Posted by
CPT on Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:15:44 PM
They would defend it as "being polite" or "trying not to offend" but that is pretty lame. Maybe they would or will say their technology doesn't support allowance of some words and they proscribe them "just to be safe". Perhaps it is the fear of multiple, if frivolous, lawsuits by parties of aggrieved who choose to be offended by certain words regardless of the context of use or the topic being discussed.
I was writing a post on the silliness of the Coulter brouhaha and the hypocrisy of the left in what they choose to take offense at.
The Townhall Blog system (which is kind of buggy in its RSS feeds and posting functionality) censored a couple of the words I used when doing this commentary on a topic that is ALL OVER the blogosphere and news media.
The words were the politically heinous (unless your are black) word that starts with an N. The famous "N word". The censor warning on that word I can understand somewhat, as all of American culture that isn't black has caved to the nonsense that this word is or should be prohibited regardless of the context of its use. Yes even Townhall.com has caved to this political correctness. If this word is used as a general EPITHET or against an individual as an insult or as a racial stereotype label I can understand and agree with disallowing it. However blanket disallowance of a word also disallows discussing that word, its social and political impact, its misuse and a myriad of other things that might involve the word itself but not its use inappropriately. Sigh, even the conservatives scuttle under the PC tent.
The other word was a
word for unusual, strange, bizarre, out of the ordinary that starts with a Q. Now THAT is a mighty qu33r thing to do wouldn't you say. What is offensive about that word. Sure some ignorant slobs use it as an epithet for homosexuals. That isn't its primary or even second dictionary definition. Craven cowardice? Afraid of the big bad homosexual activist groups? Lawsuit phobia again?
Interestingly the repeated use of the word "faggot" wasn't proscribed (yet?).
Why is Townhall so opposed to "The N word" when a large sub-culture of Americans use it daily in their lives and their music?
Why is Townhall opposed to a perfectly good and useful word like "qu33r" just because its been co-opted by people to use as an epithet against homosexuals and by homosexuals to describe themselves, their "social theory" and various aspects of their "lifestyle"? You, I and Townhall know that homosexuals refer to themselves and their like-practicing individuals as "qu33r" and "faggot" with regularity. It's only an "insult" when the unapproved person uses either. Same case for the "N word". Galls me to even have to type "N word" when discussing the word in this context.
When you seek to offend no one you are much more likely to offend everyone. To purport a grouping or effort as "conservative" or as an outlet for freedom and then to ban words simply for the words sake is ridiculous.
It is also disappointing. Come on Townhall, you're better than that. I'll write to Mr. Garthwaite and Mr. Hewitt and see what their response to this issue might be.
Humorous post script: As I was spell checking this post it stopped on my use of the faux word "qu33r" and offered the actual proscribed Q word as a solution!