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.

No, I am asking Andrew what his qualifications are. From the people he has asked to interact with us at this site, and from his non-response to my other statements, and specifically for his allowing Amanda Marcotte to dismiss me with the ad hominem troll when she first showed up her, I have reasonable grounds to believe Golis has little knowledge or experience with feminism.

I say he is faux as I believe he is ignorant and following the Pandagon/Feministe/Feministing liberal blogosphere bias.

I believe I have many times now listed other feminist writers that are not bigoted or sexist and that can speak to all sorts of issues within feminism, and he has remained silent every time. I had thought he just remained silent, but then I saw him playing a violin for cscs, so I guess he does have a keyboard after all.

And so I am curious as to what Golis' qualifications are.

I HAVE ALMOST NO QUALIFICATIONS to choose a good feminist. But I wouldn't pretend otherwise. And I would probably be interested in engaging with my readers to figure out who would be of interest and who would not be. And I can use the wikipedia, and I can read other sites.

Am I saying Golis is a bad person? No. I am just wondering what his qualifications are that enable him to pick which brand of feminists to give a platform to.

Because it's apparent his picks are pretty sucky and chosen with a nod towards political correctness, and he could do with some help.

I visit this site because I like the discussions, although I might not pick the same columnists or even posters. The cost of entry to create a blog site is fairly low, so if you are dissatisfied with the purity of its feminist credentials, you are certainly able to create an alternative site.

What? I have to leave because I think the moderator is ignorant about feminism and toes the party line with remarkably uniform and typical speakers when he could be giving a platform to more interesting viewpoints?

Jeez, HC, sorry I said anything, it almost makes me sorry I wrote that comment above!

-- 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.

HC, If I could channel the Temple of Lesbos, I wouldn't be here.

(Uh, oh, I hope I didn't offend the speech police that have gone after Sadly, No!, TBogg, Kos, AND now want Josh Marshall to do some weeding at TPM Cafe!!!!!!)

deleted post posted in wrong place.

"It is a bit frightening, despite denials, how easily certain groups are designated sacrosanct and out goes freespeech"

You mean, like AIPAC?

After your backhand to MJR a while back, this comment seems a bit disingenuous........

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

Nice Beatlejuice reference.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Yea, I think we're just having a "semantic misconvergence" or something like that. heh.

My definition of apology automatically includes real contrition. Lip service, alone, doesn't count.

However, actions take time, and the first action is often the verbal apology.

Your initial comment seemed to say he should be punished, imo rather harshly, until he completes his full contrition. You seem to be classing him as a "shock jock" which is true, but he's a lot better tan most, so it seems to be guilt by association.

My response being that some lesser crimes, for people who are merit it, certainly can result in "parole" while amends are being made. So the severity of the crime/mistake, the context, the intent, and the person certainly do matter.

Another argument against Imus was he had made racist remarks before. Which, I think isn't really fair as the example cited was seven years ago, and I don't see this comment as really intending racism so much as a botched attempt at "hip" language and social commentary.

Regardless, the vast majority of people who rushed to judge him certainly didn't attempt to think all this through or give him a 'fair trial' so there is also a kind of mistrial quality of all of this.

I'm betting when everything settles down, there will be a slight OJ moment, but we'll see. Frank Rich for example, who I generally like and respect, made a persuasive argument. Bob Herbert, who I also like and respect, and even wrote a letter to praise him years ago which he responded to, made imo a less persuasive and mre hot-headed argument.

Al Sharpton is the worst example of populist, but other leaders have unfortunately also been known to either jump on bandwagons or silence themselves. Understandably, to an extent.

Yes, private sites are well within their rights to create echo chambers if they choose. And yes, there's utility in specialization and delegating expertise even on matters of cultural authority, endorsing dogma to some extent.

Again, I don't know what Golis thinks or intends or what TPM policies are so I can't comment on that.

I would agree the feminist contributors seem to be on the same branch as Feministing, which is only one branch on the tree. It's well known prominent others have major differences with them about some goals and methods.

And, unless I'm missing it, I don't see that diversity represented here.

It would benefit everyone to broaden the discussion to include other prominent branches of feminism. Not to fight or quibble. That wouldn't help anyone.

But to offer different ideology and positive solutions to problems, informing and benefiting readers to better choose their own way.

...

Also, discussing PC language censorship, with no mention of alternative feminist POV, is implying a kind of monolithic agreement on the issue among feminists. That tends to encourage some to rush to their defense as defending feminism in general. Not so.

words as social infection...

passing virus along...

to paraphrase guns and people adage, words do not hurt people, malice does.

I do not watch TV to much, but when I came home on the day Imus thought-crime took airwaves by storm, my wife was curious what was it that Imus said. Once she learned the n..y word and h. word, I cannot tell that she was particularly infected.

Unnecessary repetition of what obviously was an insult should be avoided, but when TV talking heads are waiting for censors to explain if they can utter the phrase or not, something is a bit ridiculous.

And were girls "exploited" if every other talking head was stressing that Imus undoing was in attacking innocent accomplished girls, as opposed to, say, very highly paid athlete or a very well known politician. I think not.

I am more amazed at the syndrom of self-styled "news channels" talking around the clock about "the story" an pretty much ignoring everything else. Until the next "story" comes. But the persistent problem is tedium and triviality of news, not exploitation.

I was thinking about posting on this, but I think I'll wait until we get to the argument over the debate regarding the controversy about the controversy.

Some Imus show humor that I've been reading about lately:

1. The Palestinians are animals and should all be killed.

2. Kylie Minogue wouldn't be so pretty when she had one breast and a bald head (from cancer treatment).

3. Venus and Serena Williams should have been in National Geographic instead of Vogue.

4. Imus attacks on the "fat wife" of the journalist who exposed the financials of his scam "charity" ranch.

I thought Frank Rich's article made no sense at all. What have the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers ever done that they should be compared with this bilge?

The strange thing is that it went on so long. Why should we - women and blacks, etc. - have to take it? Why should we have to take it that major American corporations, CBS, NBC, Proctor and Gamble, American Experss, etc. are financing this viciousness?

I only rate 5's or not at all, pretty much. If I like the comment, I like it.

You do not consider the Temples of Lesbos or Diana historically significant in the development of feminist thought? I also referred to Gaia, although others prefer Earth-Mother. For a popular reference, see Jean Shinoda Bolen's Goddesses in Everywoman: A New Psychology of Women, although this certainly is a starting point. It is best read, of course, with a preparation in symbolism, including Frazer's The Golden Bough, Jung's Man and his Symbols, and either Joseph Campbell or deeper work in anthropology.

While those were some quick references, I could have referred, at length, to Goddess-worship and its relationship to feminist thought, as well as many issues of psychology, today. The specific references, in Jungian terms, are archetypes, even if one is not a believer in the ancient Greek pantheon. Kali, for example, is an aspect of the Earth Mother, who can take as well as give life.

Further removed, but still relevant, is the issue, in neopagan symbolism, is the exclusive role of the Earth Mother, as opposed to the Duality. For the record, my own meditations are more on the latter. One should not forget the idea of the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone.

Sorry, this wasn't a cheap shot sneering reference to modern lesbians.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"I am more amazed at the syndrom of self-styled "news channels" talking around the clock about "the story" an pretty much ignoring everything else. Until the next "story" comes. But the persistent problem is tedium and triviality of news, not exploitation."

I know people always say that about the cable news channels but I usually find something important, even very important, in these stories that become 24/7 on cable news. Having watched a little of the Anna Nicole hearings, the important thing that came through to me was the cavalier way that jerk of a judge was treating something that was heartbreakingly important: the well being of a baby whose health and safety may well be at risk and the likely father's distress at not being able to have that baby as soon as humanly possible. I thought it was pretty disturbing to turn that into a joke, too. Its a good reason to change the laws so that judges are accountable to being more responsible.

The Imus show has been an evil force in our country for a heck of a long time, a powerful evil force considering the people involved. A lot of people are like the Munchkins liberated when Dorothy's house lands on the witch.

:-)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I find that most of the attacks on AIPAC are just anti-Semitism dressed in an acceptable coat. Rarely does anyone layout what AIPAC's positions are, because they probably don't know, or how it has this vast power attributed to it. The power it is given is very similar to the "secret cabal" like nature attributed to Jews for centuries. It is why I respond to the bigots. Stupid should be answered with reason and facts.

Rosenberg is a most dishonest poster on this site. He won't respond to how much support his positions have in either Israel or the U.S. He never quite explains how AIPAC has its power or how many Israelis' deaths would be acceptable to him Finally, he never acknowledges that virtually everyone of his posts, except the ones calling for Imus's firing, result in a festival of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic posts.

I have asked Andrew Golis to add an additional voice from Rosenbergs. Golis seems indifferent to the one sided nature of the site. However, it would never occur to me to demand Rosenberg or bigots who flock to his posts to be banned.

As Justice Holmes said every idea is an incitement. However, unless a distinction is made between speech no matter how stupid or bigoted, which should be answered, and action, which maybe should be banned, free speech will be very endangered.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Well, yes, but think of the way Gwen Ifill put it on MTP the other day, that when Imus ridiculed her as the cleaning lady she didn't say anything because "it wasn't a big deal" and she was doing well in her career. So even someone WITH a platform is likely intimidated from speaking back to vicious, extremely personal, demeaning remarks that Don Imus's show was famous for, not to mention those remarks were endorsed by among the most powerful people in the world who were his guests and friends.

And, IMO, those Imus show remarks are very important and this is not a little issue. Harry Truman integrated the army after WWII not because Truman was such a good guy but as a direct response to black soldiers returning from WWII and getting beaten up by local rednecks when they off the buses in their home towns. The reason: to let those black soldiers know what their place was. The Imus show was verbal beating up on people to keep them in their place. Women were the main targets of Imus's cruelty from what I saw. It was a "He Man Woman Haters Club" mostly, with a few little "Darlas" let in.

In other words, challenging his credentials seems about as relevant as challenging the credentials of an editorial page director of any major newspaper.

Right, because bloggers, professors, pundits, and journalists everyday do not question the qualifications and content of the WSJ Editorial Page, the New York Times Editorial Page, and the Washington Post Editorial Page almost every single day.

I suspect that's happened even at TPM and TPMMuckraker.

Why is the editorial page director here sancrosanct?

We seem to have a dialogue of pro/con voices on things like free trade vs. fair trade, and health care and even net neutrality. Yet the same "editorial page director" here seems to give us one voice on feminism and some have said, one voice on Israel (though I do not perceive that myself.)

Why do we get disparate views on some issues, but only a single, canonical, expected, politically correct view on other issues?

I suspect it is because the "editorial director" doesn't really have a whole lot of experience concerning feminism (and maybe Israel.)

Andrew Golis is paid to do this, but is that his only qualification?

Why do we only get one voice, why is it a problem to ask about that, and why do you suggest someone has to leave this site instead of asking that question?

In our discussions HC, you have brought out your experiences many times, and we are all informed by that and that increases our confidence when you speak in certain areas and decreases our confidence when you speak outside those areas. It's very useful information.

I have not done that nearly as much, but I have done that some.

Andrew? What are his qualifications to choose feminist voices?

Why has he chosen to enable already well-known bloggers, and bloggers that have been linked to bigoted, sexist speech?

Why not choose individuals that are not well known in our community? Or individuals well known in their profession but with a different views so that we have an actual dialogue between the various guests as well as the readers here?

Does Andrew really want to provide multiples viewpoints on some issues and a single viewpoint on feminism? I doubt that. I suspect he is just ignorant. I think the community can help him.

Does TPMCafe really want to provide yet another forum for the standard canonical typical feminist viewpoint? The net already has many sites like that, where is the added value in that?

I think the value of TPMCafe is to have true discussions, discussions where we don't have to worry about being called trolls, or toeing some non-reality based political agenda. Discussions where community can have a dialogue with community leaders about the important issues of the day, and everyone can learn.

That's what I see here in free trade/fair trade,
democratic politics, the war, healthcare, why should I leave just because this is not what is happening in feminism?

Why not first ask why this is happening with feminism here?

Do the top tier feminist bloggers need another site adhering to their talking points? Do well known feminists that have voices in many venues need another venue where they will safely be unchallenged? Does TPM Cafe want to give a platform and enable hate speech? Consider Gwen Ifill speaking about how white pundits enabled Don Imus before you answer.

-- 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.

Right, because bloggers, professors, pundits, and journalists everyday do not question the qualifications and content of the WSJ Editorial Page, the New York Times Editorial Page, and the Washington Post Editorial Page almost every single day.

Does Andrew really want to provide multiples viewpoints on some issues and a single viewpoint on feminism? I doubt that. I suspect he is just ignorant. I think the community can help him.

Does TPM Cafe want to give a platform and enable hate speech?

why should I leave just because this is not what is happening in feminism?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I find that most of the attacks on AIPAC are just anti-Semitism dressed in an acceptable coat.

Well, we all have our biases. Some take a look at this phony alias at the end of my messages and downrate, or attack because they don't have a clue that it's an Italian name.

So when I read in your post that Andrew Golis, Josh Marshall, and the entire site are "one-sided" when it comes to views on Israel, and MJ Rosenberg wants to sacrifice Israeli lives, are you not also calling them anti-semitic by the implication?

Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

Howard,
I'm really not thinking in terms of "victims." Like Gwen Ifill, everybody gets on with their lives.

I'm thinking in terms of right and wrong and that we expect our top, top politicians and media people and big corporations to be ethical, to be for "right." I am sure that all of them talk a good game about being for opportunity for all people. The Imus program's cruel humor had an agenda and it does make you wonder how much those politicians, media, corporations really like that agenda, in their heart of hearts. The agenda is keeping people in their place, one way or another. If you can't do it by law, do it by making them afraid of how they'll be treated. Most people will pull back and be quiet; some people will be confrontation and then they can be labeled as difficult, etc.

I think there is something really, really disturbing about such a top level of our country being involved with this shock jock the way they were and what they meant by it, much as they now pretend to be ignoramuses.

Nonsense.

It was up to the team to decide whether or not they wanted to meet with Imus. They made their choice and it should be respected. They must have had their reasons.

No one takes their pride away unless they let them.

Give'm some credit for being adults.

A "quick quip" is not good enough, it has to be followed by actions. But the verbal apology is the first step.

Regardless, immediately calling for his head, and your no apologies, immediate action mindset is very harmful. Mobs with pitchforks don't benefit or elevate the nation in any way.

To make an analogy, Saddam Hussein was by anyone's account a brutal dictator and mass murderer. Clearly guilty and beyond reprieve. Yet, was our rush to war on falsehoods and conflating him with 9/11 helpful? Did it make us a wiser and more just nation? How about his botched, mob-like execution? Did that make Iraq's violent chaos and our complicity any better?

Does mob-justice ever elevate society? How about vigilantism? How about the presumption of guilt as a good model for justice?

Obviously Imus isn't being executed, not literally anyways. Some would argue it's not a good analogy. Well, the essential nature of a mob is a rush to hasty justice and a tendency to do more harm than good on average. Mob mentality at the root is the same, regardless of scale. Again, referring to the banality of evil and the recognition we all have better angels and demons on our shoulders.

Even if we were to presume the right person was lynched this time, mobs who rush judgment will on average do far more harm than good.

Let's not forget the Duke mob rush to judgment and many others recently. That finally came to close about the same time as the Imus affair drove it from the headlines, and short circuited a meaningful discussion on a much larger problem.

How about stepping back from the Imus affair, or the Duke affair, and looking at a broader issue.

Media sensationalism and fear mongering occurs daily, from almost every outlet, on everything from WMD on the NYT front page, to Orange Alerts from nationalistic authoritarians, to shootings being used alternatively pro/con gun control, etc.

Who benefits by this rampant sensationalism? CNN, FOX, CBS/NBC, NYT, WaPo, LAT, and so on make money coming and going, and have exacerbated a kind of mutually negating sectarian chaos. In many ways, it truly is a Brave New World we live in. Media outlets capture the public's twitch attention, a biologicaly driven captivation with scandal, crime, violence, hate, angst, fear, and other sensations of our worst and lowest nature. Prejudices and knee jerk judgments are reinforced. People are driven deeper and deeper into theire respective camps, each with a bogey man to blame for all the worlds problems.

Very few are cooperating or coming together to find consensus and make meaningful change.

If people want to indict the media, yeah, let's indict the whole media for sensationalism and encouraging people to be scared and angry knee-jerkers all the time, while they continue to profit, and while a status quo is maintained. I'm confident that's a solid case against the media that will stand a healthy debate.

offtopic but,

I considered that, nothing or five, but it lacks descriptive utility if you mostly agree with a post but some part is off.

So I go mostly nothing, some 4 and 5. Also, I rate on a sliding scale, so commenters I think more highly of may get a mix of more 4's and 5's.

Numerical rating is pretty meaningless really and often abused. Descriptive rating, and of course an actual response, is much more useful.

If a comment offers an interesting POV, but the reader isn't sure about complete factual accuracy or if one would agree with the comment in full.

What is that? It has utility to the discussion, but might not be the final word, and may even contain factual inacuracies. A 5 for effort? A knee-jerk rating for tone and where the reader suspects the discussion might lead and his/her personal bias? Nothing? Any simplistic numerical rating is going to be very flawed.

Must be a slow day eh?

I find the trend more like Orwell's telescreens and doublespeak in 1984, then the feel-good sex, drugs, and, if not rock & roll, music of Huxley's Brave New World. If one ignores the Violent Passion Surrogate treatments in Huxley's book, BNW was a society of excessive happiness. I see an uncomfortable similarity between Orwell's Two Minutes' Hate and talk radio, save only that talk radio lasts longer.

Well, I didn't mean to launch us into a literary debate, so I apologize for that. But you're making a good point for what it's worth in the abstract. What mechanisms seem familiar from Brave New World and 1984, in regards to thought control.

Yes, the two minutes of hate seems very familiar.

But no way can I agree BNW was a society of excessive happiness. Maybe you're just goading me into doing your typing, but certainly it's obvious there was no freedom in BNW, and that consumption, as well as every emotion from joy to angst, hatred and aspiration, was strictly controlled to make willing slaves of the populace. They people of BNW were ignorant slaves, divided and conquered, programed to hate each other and mutually cancel each other out.

Every citizen in BNW was indoctrinated at a young age to color-code themselves into opposing groups, with strong hatred for some, aspirations to be others. They received this programming through messages whispered into their pillows while asleep. I.e. they were programmed while vulnerable. They were further socialized into bubbles throughout life, so as to reinforce programming. All of which was carefully balanced to be self defeating.

Now, I don't want to make too much of a fictional work. But Orwell and Huxley were fictionalizing real world ideologies and historical movements.

The endless warfare and totalitarianism of 1984 is clearly an allegory to WWII and various totalitarian ideologies. The two minutes of hate an allegory to the harshest state propaganda.

But the thought control and branding of self identification in BNW, is clearly an allegory for various Machiavellian means to manipulate the populace, using divide and conquer to maintain a status quo, even with the illusion of freedom and prosperity, slaves who don't even know they're slaves. Red's programed to fight blues, and vs versa.

That's not an abstract concept either. Divide and conquer is an ancient strategy to enslave. Take the British occupation of India for example, which is most useful not as an example of divide and conquer, which are many, but because of Gandhi's unique message. Another example would be MLK.

These leaders saw divisiveness itself as the problem and realized any hostile action would play against themselves in a hostile media environment. So, instead of militarizing and playing further into the hands of those who controlled the media and would divide them into defeat, they preached reason, calm, pragmatism, non-violence, physically and psychologically, and ultimately unity to accomplish viable goals.

That is what we are missing in all the various culture wars today.

That is why we need to focus on unity and positive messages, not give in to our demons that would have us lynching one another, forming angry mobs, censoring and joining PC brigades, focusing on differences rather than commonalities, and otherwise continuing to chase our tails and defeat ourselves.

It's reasonable to say representatives from major branches of Feminism are in fact absent here.

Without guessing on intentions, that represents a de facto tilt in contributors. TPM can't claim to represent contributors from the broad range of Feminists, or even more than one branch, and maybe it makes no claim to.

But clarifying that would be useful for some perspective.

Perhaps I have gained cynicism since college, but, I suspect even at the same age, I would not have been willing to accept a prompt apology from one whose occupation involved manipulating emotion. In an unrelated discussion tonight, I happened to be speaking of someone who might attempt to get forgiveness from myself and others to whom she caused vast financial and emotional damage. Without really thinking about it, I observed that I was sufficiently proficient at judo that I could literally throw her further than I would trust her.

Manipulating opinion is not a career I tend to associate with transcendent truth.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

It's not just class struggle... Where did you get that? It's way more than that. It's a totalitarian state where everyone is programed into groups of identity on every level, not merely caste.

They're pitted against each other along planned lines, given rations of hate and angst, by which the state controls their desire for enemies and opposition to overcome. Conversely, they're also told how to enjoy themselves, given rations of pleasure, as drugs, consumption, to control thier desire for staus, gratification, physical pleasure, etc. Everything is controlled, the ultimate totalitarian state.

The programming occurs when people are asleep, or otherwise vulnerable, and then reinforced by a deliberate segregation of society and constant media reinforcement.

You read it right, not just the cliff notes?

Excellent point. Most of us get our news from other sources. We come here to discuss, dissect and sometimes mock it.

Every viewpoint need not be presented here. If it's absent but relevant, the commenters will bring it into the discussion.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I don't think that's at all realistic, and I think you're buying into a clever but false argument.

Part of the difference, though, is that the health care policy discussion was a short-term, one-week discussion.  The regular writers are more generally in agreement -- on all issues.

Also, I've never seen a claim that TPMCafe represents all the viewpoints on any topic.  Part of my quibble, I think, is that all of this is more of a "meta" discussion, something dealing with editorial decisions.  So maybe it deserves a specific email to Andrew (as opposed to invoking him in a thread) or a specific discussion topic?

I simply don't see your point. Most of the regulars read other sources of opinion, be they blogs, mailing lists, think tank papers, etc., beyond the MSM. Many of the regulars also have one or more fields of personal expertise in which they stay especially well informed.

Also, many regulars recognize there are just so many brain cycles per day, and, especially when the political and ideological meet, may choose to follow certain areas. This is also true of cultural things.

It happened that one of my phys ed teachers in high school had been the 1952 NBA Rookie of the Year, never let anyone forget it, and infused me with a joyful desire to avoid as much basketball as possible. I have absolutely no idea what tournament standing the Rutgers women have, and do not feel ignorant not having that knowledge. I will accept that they are skilled, graceful, and true scholar-athletes. That being said, I will spend much of my day today dealing first with automating the clinical staging of cancer pathology, then scrubbing a badly infested Windows system of malware, and, if a client breaks free of the venture capitalists, collaborate on a patent application. When I am at my desk, during these things, I occasionally take a break and read TPMcafe.

I am concerned with human rights in general, and especially with privacy in healthcare. I simply have no particular desire to explore the nuances of different branches of feminism, as opposed, say, to Muslim theology, detailed developments in Sudan, or recent research in Internet protocols. If TPMcafe is lacking in branches of feminism, I am not particularly perturbed by that.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Lord, she would hate you saying she's HOT! Whether you think they look nice or skanky or like tanks, women really don't like appearance compliments, IMO, because it puts them in the position of everywhere they go, everyone they meet, they are waiting to get past that appearance compliment. Men are not in that position and if you could only understand the difference.

Well, yes, of course there was an intimidation not to say anything and that was obvious from her interaction with Tim Russert on Sunday. Don't you think she was waiting for him to say something about Imus offensive remark back in the 90's when it happened and he was a colleague at NBC? Put yourself in that position.

You keep suggesting Imus only intended to make a "prompt apology" or "quick quip" and then walk away with out any follow-up or commitment to real atonement.

Do you have any evidence of that you can cite?

Has he not done much charitable work and other actions to illustrate his desire to give value to the community over the years?

Manipulating opinion is not a career I tend to associate with transcendent truth.

Yep, I understand one of the tactics of shock jocks is to premise arguments on falsehoods, which they repeat endlessly, until they're presumed to be true.

Well, with any work of art one is free to interpret any meaning. I just don't see any reasonable argument for it. So we agree to disagree, and it's been interesting regardless of that point.

According to the author, totalitarianism is the central thesis of the work, but instead of the hard coercion in 1984, it's soft coercion and mind control. He was inspired by 1984, real-world totalitarian regimes and propaganda. In either novel, the end result is the complete dehumanization and control of humanity, a nightmare completely inescapable.

1984, was analogous to Nazis or Stalinists. Of course their totalitarianism was never complete, there were always pockets of resistance and free thought. But in 1984, the totalitarianism was complete, a black hole without hope of escape. That Smith finally gives up in the end, admitting 2+2=5, that is the ultimate warning to never let such complete totalitarianism exist.

The totalitarianism of BNW is more analogous with market systems and informal colonialism, which use soft coercive power. Iron fists in velvet gloves, exploitation of class and sectarian divisions to diffuse hostility away from rulers, and heavy use of cultural manipulation and suggestion. For example, BNW suggested commercials would be carefully tailored to individual sects of society to play on their pre-programed goals and aspirations, giving the illusion of free choice. They would also be inflamed by propaganda to maintain rivalry between sects, to accomplish the goals of a ruling cabal. Their sexuality and spirituality would be dulled by substances and periodically released in orgies of sex and/or violence.

Even the notion of rebellion and individuality spontaneously arising, was deterministic and programmed. Hence the ending in defeat.

BNW imagines a world where the manipulation of the public into sectarian and class divides is complete, where every emotion and drive has been coerced and manipulated via suggestion and carefully orchestrated mind control. There is zero freedom in Huxley's Brave New World. The final suicide of the the protagonist, as with Smith, is a warning to never let such totalitarianism and mind control exist.

Real world allegories include, consolidation of the media, rampant consumerism and materialism for gratification and values, and a society fractured into sects which are literally color coded as in BNW, then set upon each other like so many sports teams with passionate rivalries.

Totalitarian isn't simply harsh repression such as in 1984. It can also be quite seductive as illustrated by BNW. And people are much easier to train and open to Pavlovian control than is often admitted.

Oh, and again what Ifill actually said was:

"it wasn't a big deal"

So while you may be "putting yourself in that position" to infer her "intimidation" ...

I'll just stick with what she said if you don't mind. I don't necessarily expect my emotional truths and outlook to be universal. I think she is capable of speaking for herself and being taken literally.

Much like the athletes, who I also suspect are capable of speaking for themselves and deciding if they want to meet with Imus. But we disagree on that too.

The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers have been the subject of several large controversies and censorships since the mid 90's alleging they're too violent for kids.

The controversy is motivated by the same PC issues as the Imus controversy. Imus allegedly did great harm to adults with his comments, and MMPR allegedly teaches millions of children to be violent. Which is worse if you apply the same PC standards?

So it's a perfectly valid point Frank Rich made about hypocrisy and arbitrary mobs.