Dirty Words?

Sean Trane wrote: Dean wrote: Sean Trane wrote: This doesn't mean that all subjects should be openly discussed... Obviously there is a fine line - which I'd hate to qualify as "politically correct" (and often is not politically correct, because it resembles to censorship), but it's clearly about the abuse of political correctness issue to make censorship (speaking of the abortion debate issue here, not the thread itself)... The censorship of the use of the word "vagina" is simply inacceptible in a free-speech society... How can an anatomical word be a dirty word??  In the name of prudery???   Let's call a cat a pussy then, shall we?? You need to read the background of this "vagina" incident - the objection was not about the use of the word "vagina", the word "vagina" was not the subject of censorship - Lisa Brown was censured for the how she used the word, she was not censored for using it. Unfortunately - poor journalism and even poorer reading-skills have done their usual trick of ensuring this story is coitused up (anatomically correct word) beyond recognition. That is the real sad indictment on the state of the world today.   I had read enough of it to know (at least I think so) that it was the way she replied using her own sex that was the problem (despite the guy saying he'd use the word in front of en and not in front of women, showing this dude's got a heavy psychological problem),

"One week ago, the Michigan House of Representatives was taking up some of the most restrictive anti-choice legislation in the country. It was in the context of this bill that I said, "Finally Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no.'"

You can watch me say that here. My comment is made around the 1:50 mark, and you can see exactly how the legislators seated behind me reacted. While there was a scatter of applause from my colleagues, there were no dropped jaws, bulging eyes or fainting. In fact, the only remarkable thing about their response is that there was virtually no response at all.

Not until the next day. That's when I got word that Republican House leaders had banned me and my colleague Rep. Barb Byrum from speaking on the House floor. I was shocked.

Given my speech, I could only assume it was because I spoke to my Jewish values or because I had said vagina. But later that day, Rep. Mike Callton told the press that what I had said was so vile, so disgusting, that he could never bear to mention it in front of women or "mixed company."

Since we share the same religion, I'm guessing he wasn't referring to my kosher sets of dishes. Even though Callton has a bachelor's degree in biology and worked as a chiropractor, it was the word "vagina" that did him in.

As a storm of protest grew against our silencing and women across the state started to rally around my use of the word vagina, Republicans changed course. They insisted they had no problem with vaginas. Byrum and I were being punished for our lack of decorum. We were accused of throwing a "temper tantrum."

Take another look at the video. Do you see a temper tantrum? Does that look like a group of people shocked by what we said or how we behaved?



When complaints about our banning picked up pace, Republicans tried again. This time, their story was that I was kept from speaking because I said "no means no."

As Republicans continued to throw mud against the wall to see what stuck, they only made it worse for themselves. Thousands of women, not only in Michigan but across the country and even around the globe, saw exactly what was going on. What they saw was a male-dominated legislative body going to great lengths to silence two women who dared speak in opposition to a measure that would limit access to our health care. They saw it, and they didn't like it."

- Lisa Brown 6/21/12



Edited by Slartibartfast - June 21 2012 at 10:42

The T wrote: Easy Livin wrote: The T wrote: Progarchives.com/forum, the forum on this website has stopped being a music first and foremost forum long time ago, probably since the time of its creation.  Take off the non-musical discussion from this forum and you will slash traffic in half, if not more.    I sincerely hope that's not the case. Personally, I would be quite happy to see the traffic drastically reduce in order to move the balance back towards the reason the site was set up. We have lost too many fine contributors with a vast knowledge of prog, who became fed up with the way the forum had been hijacked by those with little interest in prog.   Perhaps we need a full discussion about the direction the site should pursue in the future. I know a number of high profile figures on the site are currently considering their options as they become worn down by the way things are. The more such people we lose, the more the site drifts from its intended purpose. That cannot be good for its long term future. Keep in mind that all of us who visit the general discussion forum more often than the music ones were attracted to PA by the music. But then after we had 030129312 discussions on the same subjects we stayed because there were other things we could discuss besides "Yes vs Genesis" or "DTis overrated". Eliminate the general discussions area and you'll have a thriving community of members who will come and go and just a few very consistent ones will remain. At least I think so.  I wouldn't cry about losing fine contributors. If they left is because they didn't care enough or they got fed up by something or they just wanted PA to be exactly like they wanted to be and all people be exactly like they are. Yes, open-mindedness scares ome people. Let them go to their protective bubbles where they don't have to face any other opinion but one similar to their own. There are tons of talented people PA has lost but tons that have arrived.  If the site is really going to consider changes for the future, I hope Max leaves the music-exclusive mentality and opens GeneralDiscussionArchives.com

Will we ever find those lost buttons?  

The T and Dean are spot-on there.

You're concerned that trolls would go elsewhere?

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: All seems a bit crazy to me.  To react to a legitimate word used in context in this way. How american. To be fair Ian, regardless of the knee-jerk reaction from both camps after the event - the objection at the time was of the context not the word, "Mr Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my lady parts, but no means no", would have been just as inapproriate and frankly, cheap.  I completely agree.

Edited by stonebeard - June 21 2012 at 16:28

http://www.populist.com/

THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST, a newspaper that believes people are more important than corporations, premiered in November 1995 as a monthly tabloid publication based in Storm Lake, Iowa, with editorial offices in Austin, Texas. In October 1999 it expanded to twice-monthly publication. In 2005, the editorial offices were moved a few miles south, to Manchaca, Texas.

The Progressive Populist reports from the heartland of America on issues of interest to workers, small-business owners and family farmers and ranchers. It serves as "The People's Voice in a Corporate World."

Edited by Slartibartfast - June 21 2012 at 17:29

So there's no such thing as public then because you can be forcibly removed from a public space should you behave in a certain way, just as you will be banned from here from behaving in a certain way.

Dean: But you're not one of the people who want this place to be a recursive "I like x!" "I like x too!" circle-jerk affair.

Epig: There's this thing called guile.