Skip to main content

We all tend to judge our own speech placing high priority on our own intentions. In contrast it's so easy to judge others' speech placing higher priority on the outcome, however we perceive it. What if we could set aside that judgment and simply become  more mindful of the violence in our own vernacular. I'm inviting you to join me as we pay attention to the way our own words shift the emotional tone. How much priority do we place on being right? Isn't it more satisfying to be effective?

The difference, many times, can be found in the way our vernacular can shift the emotional tone.

This diary is dedicated to rexymeteorite and joedemocrat for their passion, their creativity, their courage and the high hopes we shared.

Editor's Note: This section is an excerpt adapted from Vernacular and Euphemisms - Get Out! Trigger warning? STFU! by LilithGardener, published with the Courtesy Kos group on May 31, 2014. It has been lightly edited for this series. The xkcd cartoon is new for this published edition.

Each of the terms in that title are words in the modern lexicon of dialogue. They mean something in context that is different than the literal meaning of the words. They are short-hand forms of speech used by many people, especially young people, when they are having intimate conversations with people they know well. Two diaries had included STFU! in their titles last month. The second was a rebuttal of the first. The meaning of STFU! is heavily dependent on the relational context of speaker and listener. In some contexts, such as here at Daily Kos, STFU can be read as  extremely dismissive, insulting, and hostile, For some readers the term may even trigger memories of verbal abuse by a parent, teacher, partner or spouse.The power of the vernacular term STFU! is apparent in the way both ironic diaries express an urgent desire for more authentic connection. That aspect of vernacular is the focus of this diary.

Dear Men, STFU!

The first diary is ironic because in choosing a provocative title, the author deliberately invited attacks on himself and his desire to discuss male complicity in sexual violence. That is a man, doing some very heavy lifting, in terrain where angels fear to tread. It is an urgent call to men to practice being present, as a witness, to embrace the unspoken along with the spoken as women tell their personal stories.

STFU! Really?

The second diary is also ironic because the author's admissions include an implicit willingness to be vulnerable. He may be willing to hear the direct experience of another human being but he's not sure because vernacular like STFU! shuts him down. For him, and many others who recommended the diary, STFU! is a trigger that impedes their ability to engage. It's a trigger that takes them out of the present and shifts their internal focus to ugly memories of the past, when someone in authority made them sit there and be quiet while being lectured. It might recall to mind the relative helplessness of a child or a teen verbally battered by a parent or teacher who uses violence in their words and demeanor to berate and humiliate them. Those wounds are on the inside. Harsh words don't leave a bruise on the body, but they can leave a mark on the soul.

For the second author, STFU in the title was so repulsive, he didn't even bother to R-T-F-D. Yet, he wrote a compelling rebuttal. Both authors received hundreds of recommends and vigorous participation in the comment threads.

This diary is dedicated to Empty Vessel and gjohnsit.

Context matters

The actual meaning of these words and phrases depends heavily on context. Let’s begin with the urban dictionary.

Get Out!
Expression of disbelief, usually over something too good to be true. A phrase containing 'get out' usually ends with an exclamation point.

Bruno: And so all of the digits matched! That's 2.5 million right there, dude!
Ed: Get out! That's awesome!

In some contexts and in formal speech, “get out” usually means "leave this space immediately!" But in modern vernacular it can be an expression of joy. The context changes the meaning entirely.

An important aspect of context is the level of intimacy between the parties to the conversation. Most of us drop many rules of formal conversation when we are speaking to people we care about, when we are speaking to intimates. Many conversations this past week about sexual violence and misogyny involved very personal disclosures. IMO, many of the derailments involved an obvious desire to avoid frank disclosure of intimate violence. Some of those objecting, diverting, changing the subject, were deliberately and persistently attempting to shut the conversation down. They constitute an implicit rejection of the right to have such intimate conversations on the internet.

The most versatile word in the English language

Consider various uses of “fuck” listed in the urban dictionary. Many people still object to its use, as profanity, because for hundreds of years speaking directly about sex was considered profane.

fuck
1. The universally recognized "F word"
2. N. Implying complete and utter confusion
3. N. a really stupid person
4. V. To procreate
5. adj. Can be used to modify any word for more passion
6. Int. Expresses disgust
7. Int. Expresses complete suprise and joy (sic)
8. adv. Can be used to make a command more urgent
The F-word adds context-dependent richness to informal expressions of emotional experience. Compare, "That's so ridiculous I can hardly believe it!" with "WTF?!" The short-hand acronym is much easier to say and to type. In contrast, as used down below in the diary, "WTF is a trigger?" is used simultaneously to a) liven up a technical explanation, b) to soften emotional tone, and c) to signal tacit recognition that some readers may need a patient teacher to help them grasp the unfamiliar concepts. In that context, WTF is used as an informal invitation to learn, along the lines of, "Are you confused about this term? Don't worry! You're not alone. I won't diss you or make fun of your ignorance. If you engage here and read this, I will help you. I'll break it down for you." The context transforms the meaning of WTF? from shock and ridicule or outrage to a welcoming invitation to engage. Written expressions of WTF and STFU have diverse meanings that depend on the informal nature of the author-reader relationship.



In 2014 the vast majority of the time, when people include the word fuck in their expressions, they mean something far removed from fornication. To reject its many forms in modern vernacular is essentially a demand that formal language be used as a threshold for conversation.

The effect is to limit speech because it declares “out of bounds” many ways that people speak to each other in casual conversations they have with people they know well. A rejection of informal speech often amounts to a dismissal of “the other” as unworthy of serious attention. In many contexts a rejection of vernacular includes an implicit assertion of superiority. In our context, in diaries and comment threads over the past week, a rejection of the expression STFU! was often an assertion that intimate conversation about violence against women can be interrupted and dismissed without consequence.

The title Dear men, STFU! conveys a deep desire for less belligerence and bluster. It includes an implicit invitation to men to set aside everything they thought they already knew about sexual violence and focus on someone telling their story. To be present as if you could actually walk in someone else's shoes for awhile. Dear men, STFU! is an invitation to become more authentic, more intimate, to keep listening even when you don't understand. The diary models for men how common habits interfere with what many men and women want, the experience of being heard. It is an invitation to stop debating, stop problem solving, stop asking "How did this happen?" It's an invitation specifically to men, to practice, here at Daily Kos, listening to someone important, a wife, a daughter, a partner, a friend as they tell their stories, in their own vernacular and on their own terms, rather than demanding that they first conform to yours before you'll even "let them" begin.

Dear men, STFU! is an invitation to bear witness.

In the second diary the author took offense to the title and admits he is rebutting a diary that he didn't read. He states clearly why STFU! is a barrier to engagement, for him. It stands in his way. He doesn't get why other people saw the same term, STFU! as an invitation to engage more deeply. There is some merit to his rant and many Kossacks agreed. He calls us to be more aware of how violence creeps into our vernacular where it doesn't belong.

On the other hand, if someone can't be bothered to read the diary, and then posts a rebuttal anyway, are they even ready to listen? Isn't that just having an argument with their own imagination? Did he want active dialogue? It's not clear. He honestly admits to a significant laziness about the topic of sexual violence, and for that, many readers dismissed his point of view. But wait. That means an author took time to articulate his outrage against what he imagines about a topic he admits he doesn't understand, a topic he can't be bothered to read about. The experience has been so bad for him that it makes Daily Kos seem like a worthless place to be. To his credit he didn't just leave. He invited witnesses to the conversation he’s been having in his head up to now. I stand in awe of such courage.

STFU! Really? is an invitation to bear witness to the way violence in language interferes with intimacy.

Listening to the violence in our words and the silence between them

George Carlin made an important point about the way euphemisms {insert the video} dilute and diminish our ability to describe a state of extreme pain and distress. In recent weeks, I’ve read posts by Kossacks I respect that show they have little or no comprehension of trauma. There was a diary about trigger warnings in which some Kossacks said they think people who talk about triggers are ginning up faux outrage. The ignorance on display was alarming.

I felt embarrassed for them and very disappointed. How could my progressive brethren be so clueless? I suppressed an urge to reply that they should STFU.

Does it ALWAYS matter?
Why?

As disappointing as it was to read those comments, they weren’t hijacking the diary. They weren’t posting the same assertions again and again across multiple diaries with no respect for the topic of the diary. They were participating in a discussion and they honestly didn’t know that their flat rejection of the entire concept could be hurtful to those who cope with PTSD every fucking day. Their honesty exposed a vulnerability and their courage. They were willing to expose their internal dialogue to public scrutiny. They were earnest enough to say, “Looks like BS to me. I don’t get it.” I cherish and respect that willingness to engage the topic.

I raise my hat to all the women who have shared their stories here and in the #YesAllWomen Twitter campaign. I thank all those who stood with them and supported them. The two diaries I'm defending both deal with the hidden ways that violence creeps into our vernacular and shuts down authentic dialogue.

This is why I read Daily Kos. It's why I blog about gun law here. And it's why we'll listen to your story even when you don't R-T-F-D.

Thanks for reading.

No more walking on eggshells. Let's keep talking!



7:31 PM PT: A few of you have written to ask where I am. Thank you for your concern. I've been lurking and listening. In this Listening session I laid out what I think pretty clearly in the diary and wanted all of you to feel free to engage each other and follow your conversations wherever they meander. I also had some real life matters, and will come through tomorrow to read/reply in more detail. We can keep it going as long as any of you want to continue. Serendipityisabitch has published a terrific reply diary in which she makes some excellent arguments. Here's the link: Walking on Eggshells - Are we asking the wrong questions?


Originally posted to Occam was an Optimist on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:01 AM PDT.

Also republished by Walking on Eggshells, Support the Dream Defenders, and Political Language and Messaging.

Poll

Common terms in modern vernacular like STFU and RTFD are...

9%5 votes
9%5 votes
22%12 votes
1%1 votes
11%6 votes
13%7 votes
1%1 votes
1%1 votes
16%9 votes
11%6 votes

| 53 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  David Gilmour - High Hopes (Remember That Night) (10+ / 0-)


     


    High Hopes by David Gilmour

    Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young
    In a world of magnets and miracles
    Our thoughts strayed constantly and without boundary
    The ringing of the division bell had begun

    Along the Long Road and on down the Causeway
    Do they still meet there by the Cut

    There was a ragged band that followed our footsteps
    Running before time took our dreams away
    Leaving the myriad small creatures trying to tie us to the ground
    To a life consumed by slow decay

    The grass was greener
    The light was brighter
    With friends surrounded
    The nights of wonder

    Looking beyond the embers of bridges glowing behind us
    To a glimpse of how green it was on the other side
    Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again
    Dragged by force of some inner tide

    At a higher altitude with flag unfurled
    We reached the dizzy heights of that dreamed of world

    Encumbered forever by desire and ambition
    There's a hunger still unsatisfied
    Though down this road we've been so many times

    The grass was greener
    The light was brighter
    The taste was sweeter
    The nights of wonder
    With friends surrounded
    The dawn mist growing
    The water flowing
    The endless river

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 07:05:22 AM PDT

  •  I rarely drop "F" bombs. (12+ / 0-)

    It's not that I find them particularly offensive, certainly not on a par with racial epithets or those used against minorities and women.  I simply find that by keeping that particular powder dry, it is more likely to have an impact on the rare occasion that I let fly.

    I don't remember ever having been tempted to do so online.  The word is so ubiquitous here as to be a waste of pixels, and it is utterly impossible to convey tone of voice so the risk of misinterpretation is enormous.

    STFU is what I'd call an "F-word variant," and one the meaning of which is entirely dependent upon context and tone.  I had commented in one of your earlier diaries that it always elicited a deep emotional reaction in me.  It turns out there's an exception which didn't occur to me at the time -- as a response to a surprising or unlikely declaration (e.g., "I won the lottery on Saturday!"  "STFU!")  Even then, it's not a usage I'd employ -- not that I have any objection, it simply wouldn't occur to me.

    I'm still thinking about a lot of what has been said in these diaries and the comments they've inspired.

    •  Hi jghousen, Your example there is the way (9+ / 0-)

      I would use it. I would never express in in anger. I can toss some trash talk at times, but it's usually in casual situation when a close group of friends are happy, and just horseing around. We would use exactly this way, in response to postitive good news.

      "I won the lottery on Saturday!"  "STFU!"

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  re: " I would never express in in anger" (8+ / 0-)

        Conversely, this is the only way I've been exposed to it's usage.  That is how I read it.

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:56:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I most commonly see it here in sentences . . . (9+ / 0-)

          which make that reading impossible. (e.g. "You need to just STFU.)

          •  I would include that usage (6+ / 0-)

            In the same context as being used in anger.  It is being used as in a manner meant as an affront or an invective.

            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

            by blackhand on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:34:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm trying to think if there is a time where (8+ / 0-)

            I've actually resorted to using that.  I've got to say, it would have to be an ongoing troll because I can't think of any.

            Most of the time, even with trolls, I say keep talking.  Just show how you're a fool and then that does my work for me.

            There are times where I get on my high-horse and bothered by certain things and I can't let it go.   I get that too... when you know you should back out of an argument and you just can't.. been there, done that.

            I wish I knew what about the human condition causes that.  Maybe it's pride or anger or adrenaline or something.

            Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

            by Chris Reeves on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:10:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  For me, it's the reopening of old wounds . . . (6+ / 0-)

              which I would very much like to think, having just turned sixty-three, that I had put to rest long ago.

              The good news is I find myself on auto-pilot in such cases far less frequently than in the past, but have to admit I still let it happen sometimes.

              •  God I get that.. (9+ / 0-)

                I don't go into this too often.. but there is a window in January, and another one in May that mark weird anniversaries for me.  First was a violent attack (January) that put me in coma/knocked me out of college for a while/etc.  and May is when we got to the sentencing of the people involved.

                It's been 19 years.. twenty years next year.  And every year it comes around and I'm just way more sensitive to that issue.

                A few years ago, the leader of that escaped jail, and he was finally recaptured two years ago... it's been better since then, but boy do I get the old triggers :(

                Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

                by Chris Reeves on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:39:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, it's clear you "get it." (9+ / 0-)

                  I've been reluctant to share any details of my triggers in the instant discourse for fear of their being misconstrued as a claim of equivalence.

                  Or perhaps I should say "perfect equivalence," since to some extent violence is violence.  It's just that there are distinctives of certain types of violence which are unique, and I would be loathe to say anything that might sound dismissive of the rampant misogyny in our society (to which even DK is not immune).

                    •  I think everone who has ever been through (9+ / 0-)

                      Something terrible or known people who have are never immune to it.   The year after my attacker broke out of prison, I refused to go to a function in my college home town where it happened.

                      Mentally, I knew this person would not be there.. they had fled far away.   But for whatever reason, I couldn't bring myself to walk by where it happened.. I was just too 'raw' I guess.

                      I had put a lot of it behind me but that year was really brutal.   I finally did make it back that way and when a friend was like 'oooh.. let's walk by the park!' I, yeah, a 30+ year old grown man at that point about cried.  It just struck me as so horribly insensitive that I couldn't relate to it.  I didn't want to go walk to the place where I was life-flighted from.. I didn't want to think about it.  When I said: "I don't want to" the guy response is: 'You're such a (guess the word)'

                      I haven't talked much to that friend in the 9 years since then.  Other friends just don't get it.. 'stop being a victim'..  I heard that same thing when I worked with women who had been through sexual abuse 'stop being'..

                      You can't stop being that thing.  It is what you are now.  Like it or not, I can't change the past.. I can't make that event not happen.  It is who I am, part of my life experience now.   Same for every woman who's been through abuse or rape.  They can get far away from it, move on, but it is still part of who we are.

                      It doesn't mean I dwell on it, or it makes me so unhappy I can't live with things.. or that I'm 'broken'.  In fact, in many ways I think it makes me stronger.  I've seen women who learned alot about themselves from terrible happenings..

                      But yeah, I don't get into that conversation with very many people.  For years, I would speak to High Schools about violent crime and abuse.. and there I would lay it all out.  But I would never have to deal with them again after that day.

                      And I will bet money that in many of those audiences there were kids (probably young boys, but I'm sure some young girls two) who were busy saying: "what a (word I removed from above).

                      And I think..

                      If you haven't seen the mountain, don't mock those of us who've made the climb.  You just don't have that experience.  And all of us hope you never do.  :)

                      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

                      by Chris Reeves on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 01:19:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  you know what? it's the "shut up" part (8+ / 0-)

            that bothers me. When I hear it in real life, I react badly to it. It feels like a punch in the gut. I may even react worse to plain "shut up" than to STFU. Spoken or written, t's just always seemed such an ugly sentiment, though even for me, there have probably been exceptions. Further complicating things,  written v. real life doesn't always translate the same way. Context.

            In real life, I'd honestly rather hear a string of cursing than to hear "shut up". If I had kids, the phrase would not be allowed in their vocabulary. I don't allow it from my nephews in my presence.

            As for the diary with that in the title, it had a particular context that I understood when I read the diary.

            •  Good point. (8+ / 0-)

              In connection to gender, a non-cuss phrase like "shut up" has a fundamentally different meaning.  

              That's why I thought the diary telling guys STFU-and-listen was worthwhile.  Men have long presumed to tell women to "shut up."  Traditionally, women have been able to do so (to men) only at the risk of violence or ridicule.

            •  If you want people to listen (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, wasatch

              it is very helpful not to insult them first.  I really do not like the words "Shut Up."  I have always viewed them as demeaning.  Adding the "F" word makes me think that the person who used it is very juvenile. It just piles a juvenile cuss word onto an already insulting phrase which immediately turns me off. JMHO.

              "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~ SouthernLiberalinMD

              by gulfgal98 on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 06:25:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Hi, Lillith. Now, to answer your question: (10+ / 0-)

        "Do you notice when you use it to shift the emotional tone?"

        I assume the "it" is violent vernacular.  Since civility has always been a high priority to me, I have always guarded against allowing violent, sexist, homophobic, or racially charged language entering into my lexicon.  So, if I fall into using it, it is certainly unwittingly.

        That said, I have certainly been guilty here of letting my tone get hostile in some of my comments, particularly in response to what I perceive as displays of prejudice or bigotry.  Since you started this series, I've been intentionally reviewing my posts and the reactions to them to determine how I might have communicated more clearly and with less (sometimes unintentional) hostility.

    •  Mentally rewarding (9+ / 0-)

      I wish I could say that I rarely drop them.  And in real conversation, I rarely do.  

      But I find that if I'm by myself, talking to myself I will use it often.  (Yes, I will talk outloud to a computer, even though I'm in IT, and I will give them a tongue lashing now and again)

      There is something rewarding about yelling at a high end piece of computer hardware with "YOU piece of S**.  What the F* is this now?  Come on!"

      I know that the receiver of my message - an inaminate piece of hardware cannot hear, respond or relate to anything I'm saying.

      But I still find it so rewarding to just say it out loud.  There is something very mentally rewarding about it.

      Last summer when trying to repair my raised garden, accidentally cut my leg - not bad but enough to hurt like heck moving a bush I didn't realize had needles on it.   I probably walked around the yard swearing profusely to the heavens above in a tapestry of profanity that if heard by any real person would have made me seem to have a real anger issue.

      But, once I was done I did 'feel' better.

      Can't explain it.   But I'll bet you that you also know someone who has sworn like a sailor at a washing machine, dish washer, garbage disposal, plumbing, a computer or a car once or twice.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:19:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Snark: fun among friends, not against rape victims (15+ / 0-)

    I was going to post this on your previous diary but will put it here instead.  I was going to agree with gjohnsit when I first read his diary, but went back and read the first STFU diary before I commented.  The first diary was well written and summarized things the women had tried to say.  The title would have been counterproductive if it had been written by a women; I changed my veiw when I realized the author was a man, speaking to other men.  It had not occurred to me that there would be two different views about whether rape is OK, or that so many men here think rape is a joke. I would not have ever said STFU, but the first diary tried to explain that snark and outright disrespect  are not appropriate responses to rape victims.

    Gun rights arguments can have more than one legitimate viewpoint.  I do not choose to own a gun, but do not want to confiscate hunting rifles from other people.  Almost everyone but gun merchants thinks the guys that tote big military-style guns into family restraunts are out of line.  A self-described hunter agreed with my comment:

    Are these rifle-toting guys planning on bagging themselves some venison behind the Burger King? Or are they going to turn a marauding squirrel into bullet-laced squirrel burger?
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    There was no significant disagreement on this website that Cliven Bundy is a crook and a jerk.  He really is a dangerous thug, but the Feds were right not to make a right-wing martyr of him.  The best initial tactic was to make Bundy and his pals objects of ridicule so their right-wing media support would evaporate.  Many people on this website helped produce some of the much-deserved ridicule.  Now it is up to the Feds to freeze his assets and arrest him.  The general agreement that Bundy had it coming made snarky comments about Bundy a bonding experience that was great fun for many people here.

    The recent fight started when a man posted a diary claiming that he had not ever known any man who had committed a rape.  He clearly implied that women exaggerate rape claims.  Several women responded by posting thoughtful and courageous diaries about their experiences involving misogyny and rape.  More diaries about misogyny appeared. Then comments started appearing that belittled the experiences women were trying to share.  Snark if fine and even productive when everyone is in agreement, but it is inappropriate and demeaning when used against crime victims.

    I am not about to go back and read those abusive threads again as you requested in your previous diary, and I cannot access the comments that have since been hidden.  This does not mean I did not see them. I am still upset by them. I do not know who is in which faction  around here, but the negative attitude toward women is pervasive. If our political system did not have the same dysfunction I would not bother to continue talking to anyone here.

    There are some people here who are kind and funny, but I do not want to invest the time and emotional energy to become friends if I can be kicked off this website for being opposed to abuse of rape victims. It is not clear to me what was done to stop the attacks on women, or why it took so long.  The bans and other sanctions do not seem to be due to attacks on female crime victims, and the logic involved is completely opaque to me.

    •  Thanks for posting this, allie4fairness (8+ / 0-)

      It does us goo, imo, to see what the behavior at this site looks like to a relative newcomer.

      This part of your comment particularly stood out to me:

      I do not know who is in which faction  around here, but the negative attitude toward women is pervasive. If our political system did not have the same dysfunction I would not bother to continue talking to anyone here.

      There are some people here who are kind and funny, but I do not want to invest the time and emotional energy to become friends if I can be kicked off this website for being opposed to abuse of rape victims. It is not clear to me what was done to stop the attacks on women, or why it took so long.  The bans and other sanctions do not seem to be due to attacks on female crime victims, and the logic involved is completely opaque to me.

      Much as I appreciate what Lilith is trying to do with this series, the series fails (imo) to take into account the site's factionalism, and the agenda-driven actions of one faction.

      I commented (today) in yesterday's diary about how that faction's entry into a thread changes the dynamics:

       http://www.dailykos.com/...

      •  Maybe the diary has your name on it? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silencio, jgilhousen

        And hey, I've only been at this for 2 weeks. Meta is boring to people like me. I usually write about gun law, so thesis is just a pause.  

        At this point I only have one thing to say about the factionalism.  Fight Threads happen where there is an audience. So those groups that game the rating system to get on the rec list... That may be fine for an action diary, but it's a misuse for the ordinary reports and commentary. Just my$.02

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:08:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure what your saying here, Lilith. (3+ / 0-)

          Could you expand?

          •  That you've noticed something important and (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            allie4fairness, CroneWit

            That should be addressed. My diaries tent to be very long to begin with, so I left that out of my "listening experiment" so far. It's on the list, just not near the top.

            By "have your name on it" I mean a topic that intrigues and caught your attention. As a relative newcomer you have an opportunity to hold a mirror up to the old timers. Hell, in relative terms, I'm newcomer too.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:48:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So 'has your name on it' = 'speaks to you' (3+ / 0-)

              in LilithSpeak, is that it?  (My friend and I use 'has my/your name on it' for a particularly cute blouse or other thingy found at the Recycle Give-Away or thrift stores.)

              I was concerned because I thought that might mean that you felt I might have been trying to take over your diary, or that I was somehow making a criticism (in the 'Stand-Up Guy' comment) of your diary/series that somehow invalidated what you are doing in that diary/this series.  (So glad to learn that isn't the case!)

              And this little mis-communication illustrates perfectly how valuable your suggestion to ask for explanation is!  While puzzling over your 'your name on it' comment, I almost began a reply that would have begun with something like, 'Lilith, I hope you didn't read my comment as in any way trying to take over your diary or as somehow invalidating your efforts . . ..'  Which would only have complicated communications more, because you would have had to reply to my misunderstandings before you could explain 'your name on it'.

              And I can see how, in a more heated setting, two people might have a similar communication, but the third comment could begin like 'How dare you accuse me of trying to take over your diary and invalidate your efforts!'.  Which could easily escalate to 'I'm not accusing you of anything, you liar!', and then farewell to Reason.  
              (Not that you or I would ever do such a thing, though! ;-) )

              So thanks for your reply!

              •  Yes, you got it. I usually write about gun law (3+ / 0-)

                because of my desire to really break it down to the lay person's level, first for myself. So after that I started writing what I was learning because it "had my name on it."

                Also a reference to passion, curiosity, or gift with a particular material, the same way you and your friends refer to clothing.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 07:17:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks. (3+ / 0-)

              “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

              by weezilgirl on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 05:37:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Why do you say "maybe the diary has (4+ / 0-)

          your name on it".

          Please explain.

          “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

          by weezilgirl on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:47:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  CroneWit referred me to her comment in your (5+ / 0-)

          earlier diary.  

          I saw the original fight because I was trying to rec women who had shared difficult experiences, and to make an occasional supportive comment to crime victims.  I have been involved in supporting rape victims before this.

          Many very conservative women will strongly deny that they have ever been abused.  When other women start sharing their experiences the conservative women often open up about their own experiences with abuse.

          Many conservative women support policies the Dem party claims to be promoting. Comments and attitudes displayed during the recent fight will not bring out the female vote.  Ask Todd Aiken.  

          The abuse of women is a personal issue for the victims and also for the men who care about them. Slinging mud about gun control, how much to tax the rich or how much to raise the minimum wage does not touch the intimate core of our lives.

          •  Another great comment, allie4fairness, (6+ / 0-)

            and these two paragraphs are a great, succinct response to those here who will argue that 'dKos is all about electing Democrats, so your whiny personal stuff doesn't matter here':

            Many conservative women support policies the Dem party claims to be promoting. Comments and attitudes displayed during the recent fight will not bring out the female vote.  Ask Todd Aiken.  

            The abuse of women is a personal issue for the victims and also for the men who care about them. Slinging mud about gun control, how much to tax the rich or how much to raise the minimum wage does not touch the intimate core of our lives.

          •  ^^^^this is why I've waded into the meta (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Silencio, CroneWit, allie4fairness

            Trench.  I care too damn much about the young women in my family and in my community to stand by while some try to make DailyKos become anything as damaging as Todd Aiken was for the right.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:53:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  My last several years in Los Angeles, (6+ / 0-)

    I used to occasionally wander through my living room and tell the inmates to watch their fucking language.

    Shock the Children is such a fun game to play!

    Strength and dignity are her clothing, she rejoices at the days to come; She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue.

    by loggersbrat on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:53:38 AM PDT

  •  Gangsta Misogyny (16+ / 0-)

        One of the 'I wish I had taken this turn in my life' moments is Content Anlaysis, I might have pursued it academically, I did not, but nevertheless I still enjoy it, the link I provided is arcane, apologies, my layman's use is 'what words do we use, when, and in what context.'

         It's widely used to both academically understand and commercially manipulate us, however the funniest example I've ever seen has to be last week's NRA plea to not call shootings, shootings. That was reaching the proverbial 'bottom of the barrel.'

         With respect to this site, though, I thought, what words do we want to examine, other than stfu and rtfm/d?

         By its nature, the internet is both the perfect subject, and the conduit to share results. A Google search on 'violence content analysis' turns scads of scholarly reading, this is some of the less technical:

    Framing Gun Violence: A Content Analysis ... © 2013/4/23 Julia (Dongyu) Li
         This excerpt brought to mind this site as well as chat rooms the world over I imagine:

         "...the two prominent frames that came out since that time were the blame gun frames and the blame pop culture frames. For a long time, people took sides on this issue because when it comes to complicated issues, directly taking what the media offered saved people’s energy to make sense of the world. ..." p. 37

    Gangsta Misogyny
    Edward G. Armstrong Murray State University Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 8(2) (2001) 96-126
         "A deconstructive interpretation suggests that gangsta rap music is necessarily understood within a context of patriarchal hegemony."

         In this analysis of children's programming, this excerpt of categories of content listed here may be useful, for example:
         "Violent behavior was further divided into one of several subcategories:
         ✔ Cartoon Violence
         ✔ Fantasy Violence
         ✔ Physical Violence
         ✔ Martial Arts
         ✔ Use of Weapons
         ✔ Violence involving objects
         ✔ Fire
         ✔ Implied violence
         ✔ Death implied or depicted
         ✔ Graphic descriptions

         Verbal Abuse is comprised of the following
    subcategories:
         ✔ Verbal Aggression
         ✔ Threats
         ✔ Insults, mean-spirited name calling, and
    putdowns

         Offensive Language included these subcategories:
         ✔ Toilet Humor
         ✔ Euphemisms for vulgar or profane language
         ✔ Vulgar or profane language
         ✔ Mild language

         Problematic Attitudes and Behaviors, the broadest
    of the content areas, included the following
    subcategories:
         ✔ Defiance/disobedience
         ✔ Disrespect for authority/parents
         ✔ Lying
         ✔ Cheating
         ✔ Stealing
         ✔ Disruptive behavior/tantrums
         ✔ Harmful pranks
         ✔ Mob/gang activity
         ✔ Bullying
         ✔ Negative peer pressure
         ✔ Computer related hacking
         ✔ Racism
         Wolves in Sheep's Clothing A Content Analysis of Children’s Television March, 2006

    I feel I need to offer a conclusion, but I need to make haste. That's my contribution for now, working toward a framework.

    Clearly the existing rules are interpreted differently. I personally don't find them inadequate but many do?

    Remarkably, it may be that the most meaningful contribution from my brief foray on Google is the children's content categories above. I bolded those that I thought are employed here. STFU falls in a few of those categories.

    •  Great links redefining 'violence'! Great!! (11+ / 0-)

      What a great contribution, i saw an old tree today!   Especially your excerpts from the 'Gangsta' article and the whole concept of 'content analysis'.

      I'm copying your comment-link here, so I can find it again; I can think of 3-4 people to send it to, just off the top of my head.

      The 'Gangsta' list is a terrific, invaluable tool for creating a frame for the discussion of site behavior, a great replacement/expansion of the 'Don't Be a Dick' rule, especially in its Verbal Abuse distinctions .

      Within this framework of Verbal Abuse, differential distinctions (for two categories: race and LGBT status) have already been recognized here; Leading to an understanding that particular words/epithets etc have a differential meaning/value when applied to/read by members of the two recognized categories.  Even though the introduction of these differential distinctions has generated heated arguments when they were first presented, the thought-processes generated have led to heightened awareness and changed behavior -- ie, people apologizing (Gee, I had always used (phrase) casually to mean 'X', but I didn't realize how painful that casua use was to (affected group)), and people correcting others for using (phrase) in comments, leading, over time, to forceful correction for violation of using (phrase as known gay-bashing, for example, now considered outrageous and outside of site norms).

      Sorry that paragraph is so patchy -- it's raw thought processes, not tidied up yet.

      But *IF* we begin to use that Verbal Abuse frame (or something similar) for anything that is 'group-bashing' -- If we create a new map for 'This is verbally abusive behavior, necessarily = Being a Dick', and map sexist/misogynist behavior/speech into the frame of Verbal Abuse of A Group, we may be able to generate a space (framework, conceptual arena) to discuss the speech/behavior on this site which is painful to women as sexist/misogynist.

      Again, please excuse the unstructured nature of this comment; this is me thinking aloud.  As you can see, I am very excited about this!  Thanks!

    •  More on 'Gangsta Misogyny' as a framework (5+ / 0-)

      for further discussions on misogynist speech here at dKos --

      I found your WikiPedia link to dense with new jargon for me to undertake today, old tree, but I clicked into your 'Gangsta Misogyny' link and was thrilled by what I read in its beginning paragraphs, even though the body of prior academic work informing it (and therefore much of the jargon) is still opaque to me.

      I'll quote a good bit of the ingtroductory material here, wherein the author lays out the previously-developed theories on which he bases his work.  I do this in hopes that other readers will see glimpses of hope in the utility of already-established theoretical bases described here.  [NB:  The source document has links to references embedded in the text, which I will omit here but mark the existence of by using [source] when those sources interrupt the text.]

      Gangsta Misogyny
      Edward G. Armstrong Murray State University Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 8(2) (2001) 96-126

      http://www.albany.edu/...

       . . .  language, as symbolic interaction, is behavior itself [source]. Postmodernism draws attention to the increasing role of symbolic violence in shaping interpersonal relations [source]. But feminist theory has taken a more fully developed textual turn, emphasizing the discursive construction of social reality [source] . Language is a constitutive force that creates a particular view of reality [source]. Words are acts, essentially the practices they constitute rather than the expressions of the ideas they embody [source]. The theory of discursive violence problematizes the distinction between words and deeds and attends to the real-world anguish of the verbally abused. This is not to say that real rape and its fictional representation are equally grave offenses [source]. But as the physiological effects of discursive violence make evident, "linguistic violence is in fact a form of physical violence" . More to the point: sexual and violent imagery "indeed is violence against women" [source].

       The postmodern and feminist vision holds that words, music, and other discourses are performative utterances that instantiate a condition or state of affairs [source]. One variant of this viewpoint: the Equal Opportunity Commission's guidelines defining sexual harassment under Title VII includes verbal conduct – words that can poison a workplace or classroom [source]. A key element of the idea of "hate speech" is the understanding that people do things with words, that speech acts assault their victims [source]. Violent metaphors are not simply figures of speech [source].

      Yeah, lots of them big old academic words to slog through, and that kind of work ain't for everybody.  But I'd be willing to put in the time if it will get women in general, and this site in particular, closer to understanding that the words/phrases/concepts that keep individual women, all women, and the culture in general trapped in the prison of misogynist thought.
      •  Thanks, you've given me much to think about-- (4+ / 0-)

        on how to continue the discussion, which is this site at its best, dialog in action, and supportive of something that allows for dialog beyond the personal. The personal is at risk for denigration and name calling, all stemming from 'uppity.'

        It's a risk to put opinions forward here, even the well-formed. The crowd likes to boo and throw tomatoes. But having a toehold in reason and, eg, a framework, makes a huge difference. Discussing a philosophy of nonviolence, for example, ought to be possible without personal attack, and I will say the same for racism and sexism.

        I've always thought your nom de plume was one of our best, so from you, double the thanks.

        And thanks to LG for the pokes ... I was ready to give up.

        •  One would think: (6+ / 0-)
          Discussing a philosophy of nonviolence, for example, ought to be possible without personal attack, and I will say the same for racism and sexism.
          However, we seem to hold both sides of every conceivable opinion here, and there are those who are at least borderline warmongers, and they are perfectly capable of being abusive.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:56:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Framework makes a Place to Stand (3+ / 0-)

          and that changes everything!

          After my first reply to your 'Gangsta' comment, I sent kosmails to several people with the comment-link and, in haste, added only one line of explanation:  'This is me running through the streets yelling 'Eureka!' '.

          The long waits for screen-reloads gave me time to ponder the old story of Archipedes (right guy?) rising from his bath shouting Eureka!  The brain-teaser he had set himself was: 'How could one person move the Earth?'.  The Eureka moment was when he realized that if he had a place to stand, and a long enough lever, he could move the Earth.

          And that Eureka moment, I realized, consisted of to parts, with a place to stand being the first and more important part of the solution.  Once one had the right place to stand, the length of the lever could be easily derived, and the leverage point would become self-evident.

          Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for your contributions!  Can you provide more links to not-too-geeky sources (like 'Gangsta') that can contribute to a working understanding of Content Analysis and sexist speech as Violence?

          And yes, thanks to Lilith, who has provided these ongoing 'safe spaces' as a think-space for continuing discussion.

          •  solid ground (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, LilithGardener, Oh Mary Oh

            Thanks, I did not know the story of Eureka! Standing on solid ground.

            I started the search on content analysis and sexism (this time instead of violence), much to read. I can help with geeky stuff if it ever comes to that.



            This is an undergraduate paper, could be developed further, but uses examples:
            Sexism In Unexpected Places: An Analysis of Country Music Lyrics
            Caravel Undergraduate Research Journal

            "Focusing on musical content, the song lyrics are examined to see how they imply gender differences and sexism in any of the following ways:
            -           by depicting women in traditional gender roles (for example, “I kept her barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”);
            -           by using (slang) words that portray women as inferior (for example, “Those bitches bow down to me”);
            -           by implying that a woman’s worth is determined by her appearance (for example, “I loved her because she was beautiful”);
            -           by the use of female pronouns when referring to objects or ideas (for example, “My car is so awesome; she is one sweet ride”);
            -           by portraying women as a group with negative stereotypes (for example, “All women are conniving”);
            -           by suggesting that a woman is an object, especially a sexual object (for example, “She had one purpose and that was to please me as my trophy”);
            -           by referring to women primarily as strippers or other sex workers (for example, “All the women in my life work the pole”);
            -           by referring to forcing sexual acts on a woman (for example, “If she doesn’t want it, I force her to want it by making her do it anyway”);
            -           by referring to violence against women in a positive manner (for example, “If she gets out of line all I have to do is slap her back into place”).

            Twenty songs are analyzed for these behaviors. : )


            This is a study of the 2008 election (pdf download), warning Palin and Clinton are discussed (as it were Palin didn't exactly try to come off as a scholar, let's say) and I like the use of actual quotes:
            Content Analysis of Online Commenters on Sexism in the  2008 Presidential Campaign
            University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. Oshkosh Scholar. Volume IV, November 2009 --

            Each comment was coded into three categories: blatant, covert, and subtle sexism, and negative versus positive, can't copy so here's a picture




            On humor
            It's Not Just a Joke: An Analysis of Sexist Humor
            Authors: Bemiller, Michelle. and Schneider, Rachel.

            "This is the case with sexist language and sexist humor. It serves as a mechanism  to silence certain groups of people ... jokes create an “us versus them” duality that has real life  implications that should be taken very seriously (Barreca 1991; Nilsen and Nilsen 2000 ).  What is told as a joke is not really a joke at all, but instead a form of power ..."

            "...come in many forms. They focus on women’s personal attributes or  lack thereof (e.g., jokes about breasts, weight, intelligence, personality characteristics),  women’s place in the private sphere (e.g., jokes about cooking, cleaning and childcare),  as well as jokes that are extremely violent towards women (e.g., suggestions of abusing  women to put them in their place, killing women, raping women). By sexually  objectifying women and demeaning their personal and professional abilities, jokes  support a patriarchal culture that continues to oppress and subordinate women. These  types of jokes also reinforce attitudes that support violence against women."

            Much more, it's a good paper. I think.



            This is an undergraduate thesis -- the concept of retro-sexism is interesting, explains a lot, I'd like to get back to it:
            The Mad Men Effect Sixities-Based Media Content and the Rise of Retro-Sexism

            This is a great elementary site:
            What is Sexism
            Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

            Distinguishing hostile the from 'friendly'
            "Benevolent sexism is pervasive, but not readily recognised as sexism. This is where women are expected to put up with sexual advances and comments about their looks as a “compliment” or alternatively as a “joke,” and where men act as if women are too fragile to undertake certain tasks. “He’s only trying to help!” The person is supposedly acting from a place of good will. The lack of malicious intent is supposed to excuse sexism.

            Accidental or unintentional sexism work similarly, where people say they believe in gender equality, but perpetuate sexist culture by doing and saying things that undermine gender equality. ..."



            And a related video interview http://othersociologist.com/...
            Professor Rajini Rao PhD  in Biochemistry who runs her own lab at Johns Hopkins University USA, and Dr Tommy Leung, Evolutionary Biologist with the University of New England, Australia


            Anyway I think I'mg getting off track, it's late. More later.

            Thanks Lilith for the space to have this conversation.

    •  Meh, "offensive language" and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silencio, LilithGardener

      "Problematic Attitudes" to me are of questionable validity from the get go. That somebody writing for a criminology journal would have a problem with those who don't adeuqately "respek mah autoritah!", for example, is perhaps more revelatory about the author than anything else.

      For ages petty authoritarians have been screwing with people, their lives and their language with no good basis, justification or reason "It's white meat, not a breast, and dark meat, not a thigh" -- "Oh? Well 'scuse me *sswipe, your rules, you follow them, don't whine if I don't." 2 violations there, language and lack of respek for authority, heck, throw in disobedience and make it 3. But, why obey that silly horsebleep?

      So what's my point? Irrational constraints will not be adhered to or followed; humans aren't puppets, and it isn't problematic, childish or anything else that the clown trying to impose the irrational constraints wishes to claim it is. In fact, countering irrationality can be held to be a positive good.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:52:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cultural advancement is by definition offensive (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        enhydra lutris, Silencio

        Isn't it? The impressionists? The blues? jazz? Rock and Roll. I'm sure many would consider this explicit treatment of domestic violence to be vulgar. Some might even take offense at a white man, playing guitar for a black man as lead singer.

        Seal singing Hey Joe (Jimi Hendrix Cover) with David Gilmour on guitar

        http://www.youtube.com/...

        David Gilmour accompanies with his unique guitar styles. Seal singing Hey Joe (Jimi Hendrix cover) - Amnesty International Big 30 1991

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 05:18:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am a truck driver mouthed loud and proud woman. (10+ / 0-)

    That being said, I am really starting to hate the term 'f'. It has a violence to it that is really starting to turn me off.
    Most swear words tend toward the violent so I am rethinking my truck driver mouthed-ness. (not really a word, but says what I mean it to say)
    I am so sick of the off handed comments and our vocabulary which makes violence towards women the norm.
    Douche bag, for example...
    What are they really trying to say?! That any device that touches a woman's personal parts is dirty, unclean, unsavaory?!
    All the swear words tossed around about lady parts as if to have one is what makes it horrible. The 'c' word, the 't' word, all to put women down and try and keep us 'in our places', and where exactly is that?! The kitchen?! Barefoot and breeding!?
    Thanks for this diary series and the opportunity for people to voice their opinions in a safe place.
    I still swear, but I am trying to not use swear words that put women or men for that matter down.
    Peace and Blessings!

    “When you victim-blame, be aware that in all likelihood, at least one woman you know and love silently decides she cannot trust you.” ` Steph Guthrie

    by Penny GC on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:55:23 AM PDT

    •  Like a truck driver, but with situational limits (5+ / 0-)

      My standard speech preference includes the free use of cusswords, partly as rhythm-markers to add emphasis and nuance.  However, this was never appropriate in my workplaces, so I used this speech-pattern at home or among friends.

      In recent years, I've placed limits on my usage in two other settings: when I am with one of my church-lady ride-providers (for errands) and, as a general rule, here at dKos.  

      Your comments on the use of woman-hating language as standard insults is well worth discussing as a form of verbal abuse of women, even when those pejoratives are directed by men at other men, as so often happens here.  (However, when women complain about these usages here, we are, most often, told to 'stop being so emotional/sensitive' and to STFU -- so that (as usual) objecting to one level of woman-hating language/behavior subjects us to a second-level attack.)

      •  Agreed CW and still not sure how to truely combat (5+ / 0-)

        this issue, except to bring it up when it happens and duck for the soon to ensue avalanche of MORE and Better abuse of women...sigh...
        But you are correct that men use the lady parts to demean the menfolk as well...
        Pussy, bitch, boob, etc.
        But I am not a fan of prick or dick either, can't we just say scum bag?
        As I said, I still can and will swear with the best of them, just looking to change it up a bit and be more aware of WHAT am I really TRYING to say, Is there a better way to get that across without demeaning people for their sex parts.

        And you know what, my daughter's both have the truck driver mouth syndrome so maybe we need to change that too.
        But then why do we feel the need to change and the menfolk just say 'pppfft Shut up Bitch?'
        I do not (obviously0 have the answers, but thanks for sharing with me while I think about 'reforming'.
        Peace and Blessings!

        “When you victim-blame, be aware that in all likelihood, at least one woman you know and love silently decides she cannot trust you.” ` Steph Guthrie

        by Penny GC on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:28:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, "scum bag" isn't free of sexist overtone (5+ / 0-)

          either.

          And even such innocently and often terms as "that sucks," have origins in denigration of others.  (In fact, I'm fond of responding to that particular one with, "Not everything that sucks is bad.")

        •  The 'Gangsta Misogyny' comment in this thread (4+ / 0-)

          got me really excited because, imo, if we use that structure for defining Violence (including Verbal Abuse) we may be able to use it to define the harmful woman-hating speech as 'hate speech' (that is not to be used here) in the same way that certain phrases are now recognized here as being LGBT- or race-bashing.

          Of course, engaging in the long-term effort entailed in doing this would require a number of women and men to commit to a series of diaries to establish the framework, plug misogynistic memes into it, etc -- and that long-terms effort would of course generate a quantity of the kind of 'dissing' we're all used to.  This predictable response could be very discouraging, but that discouragement can be overcome when we realize that the 'dissing' is just more examples of 'Content', so that the Standard Insults become grist for our mill.

          I would also suggest that the 'Gangsta Misogyny' framework of Violence/Verbal Abuse would form an excellent basis for describing and understanding how Violence works here at dKos, and that that framework would provide an means for shifting the meaning of 'Don't Be A Dick' into more clearly-defined community values.

          And right now, imo, nobody 'has the answers'; if we use the time well, however, we may be able to ask some of the right questions.

        •  Just call out the misogynist ones, call (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Silencio, LilithGardener

          them out as misogynist holdovers and let 'em whine. I have always swore like a sailor, but I can and do do it without being misogynist at least 95% of the time.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:03:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I have always marveled at the prevalence (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silencio, LilithGardener

      of the "Douche Bag" phrase and some variants here. It seems like the site is tone deaf with respect to that.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:58:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Checking in and listening. (6+ / 0-)

    Yes, I sweat quite a bit, including the F-bomb.

    •  Elaboration (8+ / 0-)

      Swearing can be base, guttural, lowbrow.  But at times, used selectively and with contextual sensitivity, it can be humorous or, more commonly when I swear, used to accentuate or emphasize a point.  Typically, I only swear when frustrated, or (rarely) to add an amusing touch to a point.

      I think it's part of the DNA of certain swear words to be aggressive, even violent.  There are some words I avoid because of sexist connotations; just as I avoid some words because of racist or heterosexist connotations.

      As to the conflict that prompted these diaries -- I took part in some of those diaries -- I'm foggy on the details because I had just signed up -- but I was largely unaware of the heat and depth of the animosity that was happening.  All of this is happening, all of that happened, just as I was getting my feet wet.

      I'll say this, and I have no idea how a blog, especially such a diverse one as this one is, can effect this: but any rape apologism or joking about rape should be rubbed out immediately.  Or resisted strenuously, with whatever tools are available.  I still don't "get" the bojo and HR business.  But if used against people trivializing rape (or targeted violence more generally) -- then I think those tools should be used.

      •  Comedian Redd Foxx had a great bit on cussing -- (6+ / 0-)

        Back when HBO live-comedy was still new, when Eddie Murphy was still a young man, and cuss-words were just being introduced to televised comedy (to much criticism), Redd Foxx had a great bit about that, which I will (weakly!) try to replicate here.

        Foxx was a short black man with a stubby beard and (iirc) a trademark hat on the back of his head and a trademark stubby cigar that he puffed on and waved around (like George Burns) toorchstrate his timing.

        'Folks ask me, ya know, they say, Redd,' puff puff, 'Redd, you a funny guy', puff, ' 'You a funny guy, so how come you be using those words', puff puff puff, 'all those words in your act . . ..  You know, sayin' 'F this' and 'F that', can't call a thing a thing, you gotta call it an 'F'in thing' . . ..  Well, folks, I'll tell ya why I do that.  I'll tell ya why I talk like that.  It's because (puff puff puff; then leaning into the mike, in an intense whisper) Folks Do!'

        But this series is not about the propriety of language choices; it is about Violence, and by and large the use of standard-usage cusswords for rhythm or humor or emphasis is understood in the way it was intended, and cussword here are not our main form of violence.  (I refer you to the 'Gangsta Misogyny' comment elsewhere in this thread, especially its 'Verbal Abuse' section for ways in which Violence is communicated here.)

        You correctly describe the kinds of Violence used in the heated debates you walked into:

        any rape apologism or joking about rape should be rubbed out immediately.  Or resisted strenuously, with whatever tools are available [including cusswords].  I still don't "get" the bojo and HR business.  But if used against people trivializing rape (or targeted violence more generally) -- then I think those tools should be used.
    •  I acquired quite a mouth during my three years at (10+ / 0-)

      MIT as a post-doc. It took my sweetie even longer to wean me from mindless use of that vocabulary.



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:01:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's okay (5+ / 0-)

      because something that makes you sweat could cause you to say "f***. :) An example would be my putting up the chicken pen fence yesterday. I sweated, I swore.

      “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

      by weezilgirl on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:53:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've always thought of Conversation (10+ / 0-)

    as some kind of emotional Bank for Self-Esteem.


    It is hard to 'pay someone' a sincere compliment,
    when you don't have a lot of 'such currency' in reserve, in your personal account.

    Economies are generally two-streets. If everyone hordes their 'esteem' ... then the economy can grind to a halt.

    To get support, usually one must give support.
    If no one ever gives you the time of day, eventually your emotional account, ends up depleted. As such an account-holder, you can end up bitter, worried, feeling short-changed.


    Such inter-personal exchanges, may seem trivial,
    but one of the most value 'gifts you can give'
    is to 'pay someone' your Respect.

    And this payment of Respect, is once again a two-street; one often without roadsigns, or traffic lights. A ritual haunted by gridlock and anger, where the Esteem-giving dynamic can grind to a halt.

    Is it any wonder that confusion and contention arises,
    when far too many people, simple ignore the signals, at those busy "Four-way Stops"?

    When they all try to "proceed" at the same time ...


    When disrespect, becomes the primary currency of exchange, it is not long before those Esteem-accounts become a well of anxiety, instead a source of creative joy.


    Men, to get love, ... you first must give love.

    etc, etc.


    Sooner or later were going to have to: Trade in those Carbon Footprints ...

    by jamess on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:46:41 AM PDT

  •  Uninviting your responder (8+ / 0-)

    Knocking off the "smart guy" makes some people feel good, so this is a long-standing and unfortunate tradition on D'Kos.  One regular writer who had had enough of this sort of thing was David Sirota.  Although David's writings were sometimes open to valid criticism, he indeed got far more than his share.  For this reason, perhaps he can be held blameless for taking his writings elsewhere.

    In a recent diary of mine, I had my differences with two individuals who serially mischaracterized what I wrote, even after I explained in cogent detail what my actual intent was.  One back-and-forth poster did this four straight times(!), and also made more than one pretty embarrassing logical gaffe.

    Now this guy was likely not a troll - he just wasn't very good at effective challenging commentary.  He had been around since 2008, after all, so an HR was hardly appropriate.  It became pretty clear over the course of the interchange, however, that my opponent was more invested in his ideological position than in his logic and accurate characterizations of my words.  So what to do?

    Well, after patient explanation and re-explanation was going nowhere, I asked him to go away, in not so many words.  He wasn't earning my time and attention - nor that of anyone else, actually - and frankly his skillset in online cognitive perception and debate was not up to the level we usually find here on D'Kos.  He might well raise it to that level someday, but today wasn't that day, so I responded as follows:

    . . . my overwhelming first choice would be that you should just go away. If you can't seem to find what it takes to do so, ok, go ahead and say whatever factsless crap you want, but know in advance you won't get an answer.
    My goals were as follows, and I believe I met those goals:

    1 - To end a pointless interchange.
    2 - To avoid ad hominems.  No good ever comes of ad hominems.
    3 - To let him know exactly why I was terminating the discourse so that my opponent would have a basis for improvement in his critical debating skills in the future.
    4 - To avoid stepping on his freedom of speech.  If he wanted to respond - against my stated will - I invited him to do so anyway should he so choose.

    The strategy worked.  My opponent answered back (missing the point for the fifth time, btw lol!), but he did figure at that point that his time would be better spent elsewhere.  A satisfactory enough conclusion for us both, I figure, given the facts (or lack of them) on the ground.

    Know that $20 I owe you? Well, since money equals speech, then speech, of course, must equal money. C'mere and I'll read you the Tao Te Ching.

    by thenekkidtruth on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:54:28 AM PDT

    •  Meant to provide a link to that final interchange (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      Know that $20 I owe you? Well, since money equals speech, then speech, of course, must equal money. C'mere and I'll read you the Tao Te Ching.

      by thenekkidtruth on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:57:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This happens often. (5+ / 0-)

      At times I second guess myself.  I'll go back and read what I wrote and think: could I have opened myself up to misinterpretation?   Sometimes yes.  Unfortunately, quick responses mean we don't properly parse all the language we are putting out there.

      But a big part of the time I find that the reader just quickly skims and reaches their pre-determined conclusion.

      That doesn't just happen at DK, that happens everywhere.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:17:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you took a poll, I think about half of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thenekkidtruth, LilithGardener

      the frequent participants would get your serial misrepresenter correct, or at least in their top 5 suspects. Way back in the dawn of borads, many included the
      /ignore
      command, which worked. I'm often tempted to do it, even though it doesn't, at least putting the PITA on notice.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:11:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Much to mull… (8+ / 0-)

    One point where I might disagree -

    A rejection of informal speech often amounts to a dismissal of “the other” as unworthy of serious attention.
    My own strong preference is that all kogs would use language that they would be comfortable being overheard by one of their parents or their favorite elementary teacher. That doesn't involve using truly formal language (sentence structure, vocabulary, etc) but it is a preference for avoiding the violent vulgarities precisely because that kind of language does have impact on some, and there is a much larger audience than just the commenters here. I rarely call people out for using violent vulgarity, but I also almost never share a diary from Daily Kos with a different audience, precisely because there is such a wide spectrum of language used here. This preference actually grows out of a sense that many are worthy of serious attention, and that some kinds of language get in the way of that.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:08:51 AM PDT

  •  One of the issues that you have on DK is (9+ / 0-)

    There are a lot of us who have been here for a VERY long time.   We don't really know each other, but we -know- each other.   We trade back and forth messages, we read each others diaries.. there is a level of kinship here that leads us to change the way we talk.

    When I speak to a group or in person, or to businesses I guard my language and I keep a strong mental lookout to make sure my words are understood as I want them to.  

    But when I talk to my friends, I will often say things that if we didn't know each other very well could be very hurtful.   I'm reminded of a very good friend who is brilliant - who has kept the running joke from "The 70s Show" going by waiting until you've screwed up something minor and going 'Dumbass!"   As friends, everyone laughs.  It's funny.   We are all 'inside the joke' that circle of meeting that gives it the context that it deserves.

    Because DK is a wide community a lot of us get that feeling that we are amongst friends.  Our natural guard for how we speak to our friends is different.

    This can cause some problems here.   We don't put up our guard and all too often we post from our gut.  Little short notes, offhanded comments.. the kind of thing that those who know us would easily understand but that are really open for misinterpretation.

    I try to give most people the benefit of the doubt because of this.   Everyone can say something without social cues, and if given a chance to correct will recognize the differences and fix their statement so that I or others can understand what they mean.

    This is the language of friends... who used their shared social context to have a language that is just for them.  Everyone of us does it in our everyday life with children, partners, lovers, parents, and so on.

    The problem for many is that the difference between playful language of friends has moved into an area of society that the language can also be painful, offensive and will be used against us in future relationships.

    I think people know the line.  I think mentally there is something that clicks over.

    A professor I knew once had a wicked tongue with language.  She wrote fiction in the english department at my university.  I knew her and her partner very well.  She had no problem using tons of language, and she would talk about it.  

    When we were reviewing papers and work, she made a crack about how setting, context and relationship all factor heavily in the word choices she uses when she rights and how she deals with people.

    And now I'll say something offensive, but it's so outrageous I think it gets the point across.   She made the joke that in their private life, she was one of those people who tends to 'talk very dirty' in the moment.  But she pointed out, even though she and her partner had been together four years, neither of them would ever use those word choices or phrases outside of that very specific setting.

    Kos is a setting.  Maybe not a bedroom of a couple, but a setting that a lot of people have very high comfort with.  It causes people to say things that I think in their heart of hearts they wouldn't say in other formats.

    As a matter of rhetoric and human condition, I think forums like Kos easily confuse our brains.   We get to know the people, we feel comfortable and we open up.. we don't realize that a site like this is public and people other than our 'good friends' will read what is written here.

    Part of it reflects why I love a site like Kos.. I really do get to feel like I know the people here, interact with them, and I hope they know me (and at least, hopefully, don't despise me.. ) and there are a lot of people on Kos that I have never met but I completely respect, and think of in very friendly terms.

    I do try to watch my words.   But IPU help me, sometimes that social setting and context gets to me and I say things I wish I hadn't.

    If I step over, I normally try to refine or ask for a mulligan.. and for those most part, at this point, people seem to be lenient to give me one.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:34:21 AM PDT

  •  A really kick ass diary. Thanks for posting (5+ / 0-)

    it.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:31:29 PM PDT

  •  A lot depends on the tone of speech. (4+ / 0-)

    STFU!   in surprise to something a friend says is utterly different from:

    STFU!   when trying to communicate in written language to people you don't know is just utter fail.

    STFU!   as a command is almost always about as extremely rude as you can get. It's a narrow line from there to physical violence, unfortunately.

    That said, when I get angry, I use "fucking" a lot.  As in last night to a "this relationship is about over" casual Facebook friend:  

    Saying that Latinos are "cowards, thieves, and liars" simply because they cross the border in search of survival is fucking racist and fucking offensive.  

    If you'll notice, your expensive sneakers are soaked in the blood of Native Americans which white people STOLE the land from and then MURDERED in a lengthy act of genocide -- one of the largest in the world's history.

    So, trying to portray yourself as the victim of people who "steal the benefits of citizenship" by being undocumented is just fucking ridiculous and fucking racist.

    Needless to say, at that point I didn't care if the friendship continued for long. My comment came after about 20 other friends (to various degrees) who tried to use reason and logic to explain to this air-head that he kept saying very offensive things and many of his "friends" are Latinos!

    Anyway... I think I'm rambling....

    STFU?  No, that is not the way to title a diary when your goal is to communicate something.  If you just want to anger people and shut-down all thinking in a spate of angry responses, well, sure, use it.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:04:04 PM PDT

  •  Tip and rec'd. (4+ / 0-)

    By all means, let's talk.
    Great job, Lilith.

    Maya Angelou: “There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure truth.”

    by JoanMar on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:43:08 PM PDT

  •  Very astute diary filled with many astute (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, LilithGardener

    comments.  

    I love words and I love tossing them around and trying them out and dredging them up from the dusty recesses of my mind.  Here, however, it is dicey when you don't really known to whom you are speaking.  As tmservo433 pointed out, many people here "know" each other and have adopted an easy shorthand for communicating, much like families do.  Others have remained more aloof or more guarded.  

    On a blog, especially a big blog, you never really know to whom your are speaking.  Will they "get" what I'm driving at?  Will they see the humor?  Will they figure out that I'm politely telling them to take a hike?  You never really know the answer to any of that.  

    Part of being "understood" is to have a partner in the discussion who has something invested in the relationship that makes them care about understanding.  I think this is why members of Groups find common ground more handily than those who just frequent the front page or diaries.  You never know who will show up or if you will run into them again.  Therefore, perhaps you don't care enough to moderate your language.  

    But I do like rich language and colloquialisms and hyperbole and all sorts of expressions.  STFU does not offend me at all…unless it is addressed directly to me!  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 09:01:50 PM PDT

  •  The problem with aggressive terms (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    is that that they're designed to provoke a visceral response which makes it nearly impossible to actually have a discussion.

    Take Empty Vessels STFU diary which I believe it was the first in this go around.  He clearly was angry, he clearly wanted something to draw attention to a problem, and he was clearly sincere in his desire to want people who haven't been active in gender rights to spend time listening so as to better understand a problem.  

    It's a great message, and one that needs to be said more often for a multitude of things.  Problem is such an aggresive start alienates a part of an audience that most probably agrees with the point.  A lot of people don't react well some return in kind.  All that does is obscure the point.

    I'm thankful I grew up on George Carlin and Bill Hicks, the demystifying of taboo words and pointing out that there are no true bad words only words meant to convey bad ideas, has shown the power of words and phrases.  

    One of the most vulgar quotes I've ever read was in a comic.  In it a Hunter S. Thompson esque charachter discovers that the police have bribed a minority to cause a riot giving them the opportunity to beat the crap out of them.  As the riot is happening he's describing what he's seeing, beatings of the helpless, the blood lust of the police, terrible terrible things, and all he reply is this:

    Is that too harsh for you?  Does that sound too much like the truth?

    Fuck You.

    If anyone in this shithole city gave two tugs of a dead dogs cock about Truth, this wouldn't be happening.

    Two tugs of a dead dogs cock is one of the most vulgar things I've ever heard yet it somehow is absolutely neccessary to put everything else in perspective.

    I get that sometimes aggression is needed, that sometimes swearing is the best route, but I also know it will put people off, it will draw a line and people will go to the other side so I also know it needs to be used sparingly and stands a good chance of ruining any sort of dialog.

  •  yes; i notice when i use profanity to (0+ / 0-)

    shift an emotional tone.

    raised in a home where zero profanity was tolerated and certain 'other' words were also forbidden from use.  saying "hell" as an adult was a bfd.  

    that said, i took to the culture of cussing like i was born to it.  spouse and i have no children and neither one of us limits our use of profanity and i have to say, i use more than he does.

    i use it in public with friends... i often find myself apologizing in the general if i've used it too much.   profanity is part of my pattern of speech.  occassionally i make a half-hearted attempt to tone it down and it's always quite obvious what word i intended to use as i stumble for something less, well, profane.  

    i don't mind it when other use profanity in my presence.

    i draw the line at slurs for ethnicticity, race and gender..  and most of us here know what those are.

    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

    by kj in missouri on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:12:40 AM PDT

  •  Very thoughtful diary, Lilith. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, Patango, LilithGardener

    And thought-provoking. I don't think that I commented in any of those diaries because the titles were somewhat off-putting. While I am, personally, bad-tempered and foul-mouthed, I am more apt to use carefully crafted and sardonic words rather than expletives, although I do use expletives when annoyed. When I am angry beyond reason, I speak very quietly and slowly. And don't swear. I learned from my father that that has a far more chilling effect, and people listen. It's too easy to screen out and dismiss someone screaming expletives.

    I do swear in rants here, but they are always written off the top of my head after something pissed me off. Also exactly the way I am IRL. Lol.

    I yam what I yam --Popeye

    by BadKitties on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:42:35 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for another thought provoking post (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    translatorpro, LilithGardener

    Lilith.

    We can learn much from "tuning-in" to the emotional tone of our own intention we hold as we are about to speak.

    Mahatma Gandhi once said that to call his philosophy one of "non-violent action" was a translation of a concept from Hinduism that was more subtle and rich - that of the "forth Chakra" or "heart center" which is the resonance of love and compassion.

    So if one is coming from a place of love and compassion as one's basic "wavelength" or "resonance" that even precede the formation of thought or specific intentions ones actions will be free of violence.

    Gandhi's point was that it was a mistranslation of I believe it was "satyagraha" (I'm trying to remember this from a book I read when I was 10 many decades ago, so sorry if I've gotten wrong) to say it was just the absence of violent action, or an intellectual tactic to achieve political advantage.

    If one is not centered in this place of love, and one take strong action into an arena of other people, the laws of karma can almost predict you will be doing "violence" to someone or something else you do not understand.

    So with regard our language, especially when we cannot see out know our audience, if our intention is to be constructive and positive we must be even more aware and sensitive.

    One of my mentors told me "the world of people perceives in a million shades of gray, which is why we must learn to speak in black and white," to avoid being misunderstood.

    Many people perceive profanity to be violent expression. Especially when it is directed at them, or someone else.

    But, even when these expressions are not directed to specific people or categories of people, for many who have experienced abuse, or have PTSD, they can be reactive triggers evoking what cognitive psychologist such as Daniel Coleman, who wrote the book Emotional Intelligence calls "flooding" where an part of the brain called the amygdala signals the adrenal glands to flood the blood stream with adrenaline to prepare the body for the fight or flight.

    This is called the "fight or flight" response in the vernacular. It turns out that that until this excess adrenaline is metabolized the brain is not capable of fully rational thought. Woman can do this within 20 minutes to a few hours.

    However, because of the chemical similarities of adrenaline and testosterone men can take as long as 4 to 6 hours and both gender are highly vulnerable to being restimulated during that interval.

    His conclusion is that anyone seriously interested in achieving a reduction of violence should avoid triggering this responses in other people which would include angry outbursts, emotional attacks, profanity used as attacks on others, and other acts of emotional and physical violence that will trigger "flooding" and also if you notice it has happened in yourself or others, take a time out and do not proceed until folks are back to normal because any further interaction is more likely to make things worse, than not.

    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

    by HoundDog on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 02:46:43 PM PDT

    •  Totally OT, but pls check your Kosmail. /eom (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, LilithGardener

      „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

      by translatorpro on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 02:58:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hi, Translatorpro. I don't find any Kosmail from (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        translatorpro, LilithGardener

        you?  Are you just encouraging me to me tidy and regular in my mail checking habits, or have I missed one of your messages?

        Maybe it is a DK cycling delay?

        So you think my comment is over the top?  

        Well, now my amygdala is all flooded so I might have to wait until tomorrow to read your message so I don't  get overwhelmed and go postal!

        lol  

        Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

        by HoundDog on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 03:12:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  None of the above, it contained a link (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HoundDog, LilithGardener

          I thought you might find amusing. It was sent on Friday, Jun 13, subject a certain governor. :-) Check all your message center tabs. I have not ever quite figured out the system of why some messages end up under one tab, and other messages under others...
          Cheers

          „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

          by translatorpro on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 03:55:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I found it. Thanks. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

            by HoundDog on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 06:35:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  This is the synthesis of almost everything I've (0+ / 0-)

      been thinking about in the past two weeks.

      The only missing element (which I'm sure you know but did not say) is that Madison Avenue piggy backs on this and hijacks the same freeze, fight, flight neurochemical mechanisms to compel purchasing decisions. By triggering unconscious self-doubt marketing can convince otherwise rational people that it's a virtual life/death matter to buy the right lipstick, wear the right watch, be seen court side at the right sports venue.

      It's the title of Ginny from CO's diary, the most reliable source of misogyny is Madison Avenue. The distorted beliefs expressed by Mr. Rogers, and Isle Vista shootings, were an ugly byproduct of Madison Avenue.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Sun Jun 15, 2014 at 10:55:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hi LilithGardener , (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    always nice to see you , I did not recommend or comment in either of the 2 diaries you refer to in your diary , I did not find the subject matter interesting at all

    As a rule , I try and over explain what I am saying on the internet , but no matter what you do , people are going to take what you say wrong a lot of the time , it is always better to be overly polite

    But I do not mind "throwing down" when it comes to conservative pig headedness

    I am well aware of the emotional over tones in every word I use

    But how people take those words is out of my hands , sometimes on the internet I am willing to apologize if it is taken wrong , not a big deal

    I try and check my own head before I comment , but none of us is perfect

    And guess what , not everyone is going to like you ( "you" used in general)  or like everything that you say , that is just how this world is , so people should just get over it , not a big deal

    Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

    by Patango on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 08:13:07 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site