Yesterday, on the recommended list there was a thoughtful proposal to revise the Draft Bigotry rule Markos proposed.
Markos' proposal read:
3. Bigotry.
Any language designed to denigrate someone on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, physical appearance, etc. is prohibited. Leave that shit to the Republicans.
The post from yesterday proposed the following change:
Any language, pictures, videos, cartoons, "jokes" or similar mediums of expression that denigrate, stereotype, or characterize recognized or historical targets of sexism, racism, discrimination or prejudice on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation/gender identity, religion, nationality, physical appearance, etc. is prohibited. Leave that shit to the Republicans.
This rule recognizes that this is not a post-racial or post-sexism world, and will be interpreted with that spirit and intent.
Here is my proposed compromise. I'll state it first and offer my explanation below the jump.
Any language designed to denigrate someone on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, physical appearance, etc. is prohibited. Leave that shit to the Republicans.
Furthermore, we recognize that denigrating language aimed at recognized or historical targets of sexism, racism, discrimination or prejudice on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation/gender identity, religion, nationality, physical appearance, etc. is especially harmful because it reinforces the existing structures of oppression. Although we will not tolerate denigrating language aimed at anyone, we recognize that not all insults are morally equivalent.
I agree that some insults are more hurtful than others, and I recognize that some are backed by structural oppression and others are not. Hurling the n-word is not morally equivalent to calling someone a honky, or whatever. We're in full agreement on that. There is no moral equivalency between insults aimed at a black person and those aimed at a white person for exactly the reasons yesterday's post stated. (I use white and black as the two most obvious examples, but of course there are countless other possible comparisons.)
Nevertheless, I am a human being. I am just as much a human being as anyone else on this site. I refuse to be insulted. I refuse to be part of a community that would allow someone to insult me with impunity.
The change proposed in yesterday's post tells me that I have no right to participate in this community free of bigoted insults -- and whether or not bigotry is backed by structural oppression, it remains bigotry. It tells me that I am a less valued member of this community because of my gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. There is no question that that is what it tells me.
This is a community. In a community, people treat each other as they want to be treated. I know that the authors of yesterday's post, people I respect a great deal, believe that as well.
Two things need not be morally equivalent for both of them to be wrong, and hurtful. The existence of one wrong, even a great one, can't justify the committing of another wrong, even a lesser one. How can it be possible to have a set of rules that does not require each of us to have the same level of respect for one another?
Winning the fight against structural oppression is not aided one iota by suggesting -- even by omission -- that it's "ok" to use group-based insults against straight, white men. In fact, there is no question that it only entrenches the exact kind of groupthink at the heart of oppression.
But even if that were not the case, the rule proposed in yesterday's post would still be morally wrong. Morality requires us to see one another as equally worthy of respect as human beings. This proposed rule at least suggests -- again, by omission -- that some members of this community are less worthy of respect than others.
Finally, Daily Kos is above all a partisan political website. Do you think the biggest Democratic website in the country would do well to put the message out there that we only reject bigotry when it insults whites or males or straights or Protestants? Do you doubt that that message wouldn't be used by right-wing demagogues as evidence that we believe members of those groups are second class members of the Democratic community?
I believe the compromise I've proposed above is an effective one. It incorporates the absolutely correct point made in yesterday's post about structural oppression making certain kinds of insults especially harmful. At the same time, it makes clear that all of us has the right to expect that they will not be targeted by bigotry. Both of those are important points, and there is absolutely no reason our policy on bigotry can't include both of them.
PS-I don't know that I need to say this, but obviously I am speaking here as nothing more than a member of the DK community. Although I am now a featured writer (oooh), I am in no way speaking for Kos, the site, the admins, the "powers that be," or any other such "establishment."