Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(17,671 posts)
179. Well, like i said in #158
Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:10 AM
Dec 2012

the inclusion of those terms would not be out of place.

But what would including them actually do? The TOS forbids porn as well. The debate about recognizing porn has raged on and off for decades, and it all depends on whether or not those who would eliminate it are able to accurately judge the emotional responses of others to certain images.

Yes, we know what what the words misogyny and sexism mean. Do we know it when we see it? If we want to recognize misogyny in the speech of others, we have to evaluate their intent. If we decide someone is using misogynistic language, we are evaluating how they feel about women. We are telling other people how they feel. Sometimes their feelings are easy to discern, other times it is not. And on an anonymous internet message board when two hundred words is a Russian novel, fine emotional distinctions are especially problematic.

The only way you can really understand someone is to actually interact with them. Creating increasingly specific restrictions on what may or may not be said is merely outsourcing the evaluative process to others. That's not fighting for yourself, it's demanding others winnow down who you interact with to avoid differences of opinion. Remember, the more you allow others to define the feelings of others for you, the more you allow them to define your own feelings.

agreed La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #1
Agreed -- and I also agree with LLP's suggestion downthread obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #2
Thank you and yes. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #3
I agree. I now know that it is absolutely needed. Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #4
Agreed hedgehog Dec 2012 #5
thank you. i too support the proposal of adding more clarity to this issue in TOS. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #6
Agreed. IMHO the folks who are posting sexist kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #7
Yeppp n/t HonEur12 Dec 2012 #163
I'd like to see the language before I endorse it. nt rrneck Dec 2012 #8
As would I. Because even as a rape survivor I think a lot of the complaints here have been over the peacebird Dec 2012 #10
Nah, you won't be PPR'd. rrneck Dec 2012 #13
Do you think sexism and misogyny should be in the TOS? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #19
I don't know. It depends on how you put it in there. rrneck Dec 2012 #21
So, you are ambivalent that sexism and misogyny should be TOS offenses obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #22
Strawman arguments should have some sort of repercussions too... n/t DRoseDARs Dec 2012 #27
Im ambivalent about endorsing a change in the TOS sight unseen. rrneck Dec 2012 #32
it really would have nothing to do with us. skinner would decide and word it. i trust him seabeyond Dec 2012 #43
I can understand that. rrneck Dec 2012 #59
he has it on du2. he can transfer it over. go find that. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #66
Cool. Why dont you copy and paste it here. nt rrneck Dec 2012 #75
no. go find it. dont. i dont care. i am so fuckin tired of these fuckin games. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #85
Well, if it's not worth a right click on your mouse rrneck Dec 2012 #95
What language from DU2 would you like transferred? Here are links to the rules: Make7 Dec 2012 #147
IMHO, a subset of that second link. Gormy Cuss Dec 2012 #161
how would YOU word it ?? Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #31
I'd like to see what I'm endorsing first. rrneck Dec 2012 #63
Pretend you have been given the chance to word it. Write it into the Tos just like you are Skinner - Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #72
I don't have an opinion yet. rrneck Dec 2012 #74
? you want I should word it for your approval ? Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #79
Yes. That is why the OP was posted. rrneck Dec 2012 #94
refresh my memory - when did we get to vote on the ToS first go round? -- Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #103
I don't know that it needs to be reworded rrneck Dec 2012 #110
ok. understood and agreed the discussion should take place in Meta. There is a thread over there. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #121
Thanks. rrneck Dec 2012 #133
I agree with you. It really never was about the words HH used. It was his attitude - Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #136
+1000 countryjake Dec 2012 #151
I agree I'd like to see how it's worded and it's not too much to ask.. one_voice Dec 2012 #33
skinner would decide on the phrasin and doubt he would be asking us, if he chose to adjust TOS. seabeyond Dec 2012 #39
Oh, I misunderstood... one_voice Dec 2012 #51
oh gosh, well, i do not know. i think we all have an idea that we would have influence in the seabeyond Dec 2012 #54
That would be the language obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #62
Then that's easy. Chan790 Dec 2012 #106
works for me.... nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #111
The admins will be the ones deciding how to word their own TOS... Little Star Dec 2012 #164
This is good. We need to have those two words "sexism and misogyny" in the text. CTyankee Dec 2012 #167
My expectation would be the inverse actually... Chan790 Dec 2012 #88
I see the use of the word gender as the basic problem. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #56
If someone were to say... one_voice Dec 2012 #83
So you are against clarifying language? DURHAM D Dec 2012 #86
No, I said I wasn't against it in my last comment.... one_voice Dec 2012 #93
okay. got it. thanks DURHAM D Dec 2012 #96
No member will decide the language. If the admins agree with proposal they will decide the language. Little Star Dec 2012 #36
How would you like for it to read? nt rrneck Dec 2012 #70
Personally, just adding the two words would be fine by me. Then like with all TOS.. Little Star Dec 2012 #135
I'd have to go the other way. rrneck Dec 2012 #139
But we already DO ban words. We don't allow "n****r" or "f*g". CTyankee Dec 2012 #168
Actually, for some reason I thought Little Star rrneck Dec 2012 #169
But I am wondering if we set such a high standards when it comes to race? Isn't the use of CTyankee Dec 2012 #170
About the best answer i can give you is little more than a policy statement rrneck Dec 2012 #171
but why is it so difficult to do this for sexist speech when it isn't for racist speech? CTyankee Dec 2012 #172
I see no difference. rrneck Dec 2012 #173
Two things: I am not familiar with what transpired with SalmonEnchantedEvening, so I don't CTyankee Dec 2012 #176
Well, like i said in #158 rrneck Dec 2012 #179
Is this any different from the evaluation process we already do here, with regard to racist and CTyankee Dec 2012 #180
I don't necessarily agree with the inclusion of those terms. rrneck Dec 2012 #181
Well, as to your first point: is it any harder to discern sexism than it is racism or homophobia? CTyankee Dec 2012 #182
I've only been a member for four years rrneck Dec 2012 #183
As we speak (type?) the discussion is on about Salmon's decision to leave and about HH's wife's CTyankee Dec 2012 #184
I agree. rrneck Dec 2012 #185
I love that you are an artist, but we do disagree about whether there will be a change to the TOS. CTyankee Dec 2012 #186
So glad to see everyone working together on this. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #24
I agree obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #26
yes... I see this as a very positive opportunity.... hlthe2b Dec 2012 #53
Glad to see you. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #58
Back at ya.... hlthe2b Dec 2012 #61
Skinner makes the decision on TOS violations. boston bean Dec 2012 #35
How would you like for it to read? rrneck Dec 2012 #73
Why yes I have. boston bean Dec 2012 #77
Thank you. rrneck Dec 2012 #78
why the sarcastic remark. boston bean Dec 2012 #82
Hmmmmm. More resistance. rrneck Dec 2012 #104
this seabeyond Dec 2012 #108
OMG, leave me alone please. this is becoming harassment. boston bean Dec 2012 #115
I agree. graham4anything Dec 2012 #9
"It should go without saying, but it needs to be said." redqueen Dec 2012 #12
Agreed. nt redqueen Dec 2012 #11
Honestly I've been avoiding these threads d_r Dec 2012 #14
Thanks for speaking out d_r. Little Star Dec 2012 #17
Beautifully said. redqueen Dec 2012 #18
Thanks, d_r. Well said. freshwest Dec 2012 #23
Wonderful post.Thank you. nt sufrommich Dec 2012 #25
Thank you so much for posting. boston bean Dec 2012 #37
can i record please, lol. i guess what i see is that for so many of us it is progression seabeyond Dec 2012 #38
you are too cool, d_r Skittles Dec 2012 #45
Awesome post gollygee Dec 2012 #64
IMO, your post is right-on-the-spot. salin Dec 2012 #65
No argument here Tsiyu Dec 2012 #107
d_r, thank you for laying it out so clearly. Gormy Cuss Dec 2012 #124
Thanks friend. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #145
This should be an OP for EVERYONE to read. Well said d_r. Thank you. n/t auntAgonist Dec 2012 #156
+1. Well said. n/t FSogol Dec 2012 #165
Thank you! myrna minx Dec 2012 #166
Agree. Would love to see the women of DU make this so.nt sufrommich Dec 2012 #15
The last few days make it pretty obvious that DU needs... Little Star Dec 2012 #16
I also support this effort and believe it is needed. n/t MadrasT Dec 2012 #20
K&R. thanks. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #28
I agree Ohio Joe Dec 2012 #29
Yes Kaleva Dec 2012 #30
I agree that misogyny and sexism need to be added to the TOS... Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #34
I am in 100% total support of this. boston bean Dec 2012 #40
yes obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #57
thanks for opening this topic, we need input from Admin on this. Whisp Dec 2012 #41
yes irisblue Dec 2012 #42
No, it's not the best place; Meta would be better. muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #44
But it is about helping people. Hatchling Dec 2012 #188
sad that it is needed Skittles Dec 2012 #46
I support the idea, but I'm not sure it will help Scootaloo Dec 2012 #47
It will help with those who don't see it spelled out clearly, understand boston bean Dec 2012 #50
The problem is language is not static jeff47 Dec 2012 #130
Yes. It needs to be clarified. greatauntoftriplets Dec 2012 #48
Agreed LiberalLoner Dec 2012 #49
Absolutely. It must be in the TOS since the absence DevonRex Dec 2012 #52
I've already posted my thoughts on the subject Major Nikon Dec 2012 #55
some clarifications could be things like La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #60
+1 this -- great ideas obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #68
those are very good ideas boston bean Dec 2012 #81
Sounds pretty complicated Major Nikon Dec 2012 #90
Agreed n/t gollygee Dec 2012 #67
So a subjective judgement will deem a violation of TOS? Gman Dec 2012 #69
being against marriage equality may seem subjective to some La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #76
Well, unfortunately a lot of people here see some kind of slight in just about anything Gman Dec 2012 #89
yet some do. as should this one La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #119
Isn't that the same with all the mentioned bigotries? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #80
just look at the hh wife thread, how many defended boston bean Dec 2012 #84
adminstration decide the tos. that simple. regardless of how they clarify the tos, they are the seabeyond Dec 2012 #92
Point well taken Gman Dec 2012 #99
absolutely. and they do not rush. they take the time. and a person gets plenty of rope seabeyond Dec 2012 #102
There should be ismnotwasm Dec 2012 #71
Somebody got a primer on the reason for this? michigandem58 Dec 2012 #87
Sexism has no place on DU. nt s-cubed Dec 2012 #91
All for it. Here's the language from DU 2 that is pretty damn clear: NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #97
this. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #105
I find it disgusting that many people apparently need to have this spelled out for them. NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #109
yup. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #114
Thank you. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #113
Same here re: ageism. I noticed a good amount of it in 2008. NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #132
Me too. Little Star Dec 2012 #154
I like the first two paragraphs. I dont like banning specific words. rrneck Dec 2012 #118
I assume you are aware that the admin wrote it. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #122
That's what this thread is about. rrneck Dec 2012 #129
Yes, this. MadrasT Dec 2012 #125
I support a change in the TOS maddezmom Dec 2012 #98
I am in favor of addressing these issues with specificity in the TOS. Juries will fine tune WheelWalker Dec 2012 #100
No bigoted hate speech. Behind the Aegis Dec 2012 #101
Your suggested changes look to me to be just what is needed... Spazito Dec 2012 #120
This one looks good. nt rrneck Dec 2012 #126
that works also. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #131
yeah, this works. one_voice Dec 2012 #140
K&R! hrmjustin Dec 2012 #112
I think Meta is the place you want to be Tsiyu Dec 2012 #116
Thanks, Tsiyu. Gormy Cuss Dec 2012 #141
it is depressing that, on what is supposed to be a progressive, democratic board, we actually have niyad Dec 2012 #117
I agree, clarity is needed in the TOS beyond using "gender"... Spazito Dec 2012 #123
An explicit statement will help everyone caraher Dec 2012 #127
I support an amendment to the TOS to make a prohibition against misogyny clear. yardwork Dec 2012 #128
Absolutely not. Words, alone, devoid of meaning should not be banned. Messages of hatred may be. leveymg Dec 2012 #134
not following ... DURHAM D Dec 2012 #138
So, a;; s;urs shuld eb allowed then? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #146
It all depends upon the context, what is the meaning and message. leveymg Dec 2012 #152
You know, I hate the word wars, and am often on the side of those who post silly and juvenile msanthrope Dec 2012 #137
Agreed. JoeyT Dec 2012 #142
Aye. JustJoe Dec 2012 #143
Agreed, LadyHawkAZ Dec 2012 #144
great idea! bettyellen Dec 2012 #148
Cross posting from Starry Messenger's thread.. Permanut Dec 2012 #149
I understand the functionality of preventing people from using the absence of that specific language patrice Dec 2012 #150
Don't know where it's best to propose it... countryjake Dec 2012 #153
I support this! n/t wildflower Dec 2012 #155
What constitutes 'sexism' here? The Doctor. Dec 2012 #157
Having thought about this TOS thing rrneck Dec 2012 #158
Unfortunatly it appears to be needed One_Life_To_Give Dec 2012 #159
I support this! nt stevenleser Dec 2012 #160
It is a fine place, but not the only place Tumbulu Dec 2012 #162
One could argue this is already covered by the TOS in several places justiceischeap Dec 2012 #174
I can't speak to the instance you reference about this poster who is leaving since I have not CTyankee Dec 2012 #177
Looks like it is, GC. Nice idea, thanks. nt Zorra Dec 2012 #175
I think it already very much does... ellisonz Dec 2012 #178
I think clarifying that sexism and misogny are unacceptable can only benefit discussion. misschicken Dec 2012 #187
Great idea. Hatchling Dec 2012 #189
has Skinner said Anything about this to anyone? Whisp Dec 2012 #190
No comment AFAIK Gormy Cuss Mar 2013 #194
I hope he realizes how insulting that is. Whisp Mar 2013 #195
No it's fine as it is. Waiting For Everyman Dec 2012 #191
Agreed wryter2000 Feb 2013 #192
Yes. I think it's time our terms of service included a prohibition on denigrating 51% of the Squinch Mar 2013 #193
I support this 100%. MineralMan Mar 2013 #196
Kick'n Reck'n Vanje Mar 2013 #197
if nothing else, i would like to hear if this has been the administrations expectation and they seabeyond Mar 2013 #198
Its worse than it was 10 years ago here olddots Mar 2013 #199
Are you talking about DU.2 or DU.1? Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #200
This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Mar 2013 #201
Yes, unfortunately we have the answer. Gormy Cuss Mar 2013 #202
Latest Discussions»Help & Search»DU Community Help»This message was self-del...»Reply #179