Sept. 3: After hundreds of comments, we've decided NOT to ban any words on OpEdNEws, and will more aggressively deal with trolls and bigots using comment flagging and article editing software we are developing which will help our limited editorial staff.
1-after over 250 comments on the announcement to ban some words, while allowing full discussion of issues, we backed off and will not institute, and never did institute the policy. OpEdNews is run with a Web 2.0 bottom up philosophy of management.
2- The fact is, the Israel Palestine conflict is one of the most inflammatory discussions to be found. Many sites, perhaps most sites do not allow full discussion of it, meaning discussion by supporters of Palestine and supporters of Israel and AIPAC. Most Democratic and Republican sites ban support of Palestine and many liberal sites ban support of Israel.
OpEdNews is one of the very few that allow civil discussion by both sides. We believe if there is going to be any hope for peace that both sides must talk to each other and we struggle to create a forum for that, as conflict-full as it can sometimes be.
Matter of fact, when our readers (400,000 unique visitors a month) were asked to list any high traffic sites (under 6000 alea ranking among US sites) which allow as wide a range of discussion of issues as OpEdNews, they did not come up with a single one. That would suggesst that rather than being a restrictive site, we're the MOST OPEN SITE on the web.
3-Over the past five or six days since this discussion began, we have had about 25-30 subscribers unsubscribe because of their dissatisfaction with our original take on the issue (out of over 7200 members and 10,000+ subscribers) . We have had more than that many people sign up as either subscribers or members in that time, so we have a net gain, relative to this issue. On any day we see about 5-30 people unsubscribe, usually because they are cutting their bandwidth, so the five or six a day who unsubscribed due to this discussion did not in any way cause so much as a bump in the unsubscribing pattern.
4-Bottom line is we listened to our members. No word banning will take place. We'll be instituting several software solutions: -member ranking comments on several parameters -member burying of comments, like digg.com does. -allowing more members to hide or delete troll rated comments, including bigoted ones. -word recognition software to cue writers with suggestions, if they use language that tends to be abused.
5-The fact is that the words we chose really are used by bigots to hide behind to express hate. There are legitimate uses for them and there are abuses. Anyone who denies this is naive, disingenuous or fool. We'll be having community discussions on what constitutes reasonable usage and unreasonable usage and then creating FAQs based on member conclusions of the discussions. Those will be used as both non-mandatory guidelines for writers and commenters as well as for editors and trusted authors who will be deciding on troll ratings.
6- The Middle east conflict is one of the hardest problems in the world.We're proud to have the site with one of if not the widest tolerances for discussion of issues. Routine and ordinary ways to solve the Middle East conflict have failed. New ways to approach it, talk about it, explore the issues must be considered and we're trying to do that with integrity and openness. We're not going to get it right every time, but we are going to take risks, as we experiment with different ways to make our open forum work.
7- I encourage readers to check out our site directory for articles on Israel, Palestinian Homeland, Middle East, Lebanon and you will find hundreds of articles covering all ranges. Before you judge us, from one attack article, and a sour grapes rejected writer, see for yourself.
For many, discussion of middle east issues is a very hot, passionate topic that can easily lead to anger, accusations and recriminations. .
I don't know if there is another site on the web, with commenting, that allows strong opinions ranging as widely, from both sides of this issue, as OpEdNews allows. Most take one side or another or ban discussion on it altogether.
added at 6;45 PM EST: A Challenge. Mention any high traffic progressive sites on the web that allow as wide a discussion, including postings of articles and blogs on the middle east as OpEdNews. I believe that most block all discussion or only allow or encouragearticles and blogs on one side or the other-- Pro-palestinian and anti-Israel, Anti- zionist or Pro-Israel. I'll check with that site or sites on how they handle this challenge of hate. But if you can't think of one, take a moment before raising the accusation of censorship. Meanwhile, the response to this ban has been huge, with some excelleent observations and suggestions. Consider it temporary, while we work out solutions that are not as draconian. So... make suggestions. It is intolerable to allow the continued use of hate dripping words used dishonestly.
After consultation with our team of editors, we're banning the use of the words: Zionism, Zionist, Islamicism, Islamicist. These words are too often used too loosely as a veiled way to express racist, hate messages.
We do not, in any way, intend to restrict or censor criticism of Israeli or Palestinian actions, policies or behaviors. But we do believe that this approach will prevent people from abusing our community and members with hate talk and force all writers to use more nuanced, descriptive, precise language.
The only rare exception to this rule, will be the use of the terms to discuss how others are using them. For example, if a writer on another site, or a politician refers to the term, then discussion of that person or media site's use of the term will probably acceptable. This does not mean that quoting others is acceptable. It is not. For example, if Senator Hatch describes the world Islamicist plot to force sharia to be observed planet-wide, then it would be appropriate to discuss his use of the word.
This is discussion of the USE of the word. On the other hand, we really don't want to see articles on Islamicist or Zionist plots or conspiracies. And we will not tolerate quotation of other people talking about zionist or islamicist plots or conspiracies.
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.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
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.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
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 (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3268 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 (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1521 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 (79 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 591 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 (130 articles, 0 quicklinks, 153 diaries, 1174 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, 940 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, 940 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, 940 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, 617 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, 702 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 344 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 (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1265 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, 702 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 344 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 (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3268 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 (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 159 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
