryblues Jun 2014 #176

Here's what I think is hysterical Glitterati Jun 2014 #10

LOL... and this is the crowd that uses 'context' as a defense of TRP's repeated use of misogynistic redqueen Jun 2014 #14

There you go Glitterati Jun 2014 #18

Please keep posting... redqueen Jun 2014 #20

Did I need your permission? Glitterati Jun 2014 #21

... redqueen Jun 2014 #25

There was nothing being used as a slur there gollygee Jun 2014 #32

An assist for you Glitterati Jun 2014 #39

No one on DU has objected to things that are simply crude gollygee Jun 2014 #41

You're so busy being outraged Glitterati Jun 2014 #42

I'm not outraged gollygee Jun 2014 #45

And, I don't click on Rude Pundit posts Glitterati Jun 2014 #49

No one is trying to tell you what you should find interesting, acceptable, or humorous gollygee Jun 2014 #54

When I use the name "Dick" to refer to Cheney Generic Other Jun 2014 #165

Is it a slur? jeff47 Jun 2014 #91

I think it is homophobic gollygee Jun 2014 #126

Why doesn't that apply to "go fuck yourself"? jeff47 Jun 2014 #145

There isn't any oppression in this country gollygee Jun 2014 #166

One doesn't have to be oppressed for something to be a slur jeff47 Jun 2014 #167

Those gollygee Jun 2014 #168

Not the case. riqster Jun 2014 #171

I said "sex." Not "alternative sex." gollygee Jun 2014 #186

So, as long it's only "normal" people who aren't being oppressed, oppression is OK? riqster Jun 2014 #193

Huh? gollygee Jun 2014 #194

Your reply was factually inaccurate. And in a crucial area. riqster Jun 2014 #196

FFS you are intentionally ignoring the point here gollygee Jun 2014 #199

No, I am trying to point out a crucial point about discrimination: riqster Jun 2014 #200

They are oppressed gollygee Jun 2014 #201

I don't think anybody objected just because of crude language fishwax Jun 2014 #150

So it's okay to tell a child to 'Fuck off' if you feel like it. randome Jun 2014 #13

That was my first thought, too. We self censor all the fucking time. nt redqueen Jun 2014 #17

I self-censor. And I taught my kids to do so. riqster Jun 2014 #19

The tautology in the subject line is gold. redqueen Jun 2014 #22

Yeah, I kinda figured it would be a fun thread. riqster Jun 2014 #24

I actually enjoy unleashing a stream of profanities in a church. YMMV. N/T Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2014 #33

Church is cool, 'cause you can say "ass" and "hell" and "damnation" ... dawg Jun 2014 #36

And "Jesus Christ!" riqster Jun 2014 #63

noooo are you saying there might be profanities in the Bible too? Phlem Jun 2014 #181

Depends on what you being censored for. Phlem Jun 2014 #180

I prefer the classic take on self censorship whistler162 Jun 2014 #23

I like that one, too. riqster Jun 2014 #27

Hah! Just said that to a friend as we came out of a sandwich shop yesterday. freshwest Jun 2014 #74

Sometimes we don't even need to open our mouths. riqster Jun 2014 #84

DU is based in self and other censorship. otherwise we would accept republicans and other La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2014 #26

S'truth. And the site owner sets the standards. riqster Jun 2014 #34

yes, and its why i am here and not on discussionist. just because La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2014 #56

I spend some time there, not much. riqster Jun 2014 #58

ok ... I'm going to Grannie's house right now Trajan Jun 2014 #28

pssssst Trajan Jun 2014 #31

This:"As a species, we self censor ourselves every day ..." riqster Jun 2014 #35

This is ridiculous gollygee Jun 2014 #37

Thank you. ^ 840high Jun 2014 #43

Your efforts are commendable redqueen Jun 2014 #46

LOL I was told I was outraged gollygee Jun 2014 #50

It's the kind of entertainment money can't buy. redqueen Jun 2014 #52

Performance art indeed. savalez Jun 2014 #125

thank you, in agreement uppityperson Jun 2014 #66

I associate myself with your post and comments, as they say. Starry Messenger Jun 2014 #148

Excellent OP. Thank you Autumn Jun 2014 #40

K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2014 #47

There are differences between government censorship, private censorship and self-censorship onenote Jun 2014 #48

Your examples don't work, because in America someone would shoot off a gun before the valerief Jun 2014 #59

Point. I did not call out all the possible environments. riqster Jun 2014 #67

I give a lot more leeway to political speech LittleBlue Jun 2014 #57

Who are the censors "protecting"? Themselves, or somebody else? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #62

Holy schnikies, we just agreed on something. riqster Jun 2014 #70

In the general "arena" and in relation to any governmental intervention etherealtruth Jun 2014 #64

Indeed. A DU jury hid a post. Fair. riqster Jun 2014 #68

Oh i did not realize that it was suggested that someone 'outside' of our "house" etherealtruth Jun 2014 #71

Understandable. riqster Jun 2014 #73

Free speech is indeed, free speech. LanternWaste Jun 2014 #65

This message was self-deleted by its author Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #72

the OP self-censors him/her self in a post critical of censorship lol. now that's funny nt msongs Jun 2014 #75

Self-censorship? I thought that was the job of your superego or conscience. nt Hekate Jun 2014 #76

It is indeed. riqster Jun 2014 #80

Is the entire jury system invalid then? BainsBane Jun 2014 #79

No, DU is private space and has an adjudication process. riqster Jun 2014 #81

She has the same right to offer her views BainsBane Jun 2014 #88

I see a difference between expressing one's own opinion, riqster Jun 2014 #93

People do that here everyday BainsBane Jun 2014 #99

Quite the opposite. riqster Jun 2014 #102

No, it isn't kcr Jun 2014 #157

There's a difference jeff47 Jun 2014 #94

She has no power to censor BainsBane Jun 2014 #95

Not in the legal sense jeff47 Jun 2014 #98

Dingdingding! We have a winner. riqster Jun 2014 #100

Read it again. He is instructing people about what are and are not acceptable ways to express Squinch Jun 2014 #159

It's an opinion BainsBane Jun 2014 #113

Her opinion is that it's bad for a set of reasons. jeff47 Jun 2014 #116

It's an opinion, coupled with an admonition. riqster Jun 2014 #160

so? BainsBane Jun 2014 #162

Never did I say that. riqster Jun 2014 #163

That's some pretty nitty-gritty instructions on how you think people should express themselves. Squinch Jun 2014 #158

This message was self-deleted by its author AngryAmish Jun 2014 #82

you dont seem to understand that free speech is about govt intervention or interference.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #83

I understand it quite well. riqster Jun 2014 #87

if you call me the B word i reserve the right to censor you! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #122

If I did so, you'd be censoring at the listener end. riqster Jun 2014 #128

free speech law ONLY relates to the govt. I can still "regulate" you.....just like I can a smoker VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #129

You can regulate me by not listening. riqster Jun 2014 #132

so i regulate your smoking by not breathing? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #133

I confined myself to speech. riqster Jun 2014 #134

and i dont....mine is based on what a court of law would do.....look for precedence VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #136

Never said I was. riqster Jun 2014 #139

you are railing against what you call censorship.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #141

I never said DU can't censor me. riqster Jun 2014 #147

then what the hell is your problem? I don't get it.....where is the censorship? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #152

that is the stupidest OP I have read in a long time CreekDog Jun 2014 #86

LOL. Best answer. bettyellen Jun 2014 #92

You not using the n-word is different from others telling you not use it. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2014 #96

It's not different actually CreekDog Jun 2014 #101

Sure it is. jeff47 Jun 2014 #106

I am saying that it is not my job to get you to accommodate my feelings in your speech. riqster Jun 2014 #110

So, do you use the N-word? CreekDog Jun 2014 #111

Nope. riqster Jun 2014 #120

there is nothing wrong with trying to get people to "self-censor" in certain situations cali Jun 2014 #156

lol wryter2000 Jun 2014 #121

have to agree with you....this is stupid VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #123

The folks at the front of the line telling people what they must not say LadyHawkAZ Jun 2014 #89

Except you are advocating self-censoring advocation of self-censorship. MadrasT Jun 2014 #90

this is a good point. CreekDog Jun 2014 #103

No, I am saying we must not coerce others into self-censorship. riqster Jun 2014 #104

Right, you're telling people to shut up. CreekDog Jun 2014 #108

Nope. I know what I said, and that ain't it. riqster Jun 2014 #112

So, we must not coerce someone into self-censoring the urge to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater? n/t Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #109

Nope, that is illegal. riqster Jun 2014 #114

As Madras pointed out, you're telling people to censor themselves CreekDog Jun 2014 #105

No, I'm telling people not to censor others. riqster Jun 2014 #115

Your OP is trying to control others. Exactly what you are saying nobody should do. MadrasT Jun 2014 #127

I see what you are saying. riqster Jun 2014 #131

I've already written far too much on this, but... NuclearDem Jun 2014 #107

I disagree with nothing you say here. riqster Jun 2014 #117

DU is a privately owned enterprise and thus the owners make the rules here. Kaleva Jun 2014 #118

True. And I am not arguing with DU standards. riqster Jun 2014 #124

I agree with the point you are making. Kaleva Jun 2014 #138

Here is the problem with these "community standards." nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #144

A very hearty K&R Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2014 #119

I think all of us "self-censor" to adjust our MineralMan Jun 2014 #140

Context is important, yes. But a little discretion can also go a long way. nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #143

The first amendment doesn't apply on a private website. X_Digger Jun 2014 #146

Once again: I am not speaking just about DU. riqster Jun 2014 #169

You seem to have inferred something quite different than the rest of us. X_Digger Jun 2014 #170

Word! Well said, riqster... Surya Gayatri Jun 2014 #149

Wow. This is dumb. Self censorship is not censorship. That's just completely crazy. Squinch Jun 2014 #151

If that's true, then they should probably take "censorship" out of "self censorship" Orrex Jun 2014 #175

Does incense make you feel incensed? Do tea bags have anything to do with tea baggers or oral sex? Squinch Jun 2014 #182

Yeah, yeah. And "irony" doesn't mean "sort of like iron." You can do better than that. Orrex Jun 2014 #183

Fine, Orrex. When you don't pee in the punch bowl, its because you've been oppressed by someone Squinch Jun 2014 #184

I know that you're not illiterate, so it's clear that you didn't read my post. Orrex Jun 2014 #185

"That is censorship whether the agency is external or internal" Squinch Jun 2014 #187

It's a big tent. Orrex Jun 2014 #188

And I wonder what you think you are accomplishing by insisting that they are the same thing, Squinch Jun 2014 #189

I'm not insisting that they are the same thing Orrex Jun 2014 #191

This message was self-deleted by its author Squinch Jun 2014 #192

And thread after thread condemning someone's critique of another's speech?? Zenlitened Jun 2014 #153

In my house, I prefer that word not be used. This is Skinner's (virtual) house cali Jun 2014 #154

I Think you can say what you want ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #155

I agree, and I picked "censorship" to make a powerful point. riqster Jun 2014 #174

I think people should use common sense and remember they agreed to the Terms of Service and hrmjustin Jun 2014 #161

On DU, agreed. I was also speaking of speech elsewhere. riqster Jun 2014 #173

1st amendment-the most misunderstood amendment sufrommich Jun 2014 #164

In the very first sentence of my OP, I said that this wasn't just on DU. riqster Jun 2014 #172

Hear, Hear!!! Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #177

one doesn't need to worry about self censorship here Phlem Jun 2014 #178

That includes basic etiquette, and reasonable self monitoring? loyalsister Jun 2014 #190

I would never post the sorts of things that RP does. riqster Jun 2014 #195

Amen! Fuck rereading and editing or withdrawing your posts! JUST HIT SEND! FrodosPet Jun 2014 #197

I assume you meant this as sarcasm? riqster Jun 2014 #198