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 (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:23:48 PM

  (0+)

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, Aug 30, 2007 at 6:02:25 PM

  (0+)

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 (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 31, 2007 at 8:55:12 AM

  (0+)

I agree.

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 (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:27:28 PM

  (0+)

I cringe whenever I hear Islmo-fascist.

As long as Rob is taking correcting measures:

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 (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:04:20 PM

  (0+)

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 (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:22:50 PM

  (0+)

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, 972 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:59:53 PM

  (0+)

Thank you for the comprehensive info on this subject. I believe it is very important to understand the terms we use and their original meanings.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:01:32 PM

  (0+)

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, 972 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 7:35:11 PM

  (0+)

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, 972 comments) on Saturday, Sep 1, 2007 at 11:25:52 AM

  (0+)

...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, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:35:04 PM

  (0+)

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, 1142 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 708 comments [138 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:43:03 PM

  (0+)

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 (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:49:50 AM

  (0+)

“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.

by Laudyms (0 articles, 1142 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 708 comments [138 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 1:36:55 PM

  (0+)

There is no good reason to use the words that are being prohibited as I explain in responses below.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 6:49:52 PM

  (0+)

Wow.  A web site that bleats about Op-Ed is a Censor.  In the words of pogo..."I have seen the enemy, and it is me."

by chazky bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:46:00 PM

  (0+)

"After consultation with our team of editors, we're banning the use of the words: Zionism, Zionist, Islamicism, Islamicist."

This effectively bans any conversation on the topic of Z***ism and I***cism -- perhaps the two most important elements in today's conundrum.

Anybody got any handy euphemisms? 

by delia (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 112 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:56:35 PM

  (0+)

See my responses further down

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:48:39 AM

  (0+)

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, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:04:43 PM

  (0+)

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 (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:10:24 PM

  (0+)

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 (77 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 282 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:13:27 PM

  (0+)

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, 29 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:15:50 PM

  (0+)

Would you alter editorial policy based on what the Grand Wizard of the KKK says?

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:50:56 AM

  (0+)

Like sh*t, piss, f*ck, motherf*cker, son of a b*tch, dirty bastards . . . hmm, what are the other three dirty words?

Before the ban begins let me be the LAST to say Islamists, Zionists, and Repuglicans make me sick.

Gosh, this post made me feel simply emancipated. I'm free. I'm free.

- Dusty

by Dusty Nathan (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 69 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:15:54 PM

  (0+)

Ain't it the truth?

by joanakelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 4:46:02 PM

  (0+)

I think it's a terrible idea!  I can't believe this idea was entertained, let alone implemented.  It's one thing to ban profanities--though swear word filters can backfire--to preserve a credible level of discourse, but banning words that describe an important concept is thought policing.  There will be no words left to rebel against Big Brother.

Let's ban any talk about the 2000 and 2004 elections being stolen, while we're at it.  Let's forbid anyone to suggest 9/11 was an inside job.  Those are inflamatory topics.

Take me off the mailing list! 

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:16:28 PM

  (0+)

there will be people who leave the site. But, Maxwell, I can't take you off. I don't know your name or email. You can get off it yourself, if you choose.

BTW, we do, ocassionly, hide or delete comments with expletives. But even those usually don't demonstrate the hate so often associated with these words. I note you didn't complain about banning the "N" word.

Anyone who complains of censorship is knee-jerk reacting, and failing to look, or they need to use words so easily twisted for hateful use.

Regarding other commenters suggestions for other words, I don't think we want to get carried away with this. It's an idea I've wrestled with for about a year. Islamofascist might be one that fits under this rubric.

I'll reiterate my 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. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:28:29 PM

  (0+)

there is a currently a federal court case where an African-American person was arrested for driving around with the N-word displayed on his car for purposes of grabbing attention and selling his product using the N-word as an emotive eyecatching tag if I recall the thrust correctly from reading about it - I think yesterday.  

This is a tough area to get policy right on (free speech is in constitutional amendment number 1) - but OpEdNews does not have the resources of the United States of America, I can see that - I don't envy you in having to make these sort of calls. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 4:58:49 PM

  (0+)

It's your site, you can do what you want. But Zionism is a political movement just like  neoconservatism. The Zionist Jews and Christians who are part of that movement are proud to be counted as members. Who told you that it was an anti-Semitic term?

by Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 7:49:14 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

I'm both a faithful reader and an occasional contributor, and I think you're decision to ban certain words is a bad idea, particularly as it applies to terms that people use to describe themselves. For example, being a Zionist merely means that one believes in the return of the Jewish people to Israel. And a great many Jews consider themselves to be Zionists.

As an American Jew who supports Israel's absolute right to exist, and to live in peace, I also recognize that the Palestinians, for the most part, have not been treated well for a very long time. The debate about Israel and Palestine will continue for some time, though the entire world would be much better off if the rational moderates on both sides (and there are many, who don't necessarily get the attention and support they deserve) would take command of the situation and bring an end to the senseless conflict.

Meanwhile, the discussion here, and in other places, should be free-flowing, save for clear declarations that promote violence, death, or destruction toward anyone else.

I believe that OpEd News does a great service, and is a unique and outstanding source for information and opinion. I will, of course, continue to support the site and encourage others to subscribe. But I do think that your decision to ban those words is wrong.

 Best regards.

Ed Menken

by Ed Menken (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 8:45:17 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you by and large. Zionist originally was a movement promoting the return of the Jews to "the Land." The way it is used today as far as I can ascertain is that it is an epithet hiding anti-semitism.

Rob is going to have a hard time umpiring this decision. My gut reaction is to let the commentators police the site for most purposes; of course I am one who marched in the sixties Civil Rights movement, yet opposed North Texas State University in removing Joel Chandler Harris' "Uncle Remus Tales" of the Big Road from the reading lists. I firmly believe the tales Harris recorded promote the genius of the black slaves living under impossible conditions. There are thirteen different dialects in the "Uncle Remus" stories. They are a part of the American Black heritiage as much as religion, music or any type of art. I hope they are never lost. They present a much higher view of the Black slave heritage than Stephen Foster's songs which literally grew out of  black plantation music.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:43:43 AM

  (0+)

"Zionist originally was a movement promoting the return of the Jews to "the Land." The way it is used today as far as I can ascertain is that it is an epithet hiding anti-semitism."

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 147 comments [18 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:40:25 AM

  (0+)

Rob, your challenge is misleading and ultimately meaningless. Who CARES what other web sites ban, allow, retsrict or invite? Those are other websites. This is your website, and now your website has devolved into a forum of word-and-thought police,  precisely like so many others. If your primary goal is to maintain civil discourse, a simple injunction like "posts containing ad hominem attacks will be deleted" would easily suffice, while otherwise leaving the full crafting of language, thought, content and meaning to the writer -- along with, of course, the responsibilty to intellectually defend his choice of content and language if challenged to do so. Banning specific words in an attempt at the same goal is nonsensical, because words -- the full breadth of them -- are what we use to achieve the goal. Without that freedom for others, you may as well write everything here yourself. The banning of words is one of the main reasons I refuse to enroll my child in any state-controlled school system; I am certainly not going to tolerate being subjected to the same benighted attitudes as an adult.  I have been enjoying your site enormously for some time, but now that it is to have its linguistic liberties summarily curtailed, I am afraid I can no longer do so.  Barring a change of mind on your part, I bid you a regretful farewell.

 Jasper Sneed

by jasper sneed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:20:02 PM

  (0+)

by hccllc (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 1:17:30 PM

  (0+)

Notice your word use in the post above, Rob? 

And in all your discussion of this new decision to ban certain words, you seem to have neglected to tell the whole story.....I strongly suspect you have been enduring pressures you are not telling us about??

If you don't come clean about it, I doubt you will end up with much of a site to worry about.

by Laudyms (0 articles, 1142 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 708 comments [138 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 1:47:51 PM

  (0+)

I have not had any pressure, ever to ban the use of the words I've listed. Not ever. People do complain about anti-semitism and hate. I agree that should not be. Some complain about writers on opednews being too hard on Israel and AIPAC. I point out that I am also hard on Israel and AIPAC.

So, no, you are totally wrong. This is about the intention to stop hate speech, not just the direct overt kind, but the oozing, sneaking, hiding behind words imbued with marinated meaning kind of hate expression.

It's transparent to most and I won't put up with it any longer. And apparently, there are many on this site who agree.

It has become clear to me that OpEdNews really is the most open high traffic site, in terms of allowing the widest range of issues to be discussed. TO keep it that way, some rules must be set, rules that continue to allow it to be more open and more permissive of exploration of ideas than any other site. 

It looks like the ban will be very temporary, and will be replaced by a system to be described either today or tomorrow that involves software and community discussions to determine just what uses are appropriate for these words, and which uses are inappropriate.  Then, those will be used only as guidelines to encourage writers to be aware of.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:17:33 AM

  (0+)

Regarding the "Z" words, I see both as a way of separating "all Jews" from the legitimate criticisms against the "Zionist political movement." Would you ban the word "Nazi" or "Neocon?" ...somehow I doubt it.

I've never written either word in anything I've posted; still the idea of "banning them" is just unbelievable to me. If you want to "censor" what people see on your site, how about adding a message at the top of what you consider an “objectionable” post: "Editors disapprove of the use of these terms in this message." …Or something equally silly. Surely you know it would only stop about 2% from reading it, which means people want to decide for themselves what is and "isn't" objectionable.

by Joe Plummer (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:21:30 PM

  (0+)

(zī'ə-nĭz'əm)
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Zi'on·ist adj. & n., Zi'on·is'tic adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

zionist
adjective
1.	relating to or characteristic of Zionism; "the Zionist movement"
2.	relating to or characteristic of a supporter of Zionism; "the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl"
noun
1.	a Jewish supporter of Zionism

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

P.S. I'd like to hear from my Jewish brothers and sisters who identify themselves as "anti-Z" on this matter.

by Mars Caulton (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:26:11 PM

  (0+)

First, to be fair and clear. You spelled out the word. I edited it. Call it censorship if you like. The word is offensive to many women.

That's one word that just isn't accepted. There's no need to make a rule on it.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:59:30 PM

  (0+)

ok, now that we have an official listing of  "THINGS THAT MUST NOT BE NAMED"

seems only logical following your line of reasoning that there will soon be an official listing of "THOSE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED"

tsk, tsk, tsk. 

by k kelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 182 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:30:13 PM

  (0+)

It is pretty easy for a man to display common decency to women.  Rule number one is not to refer to them, nor to any other women while engaged in conversation with any woman, as C***s.  Easy. 

As to religious slanders, my take on personal spirituality is to have at it.

Rob, sell ad space to blue companies and stop worrying about the few grand a month. 

by GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:39:09 PM

  (0+)

I admire, and have contributed to, this site.  I hate to say it, Rob, but this really doesn't make sense.  Back in the first half of the twentieth century, the people who wanted to found the state of Israel CALLED THEMSELVES by the Z-word.  The two main political tendencies of European Jews were Socialism and...oh.  Can't say that now.

There is no parallel between the I-word and the Z-word.  The parallel to the I-word would Judaicist--not that anyone says that.

You say, "Criticism of Israeli settlers and politicians is fine."  But how can you do that effectively if you can't criticize their SELF-PROFESSED ideology?  For that matter, how can anyone DEFEND Israeli settlers and politicans, beyond the level of minutia, without AFFIRMING that ideology?

The Z-word is NOT a label applied patronizingly to others to disparage their views.  If that was the criterion, you ought to ban the term "Islamic extremist."  Or maybe you have.  It's a bigoted term--does anyone call David Koresh a "Christian extremist"?

You say, "Criticism of all Jews in Israel, or all Jews, or all Muslims in Palestine or all Muslims is not acceptable."  Amen to that.  But the Z-word is used precisely in order to criticize those who support Israeli policies WITHOUT attacking all Israeli Jews.

I don't dispute that many anti-Semites use it as code language, just as racist American politicians use words like "underclass" and "welfare queen."  But if people write racist or poorly thought through articles using certain words, why not just reject those articles?  Do you really think hateful minds can't work around this ban?  It's only people who want an intelligent discussion who will really be impacted by it.

by Michael Lubin (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:36:41 PM

  (0+)

It responds, specifically, to your comment.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:22:09 PM

  (0+)

on a site with these restrictions.

Neocon, fascist, *******, nationalist, ********, Christianist, Rep******, Dem****, Orwellian, ****,  memory hole, *****!

Nope -- I'm out of here. I'm not about to write anything for people who are afraid of words. But then, as Ari Fleischer said -- we must watch we say -- so sayeth Ari Fleischer.

America is dead!

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:47:06 PM

  (0+)

I like  what you write and it will be a pity to lose you. Moreover, folks, cool it.  If only  you all had been so enraged by the  actual abuses otherwise as you all are enraged by  Rob's decision maybe he would not need to do that. The site is his.  It is not  a public radio.  Use the words 'Israeli govt elite' and you will be fine. Use the words 'Islamic rich elite' and you will be fine too.

Many people here complain about censorship but please, folks, be reasonable.  Censorship has to be  introduced when people cannot  watch themselves. And we..   just let's be honest- get carried away. So, let's try to  walk in Rob's shoes.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:57:54 PM

  (0+)

Why should we do that? I have my own shoes I walk in -- I'm not asking Rob to try them on also. Why must I walk in his? Because it's his website? There's no disputing that fact, nor the fact that he has every right to manage it as he sees fit, but if he wishes to also invite the written input of other people,  then he has to expect that they're not likely to be showing up barefoot.  Otherwise, as I mentioned in a seperate message to Rob, he may as well write the entire thing himself. Censorship is censorship, and policing actual words is one of the most morally bankrupt kinds there is. In a free market of the intellect like the web, it is an act that will have inevitable and immediate consequences.

Respectfully,

Jasper Sneed

by jasper sneed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:39:04 PM

  (0+)

you make a very good point. The test of the pudding is in the tasting. Let us see what happens. If it does not work well, surely Rob can adjust, go back, go a different direction, but to dismiss him and robopednews summarily is rather rash and foolish.

I disagree with the decision, but I am willing to see how it pans out. I used to comment on HufPo; however, they became so demanding that you parrot back their particular brand of opion that I left their site long ago and do not intend to go back.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:58:40 AM

  (0+)

Blue Pilgrim, please don't leave this WEB site.  You post really great intellectual comments.  Please try to work around the banned words and continue to contribute to this site, please.

by Dr. Larry Semark (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 7:47:03 PM

  (0+)

I respect your decision and understand it, but I'm hoping you don't follow through. I always read your well considered comments almost as if they were articles themselves.

by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 9:34:44 PM

  (0+)

I am equally an admirer of Blue Pilgrim's incisive prose,  but not only do I understand his reaction, I fully support it.  These are the kinds of consequences that follow from the decision Rob has made -- the incremental exodus of principled and excellent contributors to the site, in exchange for..... what, exactly?  The appearance of a more "civil" discourse,  only with less words?

by jasper sneed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:54:37 PM

  (0+)

Like it or not, censorship in any form is BS (that's bullshit). To disregard the past when it pertains directly to current or future events is sheer folly. The attack on the USS Liberty by the Zionist Jewish State of Israel was covered up and shelved away. The atrocities perpretrated on the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and others by the Zionist Jewish State of Israel funded and armed by the US Pro Zionist Congress is a valid fundamental underlying cause of the Middle East conflicts and must not be shelved. The Islamist movements are a DIRECT RESULT of these policies of Zionist expansion, depopulation and occupations.

If what I have said gets me 'banned' from this site, so what, for the struggle WILL continue with or without your site.

Do not allow yourself to be silenced or to censor anyone in the name of 'political correctness'. You cannot censor the cries of the more than six million souls that have been killed at the hands of these US Corporate/Zionist bastards who have lined and are continueing to line their pockets and vast coffers with the spoils of so much Human Misery.

IF YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION YOU ARE A PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Respectfully,

Thomas C. Rockriver

ChapelHill, NC USA

by Thaddam Rawke (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:50:10 PM

  (0+)

A political, social and religious movement over a century old, that led to the reestablishment of Israel after the Holocaust, for which many great heroes were martyred, but which has now become an excuse for American and Israeli expansionism, is no longer to be allowed to be mentioned on this site. Just yesterday I posted a comment about how progressives seem just as willing to take away the people's rights as do Republicans. And today, what do I find at my favorite web site but an example of that very thing. How sad. I guess it is true: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 1:58:25 PM

  (0+)

Disagree on this one Rob.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:00:17 PM

  (0+)

is that even Rabbi Goldstein  will be banned here.  It's mind blowing!

BTW -- if anyone wants to reach me they can do so here  

Bye, all... (totters away muttering in amazement...)

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:02:09 PM

  (0+)

mate, yer link sux. Got another?

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:11:44 PM

  (0+)

they are (broken down & with spaces) http :// www.inminds.co.uk  /rabbi-goldstein-judasim-and-****ism.html  (you know what to use instead of the asterisks...)

and

http :// groups.yahoo.com /group/intermindcollective 

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:40:54 PM

  (0+)

I knew I could tickle one more comment out of ya !

cheers mate 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:02:32 PM

  (0+)

That Rob would ask for some civility at this web site is perfectly understandable. The fact that for the most part Rob is asking folks to please tone down the Zionist/Islamofascist rhetoric voluntarily, seems quite mild to me.

Rob did not say you could not use the words, if you actually bothered to read what he wrote. He said if you need to use them to discuss an issue, fine, but he didn’t want them used out of the blue as derogatory labels.

To call this censorship is childish at best, and completely disingenuous at worst.

I’d love to see any of the complainers here put in 1/10th the effort Rob has put into this site. It’s so easy to just post a comment or complaint… you should try running such a large and open forum for a few weeks, and then get back to Rob with your comments.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 7:50:09 AM

  (0+)

how imprecise the use of the terms actually is both on the Z--n*** side and the Is****** side. Lumping Hamas, Fatah and Al Qaeda together under the Isl***** label is imprecise, unfair and racist. Lumping together Jews who are in favor of good things for Jews and Israel along with Likudniks and Neocons is also unfair and racist.

Those arguing in favor of their use are arguing in favor of lazy, imprecise terms and race/religion-bating.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:55:30 AM

  (0+)

A policy that loses this sort of contributor is a serious policy.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this issue Blue Pilgrum but YOUR protest given YOUR investment certainly catches my attention.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 5:24:41 PM

  (0+)

Please include the word "terrorist", the most misused word of all.

by Bernard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 59 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:07:44 PM

  (0+)

...totally.

We have three avenues to choose from to enter a word which will eventually make the ban list which will certainly grow with time.

Erstens : Articles

Zweitens : Diaries

Drittens : Comments on both

Articles are reviewed. I don't see any real problem with editors combing new articles for certain words. Actually, coming from a software and programming corner myself, how about implementing an automized word filter?

Diaries go straight in. Not my fault! Oops, used a dirty word, oops! Where was the editor? None needed. The site is set up to let Diaries go straight through without editing or reviewal. Not our fault.

Comments. Same as above.

I do understand the intention, I really do. But honestly folks, the only song that really fits to this decision is one from the Doors and I ain't talkin' 'bout LA Woman!

How far are we to go overboard with the alphabet ? 

The A-word, the B-word, the C-word, etc.

Dumb us down until all we can say is A, B, C, duh, N, and Z.

Difficult decision , Rob. Glad I'm not in your shoes....uh, sandals. Have you looked into a software-based solution? Your poor editors will be doing overtime to catch the sh*t me and the boys throw atya.

Got any good books ya wanna burn, Rob ? It's gettin' cold outside. 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:08:07 PM

  (0+)

That's as sadistic as calling an African-American the N-word. It's clearly motivated by the same desire to feel around for the most sensitive spot and stick in a knife.

by Edward Olshaker (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:17:05 PM

  (0+)

I wonder if uncle_earnie calls Musllim extremist Muslimazi or Isalaminazis. I bet he only reserves it for Jews. You are right it is sick.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 1:07:23 AM

  (0+)

"Self-hating Jew"  not commonly used, but a truly creative term to dampen discourse.

by Bernard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 59 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:24:33 PM

  (0+)

...with banning of words, though I will conceed the point made by one commentator here that these words are often used to inflame rather than inform. The trouble is, so are a lot of words that are, as yet, unbanned.

I suppose the issue is how they are being used on Op Ed News. I do not have enough experience to say whether these words are being used in a consistently destructive way here, but even words with complex conotations can be used constructively. With reference to a word like "Zionism", as one example, I cannot see how anyone would write anything about the life and career of David Ben Gurion without using it in an entirely informative way. We are coming up on the 121st anniversary of his birth - 16 October - which may or may not cause someone to want to say something about him. For the early leaders of Israel, "Zionism" was a political conviction, not an insult. (I don't see "Islamicist" as having quite that history, and "Islamo-fascist" is just a propaganda term created by fusing the prefix "islamo" onto the already despised root-term "fascist" with no concern for whether the one is relevant to the other - "islamo-pornographer" would be just as legitimate a description of the same people, and probably have the same impact one the audience it was intended to inflame.)

Anyhow, I don't envy you the task of trying to make such judgements. Mostly though I think we can already see in some of these postings that banning words is a bit like opening up the flood gates - where, when and why do you stop? There are many other words that can and are used to be divisive and confrontational. Which one will be next?

by D. Edward Farrar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:28:56 PM

  (0+)

D. Edward,

     I was just typing away, expressing pretty much what you just said in order to post a comment.  Zionism and Zionist, I was saying can mean different things to different people, especially those who have studied middle-eastern history.  Islamicism and Islamicist and of course the Rush Limbaugh of shallow mentality fame people, who constantly toss around inflamatory nonsense terms like Islamofascist or Feminazi as if they are the result of deep philosophical thought and superior brain function, are recently coined terms totally meant to debase entire groups of people. 

I understand the difficulties of editing a site as large as this one.  I'm just not sure putting words that can be used either negatively or positively on a censorship list can really work.  I'm not going to reject OPEDNEWS because of it.  I, personally, although I am known to use extensive lists of unflattering adjectives describing George Bush or Dick Cheney and their minions and controllers, would never demonize an entire group of people as George Bush and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly routinely do. 

by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:10:42 PM

  (0+)

" 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." -Rob Kall

Mr. Kall;

If this isn't the height of transparent bias and complete nonsense, I've never read it. In other words, the existence of those individuals who make up an "Islamic conspiracy" can be discussed....BUT; Zionism as a demonstrably observable political movement acting in concert (conspiracy) with the U.S. military industrial complex as it's co-author, is forbidden because it's "hate". Sorry Rob, I don't hate "Jews", but I do indeed hate Zionism with every fiber of my being. Just like I hate Bush and the GOP.

Ya know what? I've never seen a serious problem on this website regarding "anti-Islamist" or anti-Muslim sentiment. But I've sure as hell seen a whole lot of anti-Zionist opinions from the progressives who frequent this site, including myself. It's pretty self-evident that you -as a Jew- have had enough of free speech when your Ox gets gored. Would you prefere that we all discuss this as a "Jewish problem" so you can toss the useful "Hitler" comparisons our way? I think you would. I'm not gonna play.

There isn't an anti-semetic problem here as far as I can see. But clearly there's a rightful distinction being made by thoughtful people who choose to correctly use the term "Zionist" to seperate a POLITICAL philosophy held by a fraction of a particular group, from alleged "race" and religion. I think you've found that subtlty very inconvienient because it disarms defense of what ethical people consider an outrage: The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Zionists to steal from them.

Should I then simply say "Right wing Jews" when I make my criticisms?

Come on Rob; this is just SAD.

-Esbe

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:29:27 PM

  (0+)

"It's pretty self-evident that you -as a Jew- have had enough of free speech when your Ox gets gored."

 This--unlike the use of the word Zionist--really IS anti-Semitic.

by Michael Lubin (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:34:28 PM

  (0+)

There IS "an anti-semetic [sic] problem here"

"It's pretty self-evident that you -as a Jew- have had enough of free speech when your Ox gets gored."

 This--unlike the use of the word Zionist--really IS anti-Semitic.

by NuisanceMan (3 articles, 4 comments) on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 2:34:28 PM

Is Rob a Semite?  He doesn't look like a Semite.  "Anti-Semitic"?  Bullshit.  It was anti-Rob Kall is what it was.  Even if he were a Semite (which I see no evidence of).  

Perhaps you level this charge because I mentioned that he's a Jew?  Even if I disliked Jews, it still wouldn't equate with so-called "anti-Semitism".   It would mean I didn't like the followers of a particular religion.   Get a clue; "Jews" are not a race, nor are they Semites as a group.  You want to know what a Semite looks like, look at Bin Laden.  THAT is a Semite. 

We really need to re-claim an HONEST lexicon in America.  You presume and assume too much.  

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:47:21 PM

  (0+)

Some of these words have been so used, so abused, they don't work anymore.

They cause hurt, offense conflict, even when your intention in their use is otherwise. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:54:26 PM

  (0+)

... Then simply say so. Why ban the word?  If words become weapons, it is only via the choice of the person wielding them.  The word's author is the true instigator of the hurt, not the word itself.  A razor-sharp blade can injure or kill in the hands of an attacker; in the hands of a skilled surgeon, the same blade can heal or save a life. Do we forgo the latter outcome,  so we may outlaw blades over the former?

by jasper sneed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:23:05 AM

  (0+)

I like the way you think, jasperseed. We're working on alternate solutions and I hope you'll stay with us as the conversation continues. I expect we'll lose some haters through this process, which is not a bad thing. And in the end, we'll have a more conscious, wider ranging conversation and conversationalists.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:21:52 AM

  (0+)

Esbe,

Okay, let's say "anti-Jewish" if you like that better.  However, anti-Semitic is a widely-used synonym for anti-Jewish prejudice, and reflects the fact that the same stereotypes used to be, and maybe still are, applied to non-Jewish Semites.  (For example the Phoenician in Section 4 of T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land," who is assumed to be obsessed with profiteering.)  The term is rather dated now, though some of us still use it out of habit.

However, it is not as simple as what you say, because Jews are a people as well as a religion, and some of us who are not believers in any way, shape, or form still consider ourselves as part of the people, and in many cases are acknowledged as such by other Jews.  You are right that Jews are not a race.

Now, back to your comments, "It's pretty self-evident that you -as a Jew- have had enough of free speech when your Ox gets gored."  How is this "self-evident"?  Rob didn't make any reference to being Jewish.  So why even bring it up, let alone ASSUME that it's the real reason why he takes the position he does?  While it's true that most Jews are pro-Israel, a sizeable and highly vocal minority are strongly against the ideology we're not supposed to name any more and extremely critical of Israel.  There are also many non-Jewish people, left, right, and center, who are uncritically pro-Israel.

There was no reason for you to say the words quoted above except to stereotype Jews, assuming we have a particular point of view, or ox to be gored, because we're Jews.  Even if you allow for the existence of anti-Z Jews, you do not allow for the existence of pro-Israel Jews, or in-between-on-Israel Jews, or Jews who take any position having anything to do with Israel that you don't like, where the reason for their position is something other than being Jewish.

As a Jewish person (completely Godless, by the way), I consider myself fully capable of considering the same facts, making the same judgments, and reaching the same conclusions about Israel that non-Jews could make.  I might know a few things about the Jewish world that they might not, and they may know things I don't, but my being Jewish in no way precludes my engaging in full and open inquiry into the subject.  The fact that there are a good many Jews who are too emotionally attached to the idea of Israel to do this changes nothing.  Your assumption about Rob IS anti-Jewish, it's insulting, and I resent it.

What you said lumps all Jews into a basket.  It's the same kind of stereotyping faced by a black journalist who applies for a job but is told, "Oh, we don't have enough civil rights stories to make it worth hiring you."

by Michael Lubin (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 6:44:21 PM

  (0+)

Rob said, "No more history." But Esbe's comments really require some historical perspective.

First of all, most European Jews were NEVER Semites. For the most part, they are descended from a barbarian tribe that converted to Judaism in the 7th or 8th century. They occupied what is now the Ukraine, north of the Black Sea, at a time when both Christians and Muslims were haggling for their political and military support in their wars against each other. They opted for the middle way -- rather than choose Christianity or Islam, they chose neither and became Jews instead. They asked for and were sent Jewish missionaries (Cohens) who married with the locals.

Nevertheless, it became convenient in the Middle Ages to declare Jews to be outsiders, descended from "oriental stock." The surge of anti-jewish laws, persecutions, pogroms, etc., in the Middle Ages was the direct result of conscious actions by the Christian church to control believers and wage war against Islam (aka "The Crusades"). A very significant part of the Crusades involved the suppression and expulsion of Jewish communities in urban centers throughout central and northern Europe. In response, large numbers of European Jews fled to Spain -- where they were comfortable only until the "reconquista" of Ferdinand and Isabella, when they were expelled. Many of them returned to Muslim lands, where they were allowed the live freely, even though they had to pay higher taxes.

Despite these European migrations, the pejorative of "Semite" and the code word "oriental" were applied to Jews well into the 20th century. For evidence of how these words were used in 19th century England, I refer you to Walter Scott's novel, Ivanhoe. Take particular note of the words Scott used to describe Rebecca, one of his female heroines and a character who was intended to incite sympathy in the reader.

Another English novel, of the late 19th century, Daniel Deronda, tackles the same issues. Daniel successfully passes for a well-bred English gentleman after being raised by his wealthy guardian. Only as an adult does he discover that his mother is a Jewess, after which he self-identifies as a member of the Jewish race! His appearance and his wardrobe have not changed at all! But his "race" has changed. Daniel Deronda was considered a quite liberal novel in its time and Daniel is a very sympathetic character, but the 19th century cultural assumptions clearly show in the text.

The notion that there was an identifiable Jewish race was, of course, critical to the Nazi idea of a "final solution." Even German or Austrian citizens who came from families that had converted to Christianity generations in the past were condemned as Jews. While for some, converting to Christianity saved them from the ghettos and the gas chambers, for most it did not.

It does not matter what one calls bigotry aimed at Jews. It is still bigotry.

It does not matter what one calls bigotry aimed at Muslims. It is still bigotry.

To me it seems very important to remember that the historical authors of what we now call anti-semitism were Christians! It is painfully ironic that the most intellectually stifled Christians currently proclaiming their religion, the religious heirs of the most vicious aspects of medieval Christianity, support the State of Israel unwaveringly because they hope that the conflict between Jews and Muslims will bring about a mythical "second coming of Christ." And the end of the world. Everybody who isn't their kind of Christian is supposed to die. How's that for bigotry?

No one is so naive, neither those who use them nor those who invent them, as to fail to realize how the use of certain words is intended to "code" for a particular set of prejudices. Very often the words are developed by political operatives (e.g., Islamo-fascist, which was originated by a GOP consultant) to code for bigoted opinions that cannot otherwise be expressed -- that is, the bigotry, if stated without the code words, would be so obvious that everyone could see it and no one could hide from it. That is how "liberal" was turned into a dirty word -- although many self-described conservatives are now looking back nostalgically to the time when the country was governed by self-described liberals! What a bunch of competents!

As a member of a "main line" Christian denomination, I believe we are, all of us, children of God. Furthermore, I believe that God does not want Jews and Muslims or Christians and Muslims to kill each other. When we do, we are violating God's law.

In fact, I believe that the fanatics of every extremist religious faction get a very unpleasant surprise when they meet God after death. They sure don't enter paradise, no matter what their masters claim.

There will be no "rapture" for the fanatical Christians in the U.S., there will be no virgins waiting for the pitifully misguided souls who blow themselves up to massacre others.

I'm not sure what awaits fanatical fundamentalist Jews who deliberately destroy the homes of Palestinians in order to take their land because they've been hornswoggled or have deluded themselves into thinking that God wants them to, that they have a divine right to steal from their neighbors if those neighbors have property they covet. Whatever it is, it won't be nice. They are certainly not living by the commandments of Moses.

God is not a bigot. How can so many people who profess to worship God be so filled with hate?

The Prophet Mohammed was not a bigot. He respected Jews and honored them as "People of the Book."

Read the New Testament and then ask yourself, "Was Christ a bigot?" He scolded the Pharisees but even them he did not condemn. Bigotry of all kinds is a human creation, one of our worst. We should all be ashamed.

So much of what is posted online either borders on or is actually vicious. Some people are under the misapprehension that they are being "cutting edge" -- as if every rude, thoughtless post is "hard-hitting" -- just another sound bite on Fox Noise.

The sad fact is that television programs such as Firing Line have given implied permission to all sorts of fuzzy-minded humans that it is okay to be impolite, it is "cutting edge" to be cutting and cruel, it is a sign of weakness to have or express any level of mercy, compassion and understanding. For these same people, reasonable is just another word for wimp.

While at first I was troubled by Rob's decision to ban these particular words, after reading his essay and then the comments, many of them using exactly the kind of vicious language he was protesting, I now think he is right.

"Zionist" is a code word that implies a merciless, expansionist Jewish state that must be vanquished, whereas "Islamicist" is a code word for a merciless, wild-eyed fanatic bent on destroying Israel and everyone in it (Israeli and Arab). Throwing around these code words does nothing to stop bloodshed. They only exacerbate hate and perpetuate the notion that there is no middle ground.

If you can't express your opinion using explicative language -- uh, for the vocabulary-challenged that means explaining what you mean as precisely as possible -- then you shouldn't be posting online at all.

While it is difficult to cheer censorship of any kind, nevertheless we often must choose censorship if we are to be responsible. Good parents don't let their children watch the extreme violence of "The 300." It's bad for the little kiddies and some little kiddies will grow up to emulate the violence they observe. When the First Amendment was written, there were no videos with flagrant, graphic images -- there were printed books, broadsides, speeches in the town square, town meetings, and conversations among neighbors. The authors of the First Amendment were principally concerned with political speech. They had no idea it would be used to defend "Debbie Does Dallas."

Yes, we have the right to speak freely, to express our opinions, to describe things as we see them -- we do not have the right to use code words as weapons to subdue those who disagree with us.

Likewise, there are a great many very immature and thoughtless people posting on all web sites, not just OpEdNews -- and dear Blue, I do NOT mean you! It is clear from the tone of these comments that the writers see themselves engaged in a battle and their aim is to utterly vanquish anyone who disagrees with their particular (narrow) view of the world.

Until everyone is grown up and knows how to behave in a civil manner, sadly, we must sometimes ban certain words.

by S. E. Hoffman (2 articles, 6 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:26:01 AM

  (0+)

While it is difficult to cheer censorship of any kind, nevertheless we often must choose censorship if we are to be responsible. Good parents don't let their children watch the extreme violence of "The 300." It's bad for the little kiddies and some little kiddies will grow up to emulate the violence they observe.

No one argues the need to censor that which might be put before our children. The argument here however, at least in the more responsible messages on this thread, is precisely that we are not children -- just as much not children as are those who nevertheless are choosing for us, as though we were children, the censoring of our words.

When the First Amendment was written, there were no videos with flagrant, graphic images -- there were printed books, broadsides, speeches in the town square, town meetings, and conversations among neighbors. The authors of the First Amendment were principally concerned with political speech.

Yes they were concerned with political speech, but primarily in the sense that when the power of the state is invoked to arbitrarily censor particular speech, it de facto becomes political speech, by virtue of it being the state doing the censoring. Certainly there were no salacious videos circulating 250 years ago, but if you think there was no printed pornography, you are mistaken. The churches did a fair bit of censoring of those items, with any degree of "help" from local civil officials, but iIt was not Congress' purview -- as the Framers intended it not be.

Yes, we have the right to speak freely, to express our opinions, to describe things as we see them -- we do not have the right to use code words as weapons to subdue those who disagree with us.

Would you be so kind as to describe how one person might "subdue" another person by the written use of a particular word or words? While I hardly doubt there is any shortage of those who would intend to subdue someone with their printed language -- coded or otherwise -- I quite fail to see how they would manage to pull it off. How is it done? In my experience, it is never successful, despite countless attempts to do just that to me by any number of people I "converse" with. For example, I am routinely pilloried as a traitor, as an America-hater, and in my all-time favorite code word, as a "liberal" -- this last even though I am a Libertarian -- whenever I offer my scathing opinions on the Bush administration. Rather than feel subdued however, I find it invigorating, and generally respond on the very point of their linguistic subterfuge. It's a cheap enjoyment and a guilty pleasure, maybe, but the point is that the very co-opting of the language such types engage in is itself a legitimate area for discussion, and such a discussion could hardly develop if the very words that constitute its topic are banned.

Likewise, there are a great many very immature and thoughtless people posting on all web sites, not just OpEdNews -- and dear Blue, I do NOT mean you! It is clear from the tone of these comments that the writers see themselves engaged in a battle and their aim is to utterly vanquish anyone who disagrees with their particular (narrow) view of the world.

Until everyone is grown up and knows how to behave in a civil manner, sadly, we must sometimes ban certain words.

Well, I believe there we have it again: the direct linking of the need to censor particular words with the notion of needing to grow up. There in a nutshell is my primary objection: to try to manipulate the behavior of some who willingly choose to cause offense, the liberties of all are curtailed. This is no different than when a few kids shooting spitballs at the teacher results in the entire class being kept inside during recess. We must help the miscreant children to "grow up".

But we are not children here, are we.

by jasper sneed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 2:02:16 AM

  (0+)

I do not mean my words to be harsh in any way, but sometimes frankness is harsh whether we mean the words to be or not. I find your words very harsh and unfair.

1.  You say, "First of all, most European Jews were NEVER Semites. For the most part, they are descended from a barbarian tribe that converted to Judaism in the 7th or 8th century. They occupied what is now the Ukraine, north of the Black Sea, at a time when both Christians and Muslims were haggling for their political and military support in their wars against each other. They opted for the middle way -- rather than choose Christianity or Islam, they chose neither and became Jews instead. They asked for and were sent Jewish missionaries (Cohens) who married with the locals."

SE Hoffman: you have written a poor attack on both Judaism and Christianity while turning a blind on Islam. If you had written this "historical" comment in my Freshman English, Philosophy or History class, you would receive an immediate "F" for not footing noting any of your accusations. I know of no competent historians of the History of Judaism that would take your very prejudiced position. I am afraid you now document your science the same way; however, I would bet away back there in your undergraduate work and your graduate work you did not get away with it. Footnote "Cohens" so some one may verify or refute your charges. Some know that "Cohen" is one of the descendent branches of Levi, and we know anything that seeks to verify roots dating back to the Roman period and pre-Roman period of Judaism brings such fear to Islamic clerics they are willing to send martyrs to stop the investigation of archeological truth. This is especially true of the Temple Mount era. If you "Google" in "Cohens," you get nothing and the same for Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica in the way of mass marriages and conversions to escape Christianity or Judaism. My goodness, you can almost "Google in" the return of Jesus. Something which is so important to you argument should be well footnoted with multiple sources. What difference does it make about the world anti-Semitism? We know that a Semite literally is descendant of Shem, Noah's oldest son, but we know anti-Semitism refers to Jews, either religious or racial. What difference does it make? Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church defined the term forever. What difference does it make? We are all descended from "Barbarians," but you use the term in a pejorative manner to attack European Jewery.  

2.  You say, "Nevertheless, it became convenient in the Middle Ages to declare Jews to be outsiders, descended from "oriental stock." The surge of anti-jewish laws, persecutions, pogroms, etc., in the Middle Ages was the direct result of conscious actions by the Christian church to control believers and wage war against Islam (aka "The Crusades"). A very significant part of the Crusades involved the suppression and expulsion of Jewish communities in urban centers throughout central and northern Europe. In response, large numbers of European Jews fled to Spain -- where they were comfortable only until the "reconquista" of Ferdinand and Isabella, when they were expelled. Many of them returned to Muslim lands, where they were allowed the live freely, even though they had to pay higher taxes." 

Your generalities are amazing as you paint with such a broad brush. There many groups of Christians who did not persecute the Jews. You hesitate to use the title "Roman Catholic Church" which is one major sect of Christianity that dominated most of Christianity from 500 CE  (Common Era) or AD (After Christ) until the Reformation under Martin Luther. You mention "Jews fleeing to Spain." One needs to ask, "Why did the entire Jewish population of Spain flee Spain in the first place?" There was a Jewish presence in Spain since the Persian Empire Period or not long after the First Dispersion in 586 BCE (BC). As you ask yourself that question, ask, "What happen to the Christian population in Spain when the Jews fled into the heart of Europe." I guess it was all right for Muslims to destroy Roman Catholics but it was not right for Roman Catholics to destroy Muslims.  

3. The "Crusades" were an answer to Islam's attack on Europe, and they ended up as a manipulation by the Church in Rome to retain their iron hand on all of Europe. It seems the Islamic propagandist on this site never mention the spread of Islam by the sword and forced conversion of hundreds of thousands of Europeans as Islam advanced to the very gates of Paris and were finally turned back at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel ("The Hammer against Mohammed"). You seem to indicate the "Crusades" lasted during the whole of the Dark Age 500 – 1500 CE (AD); in fact the "Crusades" lasted just under two hundred years and were evil as much of the Roman Catholic Church was evil at that time; however, the Roman Catholic Church was no more evil than Islam which was on a continual "Crusade" from the time of Mohammed until the destruction of the last Caliph. 

4. The problem with Roman Catholicism and Islam is there is no separation of religion and state. In Roman Catholicism the Church is superior to the State and the clergy is the Church, not the laity; whereas in Islam, Islam is the State and only "people of the Book (Christians and Jews) are tolerated but under continual persecution while all other religions are forced to either convert or die.  You need to stick to science or be as exact in your history as you would be with a microscope.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 9:53:08 AM

  (0+)

Thank you for the very good comment. The statement is like a woman's who came up to me tonight complaining about the way a husband was treating his wife, "It is just the way of those Creek Indian men. I grew up around them and I would never date one of them. They all treat their women badly."

My reply, "Dorothy, that is not true and is very prejudice. Creek men are as individualistic as any other men. It depends on the individual."

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 1:27:53 AM

  (0+)

NuisanceMan: whatever word you want to use, your comment was prejudiced

Esbe,

Okay, let's say "anti-Jewish" if you like that better.  However, anti-Semitic is a widely-used synonym for anti-Jewish prejudice, and reflects the fact that the same stereotypes used to be, and maybe still are, applied to non-Jewish Semites.  (For example the Phoenician in Section 4 of T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land," who is assumed to be obsessed with profiteering.)  The term is rather dated now, though some of us still use it out of habit.<<<

ESBE:  Regardless of how "widely used" the term is, I find the use of the term "Anti-Semitic"  to describe "Prejudice" against Jews" more offensive than just about any other pejorative in current use.  It utterly NULLIFIES roughly one billion Semitic peoples who've been systematically persecuted as "Rag Heads" and "terrorists", while the very group most responsible for the REAL "Anti-Semitism" (White Jews) -literally- add insult to injury.  

NuisanceMan However, it is not as simple as what you say, because Jews are a people as well as a religion, and some of us who are not believers in any way, shape, or form still consider ourselves as part of the people, and in many cases are acknowledged as such by other Jews.  You are right that Jews are not a race.<<<

I will tell you EXACTLY what they are "as a group": They are a CLAN.  There is nothing to differentiate a Jew from a non-Jew other than matrolinially based EXCLUSION of other peoples and/or admittance to "the club" based on disavowal of former allegiences.  As far as I'm concerned they're not one damn bit different than Scientologists, Mormons, or any other religion apart from their own self-serving claims.  And let us be HONEST here; those claims shift like the sands of the middle east whenever it suits their purposes; when they're persecuted,  they deny they're a race.  But give them a State and watch the fun!  Now buddy, it's a "race", a rose by any other name, but you can't have an Apartheid State unless you start making some claims to "otherness" to seperate yourself from the lower forms.  Call me a f*cking "goy" and I will punch your lights out and I highly recommend that every other human being insist taking up their own personal responsibility to retain their right to an opinion and the right to express it without apology. If I sound angry, I bloody well am and I am because I am not stupid.  I have seen enough...more than enough.  I can't be manipulated with P.C. guilt trips or appeals to history.  Right is right, a level playing field is a level playing field, and on Esbe's playing field, ALL religions are up for criticisms.  "Prejudice"?  Not a chance.  "Weighed in the balance and found wanting" is the accurate assessment of my conclusions.  I pre-judged nothing here.   

NuisanceManNow, back to your comments, "It's pretty self-evident that you -as a Jew- have had enough of free speech when your Ox gets gored."  How is this "self-evident"?  Rob didn't make any reference to being Jewish.  So why even bring it up, let alone ASSUME that it's the real reason why he takes the position he does?<<<<

 How funny you use the term assume, and even shout it to me when it's actually you who's assumed.  I've had email exchanges with Rob.  I've had op-eds rejected because he "as a Jew" [sic] found my anti-Zionist sentiments to be "anti-Semitic".  You assume his Jewishness is irrelevant, that you have the right to tell me I over-stepped my mention of it in a reply to HIM, yet you know nothing of any of this and the fact that I wouldn't even know whether Rob was a Jew or not unless he himself had made it a point personally to me.  In other words, you fail to grasp a truth; "a fool enters a quarrel not his own" (Proverbs).

  NuisanceManWhile it's true that most Jews are pro-Israel, a sizeable and highly vocal minority are strongly against the ideology we're not supposed to name any more and extremely critical of Israel.  There are also many non-Jewish people, left, right, and center, who are uncritically pro-Israel.

There was no reason for you to say the words quoted above except to stereotype Jews, assuming we have a particular point of view, or ox to be gored, because we're Jews.<<<<<<<<<<

 ESBE:  So now you're dragging your own membership in the club into this are you?  What the hell is it about some people who feel the need to tout their "minority" status when it suits them -or when they think it does-.  I know who the Zionists are, who do you think you're talking to here?  I don't care if you're a Jew or from Jonestown; To me you're just a white guy looking for others to accept your B.S. on your own terms.   You get upset when you see someone who doesn't play.  I get it.

  NuisanceManEven if you allow for the existence of anti-Z Jews, you do not allow for the existence of pro-Israel Jews, or in-between-on-Israel Jews, or Jews who take any position having anything to do with Israel that you don't like, where the reason for their position is something other than being Jewish.<<<<

ESBE:  Oh what a bunch of CRAP dude!  Hey, how do ya like this one: "Even if you allow for the existence of anti-H Germans, you do not allow for the existence of pro-H Germans, or in-between-on-H Germans, or Germans who take any position having anything to do with Germany that you don't like, where the reason for their position is something other than being German."

See! Magic!  We can justify Nazism if only it's for reasons OTHER than being pro-German Empire!   And don't think it's either an accident or a stretch that I compare Zionism to Nazism; the ideology is absolutely identical; a " pure Jewish state" a "Pure German state", barbed wire in Germany, or barbed wire in Palestine, you can't hide it.  The world is watching. 

NuisanceManAs a Jewish person (completely Godless, by the way), I consider myself fully capable of considering the same facts, making the same judgments, and reaching the same conclusions about Israel that non-Jews could make.<<<<<

 Obviously you can't.  You claim to be a "Godless Jew".  That's hillarious.  I guess my wife is a "Godless Catholic" because her Mother was Catholic?  Come on, who do you think you're fooling here?  Not me. 

  NuisanceManI might know a few things about the Jewish world that they might not, and they may know things I don't, but my being Jewish in no way precludes my engaging in full and open inquiry into the subject.  The fact that there are a good many Jews who are too emotionally attached to the idea of Israel to do this changes nothing.  Your assumption about Rob IS anti-Jewish, it's insulting, and I resent it.

What you said lumps all Jews into a basket.  It's the same kind of stereotyping faced by a black journalist who applies for a job but is told, "Oh, we don't have enough civil rights stories to make it worth hiring you."

by NuisanceMan (3 articles, 8 comments) on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 6:44:21 PM

Esbe:  LOL!  Wow did you step in some sh*t here!  I resent you; I resent you as a white guy claiming the self-serving "protection" of a religion you don't even believe in.   Here's a little advice for you:

If you don't want your "***religion/race/ethnic background/who Daddy married"  to be an issue in a debate on ethics and geopolitical conflicts, DON'T BRING IT UP.   You can't have it both ways.

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:32:11 AM

  (0+)

You take a word and twist and distort it then throw it assaultively. It's meanspirited, angry and ugly.

You don't like the use of antisemitism, because you've done some twisted etymological analysis that ends up pissing you off... well, write it up in a lexicology journal. But in the real world, people use words as they usually and customarily understood. You abuse the word zionist by expanding your hate to include more people than the word is generally understood to represent. YOU are the kind of abuser I am talking about, including the hate you seem to be so proud of.  

Your kind of abuse of the language  is what has led me to  the decision I made. And unfortunately, you seem to feel entitled to be hateful and abusive and mean.

Well, let me straighten you out. You are not entitled.

All of this discussion has led be to come up with a solution that will involve both software and the help of members-- even you.

First step will be to do an open thread discussion on what zionism is and what zionists are.

But Esbe, you need to do some serious work on your hate. It's toxic. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:00:20 PM

  (0+)

Rob Kall: You are a word abuser and self admitted hater<<<

ESBE: A "Hater" indeed, but let us not obfuscate exactly, precisely WHAT it is that I hate. "Hater". You're a hater too Rob; You hate me, and those who espouse what I espouse. Why don't you cut the crap, stop the dance, and just admit the truth here; You can't bear to see your Zionist world view challenged on ethical grounds to such an extent, that rather than even attempting to continue to defend the indefensible, you intend to simply remove the "offensive word" from the vocabulary of the people you have no other way of defeating. This isn't some exposure of me Rob; I've ALWAYS been 100% up front about my views. It's an exposure of you; you're a gate keeper, one of many, attempting to validate your paleo-liberal world view by resorting to the reactionary center you've attempted to hide among us, and which is now on full display as you attempt to -again- justify what can not be justified; the control of others to your own satisfaction. You speak of "left and right" yet the paradigm under which you've sought cover -the left- is wholly incompatible with your defense of the fascist theocratic State you're attempting to insulate from further criticism. Calling me a "hater" makes a nice little sound byte for those who're incapable of rendering or comprehending higher levels of analysis, but you and I both know that what I hate, is Evil.

Rob Kall: You take a word and twist and distort it then throw it assaultively. It's meanspirited, angry and ugly.

You don't like the use of antisemitism, because you've done some twisted etymological analysis that ends up pissing you off... well, write it up in a lexicology journal. But in the real world, people use words as they usually and customarily understood.<<<<

ESBE: On the contrary; I am straightening the word out. I'm not "twisting" anything. I am pointing out a fact, and that fact is that the term "Anti-Semitic" was a THEFT, an affront to a billion real Semites who's identity is being DELIBERATELY erased by the Zionist front. "Anti-Semitic" to describe "Prejudice against Jews" was both illegitimate, and a deliberate usurpation. Words do indeed have power and meaning. It's why what I have said is neatly and quickly summerized as a "hater" by you, because the "toxicity" you allege is also real. "Toxic" indeed. Like sunshine is toxic to bacteria. It's called the Truth Rob. I'm telling it and you will not deal with it. You have not answered a single charge I leveled in my last response to you. "Hater" is the best you can come up with. But it's not. You can simply render the descriptive word which offends you, invisable. It's all you've got now.

Rob Kall: You abuse the word zionist by expanding your hate to include more people than the word is generally understood to represent. YOU are the kind of abuser I am talking about, including the hate you seem to be so proud of.

Your kind of abuse of the language is what has led me to the decision I made. And unfortunately, you seem to feel entitled to be hateful and abusive and mean.<<<

I hate fascists. I hate theocracies, ALL of them. But more than anything, I hate dishonesty. The kind of dishonesty that starts removing words from our language to hide or protect an agenda. This is bullshit Rob. Any op-ed that's submitted was already read and approved or rejected by an editor here. Your attempt to eliminate the word in question accomplishes absolutely nothing other than to insure that the middle east conflict is rendered less discussable and therefor less visable on op-ednews. That's clearly your intent as an American tyrant threatens to attack Iran for Israel's sole benefit as his criminal regime is backed into a corner.

You're not one of us Rob. By "us", I mean progressives who insist on social justice and equality. Your primary loyalty is to the Jewish State and always has been. You never were one of us, but times had to change before "right" and "left" were divorced from one another. I don't give a damn what your social values inside the United States are when you act to protect an entity which is destroying peace and murdering people based on their ethnic identity. It is what it is and with this effort to protect it, you're as out as Larry Craig; as Zionist as he is "Gay". You should have stuck to your former subtlty by continuing to simply reject opinions about Israel you disliked. I don't know what you were thinking, but really, I'm glad you "came out" with your real agenda.

Rob Kall: Well, let me straighten you out. You are not entitled.

ESBE: That's absolutely correct. You own your domain, "do what thou will". To me, you are just another Lieberman, a deceiver keeping his cattle in check. I came HERE to write because the Jewish and obviously Zionist owners of the domain debatebothsides.com removed debate of the Palestinian issue from current events in a pathetic attempt to eliminate front page exposure of Israel's attrocities on their domain.  They used all the same rationalizations to justify the decision.  

Rob Kall: All of this discussion has led be to come up with a solution that will involve both software and the help of members-- even you.

First step will be to do an open thread discussion on what zionism is and what zionists are.

But Esbe, you need to do some serious work on your hate. It's toxic.<<<

ESBE: I hope so. "Hate what is Evil". "Is there a thing which can not be named"? According to you there is. Judgement has come, and by your own hand. You can't dig the grave deep enough to hide what you're trying to hide about Israel and Zionism Rob.

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Friday, Aug 31, 2007 at 1:55:06 AM

  (0+)

another supposedly open to both sides for debate site blocked you. We're open to both sides, but I'm pleased to say that one of the reasons I wanted to ban the Z words, was to out people who were hiding behind them. Guess who was the first to get caught in the trap.

We'll keep the site open to discussion of both sides, but it will be civil and it won't tolerate hate. There are other sites, with narrower tolerances for open discusson that will welcome you.

I am certain that most of the other hight traffic progressive sites would have banned you for what you've said to me. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm consulting with others and we'll see about your response and behavior.

It's clear that you don't get it that you are a bigot in regard to Jews. See I avoided using the anti-semite you are so incensed about. Yes, You are clearly a bigot, hiding behind your games with words. But you have been outed. We'll see where this all lands. Your choice of actions and reactions will be the primary deciding factor.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 31, 2007 at 12:59:47 PM

  (0+)

Way to go Rob! I totally agree with you! I am so tired of bigots using the word *Zionist* as an excuse to attack Jews. I think Ishmael and Edom have it in for Jacob because they are jealous of his sharp mind and willingness to to protect his family from the strangers within his gates! He has wrestled with God and he has overcome!

by Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Friday, Aug 31, 2007 at 9:25:25 PM

  (0+)

Rob Kall:

you came here because

another supposedly open to both sides for debate site blocked you.<<<

ESBE: That's a flat-out lie. I was not banned when I left debatebothsides.com, nor did the site allow both sides to be debated. I CHOSE to leave because they decided to ban discussions of Israel and Palestine from "current events". I could go back tomorrow and post there and I choose not to because I will not support a site which engages in censorship of the most crucial issue in global politics. Don't lie about me Rob, I won't let it slide.

Rob Kall: We're open to both sides, but I'm pleased to say that one of the reasons I wanted to ban the Z words, was to out people who were hiding behind them. Guess who was the first to get caught in the trap.<<<

ESBE: "Trap"? You flatter yourself. I've never hidden behind "code words". I don't like Israel, and I haven't tried to hide it here, or anywhere else. So here we have yet more straw-men as you back-peddle and look for a whipping boy. I do believe I've been plain spoken; Israel SUCKS. It's worse than South Africa IMO. I want it politically dismantled and for "Jews" to learn to assimilate and stop doing to innocent people, what Hitler did to them. But you've accuse me of hiding that sentiment? How laughable Rob. Really.

Rob Kall: We'll keep the site open to discussion of both sides, but it will be civil and it won't tolerate hate. There are other sites, with narrower tolerances for open discusson that will welcome you.

I am certain that most of the other hight traffic progressive sites would have banned you for what you've said to me. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm consulting with others and we'll see about your response and behavior.<<<

ESBE: I'm not going to kiss your ass Rob. Ban me if that's your only defense. I'd wear it as a mark of honor at this point, inflicted by someone acting less than honorable. Why don't you just admit you're effort to censor everyone was the act of an ass-clown who's on the wrong side of an argument, apologize to all the nice people it upset, and let sleeping dogs lie. That'd be smart. Smarter than trying to distort Esbe.

Rob Kall: It's clear that you don't get it that you are a bigot in regard to Jews.

ESBE: Really? I decided I don't like your political beliefs, and you hide behind an entire religion as a defense? If I'm not mistaken, to be a "bigot", one has to hold a view point rooted in ignorance of facts and to have pre-judged a group of people. I am neither ignorant of the facts, nor have I pre-judged anyone. In fact, this entire conflict between you and I so far, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you're a Jew. You could be a Christofascist follower of Pat Robertson and the debate wouldn't look a damned bit different on my end. I don't like your political views, and I don't like the State you're attempting to insulate from criticism as my country slaughters Semitic peoples for their refusal to accept domination by the United States. That's a political opinion. Or at least it WOULD be were it not for the fact of unprincipled moral cowards (who are truly bigots) attempting to hide their support of the crimes against humanity BEHIND a religion who's problematical conduct has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with militant expansionism and violent oppression.

Rob Kall: See I avoided using the anti-semite you are so incensed about.<<<

ESBE: "Bigot" as a replacement? You're a genius.

Rob Kall: Yes, You are clearly a bigot, hiding behind your games with words. But you have been outed. We'll see where this all lands. Your choice of actions and reactions will be the primary deciding factor.

by RobKall (474 articles, 872 comments) on Friday, August 31, 2007 at 12:59:47 PM

ESBE: If I were you, I would ban me.

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2007 at 7:06:01 PM

  (0+)

Use something else. Give it a try. Considering that over 80% of Jews vote democratic, then right wing jews might not work.

You see, here are a lot of left wing jews who also support Israel, who, because of their support for Israel, call themselves zionists, even if on all other issues, they are liberal. So maybe talking about right wing Jews is oversimplifying a complicated issue. Or maybe it reveals something about you. 

How do handle the idea that 80%+ of Jews are left leaning, yet probably only 30% of Jews would support a cut-off of funds for Israel?

How about this? If the jews left the Democratic party, it would be squashed in presidential and many key state elections. Yet many on the left are quite comfortable loosely throwing around a term that is inappropriately used and often abused by many.

In my synagogue, which is a liberal one, there are only a handful of people who would call themselves zionists.  Most oppose the way Israel treats the Palestinians. But most would be hurt and offended to hear your talk of hating zionists. Now, if you say you hate illegal settlers, or Israeli right wing extremists-- no problem. 

It's not just a matter of the technicalities of meaning. It's about this being a community where people have feelings.  Most people don't go into their mother's house and curse a blue streak, out of RESPECT and consideration, unless she regularly curses like a sailor. That's a part of what this is about.

I guess I could say that it would be a partial ban, at the discretion of the editors, but my experience is that it is rare, even here, that the words are not used, as you have used them, with hatred. That's not acceptable.

Yeah. I know. We could say the same thing about a lot of right wingers. But look how you wrongly equated zionists with  right wing Jews. This is complicated stuff and using simple words so marinated in hate does not help anyone except those who want to ventilate and cathart their hate.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:02:36 PM

  (0+)

You're an articulate person

Use something else. Give it a try. Considering that over 80% of Jews vote democratic, then right wing jews might not work.

You see, here are a lot of left wing jews who also support Israel, who, because of their support for Israel, call themselves zionists, even if on all other issues, they are liberal. So maybe talking about right wing Jews is oversimplifying a complicated issue. Or maybe it reveals something about you. 

How do handle the idea that 80%+ of Jews are left leaning, yet probably only 30% of Jews would support a cut-off of funds for Israel?

How about this? If the jews left the Democratic party, it would be squashed in presidential and many key state elections. Yet many on the left are quite comfortable loosely throwing around a term that is inappropriately used and often abused by many.

In my synagogue, which is a liberal one, there are only a handful of people who would call themselves zionists.  Most oppose the way Israel treats the Palestinians. But most would be hurt and offended to hear your talk of hating zionists. Now, if you say you hate illegal settlers, or Israeli right wing extremists-- no problem. 

It's not just a matter of the technicalities of meaning. It's about this being a community where people have feelings.  Most people don't go into their mother's house and curse a blue streak, out of RESPECT and consideration, unless she regularly curses like a sailor. That's a part of what this is about.

I guess I could say that it would be a partial ban, at the discretion of the editors, but my experience is that it is rare, even here, that the words are not used, as you have used them, with hatred. That's not acceptable.

Yeah. I know. We could say the same thing about a lot of right wingers. But look how you wrongly equated zionists with  right wing Jews. This is complicated stuff and using simple words so marinated in hate does not help anyone except those who want to ventilate and cathart their hate.

by RobKall (470 articles, 804 comments) on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 3:02:36 PM

Rob,

Whether someone's feelings are hurt by my political views are not now, nor have they ever been a concern of mine.  I don't believe Israel as it exists should ever have been created.  I'm apparently in good company historically on this.  I also believe it should be politically destroyed.  What I mean by that, is that I believe the Apartheid policy which is in effect to maintain a permanent "Jewish majority" should be abolished, reparations should be paid to Israel's victims, and Palestine should be restored to a secular state where everyone has the same rights.

Now you may find that offensive, or your friends in your synagog may find that offensive.  But I find the systematic extermination and continual provocation of Arab peoples both in Palestine, and Lebanon, to be much more offensive.  Israel is a criminal state, there is no debating that fact.  So too is the U.S.A., and were this 200 years ago, and I was watching the extermination of the Indian take place before my eyes, I would say exactly the same thing about the United States; it had no "right".  The difference today is this:  The people who's land we took after we murdered them, are dead.  It's over.  The stain remains, but it's too late to stop what happened.  What Israel is doing is current.  It's victims who've lived, are mostly still living in exile.  

"Thou Shalt Not Steal" Rob.  See Rob, I've got nothing against the Jewish religion or Jews.  Just murder and theft.  I seem to recall that being somehow central as a concept to the religion.  I don't like paying for murder and theft. 

Let us reason together: Surely you must be aware of the stereotypical view that "Jews control the media".  Your decision here to censor free speech when it mentions Zionism, well, I guess the chips are going to fall where they may on it now, but you haven't done your fellow Jews a lick of good with it (censorship).  

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:37:58 PM

  (0+)

we have one area we disagree on. Oh, and about the US and it's native Americans-- we don't have to go back 200 years. They were still being mass murdered after wounded knee, less than 150 years ago.

And then, we have new orleans. And how about all those Americans allowed to die because they don't have health care.

Then, let's talk about the role of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, in keeping the Palestinians down for their own political reasons. Blaming the Israelis alone is either naive, disingenuous or blind. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:49:03 PM

  (0+)

well

by RobKall (470 articles, 805 comments) on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 3:49:03 PM

If someone takes my property, I blame them.  If I see someone take someone else's property, I rightly call them a thief.  Whatever role other Arab states have played since the original affront  took place is of little account here as far as I'm concerned.   They are akin only to unhelpful witnesses to the crime. None of their actions excuse the original offense of murder and theft.  Tell me how Rob.

As for New Orleans, do you seriously think an act of God followed by neglect, is comparable to forcing someone out of their home at gun point and/or putting them in a concentration camp?

You're just flat wrong.

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 4:02:30 PM

  (0+)

Concentration camp? You're comparing the refugee camps in Palestine to German genocide concentration camps? Get a grip.  Today, CNN reported on the 12,000 homeless in... New Orleans, camped outside Mayor Ray Nagin's office.  I'd call that a camp.

Regarding the surrounding Arab states and Iran-- they are anything but innocent observers. They have contributed significantly to the hate, the conflict, the provision of weapons, the radicalization, the fighting, the support of suicide bombing, even providing rewards and encouragement.

Again, this conversation reveals your misconceptions and suggests that exploring other ways to talk about the IDEAS could help to shed fresh light on a dark, long clouded part of the world. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 4:34:51 PM

  (0+)

Rob Kall: A bit Exagerated, eh?

Concentration camp? You're comparing the refugee camps in Palestine to German genocide concentration camps? Get a grip.<<<<<<<

ESBE: Yes, I compare them without apology. Only the numbers of dead and methods of execution differ, but the aptness of the comparison remains: The systematic herding of a people based on "race" into ghettos, shooting those who resist, and encircling them with barbed wire while depriving them of their property (to the State) , freedom of movement, human dignity, and all too often, their lives when they resist. Israel is guilty; as guilty as Sin Rob. You have a broken moral compass. And now you seek to silence those who speak out. You're no different than a loyal German in an Empire destined for history's dust heap trying to ban the term "Nazi" because it's under attack as a perverse, evil ideology.

Rob Kall: Today, CNN reported on the 12,000 homeless in... New Orleans, camped outside Mayor Ray Nagin's office. I'd call that a camp.<<<

ESBE: I'd call that an intellectually bankrupt attempt to divert and redefine a fundamental reality into unreality. The people of New Orleans were driven from their homes by a natural disaster. The people of Palestine were driven from their homes at the point of a gun and are burried alive by bulldozers if they refuse to accept the loss. You can not win this argument Rob. In fact, the fact that you're now banning use of the term "Zionism" here, is all the proof anyone needs to know you've already lost it. Israel can not survive. It shouldn't survive. It has no more claim to a "right" than Hitler had to Poland. None.

Rob Kall: Regarding the surrounding Arab states and Iran-- they are anything but innocent observers. <<<<

ESBE: Did I say they were "innocent"? I did not. I said -in so many words- that the fact of their actions in no way excuses the original crime under discussion. Obfuscations like this are not going to work.

Rob Kall: They have contributed significantly to the hate, the conflict, the provision of weapons, the radicalization, the fighting, the support of suicide bombing, even providing rewards and encouragement.<<<<<

ESBE: You know what? Good for them. Israel should be hated. Just as Apartheid South Africa was hated. Just as Nazi Germany was hated. And God bless anyone who aids the oppressed in their struggle to throw off this brutal, "racially" based fascist occupation by Israel. The problem you'll have winning an argument with me here, is that I'm not conditioned to avoid offending those who've cast their lot with the guilty. I make zero apologies for my "radical" views.

Rob Kall: Again, this conversation reveals your misconceptions and suggests that exploring other ways to talk about the IDEAS could help to shed fresh light on a dark, long clouded part of the world.<<<<<

ESBE: There was no such thing as an "Arab terrorist" until the West fabricated one. Israel is the deliberate provocation as grounds for profitable for interventionalism and remains so. The real misconception and "cloud" here is one deliberately maintained by people who attempt to equate natural disaster victims, with victims of genocide to divert from the genocide taking place. There's nothing remotely complex about the Middle East situation and there never has been: Get the f*ck out of it and leave the natives the hell alone. Seriously Rob, it's all but over with. All that remains is for Bushit to "strike" Iran, and it's over. And while you are at it, please explain to me exactly what LAW Iran has violated in their pusuit of nuclear power, when the technology was given to them by President Ford, they're signatories to the NPT and the NPT specifically states that they are 100% within their RIGHT under international law, to have nuclear power. Iran a threat? Not to me. Not to American soil. A "threat to Israel"? Cry me a river! Israel has been in violation of nearly a hundred U.N. resolutions and is NOT a signatory to the NPT yet has not only pursued nuclear energy, but has an illegal nuclear arsenal and has for decades. They ARE THE THREAT in the Middle East Rob. Iran hasn't expanded it's empire. Iran hasn't threatened anyone. And BY THE WAY, they did NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map". Just another example of the deliberate misinformation being disseminated by the Pro-Zionist western media through deliberate mistranslation. I'm not going to say "Jews control the media" here. But I will factually now say "Jew controls his media" with regard to your allegience to the Zionist State and willingness to defend it, even to the absurdity of banning mention of it's existence.

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:14:58 PM

  (0+)

Thank you for bringing reality to the discussion, Rob.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 5:13:01 PM

  (0+)

If they ban your favorite word, you'll have nothing to write about!

by mellowinman (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:28:03 PM

  (0+)

A VOICE OF REASON

The knee-jerk reaction here is a perfect anecdote for the larger problem that was discussed with Rob and his Associate Editors. While everyone’s comments are welcome, just look at the vitriol on the use of a few words, let alone the discussion of the actual topics they relate to – the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Working as an associate editor, I see the many rejected and unpublished articles that many of you do not see. We are often inundated with I/P-related articles, comments, diaries and even poems. Most are benign, but some are simply hateful and even murderous in their suggestiveness.

Op Ed News is, and continues to be, one of the most open forums for the expression of ideas. However, as Rob mentioned, there are two elements at play. The first is how, in most cases, these words are used or the meaning that is most often ascribed to them. Simply put, they infer or intimate hatred or worse. Second, Op Ed News, like all news organizations, must continually evolve in order to better serve its readers and expand its readership. The implementation of prohibiting the use of a few words, which are nearly always used as pejoratives, is part of this movement towards being a better online journal.

Finally, in my view, this is not about censorship, but decorum and respectability. There are plenty of places around the web to join that are pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, if that is what you desire and want to participate in. After all, Op Ed News is an online, opinion newspaper and journal. It is not a blog. In the end, Op Ed News has the right to determine the ultimate content it will display.

Do look before you leap, as treading out into other waters, such as the seemingly innocuous world at the major blogs around the Internet, may land you in water with sharks rather than a lifeboat with a few rules so we all don’t sink.

Ps. Just for perspective, in my view, if Op Ed News ran every story that we received about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the aforementioned words, we would need to, in all likelihood, to change the name to the Israel/Palestine Journal. 

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:42:37 PM

  (0+)

"We are often inundated with I/P-related articles, comments, diaries and even poems. Most are benign, but some are simply hateful and even murderous in their suggestiveness."

I assume you reject these?  And will continue to do so, including those that avoid the now-banned words?

How will this make your job any easier?

by Michael Lubin (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:48:41 PM

  (0+)

Michael,

One of our hopes is to ease the burden of the editors. Assuming of course that people adhere to this policy, we should spend less time screening and more time publishing.

I might add that your point is well taken, but I believe you may have missed the whole point of my “voice of reason" comment.

The sheer divisiveness that these words cause, as evident by the plethora of comments here, metaphorically represents the express reason Rob chose to prohibit these words. These words have simply come to represent derogatory terms. At some point, sense and sensibility must take hold.

I believe that Rob felt the line had been crossed too often from these words being just simple nouns, to words of hate or bigotry, and had come to symbolize meanings that are more odious in their intent.

In my view, the time had come, to do a little housekeeping and clean up some bad practices on Op Ed News.

What many of you may or may not know is all of the editors at Op Ed News are volunteers. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for all of us to spend the time you suggest to edit and re-write each article that is offensive or distasteful.

In a perfect world, I am sure Rob would prefer a large bankroll, be able to pay his editorial staff and screen, re-write, and edit carefully each and every article or even each word. In reality, this is not the case.

For those that enjoy Op Ed News, but reject this policy, may I suggest that we all financially contribute more and maybe Rob could employ fulltime copy editors and rescind this policy in dispute?

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:47:19 PM

  (0+)

"It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for all of us to spend the time you suggest to edit and re-write each article that is offensive or distasteful."

That's not what I'm suggesting at all.  What I'm suggesting is that you REJECT ALL SUCH ARTICLES--whether they use certain words or not.

...and that you publish good articles--whether they use those same words or not.

by Michael Lubin (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 4:54:15 PM

  (0+)

"For those that enjoy Op Ed News, but reject this policy, may I suggest that we all financially contribute more and maybe Rob could employ fulltime copy editors and rescind this policy in dispute?"

So here we get to the heart of it: Send more money, and maybe we'll give you your words back.

The further I read down this comment thread the more disgusted I am getting. Now it is clear you are essentially whores. Is that word banned yet? You might want to move on it pretty quick, because I believe it may be coming your way with increasing frequency, following that incredible "suggestion" of yours.

What a damn shame -- this was such an excellent site.

Sneed

by jasper sneed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:31:40 AM

  (0+)

To some, the words you have banned border on the "N" word.  For those using the words, some do it with malice, others out of ignorance and stupidity.

by kanawah (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:47:31 PM

  (0+)

I can only use a line from the movie Inherit The Wind in reference to the use of profanity to express my opinion on this issue.  “Language is a poor way to communicate so we should use every word we have”

by walley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 108 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 2:54:49 PM

  (0+)

I love the quote, but I don't remember it from the movie. I guess I'll have to go and watch it again!

by D. Edward Farrar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:06:00 PM

  (0+)

I commonly use the word Zionist/Zionism to refer to an individual/ideology that believes that God has mandated that a certain geographic area of the globe belongs to the people of Israel and those who live there now should be evicted.  I use this term to avoid lumping all Jews/Israelis into that group in an attempt not to be a bigot.

Is my understanding of the word Zionist mistaken?  Is it not a belief held by many of the Likudniks in Israel who favor the expansion of Israel's borders? 

Banning the word will not stifle criticism of this flawed ideology.  What it will do is further confuse the issue and cause peace loving Israelis to be lumped together with the War Mongers and torturers, encouraging racism. 

Do you seek to cast Israel as the perpetual victim with this move?

by brisa (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:04:35 PM

  (0+)

I got tired of dealing with all the hate that words came marinated in. 

Very likely, by having to use other words, they'll have to think about the issues in different, less reflex-driven ways.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 3:51:59 PM

  (0+)

You just about said as much yourself. It is the Likudniks that are what you are really trying to describe and rail against. I would agree with you. I cannot have the same agreement when you attack "Z--nists"

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:44:57 PM

  (0+)

I, too, have no problem with "Likudnik;" however, I have tremedous problems with the over use of Zionist. It is used as Rush Lamebrain uses Islamafacist. As Rob said many Jews from every perspective believe in a return to land, but are not radical right wingers. The drive to return to the Land was to escape two thousand years of persecution in every land they lived except the United States, not necessarily because of any belief in God. The Holocaust was the proverbial straw that broke the Camel's back.

by pratliff94 (0