Self Delete...

[Catchawave]

:(

[Yael]

1. I am sure that people just rec'd it up to offend you

[Coexist]

2. I know I did!

;)

[sandnsea]

3. Fuck bothers you, but Hillary's promise of WWIII doesn't?

That's what is wrong with this country.

[Two Americas]

14. I think you proved the OP's point

Those are the choices? Either fuck bothers you, or "Hillary's promise of WWIII" does? :crazy:

Any flimsy pretext to identify new targets for your hatred, any shaky logic to connect together everything evil in the world, and then assign blame for everything to anyone who expresses any reservations at all about what you are doing.

[sandnsea]

17. Yeah because that's exactly what I said

Talk about :crazy:

[crankychatter]

4. "I enjoy offending people that enjoy BEING offended." F. Zappa

It's a service to provide a source of deep umbrage to people that cannot be happy without some outrage to protest.

For giving you something to complain about... you should say "thank you."

[L0oniX]

5. I am going to kick it again just to bother you.

:evilfrown:

[DevonRex]

6. me too

[Catchawave]

8. Yippeee, thanks

:hi:

:evilgrin:

[L0oniX]

11. OK That's the last straw ...I am going to kick it again.

[backscatter712]

7. ABC earned my hatred.

If they want to play such unethical games and throw all their journalistic objectivity aside, yeah, they've earned our hatred.

In this case, hatred is a rational, normal, healthy emotion. Don't suppress your hatred - that's unhealthy. EMBRACE YOUR HATRED!

In this case, it's OK to hate.

[sueragingroz]

9. better start storing up some of that hate

you are gonna need it for the GE if your candidate wins...

;)

[Catchawave]

10. Kewl...

:+

[melody]

16. Bingo n/t

[MadBadger]

12. I guess we all could just plot how to get certain DUers deleted all day instead...right?

[LostinVA]

23. Huh?

:shrug:

[Two Americas]

13. insane, isn't it?

Things are out of control. And now we have people who are offended that you are offended. :crazy:

You see, when you are on the side of everything that is good, nothing you do can be bad. When you are spreading hope and unity, then you are perfectly justified to divide and discourage. When you are saving humanity, then who needs people and you can say FU to anyone who disagrees with you. No matter how badly you treat people, it is OK because "they asked for it."

And who are YOU to try to tell US that we can't tell you what to think and say?

[sandnsea]

18. And now you're offended

that people are offended that the OP's offended. Because we all know the world comes to an end over the word "fuck".

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

19. exactly

See how silly it gets? I am not offended, though. The circle of idiocy stops here. I am opposed to what the hero worship of candidtes has done to people's thinking and to the dicsussion, and I am certain that it will carry into the general and may well sink the party. But I am not offended.

[sandnsea]

21. Using the term "insane" doesn't indicate offense??

Wow. That word is a lot more loaded than "fuck you" in my estimation.

[Two Americas]

22. the pattern

If it supports Obama, it is OK no matter what. If it doesn't, it is not. That is the only reliable yardstick I can see here for predicting what people will or will not get upset about.

I did not say that you are insane. I said that it is. That is the difference between saying "this is fucked" and "fuck you." You must be able to see the difference.

[sandnsea]

24. Uh, no, you are describing humans who are posting

You are saying particular people who post in a particular pattern post in an "insane" manner. That's much more insulting than simply saying it's fucked up. Fucked up, messed up, not good, - none of that comes anywhere near "insane".

See, I have this little pet peeve with people who get all twisted over a curse word or an angry tone - but can't see the true horror in their own behavior when they "calmly" and "rationally" use words like "insane".

And no I did not think you were directing any remarks at me.

[Two Americas]

26. a lot of confusion

I don't care about a curse word, and I am not sure that the OP does either. It is the acrimony and hatred that is a problem, and the way that the board has come to be dominated by that and intelligent conversation has been driven away. I am calling that "insane" as in this definition form the Princeton online dictionary:

insane - harebrained: very foolish; "harebrained ideas"; "took insane risks behind the wheel"; "a completely mad scheme to build a bridge between two mountains"

You are making an argument here that is parallel to the reverse racism argument - that it is the person calling people on racism that is committing the offense, not the racism itself. This reverse logic is becoming more and more common, I would guess as a result of the right wing media using it all of the time. It is just as illogical regardless of the cause it is promoting or the use to which it is put.

We have a board filled with vicious ad hominem attacks, and I have often seen that justified with "they had it coming" or "she asked for it." That is the offense, the problem. Calling that ongoing abuse and uproar "insane" is an observation and an opinion about what people are saying and doing. To say that we cannot point out bad behavior, because doing so would itself be bad behavior, is illogical - that is an example of what I am calling "insane."

This is not a problem of which words we use - that itself is a right wing frame, that it is all a matter of using certain words, and they mock us as the language police and yap about political correctness. I have tried the word "disturbing" - no response or discussion. I have tried the word "alarming" - no response or discussion. Destructive, counter-productive, divisive - no discussion. At least "insane" got a response.

[sandnsea]

27. lol, I see

It's okay if you do it but if anybody else does it, then it's insane. Got it.

[Two Americas]

29. no

I didn't say that, or imply that. Attacking the person, and attacking what they are saying are two different things.

[Two Americas]

28. an example, sandnsea

I just had someone say that "it is cowardly" for me to make the argument I was making. Notice that he did not call me a "coward" and on the thread I didn't take exception to him giving his opinion about my remarks. Had he called me a coward, I would have objected. See the difference? "Cowardly" is borderline, but I give my opponents the benefit of the doubt if they don't make an overt ad hominem attack. That has nothing to do with being "offended" or not but rather it is the responsible thing to do as a member of a community.

Ad hominem attacks destroy the discussion and the community. On the other hand, expressing strong opinions - even at the risk of offending someone, or bruising their ego, or challenging their sacred cows - is an essential part of vigorous debate and discussion and should not be suppressed or discouraged. It is important that we know the difference between the two.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5558910&mesg_id=5559763

[sandnsea]

30. Oh it's the same thing

It's against the rules to call people names at DU. There's no difference between calling someone a coward or saying they're behaving cowardly. It's the same.

[Two Americas]

31. really

We could never say anything critical about each other's arguments were that the case. There is a big difference between being called a coward, and being told that your argument is cowardly. One attacks the messenger, the other the message. I can answer his post claiming that my argument is cowardly, but I couldn't answer the charge that I am a coward.

The exchange I am having there is as heated as any I am ever in, yet no bridges will be burned (I hope :) ) no one will be putting anyone on ignore, and it won't escalate and get worse. This tells us that in practical functional effect, attacking the message and not the messenger works better and makes it more likely that the discussion will continue and be fruitful and worthwhile.

Here is what the rules say:

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

An attack on a person's argument is not a "personal attack."

Perusing the more detailed explanation of this rule, it is easy to see that violations are very common, and I am even more sure about my point of view on this issue.

Civility

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)
If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

[sandnsea]

32. your definition of civility

is my definition of phony. You do not need to classify the person or the argument with terms such as "cowardly" or "insane" in order to debate the validity of the argument. Whether you say someone is making a fucked argument or an insane argument, or tell them they're insane or to fuck off - it's all out of the bounds of "civil" debate because NONE of it has anything to do with any issue at hand.

[Two Americas]

33. ok

I agree that civility is the goal. To some extent you have to feel out the other person. I thought you were defending the use of the F word in the OP in question?

The problem with your definition is that it is not clear, and too easy to abuse. Can we say that a person's argument is "illogical?" What about "poorly reasoned," or "without a shred of credibility," for example? If we make the standard for what is not permitted to be merely that which annoys or offends the other person, then we have given immunity to people from having their arguments challenged. We see that here often - people accusing others of attacking them merely because their argument was not welcome. There is a lot of confusion on DU about this right now. We are into the accusing others of accusing the accuser territory, where merely expressing an unpopular opinion can result in you being accused of attacking, or being uncivil.

What if a person heaps abuse on us? Can we say they are being "abusive?"

I think we are seeing a lot of cognitive dissonance on DU - people struggling with the internal battle between what they hold to be true and what they know to be true. When that gets triggered, even inadvertently, all hell breaks lose. People cannot admit what they know to be true because it conflicts with what they have decided to hold as true. The more frantic and angry and aggressive the posts, the more we know that what the person is saying things that are not really true for them, they are things that they desperately want to be true.

These aren't my rules, by the way. People have been arguing for a long, long time and rules of discourse have been hammered out over centuries from practical experience.

[sandnsea]

34. There's no confusion on DU

There are people who say exactly what they think with very precise words - Fuck You ABC. There are people who write humorous rants about the Mickey Mouse Debacle. There are people who write "sarcastic" rants about rainbows and turds. And there are people who analyze the details of a particular incident in an attempt to take the supposed debate to a higher intellectual level. People are different. None better or worse than the other. Except for me personally, the ones who pretend their method is better because of some phony set of social rules, well they're the ones I run from fastest. That's just me.

[Two Americas]

35. thanks

I appreciate the discussion, and thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my posts. We have a different take on this.

Hey! - did you call my argument "phony?" Isn't that the same as calling ME a phony? :)

[sandnsea]

36. Maybe

There's always the chance I misinterpret your intentions. But make no mistake, if I thought you were truly being blatantly insincere and phony - I would make no bones in saying so. OTOH, I have also come to understand that some people take these social rules quite seriously, and get very disturbed over curse words or huffiness. I find them humorous, but if I sincerely believe I've run across one, I try to respect their sensibilities. I honestly don't think that's the case with the OP, based on my recollections of the person's posts. Anyways, I just discovered there is something called a Miss Landmine Pageant. The winner got a prosthesis. I can't decide whether it's sad exploitation or women claiming their inner beauty and doing what they can to bring attention to a tragedy. Either way, it's certainly more important than 'fuck you ABC'.

http://www.miss-landmine.org/misslandmine_news.html

[Two Americas]

37. yeah

Well, I am not against cuss words, nor would I argue for a regime of enforcing phony bourgeois etiquette and petty rules of politeness.

I completely agree with you that the real obscenities - such as land mines - are ignored, while people obsess over superficial appearances and niceties. That in itself is something of an obscenity - that Americans go along worrying about trivialities and appearances as the country collapses and we spread death and destruction overseas.

[Two Americas]

15. hatred

People are wallowing in their hatred, bragging about it, justifying it, whipping it up in each other.

[quantass]

20. Just had to kick cuz..well...

:shrug:

[Bensthename]

25. Did I miss something here? Some weird vibes floating around.