Gratuitous use of the offensive phrase isn't useful. For example, it is clear, from context, to what phrase I now refer.

Nevertheless, I am profoundly opposed to euphemistic bracketing or the like. As I have mentioned before, this gives the offensive words even more power, or the appearance of power. Societies that believe in ritual magick (i.e., the k distinguishes it from sleight-of-hand), voodoo, curses, etc., often have several names for a person, perhaps one only used by intimates, and then a "true name" used only in the most solemn rituals. Such societies often believe that armed with a true name, one of evil intent can control or kill the person whose name is known.

Think of Watergate. Was the public served well by the constant [expletive deleted], or would the public have had a better sense of the level of dialogue without the censorship?

No, I will not use euphemisms when not doing so will give the sense of the offense, or even identify what actually was said. The euphemisms you suggest empower the evil, rather than diminish it.

Part of my work is infectious disease epidemiology. We have been concerned enough about the use of antibiotics as agricultural growth stimulators, but there is now even more concern about the commercializations of disinfectants, seemingly, in every household item. We may get to a point that there is no low-level immune challenge to people, such that any significant infection destroys them.

As long as there are those that would attack it, the mind needs to develop immunities.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Yes words have power, but not so much that we should run from them or delete them within brackets. I mean, say whatever you're comfortable saying, I guess. But this smacks of the kind fo word fear that I was worried would be the result of the Imus story.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

And here's another problem with overreacting to Imus: This is the kind of thinking that made it so that two smart, politicall active bloggers weren't allowed to work for the Edwards campaign just because they used words like "Godbags" and "Christo-fascists."

We shouldn't all have to be polite and sensitive all of the time.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Just rereading Caryl Rivers' words

Stereotypes are like little microbes that enter our pores, get under our skin and hinder the abilities of actual individuals.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You have. We are now discussing the controversy about the controversy

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on." [Augustus de Morgan]

One more comment, are we allowed to say the name of the recently deceased Hawaiian singer, Don ?

I agree with Howard who agrees with Kiwi.

These ladies are being taught a bad lesson that they should turn over the power of their self esteem to others.

There is a school of thought that says that, if you act like you were not insulted, you were not insulted.

I've never quite bought into this logic, and its practictioners have always seemed a bit too earnest to me.

It's OK to admit that insults can hurt. I don't think that means anything quite so abstruse as "turning the power of self-esteem over to others".

Dear E.J. Graff,

Do you feel the constitution or bill of rights guarantees people a "safe environment" or a "non-hostile" environment? Or the right not to be insulted?

Does pursuit of happiness mean happiness guaranteed?

Does Fahrenheit 451 or Harrison Bergeron? have any relevance to this discussion?

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Oh, gosh, I'm never in favor of speech codes. I wouldn't advocate active censorship (although I'm glad Imus is no longer getting paid to say the things he was saying.) I'm against hate crimes laws, which seem to me to be criminalizing thought: murder is murder, it's always a hate crime. Elswhere I've argued hard that while we can castigate speech for being "demeaning" or "socially corrosive," it's nobody's business if it was "hurtful." I mean, I blog here, for god's sake, where my ideas have not been especially popular. Obviously I've a thick skin, and elsewhere I urge young women to learn to get over their tender "feelings" and talk back.

And at the same time, words do matter and have power. We can hold those thoughts at the same time, surely. Words are ideas. Ideas have consequences. Otherwise, why bother using language at all?

Good analogy, insightful, and funny too.

That post is a good example of how many could benefit by studying at least one hard science or other rigorous field, to compliment the humanities, for the mental exercise in reason, distinguishing between logical causality and emotional correlation.

Oh, gosh, I'm never in favor of speech codes.

It seems to me there is something of a pattern of corrections to perceived implications in Graff's writings.

Other people who are prone to making comments which are on the edge of culture hostilities, and ambiguous enough to require further corrections and clarifications, and insensitive to likely lines of offense, well, they tend not to be regarded very highly as public speakers.

Which I believe Graff supports. Unless she wishes to further clarify that.

May I suggest that if Graff is supportive of effective, clear, and sensitive commentary not requiring further clarification, she begin with herself.

Actually I think it was pretty clear that you're against speech codes and censorship, at least in an official capacity.

But here you are, self-censoring. Which is your right, of course. I just question whether or not it achieves what you desire.

And while I agree that the right to free speech doesn't entail the right to a forum like a radio or tv show, I find no joy in seeing somebody lose their job because I know that the influence that corporations can have on speech is far beyond what out constitution allows the government to get away with. Sure, it's nice to see that Imus can't get away with what he said. But it's not so nice when Wal-Mart refuses to sell a book like Jon Stewart's "America: The Book" or when Blockbuster wants to carry family friendly versions of movies or when Brent Bozell and William Donahue try to make TV boring or when Joe Lieberman tries to force the video game industry into self regulation.

Like I said, I'm sure you don't advocate censorship, but you're opening the door for all kinds of speech limitations, most not government imposed, but undemocratic nonetheless.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Hmm... I'd agree that censorship is bad, however there is also a sliding scale for accountability/sensitivity of words that we have to acknowledge,depending on context and intent.

Context matters. EDIT: Intent also matters greatly, as people will often disagree about what is relevant to context.

We rightfully expect leaders to be excellent communicators, not only to us but also to the opposing party, allies and enemies, on everything from aid to nuclear arms. Well reasoned, concise, meaningful, and hopefully personable. They speak in fairly rare and focused events by comparison to daily talk show hosts, bloggers, etc.

Talk show hosts and bloggers are more free are free to amuse, enlighten, or offend.

So, It was always a mistake for Marcotte for example to be on the Edward's campaign as she's a bomb thrower, inappropriate to the context of a political campaign.

I guess it depends on how great you think the offense was.

It was offensive, but not so great it should even have carried on as far as it did, imo. An immediate apology and commitment to make amends through charity work and issue advocacy would have accomplished far more of a positive goal than the PC controversy we see now.

Al Sharpton exploited the issue for his agenda, which looks to me like narcissism, not helping black people. Notice the team never called for the firing or all the overblown outrage.

...

It's a tragic mistake, and ironically Imus was attempting to be kinda PC I think, in his own stupid way. Only being an old white guy who wears cowboy hats, in our political reality which is highly divisive and has many polemic bottom feeders, it was terribly ill advised attempt, which he bungled badly.

...

I think he was attempting, very poorly, to comment on a well known issue: There is a legitimate argument whether academic and aesthetic standards need to be raised, in college and professional sports, and whether it would benefit athletes by preventing exploitation, and benefit the community as role models. There are many issues at odds, regarding censorship, appearances, PCness, conservatism vs liberalism, individuality vs professionalism, academics vs athletics, etc. But it's a valid discussion. And college athletics are a big business so a lot of people would prefer this discussion not rock the boat full of money.

I think his opinion is that appearances matter to some degree, and that he thinks some athletes look more respectable than others, and as such make better role models. He made a direct comparison between two mostly black teams, praising one and of course disrespecting another. Now, that's just his opinion. And he really bungled the delivery, and said things that also appear blatantly racist, so it was defiantly a screw up requiring apology.

But the lynch mob has imo short circuited an important discussion, rushing to stake new territory for PCdom, rather than allowing a reasonable discussion to form consensus and greater understanding.

Again, context and intent matter.

People benefit by getting all the facts, context, and stated intent, weighing that judiciously before passing judgement. Regardless of the eventual decision, pro or con, we all benefit by a slower more judicious process.

Instead, we're seeing too much Brave New World tribalism, Pavlovian conditioning and rushes to judgment, language and PC police, and it's the status quo and bottom feeders who benefit from the tail-chasing and self-canceling chaos.

Sticks and Stones: what would Graff say about Marcotte?

Do words matter? Men were exploited and hurt by everyone who repeated the degrading phrase. Words like those are a social infection, as Caryl Rivers' piece explains very well.

E.J. I posted a response to your prior post at my TPM Cafe Blog, Misandry in our Midst, a Response to Jessica Valenti and E.J. Graff

In that post, I ask you what you personally think of the posts by Amanda Marcotte, and bloggers at Pandagon and Feministe that were made AFTER RAPE CHARGES WERE DROPPED, and then AFTER ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED, that:

1) the students were not innocent.
2) That the Attorney General's statement that they were innocent, did not mean they were innocent.
3) That as white rich kids, these guys deserved
what they got.
4) what the Duke students went through, did not equate to what women experience online on the Internet!

And specifically to Amanda Marcotte's words in her deleted post: I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f**king god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair. and Furthermore, what is your theory on why she supposedly looooooved having sex with guys holding her facedown on the bathroom floor? There’s no “if” they behaved in a disrespectful manner. We have conclusive evidence that happened.

This is about race and class and gender in every way, and there’s basically no way this woman was going to see justice. In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men.

Links to all of this in that blog post.

As I said then, what's with all of this online misandry?

What are your reactions to these blogs and their bloggers?

If you think they were out of line, as a leading feminist voice, you need to speak up.

If you agree with them, I would like you to be explicit about that.

I like to think of our liberal blogosphere as the reality based blogosphere. E.J., what is the scope of a safe environment that women need online? How does that differ from a safe environment that communities of women might need to meet in the real world? Why do so many online communities of women filter out not only threats but also mere dissent? Why do so many online communities of women claim that those that dissent are trolls, concern trolls, anti-feminists, or conservative wing-nuts?

Why is it that so many online communities delete comments, ban users, disparage men and other commenters. Does that create a safe environment? Or does it create a stultified environment? Does it lend itself to progress, or to group think?

Does it lend itself to peace and justice? Or does it lend itself to hate speech and misandry?

Are the commenting policies at so many women's sites more similar to Free Republic, Little Green Footballs, Red State, Hot Air, Patterico, or are they more similar to TPM Cafe, Atrios, TAPPED, Think Progress, Daily Kos?

Recently we've seen Gwen Ifill eloquently point out that Tim Russert and David Brooks and many other white male pundits eagerly went on Don Imus and never condemned his comments.

So let me ask you E.J., and Andrew Golis, what's up with Amanda Marcotte? Is your silence assent with her remarks? If not, does your silence enable her?

E.J., Why should TPM Cafe and Andrew Golis be giving Marcotte a platform and not giving that Platform to Wendy Kaminer, Wendy McElroy, Daphne Patai, Cathy Young, Warren Farrell, Karen DeCrow, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Katie Roiphe, Debbie Nathan, or many other women and men that can discuss issues of feminism and equality without making sexist, bigoted and horribly offensive statements?

Andrew Golis, just what ARE your qualifications that enable you to determine who is and isn't a feminist worthy of TPM Cafe? What do you know about feminism? Cause Andrew, I think you're faux.

-- my ratings policy
If I like your argument: 4 or 5
If I dislike or disbelieve your argument: no rating
Exceptions:
If you call someone a troll, you get a 1.
If you call someone a concern troll, you get a 0.

Let me try to clarify what may be confusing, which, I assume, regards my belief about Imus' apology.

I guess it depends on how great you think the offense was.

It was offensive, but not so great it should even have carried on as far as it did, imo. An immediate apology and commitment to make amends through charity work and issue advocacy would have accomplished far more of a positive goal than the PC controversy we see now.

...allowing a reasonable discussion to form consensus and greater understanding.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Jeeze, i just can't seem to agree with Graff on anything. I really tried here.

But, I'm in favor of "hate crime" legislation in principle, if not always the botched implementations. "Crime" + "Hate" designed to terrorize a whole group of people is a worse degree of crime. Maybe hate crime should just be replaced with "terrorism" as technically that's what it is, but I'm very doubtful that would be more productive or less inflammatory.

The evidentiary standards of "hate" should be fairly high, it should have a presumption of innocence, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE judicial sentencing discretion may consider it. The same as intent should be subject to evidentiary standards and ruled by the jury, not decided by judges.

But that should catch clear-cut cases of Nazis, or KKK, or gay-bashers and such. Or for that matter, clear-cut cases of so called "reverse-ism" crimes.

Having said that, speech is not a crime except in specific, minimalist, circumstances. So legal hateful-speech should not be conflated with hate-crimes.

Playing Devil's Advocate, one could argue it's impossible to determine hateful intent without debasing evidentiary standards. Ok, but then the same would have to be said of intent generally I suspect.