Rabble's politics of dividing the left

There's no left to unite, federally. The only party that is remotely left are the NDP, and, occasionally (not always) the BQ. The Cons are extreme right wing, the Libs right of centre, and the Greens - as far as I can tell the Greens in Canada are fiscally very conservative, and progressive only on the environment. What's there to unite?

There's nothing progressive or left about banning people from a public online forum in my eyes.  the only time someone should be banned is if they threaten someone on here or are just posting ad's and stuff that gets in the way of discussion.

instead we should welcome people with views we disgust so we can engage them and hopefully change their minds.

anyone read Saul Aulinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS?  He makes an interesting point about how progressives often stay away from people with whom they disagree which pretty much ensures our views will not be widely disseminated.  But it sure makes us feel good to tell each other about them, i.e. preaching to the converted.

we should instead be SEEKING OUT racists, homophobes, right wing religious whackos and pro-market propagandists and their followers.  If we don't change them we don't change a thing!

"Douchebag" is a bannable offense? 

Gott in Himmel.

I think 'political incorrectness' has a place. A lot of things I like are disliked on babble.

I don't bring it to babble.

Respect the space.

Repeat as necessary.

Boom Boom...This is the point I was trying to make by explaining the Reform Party and their unite the Right campaign.

The Conservatives were DEAD..They were finished..Sadly,their predecessors didn't take advantage of it.

The Reform Party was a grass roots movement..They went from fringe to government in just a couple of years.

what we--free thinking progressives--need is a similar grass roots movement..We need to mobilize and we need to UNITE,just like the Reformers did.

You start off small,you gain steam then you merge and take over a mainstream party...You probably couldn't take over the Libs but a coalition of a united left front from the Greens to all the smaller social fringe parties could take over the NDP..If you take all those who lean to the left but support the Liberals and you UNITE those in smaller parties that are straight up to the left,you may have a bonifide hope in hell to actually have a government that is there to work for the PEOPLE.

It can be accomplished.

Blinded by the light, wrapped up like a douche and a rollin' in the night...

hey, it's a song, at least the way I heard it.

I don't know what to make of this.   Personally, if some people find a word offensive, I treat it as yet another communication challenge.  Find another word.   The english language has scores, if not hundreds.

I use the word doucebag. I had absolutely NO issue with the use of the word in the context he had put it. Hell, I have said it myself a million times over.

Let me put this another way. Here we have a person who used the word doucebag and he gets BANNED. Then over in another thread we have a so-called lefty actually gloating that he is going to help boost Israel's economy - a known Zionist - and he is ALLOWED to stay with almost nary a word? Are you fucking kidding me? Really? Doucheag is ban-able but supporting a racist murdering state is a-okay?

I'm pretty fucking sure that if I had to chose one of the two I would put my money on the new guy and turf the Israeli government apologist on his ass. But hey, that's just me.

I am appalled at what gets a pass around here and what doesn't. The more we push people away for minor bullshit, and yes this is minor, the more we chose to isolate ourselves. We are ALL human. We all screw up. Every freaking day. Give him a break. We are sure giving the Zionists a break.

Stargazer you using  D_bag, is like blacks using the "n" word or First Nations women using the "s" word. Big difference.

But I agree with you on the allowing of SCC to stay, I had to take a break for 3 days over that one.

personally, I do not find D_bag minor, just as I do not find "bitch" minor, these are nasty nasty prejoratives against women specifically....and last time I looked sexism against women is getting worse NOT better.

and dude who got banned got right nasty about his right to say whatever the fuck he wants here.

and yet etamaran wants to discuss moderators shutting down discussions in the aboriginal forum and gets shut down too for asking, wtf!!!

I still may leave over that one...

 eta: if white men, are "splitting the left" because they can't use the sexist words they want, then they were never fucking on the left in the first place, IMV

remind: you a reverse sexist?

hey Jack, I don't think that this thread gives you call to jump on remind. If you have a bone to pick with her you might try doing so in a manner that isn't sexist - unlike your "reverse sexism" card. Just because I defend the use of the word once does not mean that you are invited to heap some garbage on remind.

Pogge, you may be right. I'll have to read the thread again but my point still stands. I'm thinking apologist for genocide are a much bigger deal than this dude here and his use of the term doucebag.

Thanks for that writer. Interesting read.

I guess if I called Don Cherry a fuckin' asshole,there'd be no issue..Then again,maybe it's because the person I was attacking was Don Cherry.

I was told that 'sexist terms like "douche bag" are not allowed on babble....'

OK, no problem and no offense taken BUT the moderator proceeded with 'nor commenting,like you did in this thread about how 'hot' you think certain women are.

And I ask,WHERE did I say that?...As I said,the moderator fixated on ONE word in the comment I left and CLEARLY didn't take any time to bloody well read it. 

From the thread about the woman who was deemed 'too hot to work at a particular bank'

My post..... 

"Wow...that woman is hot

And with that,her bosses and co-workers should move on.Maybe the bank in question would prefer her to wear a niqab or a burqa.

She should sue and take them for all they got...Mind you,the bank will have an easy time proving their case."

I read this story TWICE and one of the arcticles contained the words 'too hot for work' in its title.

Now show me where did I make a firm comment on how hot I think certain women are? (A) I was making a point (B) I didn't say anything that had NO part in the story..There was NO blanket statement without a point. 

The moderator also insinuated I was somehow perpetuating opression. 

I don't appreciate being called a sexist...As someone pointed out about the word 'bitch'..How would you react if someone called you that?

And when another moderator chimed in trying to make a joke out of it...Blatantly throwing a flip comment thinking I had already been banned so I couldn't reply,I got pissed.

You know,getting pissed...Or maybe the moderators and some of the people who think I'm Hitler incarnate for saying 2 INNOCUOUS words,never get pissed and are always in a state of Chi or actually DO get pissed..EXCLUSIVELY when it's a crime against PC.

Funny how you're so stuck on PC, when it's an issue of treating others equally.

Tell me, why is douchebag an insult? And have you actually *been* banned?

Edited to add: and what Unionist said.

Douche bag is just a word...Like any and all words...Except people put meaning to them.

I remember some years ago where to stem sexual harassment at the work place and to make sure no one finds themselves offended,obviously these businesses were worried about lawsuits,computers were fixed so that certain words could not be typed and, as a result, seen by any party who'd take offense.

'Programming computers to reject obvious words such as fuck and etc..etc...(don't want to get in trouble of breaking a PC rule),I guess that makes sense but this policy went much,much further...Seemingly clear innocuous words fell into the ban..For example prick..Which we all learn before we've even learned how to use a toilet,is not an obscenity..Unless it's used in a certain way.

This whole war on words and how these words are somehow 'sexist' reminds me of a certain group who were demanding Manitoba to change its name because it was sexist.

If you think I'm making that up,google it.

Seeing how sensitive some people get over words,I have to ask...Are you the same people who had a coronary over Janet Jackson's quarter second of nipple a few years back?

Or are you offended when a woman nurses her new born in public?

If you're not,remember that those 2 things--the latter one in particular--offend some people..Do you think to protect the sensibilities of a few hyper-sensitive people who think breast feeding is obscene means women should not be able to?

Think about it.  

I'm pretty tired right now so I can't respond in full, but for the record, alan smithee was not banned for using the word "douche-bag." He was suspended for abusing a moderator and for disrespect and general disdain for the community. He was invited on several occasions to discuss the matter with the moderators in public, by PM or email. He chose to take a different direction.

I used the word douche bag a couple of times on babble. I was told it was offensive and it was explained why. It convinced me.

Anyway, I'll respond in full tomorrow.

Agent666 and alan smithee/imdone: babble is a discussion board, rabble.ca is a media website providing news, columnists, tv/video, podcasts and blogs from a progressive perspective. That said, the thread title is inaccurate.

Wow Agent666, you've been with us for less than 2 weeks and have a long list of why babble sucks. And you've offered no links to any of your accusations AND some of your points are wrong. How lovely. Not.

If you hate it so much here, then seriously, what are you doing here?

......

And just as a refresher for y'all:

.....

This may be the record week of babble moderators being called the PC police. My initial response is: the term "politically correct" is soooooo 1992. Can't you nay-sayers at least be a bit creative and make up something new?

And does it occur to you that your social location (if you are any of male, while and middle class) has a teensy weensy bit to do with how you experience the world, and how others respond to you? Teensy? Weensy?

.....

alan aka imdone. I agree with you, that actions are worse than words. But this doesn't mean that words have absolutely no meaning/impact/value in how we understand the world. I use many MANY words and phrases in person and in other places where I write, that I would not use on babble. Why? Out of respect for the community's rules that I had a hand in setting, and now, moderating. Debating word usage is a very very privileged debate. Again, this does not mean that words have no meaning in how we (all of us in society) understand the world. Show images, headlines and front page space, again and again, of Black men who are criminals or suspected criminals (see the ouevre of Quebecor, owner of The Sun newspaper publications) and subsequently the society at large will link Blackness and maleness to crime. Despite statistics, despite reality. 

The tiniest thing I'm going to add about the whole PC thing is this. Anyone who expects to engage in progressive discussion and not have the beliefs that they arrived with changed (a little, a bit, a lot) needs to look at why.

Personal disclosure #1: Whenever I find myself holding onto a certain value or belief and then am challenged by someone (which happens all the time), I start to (metaphorically) screech at whoever to shut up and leave me alone. I then realize that I'm holding on to some bullshit mainstream belief that matters to me. I try (don't always succeed) in breaking down why the hell this dumbass belief, whatever it is, matters so much to me.

Personal disclosure #2: I have worked in the field of anti-racism anti-oppression educating, training and organizational change for the past 14 years. 

Alan/imdone, I've really tried to engage you here, with this post, and I hope that you can respond in kind.

I really dislike the use of the term PC since in its modern usage (post-1990) it was coined as a right-wing derisive critique of the left.

How does the left adopting language intended as derisive by right further any cause?

Oh for fuck sake, grow up will you ... I didn't call anyone a "wife beater" .. I responded to a "did you stop beating your wife" type question with that commonly used phrase that is well known to mean that the person you are responding to is asking a "false dilemma" type question ... it was a rhetorical question meant to express disgust with the idioitic "excluded middle principle" question being asked ... but then again, that's pretty much the type of politically correct over-reacting that most people responding to this thread are talking about, fine example remind.

Hey Imdone, I feel for you buddy. Censorship is the one complaint I have with

babble. Unfortunately, it is reminiscient of my being banned from National Post

for a heated debate I had on legalization of hard drugs. So, as a plea to babble,

please do not continue along these censorious lines. We are all capable of

reading comments with which we do not agree. Let us make those decisions for

ourselves.

"A lot of the people who call themselves Left, I would regard as proto-fascists."

- Noam Chomsky

First, thanks for recognizing my comedic talents.  I'll be here all week folks.

Second, nobody banned you for the use of the term douche bag.   I'll repeat that, because you've said it many times and it's a lie.  Nobody banned you for using the term douche bag.  You were told, quite politely I should add, that the term was considered problematic around here, and asked not to use it.  You then proceeded to act like an asshole, for which I suspended you. Acting like an asshole is against policy, although I will grant the word itself probably doesn't appear in the policy statement.  When I susupended you, I made note of it on the moderators list asking about length of time of the suspension, adding I didn't have a strong opinion on that point.  Before I actually deactivated your account you got in one more comment pretty much ensuring re-instating you wasn't going to be anyone's priority.

I don't care about your left creds.  I care about your manners on this board.  There are people to the right of both of us here who get by because they know how to behave in someone elses living room.

Hi imdone, thanks for your concession and understanding. I want to stress that I never labelled you sexist, conservative or a troll or whatever. I said that sexist language, including "douche bag", are not allowed on babble. I rarely call people I don't know out-and-out racists/sexists/homophobes etc. Which profile would you like to use? I can reactivate alan smithee if you like.

With regards to the larger converstation happening here, what's at stake when it comes to words like "douche bag"? I hear it on a daily basis and like I said above, I've used it before on babble. What's at stake when our ability to use words like that are challenged? It's been said that babble has been cracking down on "metaphorical language" lately (although it seems to me that Maysie and I make about the lamest jackboots you'll ever see), but is there still anything "metaphorical" about the clichéed and hackneyed word "douche bag"? The only metaphorical strength left in its tired bones is its debt to old anti-feminist tropes. So why do we care if asked not to use it out of respect for fellow babblers?

While I admit that I was categorical in asking alan smithee not to use that word, I've noticed that even if I take a lighter approach--i.e. "maybe think about using less disrespectful language in the future"--babblers immediately react as if the world is falling down, as if babble has fallen into the abyss "lately" and that  the brownest shirts wouldn't condone so draconian a case of censorship. My response: wtf? I don't know what it is about being a moderator, but suddenly every word you say is like a celestial imperative, a manifesto from God.

I work with words on a daily basis and I realize that I consider their strength, implications and meaning more than the average person in her day to day life. If babblers think I enjoy conversations like this, or even the initial act of confronting a poster about her oppressive language, all I can say is that you are off base. But I also know as a long-time babbler that this is not a new conversation, that in fact, we have been moving--indeed, progressing--in this direction for as long as babble has been around. Working to be more inclusive, more considerate, more thoughtful about the language we use. Language is, after all, the only way anyone knows us here. I've always thought of babble as a space toward which, ideally, the rest of the world would move. Isn't that the whole point?

So why fight for "douche bag"? It's worth nothing to me. Is it worth something to you?

This thread is so telling. A post entitled "Rabble politics dividing the Left" - something I happen to think is true --  is turned into a red herring invective on the use of "politically correct language."

Not that I have any objection to a discussion about rhetoric, but the far more important discussion about how we are continually divided by our strategy -- and thus conquered -- is ignored by posters as though the topic of reasonable cooperation, intelligent winning electoral planning, and solidarity are mere gnats in their faces at a barbecue.

I believe some posters here have an extremely skewed sense of their political priorities... vis-a-vis the tiresome and useless "My perfect party is the best and ONLY party in the world" defence that supersedes the far more rational and pragmatic "How can all of those of us who are opposed to right wing politics hold our noses and work together in a manner that is best for the overall Canadian commonwealth at this time"?

It is not specifically the "douche bag". It is all words. Much like the lessons learned in Orwell's classic novel, 1984, eliminating words eliminates ideas. Sure, "douche bag" may not be an incredibly important - or even intelligent - word, but what next? Like you said, "we have been moving--indeed, progressing--in this direction for as long as babble has been around." This clearly implies that this will be taken farther; a slippery slope indeed. Soon will we lose words like racist? Surely being called a racist isn't very "considerate", is it? Such a word should certainly be done away with. Next, how about we ban the word wrong? After that, we can go round up all of the books which contain these words and we can burn them. Then we'll all be happy and included and we can eat lollipops and dance around a rainbow!

Why not learn inoffensive replacement words and demonstrate real freedom from the standard cant?

An Irishman not willing to experiment with the language?   Whatever is the land of Joyce coming to?

Could we get the official Imprima Potest, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur 
ruling on "Scumbag"?

(O yeah, the word "bishoprick" leaves me a little quesy )

How about Apartheid? Might bring up some uneasy feelings for any readers of African heritage.

We can't accuse anyone of being a "slave" to their ideology (or whatever) for a similar reason.

Any conversation about execution in Arizona, Maryland, or Missouri will have to be carefully managed as they still use the "gas chamber" and that has some pretty terrible connotations to certain groups.

Thank gawd "chicken Pox" have been eliminated, because if we had to talk about that disease it might start getting sticky if any of our FN members happened to read the thread.

As someone who was learning to speak in the late 50's early 60's, I'll have to apologize right now 'cause every once in a while I might blurt out "mailman" or "manpower" in a discussion of our postal services or employment situation.

Too bad it is has been proven that it is entirely impossible to understand a word in the context of the conversation happening around that word  ... if only there were some way to do that so we could make an intelligent call on whether the word being used was meant to be hurtful or whether it was being used in a context that wasn't meant to demean any specific group.

A good example, but only to show where these things can lead ... "lame" originates from an old English/German word meaning more or less "to break down" ... it naturally (I suppose) got applied to physical impairment, but using it to describe something as "weak" (lame argument for example) is a legitimate use of the word that doesn't have to be associated with a physical impariment ... it's like saying "weak" doesn't have a legitimate use because it can, and has been used to degrade some specific groups of people.

Aware that I don't know you, perhaps it's because of your gender/privilege/race?

Maybe but perhaps there is just a language barrier which keeps our worlds apart.

The funny thing about many calls to be more tolerant: the onus so often falls on the marginalized to tolerate what they have to tolerate every day in the oppressive context of the dominating culture. It becomes particularly rich when it is people trying to convince us they are allies who demand that we take it, because, well, they *mean* it differently than the status quo does. And we should learn to tell the difference. And we shouldn't be so ... petty.

How is this progressive? Why is it so hard to simply hear: "That term alienates me. It makes me feel bad. It puts me down. It pushes me away. It is silencing. Maybe you don't know it, but that is the effect. Could you stop, if you truly want to have me participate here? If you want me to be comfortable?"

Why is the onus on those who are already so alienated to swallow their hard-fought self-esteem and take the abuse, so that others can remain comfortably ignorant? Is this not the definition of privilege?

For everyone who claims that douchebag is a generic insult, I challenge you to explain why you want to use it so bad, even after hearing that others find it sexist and homophobic. Please give a specific definition that cannotes why it's so good, so evocative. Why it's *perfect*.

I really enjoyed the movie Children of Men. Then all the sudden, the experience was tainted for me. Why? The song Running The World:

I'm sure some folks might be eager to argue that cunt is just a generic insult, with no attached idea of gender/privilege/race, and that they don't see a problem with using the word. And that those who object to its use are oversensitive PC ninnies.

I ain't buying it. I will never buy it. I will ask, as I do every time I hear that particular insult (shockingly often, actually): "What is so bad about birth canals? Why are they used to describe evil, cruel, hard, stupid, ruthless people? What is so hideous about women's bodies to you? Why are the worst people named after my vagina?" In this particular lyric, cunts are shit. Cunts are tyrants. Cunts control, contain and dominate ruthlessly. Cunts are the ultimate oppressor.

I've had very dear friends refer to awful people as cunts. I challenge those friends, as I challenge similar language use elsewhere. So often, it is a man who is called a cunt. Why *not* a dick?

Why are odious males described as female parts? Why are odious males described as intimate tools used by women?

So what is a douchebag? What is a douchebag?

I've never actually used the word aside from my post in this thread. I don't particularly want to use the word in the future.  I'm not against people expressing their dislike of words either.

"So often, it is a man who is called a cunt. Why *not* a dick?"

people are definetly called dicks where I'm from.  Discussing and empathising with peoples various experiences is what I believe to be most valuable about this forum and see any attempt at establishing a universal truth as futile.

I would add that maybe some discussion comparing the terms "scum bag" vs "douche bag" vs "bitch".

My take would be that "scum bag" is a gender neutral (as far as I'm aware) insult, where "douche bag" is an insult that is indirectly related to gender (in that the insult itself is gender neutral in that it is commonly applied to both genders, but is derived from something that was at one time perceived as being a weakness related to the female gender and considered suitable for use as an insult ... at least that's my assumption on where it came from, but I suppose it could be that everyone, both male and female commonly consider a douche as something unpleasant, and may only be very incidental as to its potential relation to a specific gender,) and "bitch" is a direct gender specific insult that is normally applied to a specific gender.

So one would think that the reaction to these insults would have vastly different justifiable reactions.

Reading the original thread from which this one is a result, I believe that the word was originally used without intention of being "sexist", but some people considered it as a word that could be considered "sexist" (but not to my knowledge stating that it was meant as such in this case) and gave the appropriate level of reaction (ie: explaining that it is considered an offensive word with sexist connotations and politely asked to refrain from using it.)

Things seemed to escalate from there and didn't turn out too well, but I can't say I have any criticism for how the mods handled the situation ... especially the original reaction to the word, which seemed totally within bounds and reasonable.

I know what we had in mind when we created babble. I know what we had in mind when we drafted the first babble policy. I know that Catchfire and Maysie are greatly honouring the intent of this forum, and I thank them. Deeply.

Actually, I don't believe that I've ever heard a man referred to as a 'cunt'. Generally, they ARE referred to as 'dicks'. Actually, come to think of it, why aren't you complaining about that? Isn't it sexist to call a man a 'dick' in the same sense that it would be to call a woman a 'cunt'? Well, in my opinion, no. I would argue that both are equally acceptable. Are they gender specific? Yes. Does that make them bad? Not unless you only use one and refuse to use the other. So, in my opinion, as long as I use the word 'dick', there should be no problem with using the word 'cunt'.

Now, my question to you, writer, is... How many men have you called 'dicks'? Do you use the word 'cunt' when insulting women? If you call men 'dicks', but don't call women 'cunts', is it a case of cognitive dissonance, or do you actually feel that it is okay to ridicule men, but not women?

I like dick. Why would I call a man I dislike a dick?

I like cunt. Why would I call a woman I dislike a cunt?

I like body parts. I see no sense in degrading them in a body-hating / body-obsessed / body-commodifying culture like ours. I think there are better descriptives for odious people. Like odious.

I *have* heard cunt used by men to insult other men. Many many times. And I find it more than curious that this is the term that comes to mind, when it's not even gender appropriate. It reveals something about our culture, that a man is so horrible, he is a woman's sexual organ.

And women who are called cunts in a sexist society are not the same as men called dicks in a male-privileging world.

As someone who has spent some time in the construction industry, I've heard men referred to as both male and female genitalia, and a subtle distinction in meaning between the two is understood.

One argument in this thread is turning Orwell's thesis in "Politics and the English Language"and Nineteen Eighty-Four on its head.  Orwell's contention is the fewer words we are allowed to use to express ideas, ultimately the fewer ideas we'll have. 

An argument here is that the fewer words we're allowed to use, the better our thoughts will be; not that Orwell would call anyone a "douchebag" in print, mind you.  He'd probably suggest we come up with our own, imaginative insults.

Red_and_Black, I have no interest in arguing with you. I don't know who made you royalty for the day, resulting in your confident announcement about what's sexist and what isn't. I'd say the consensus amongst feminists is that cunt is deeply sexist, although some make an effort to reclaim the word, and Germaine Greer has an affection for it that I do understand.

Take up your argument with feminist movements, I guess. I can't communicate clearly enough just how insulting it is to have someone announce that women fighting for equality and human rights are being purely disingenuous on this count.

I am not looking to you for permission about what I can apply where.

Orwell also said that language can corrupt thought. That euphemstic jargon can "make murder respectable and give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." He's talking particularly of authority in language, from language spoken from a position of power. Of course, no one is forbidding the use of the word "douche bag" (I'm confused as to what idea the prohibition of this word would prevent, but I suppose it's the princible) but rather the usage of it in a particular context, as a feminizing pejorative. If anything, Orwell would object to the stale, tired meaning we prescribe to "douche bag" (which is negative and oppressive) thus preventing it from fulfilling its etymological potential in new, abstract and exciting ways. Sure, that's a tall order for "douche bag," but let's use Orwell correctly if we're going to use him at all.

ETA: and Red & Black, discussing whether or not calling men and women cunts is sexist is not happening on babble. We've decided. It is. Green Grouch and writer have made the case sufficiently. You can take it or leave it.

Nor did I say that you needed it, such is the beauty of free speech

With regards to my "confident announcement of what is sexist and what isn't", if you look back through my posts, you'll notice several instances of the word 'opinion', a word which I didn't notice anywhere in yours.

As for the feminist movements, it seems to me that they've run their course in certain parts of the world if all that they are fighting for is to stop people from using certain words, but thats a different argument.

Sheesh. R&B, babble is a feminism-friendly space in soldiarity with feminists here and around the world. That means we don't subscribe to neo-con tropes like "feminism is dead", nor do we belittle the massive struggles Western feminists (let alone third-world feminists) face everyday. Take a look at the revived abortion debate in this country, pay inequality and child care if you need help getting a clue. For the record, that "different argument" is not happening here. Ever. Ok? Go to the National Post if you're interested in that line of thinking.

Always a fine line between being an asshole and a clever wag with a keen sense of the sarcastic.  Now where was that line again?

Right beside me, I think.   Some think I'm on the asshole side, but trust me, it's just paralax error due to their vantage point.

I remember using the word "harpy" in the feminist forum years ago.   It got an interesting result.   I very honestly thought it wasn't particular to a gender.  And wondered why all the hub bub.   Someone told me to look it up.   Ah. Quite.

And yes I said sorry a jillion times.

And I do not understand why we want to make pejoratives of body parts and sexual acts that we all actually like.  Well, I do know, but in understanding why, we find out that we're a stupid and twisted bunch of little monkeys.

Anyway.   We're here to communicate ideas.   You want to be understood.  Pick the words which will best make yourself understood. 

It's really quite not at all something one would consider to be, or put in the catagory of or  otherwise characterise as difficult.

Well, it would seem that I have a disagreement with that 'dictionary definition' then. You make a blanket statement of "who holds the power", but is this true in all situations? I would argue that it is not, and as such, it should be treated with regards to the individual situation, not through the generalized statements which have been put forth in this thread.

And again, I have to repeat myself that I haven't heard men called cunts. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm just not commenting on it as I have no personal experience with that situation.

Furthermore, I would argue that restricting the ability to use words is much more oppressive than having the words used against you, so long as the words do not lead to actions.

Lastly, if its a waste of time for you, then don't discuss it. Why would you voluntarily join a discussion which you consider a waste of time.

Hopefully my comments here don't get me banned faster than they did from the National Post site

Actually, I was banned from the National Post for making comments which reflect my anarcho-mutualist (not neo-con, as you slander) opinions. You also slander me again by making claims about my positions on abortion, pay inequity, and child care, which you clearly know nothing about.

For the record, sending very left leaning people to the National Post lends great eveidence to the point which the original poster made about dividing the left. Simply because someone disagrees with one part of what is a very broad ideology, you send them away?

Thanks, Sharon. And yes, just like that.

Red_and_Black:

Google is your friend. And the feminist movement is disengenous. And you would like to make up the meaning of words, as dictionaries do not reflect your position.

This discussion board has a very specific mandate. I know, because I helped to develop it. Telling marginalized people that they should learn to put up with racist, sexist, classist, objectifying, dehumanizing language because free speech is so important ain't one of them.

I don't call my mother a cunt. Do you? We are free to. This is a community, babble. It has community standards, which are always evolving, but have a clear foundation. You are free to review that foundation in the Babble Policy, which you agreed to respect when posting here.

Simple.

Edited to add: R_and_B completely rewrote the post I was responding to. I will let the response stand as is.

I suppose if we applied that standard, then "asshole" would be verboten.

Sven, I was asked about the language I use, and I answered. It was an attempt to smear me or catch me in a contradiction that didn't work. Now you try to use my personal response for another purpose.

And no, I don't use asshole, either.

Those who are wondering how the discussion unfolded as it did are free to read the thread.

I guess the general consensus is that words can alienate and humiliate people...But this should also apply to labels which are rapidly losing their meaning because these labels are being thrown around all willy nilly (i.e. Sexist)

These labels also alienate,humiliate and oppress.

As for regional dialects,yes the British used the 'c' word much more often than us North Americans...I'm from Quebec,and 'fuck' is used casually everywhere from television to radio...It is not considered an explitive or an obscenity.(that's French TV and radio,that is..and casual joual français)..But don't dare say tabarnak or colisse in casual conversation.

As much as I have tried to justify my use of the word 'douche bag'...I'm full on aware that bitch and cunt are unacceptable words to be used in any serious and/or intelligent forum.

imdone, it's actually the law in terms of harrassment that it's not how you intend the words, it's how they are received.  

Well there were some nice moments in this thread and some not-so-nice ones. But I sense that closing for length would be a good idea right around now, so that's what I'm a gone do.

alan smithee, your original moniker's suspension has been lifted.