A Technology Solution? As retired English teacher Christie suggests, there may be a software-based solution which enables the whole community to act as moderators/censors. DIGG.com's commenting system allows users to "bury" comments that are trollish or offensive. One might argue that that is a much more arbitrary form of censorship, since the commenter doesn't even know that his or her posting will be hidden. At least the current rules allow a writer to say whatever, so long as the "words" are not used. Would a comment "burying" system be a better way to deal with this?
Big, high budget sites, like the wallstreet journal, moderate every comment, so they don't appear without being screened. I don't see us having the resources for that any time soon. So other solutions to dealing with the hateful use of these terms-- by far, the most commonly abused, are invited. Just saying don't censor does not address the problem. And asking a limited number of volunteer editors to do it is not really viable.
added at 6:20 PM
I've been called an antisemite enough times, but a zionist just as many. Trying to allow both sides a voice is no picnic. I've found that those who embrace the word don't use it when they post articles. I've gotten along just fine with people who are advocates for the palestinian cause. Our most frequent contributor who travels regularly to Palestine and writes as an advocate for the Palestinians is fine with the ban of the words-- because she knows they are abused and used for hate and she can communicate her message just fine without them.
You want to talk about censorship. How many "liberal" sites won't allow articles that argue the point of view of Israeli's who feel they are defending themselves and their right to exist?
I won't list all the ones that only cover the anti-Israel, anti-zionist side. THe bigger ones tend to be pro-Israel and block criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinians, even banning strong voices.
I'm not going to judge any of them. They have the right to do things the way they choose.
So, I ask you, which sites allow voices from both sides? I'd like to know, so I can discuss with them how they do it. I think, while you suggest we're censoring, that we're actually the most open on this issue of all the major progressive sites.
All this discussion, for the most part has been healthy.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
who believes that there are no' isms' I can only be happy with the decision. I hope the old articles will be grandfathered though, so that I will not have to go there and clean them up. Otherwise I am all with it.
Mark Sashine
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 236 diaries, 3362 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:23:48 PM
What are you, a child? There are isms. People give them to themselves and others assign them.
As far as the whole idea of censorship of anything especially words that are not even foul language, Rob and anyone who agrees with him should all be shot. The term progressive apprently means nothing to you. To progress would be to leave tyranny in all its forms way behind and speak like adults. Who cares if someone spreads messages of hate here or anywhere else? What an intelligent person would do is argue calmly with the idiot. But, it turns out you are the idiots. I don't like saying this because some contibutors to this site and many others are clever and thought provoking.
But ANYONE that wants to censor anything other than in acts of parenthood is flat out wrong. Your are and you know it. Rob is an idea Nazi (there you go Godwin's Law people). I hope I get banned from this site for saying the words that were banned. The only problem is, I don't know if you retreads will be able to see this rant if I include them, so I won't. So much for freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, freedom to not be a schmuck.
By the way, although it's not a progressive site, you can all visit lastfreevoice.com where libertarians hang out. We know something about free speech and we can have inteligent conversations (and we use naughty language, too, gasp). God forbid anyone say what they really feel. You make me sick.
by
Nick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 6:02:25 PM
are interesting ideas. I'll get to them. But lets start, my angry friend, with you. It is ironic that you brag of intelligence and spell it wrong. There are no accidents. Then, you post a url for a good site. But it is inactive. Again... no accidents. You embrace fantasies, while your realities are... different.
My reality confronts me when I encounter... too many hateful diatribes aimed at hurting or demeaning others.
Now, let's talk about progress. As a person intimately involved with neuroscience for several decades-- some of my good friends are brain surgeons-- I've learned that much of the way the brain evolved was in development of inhibitory mechanisms.
Progress is kind of like sculpting. Some years ago, I penned an article on a flight to Chicago, giving tips to writers on how to pitch editors (yes, gonzo, you have to persuade editors, if they publish legitimate publications, to actually publish your writing. They can reject it. That is called REJECTION, not censorship, except for whiny crybabies who have not an ounce of writer professionalism in their bones.) I started the article with a made up story. Readers Digest liked it enough to run it in their Points to Ponder section, putting me into some very good company with other writers. It went something like this.
Michaelangelo and Guido the plumber both got their marble from the same quarry. They'd each look at a slab of marble and say different things. Guido would see a toilet (Writers Digest edited that read "Sink." I didn't whine and cry censorship) and Michaelangelo would see a beautiful work of art.
I mention this because, like sculpture, progress is not just a process of letting go, it is also, always, the process of cutting away, of making choices-- of taking one path and giving up another path. We might even call it censoring the options, as we come to choicepoints or splits in the road.
Now, children don't like to make choices. But adults do it all the time. Leaders must do it.
Some leaders make mistakes. The ones who don't are called failures, because if you are to lead you have to take risks, make decisions and it is impossible to always be right, unless you are so hesitant and wait so long that you become ineffective.
So, I will stand by my decision, as unpopular as it is, while we struggle, as a community to come up with better solutions.
I want to thank you for what I see as a largely childish rant, because it's spurred me to think in some new ways. I'll be using parts of this comment for the next article I'm writing-- proposing some solutions that reflect the comments of the community.
by
Rob Kall (762 articles, 3852 quicklinks, 321 diaries, 1643 comments)
on Friday, August 31, 2007 at 8:55:12 AM
By renaming it "political correctness", Republicans have turned "civil discourse" into a dirty word. I for one am getting quite weary of “Islamo-fascist” as well, since it is an oxymoron. Islam is a religion, whereas fascism refers to a type of government. So, for that matter, “Christo-fascist” would be just as absurd.
People use such terms to inflame, not to inform.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 601 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:27:28 PM
Anyone who says "Jewish is a race" should be banned forever, or at the least corrected.
"Jewish" is a religion, not a "race." "Hebrew" is a language, not a "race" or a "religion."
People of many nations and races are Jewish. Believe it or not...even in Japan. Likewise, people of many nations speak and/or read the Hebrew language.
by
Sandy Sand (133 articles, 0 quicklinks, 170 diaries, 1277 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 1:04:20 PM
I understand what you are saying, but a bit of clarification is needed. Jewish is a word that is used to denote both a race and a religion. The Jewish race is from the tribe of Judah, but anyone can belong to the religion.
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 3:22:50 PM
You are correct. Jew is both a race and a religion. Ancient Judaism allowed for such a recognition by allowing a convert to become a Jew by race after three generations of conversion to the religion. Those of Moab had to wait thirteen generations with very few exceptions with a "kinsmen" redeemer. Ruth the Moabitess would be an example of this when she was redeemed by Boaz (see the Book of Boaz in the Tenakh [Old Testament]. The Temple was divided into a Court of the Gentiles which held the first three generations of "God fearers" and "Proselytes" who were not allowed to enter the Court of the Women or the Court of Israel for three generations.
When you consider that Sammy Davis Jr. and Elizabeth Taylor were all English and all African American yet were Jews by religion.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 948 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 11:59:53 PM
I sometimes get brain lock. I said the "Book of Boaz" in the Tanakh (Old Testament). There is no "Book of Boaz." I should have said or written the "Book of Ruth." I think you probably understood the scribal error; sometimes mine are "scribble" errors.
Phil
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 948 comments)
on Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 7:35:11 PM
I cringe when I hear some one refer to an Israeli as a Zionist and are using it as a radical Muslim hater uses Islamo-fascist; so I guess "cringing" goes both ways and Ron is correct. To bar Islamo-fascist, "N" and not bar Zionist or Zionism when it used as an attack word would be prejudice to the inth...
Over ninety-five percent of those reading on this blog hate censorship, but we hate the vile haters whose language is to incited others to join them in their foul hatred.
When I lived in Rochester, I heard words like Dago, Guinea (I am not sure it how it is spelled but it is derogative term refering to Ameican Italians), Whop; here in Oklahoma and Texas I hear Wetback, Spic, Gresser used the same way. As I heard as a child, "N", darkey . colored, and dozens of others terms used to castigate Black Americans. I can give you about five words used to describe American Native Indians, and ten to describe White people such as Whitey, Trash and so on and on. Those words have no place on this web site or in common use by any decent person.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 948 comments)
on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 11:25:52 AM
...but, one of the best jokes in the recent COMEDY CENTRAL roast of FLAV-o-FLAV was when somebody said...
Ice-T is so old that when he was rapping, the "n word" was "negro."
The point, of course, is that language evolves and changes, and words and phrases that are full of weight, anger, and emotional context in one era can become simply "words" over time. Or, alternatively, they can become so obviously inappropriate that only the ignorant, uneducated, and vilest of our society will use them.
As a writer, I think the choice of words is very important, and I don't disagree with the role of the EDITOR to work with the writer to assure that the correct words are used to express the desired meaning.
I do hate to see words banned just because they have an associated or implied meaning that isn't INHERENT in the word, but I also believe we (you, Rob) need to keep the environment as clear of distraction as possible, and there are always compromises that need to be made.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:35:04 PM
These words are most often used to differentiate those who advocate expansionist violence from other members of their religious groups.
Controlling language is a direct way to control thought. While it may be onerous, you must set editorial standards rather than censor words. Besides, the 'words' approach won't work. Take it as a sign of your success that you must require more professionalism from contributors.
by
Laudyms (0 articles, 759 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 378 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:43:03 PM
since the words mean different things to different people and the terms lump together people who do not believe in the same things or share the same ultimate agenda. See my various responses further down.
by
Steven Leser (194 articles, 39 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1304 comments)
on Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 11:49:50 AM
There is no cheap or easy way to avoid responsibility
“words mean different things” ?Duh!That is what context is for.A “words” approach to editorial responsibility is both pedestrian and unworkable. We all know how to be offensive if that is our intent.
It is the Editor’s or site owner’s duty to set a standard and enforce it.That takes some work, evidently. On a busy site like this one it becomes necessary to be professional or become just another play pen for hall monitors.
by
Laudyms (0 articles, 759 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 378 comments)
on Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 1:36:55 PM
now that you've embarked on the path of censorship, where will you stop on that slippery slope of adding to the dictionary of banned words?
Civil discourse is desirable and laudable. The racist, ignorant lout who uses inappropriate language exposes their foolishness for all to see - and dismiss.
by
James at IRB (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 1:04:43 PM
The words themselves mean nothing without connotations and that is the connotations we try to avoid. In all fairness we use a lot of 'isms' to put an ideology stamp on the events and inadvertenly we follow our friends , the MSM while doing that. We ARE INFLUENCED by them, no doubt about it. That influence is negative to say the least. In about 90% of the events the ideological stamps are the wrong way to describe things. Greed, Power, Money, racism ( maybe the only 'ism' which does exist)- all of those usually are the causes but MSM does not like to mention those. We should.
As such I view the Rob's initiaitve as the step into the direction to throw off the influence of the MSM.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 236 diaries, 3362 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 1:10:24 PM
Rob, at first blush I, too, had the impulse to back-pedal at the very thougnt of the C word, (censorship). But, on further thought, it seems like a good idea, in the interest of civilized discourse. Furthermore, I would suggest that, except in quotes, the words, "terrorists" and "terrorism" should go into the trash bin right alongside the N word.
Since we are told that we are engaged in a war, any attacks must be military in nature, regardless of any terror on the part of the losers. And, since we are engaged in a war, any undercover operatives found in this or any other non-comabtive country are spies, fifth columnists or any of the other words that are in common usage. By using the words regarding terror, we are only further abetting the Bush bunch in their efforts to continue using our army to fight their personal wars of acquisition.
May I suggest that we also include those terms in our list of bad words?
by
Mary Pitt (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 169 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 1:13:27 PM
Benjamin Netanyahu calls himself a Zionist. If you were to post an article where he says so, you'd have to censor the article in order not to offend...who?
by
Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 1:15:50 PM
