Redstate

because it does promote some comity but also because it's easy to police.  From my perspective, it is an "on" or "off" position.  Once you try to separate out the good profaners from the bad, it because even more divisive.

Keep in mind that I take this position as someone who leans quite libertarian, however, this is site is private property and the owners should be able to reasonable set the rules of behavior.

just the other day after I cussed some guy out on the street, that just about anything you say is cheapened rather than enriched by profanity. I think that's true here, and I'm glad they have the profanity ban in place. After all, if I want debate on the level of "Oh yeah? Well then __ you!" I can just go over to Kos.

I support the policy against profanity.  Especially now when people are sometimes emotional with their statements.

There is no logic or strength of arguement that can be argued with profanity than cannot be argued without profanity.

I also would not like to be talked to with profanity when I have a stupid idea.  I would like to feel free to share my ideas, even if they are ill-formed, illogical, or silly.  I think if we allowed profanity, it would intimidate some from posting.  Others would simply limit posts to expressing opinions without logical basis behind them.

Ideas of greatness do not require profanity to express.

I see no advantage in lifting the prohibition.  Rarely is there a moment where a point can't be made on a political website without the use of profanity.  So rarely, in fact, that the overall effect of improving the climate and the quality of the debate is well served indeed by the current prohibition.

A hallmark of a small mind is the use of crude words.  No one said taking the high road is easy, but it does pay huge dividends.

Just ask Cindy Sheehan!

"there are a lot of times that I want to counter some of the moonbat rhetoric with exactly the same level of verbal indiscretion, to show them how it feels when it comes the other way."

I don't think that soeone who is arguing with with verbal indiscresion would really care how it made you feel.  Therefore, they wouldn't be able to relate to that if you spouted off back at them.  Better to take the high road and let the extremist stand out by his own actions.  

I think relaxing the profanity ban would have the effect of posters thinking less before posting.  It may also have the effect of turning the debates here into a race to the language gutter.

A partial relaxation of the profanity rule.  Sometimes, you just gotta use the words in question.

A zero-tolerance rule ususally leads to zero thinking involved.

what advantage the site would get from relaxing the policy and very easy to imagine the harm.

I don't think there is going to be a groundswell of approval among editors.

I'm in favor of the profanity restriction as it stands.  

I don't know if the only reason it's there is filters, and I do appreciate an artful blue streak myself every now and then--but I think that the cons of allowing cursing would outweigh the pros pretty significantly.  

show them how it feels when it comes the other way

I don't think they'll get it.

I really believe we're grown-up enough to tell the difference between someone who is using profanity in the absence of an argument and someone who is creatively using it to support one or to underscore a valid point with a big, nasty exclamation mark

I agree with that sentiment, but I also think that the folks who ban people around here have more than enough on their plates dealing with all the bickering that accompanies certain exchanges over objectionable posts already.  Allowing (but discouraging) profanity would surely increase that job.

One of the reasons I appreciate RS is that the general level of discourse here is high relative to what else is out there.  I see the ban on profanity playing in to that because for every person who makes a good point better with an expletive, there are two or three who use expletives as a shortcut for providing truly thought-provoking contributions.

[In response to your aside, are you referring to the Maryscott O'Connor/C.S. Lewis thing?  If you are, IMHO, it was unjustified.  (Would it be better or worse for me to call it b*%&$@!t?)]

...(and you can take that any way you like) I personally think that a no-swearing rule works out well.  Makes it easier for outside sources to link here*, keeps people from posting too fast and gives a nice contrast to the rest of the internets.

Besides, from what I can see foul mouths aren't exactly helping the Other Side any.  :)

Moe

*I'm thinking mainstream sources; ones perhaps not used to a steady supply of the f-bomb.

Do other sites where profanity is tolerated benefit from it?  It just lowers the tone and raises hackles, short-circuiting thoughtful discussion as readers react to whatever offensive thing was just written about them.  Bad, vulgar speech drives out good, thoughtful speech, in other words.  I realize that you're not advocating a complete lifting of the prohibition, but a relaxation strikes me as a first step down a slippery slope.  I'd rather a premier Republican blog were not associated with the sort of profane logorrhea that makes DKoS and DU so laughable.  We're supposed to be the party of adults.

I don't think there is going to be a groundswell of approval among editors.

But I'm not necessarily asking the editors.  I'm asking the users of the site, including many of the newbies that have come here in the previous months.  Ultimately, of course, the editors have the final say -- I'm not trying to start an insurrection, just see what the opinion is.  We haven't talked about it in a long time, and a lot of new users have come in to RedState since the last time we did, so I thought it might be interesting and valuable for the editors to see and hear their opinions.  

Because it challenges people to come up with creative insults and putdowns, instead of falling back on the same old, same old.

-TS

...Profanity is the attempt of the feeble-minded to forcibly express themselves."

She was right then, and is still right...

Let's come up with stronger arguments rather than stronger words.

Speaking as hardcore Democrat and recent visitor, I rather like the prohibition on profanity.  If you go to Quebec, you expect to hear some French.  If you go to the South, you expect to hear Southern accents.  And if you go to a conservative blog,  you sort of expect to hear straightlaced, semi-uptight folks not cursing.  Local color, I suppose.  

Our refraining from using profanity when addressing the Democrats, is like the Red Sox holding back Alex Cora in a bases-loaded situation with David Ortiz coming up.

We have much better weapons to use.

I've always wondered how far the prohibition goes.  I often tend to use sci-fi-created circumlocutions like zark and smeg, or (as a Unix geek) near-misses like fsck.  Plus there are the words that are considered obscene in the UK but aren't all that familiar to US folks (and for that matter, would even UK types consider 'blimey' to be obscene any more?).

I'm unclear on this, really.  I've had some people tell me that "bloody" is really an expletive and shouldn't be used nonchalantly, while others think it's perfectly appropriate if the emotion the writer is attempting to convey is strong.

And I'm sensitive to the use of the term "Brit" because I know from personal experience that some from the U.K. don't appreciate it.  Poor Brit Hume.

Maybe you could expand on the current state of how various usages of slang British terms might be taken -- it would be a service to us here in the United States.

We could always fall back on those wonderful Battlestar Galactica neologisms:  Felgarcarb and Frack.

As in:

"I think Nancy Pelosi is packed full of more slimy felgarcarb than a backed-up septic system."

"Frack the fracking Liberals.  Who cares what the fracking frack they think?  Frack!  They're such a bunch of felgarcarb-eating frackers!"  

Profanity is a legitimate rhetorical tool.  But a chainsaw is a legitimate power tool, and I wouldn't want to have to figure out which of several thousand people can be trusted to use a chainsaw on an ad hoc basis.

I've never even visited the UK, so any and all information I have about their speech patterns is second-hand at best.  Heck, I didn't even know the origins of 'bloody' until one of my college professors explained it to me, heh.

Anyone from the UK want to enlighten us rubes across the pond?  :-)

The most amusing criminal charge I've ever seen filed was in the UK: "non-consensual buggery".  (Which begs the question as to whether 'bugger' would be acceptable under the no obscenity rule.)

at Redstate.  I beileve it is a quite an admirable testament of restraint by most all who post here, that they are able to express themselves without restoring to the use of such words; grace under fire, as it were, oftentimes.

I think it was justified.  MSOC is one person in the entire universe who richly deserves to have an epithet hurled at her every once in a while.  She doesn't have any compunction whatsoever about hurling them at everyone she wants -- even people who are on her side!  She's a loudmouthed broad with a bad attitude and I'm glad I said what I said, although I probably should have said it someplace else.

The debate is heightened.

It allows other non-blog sources to link and read us more than other blogs.  This is especially true of MSM readers (of which we have many).

It makes RedState look better in comparison to other blogs when one is comparing.

It keeps many readers around who would leave if cursing were commonplace.

And the most immediate reason, there is no other line that makes sense.  Once we allow words in some situations, it will be abused.  And then we will have to make judgement calls on what is over the line and what is not.  The bright "Profanity is not tolerated" line is much easier to identify.

This would be a bad time to go O'Connor.

anyway :)

Here's a link to her comment, and your response.  I know you've got major issues with her, but in that instance especially she wasn't hurling anything at anyone...

And I got lambasted by everyone on this website for snapping at her.  Taken to the proverbial woodshed and beaten like the proverbial redheaded stepchild -- in my own private emails.  

But in retrospect I don't particularly care whether her book recommendations were apropos -- anyone could have recommended those books -- I could have myself.  That's not the point, and it isn't why I went over the top:  the day I have Maryscott O'Conner lecture to me about her literary picks regarding good and evil, god, religion and restraint, not to mention civility, decorum or textual interpretation, is the day I put the barrel of the gun in my mouth and pull the trigger.

I'm glad she hasn't posted here in a long, long time.  She's welcome to her blog, and she's welcome to continue her sadomasochistic rants there, but if she ever shows up here again in a petticoat and pulls it again, I won't use the same language, but I'll react in exactly the same way.  She's not welcome here, at least as far as I'm concerned, for whatever that is worth.

As much as I have "major issues" with MSOC and I know she has "major issues" with Republicans, I haven't ever returned the favor of showing up on her website and posting comments, trying to lecture her.  Nor have I ever posted a single comment on Daily Kos, where she gained most of her notoriety as a loudmouthed broad with a bad attitude.  In other words, I've self-enforced my own protection order against her, and I hope she'll do the same.  The two of us together on the same blog are hypergolic -- we spontaneously combust like monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, and unlike the Space Shuttle's OMS, we're not controlled combustion and we're not directed toward doing anything worthwhile together.  

but I've grown to like it.

RedState is different than many other sites.  It is "family-friendly".  Parents who have filters on their computers can access RedState easily.

The profanity filter forces me and everyone else to frame our opinions using more creativity than the easy, quick "f this," etc.

Forcing us to elevate our tone is beneficial for all users.

Count me as a convert to the "no profanity rule."

That would be my ideal for civility, but I don't think that would fit the mission of RedState.

come to think of it

to continue an absolute ban on the five or six most offensive cuss words -- the ones that still for the most cannot be uttered on network TV in prime time. I personally don't have a problem with salty language in general, it's all a matter of context. But RedState, which is, after all, a serious site for people to discuss politics and ideas, is not the right context for vulgarity. I don't think there's a single argument that can be made using vulgar language that cannnot be put forth more eloquently and forcefully without.

Outside of the five or six worst offenders (words, not people, that is) I'd vote for a light touch when it comes to censoring on the basis of profanity.

that makes a heck of a lot of sense

I like the profanity prohibition:  it forces folks to think before posting and elevates the tone of debate.  But I agree with your basic point, namely, that sometimes the right word happens to be a curse.  A possible approach would be not to change the rules, but to exercise a degree of prosecutorial discretion (if you will).  If a curse seems appropriate in context, let it pass without comment from the Editors.  If an Editor thinks a curse is essential to a story, use it.  But maintain the formal ban so that those who choose to use profanity know they might do so at their peril.

After all, a cop doesn't want to catch the guy who accelerates to 85 in order to pass a semi on a two lane road.  The cop wants to catch the guy who only knows how to go 85.  So should it be with profanity.

(Coming from a guy who, ahem, has a bit of a lead foot.)  

> Forcing us to elevate our tone is beneficial for all users.

Yeah, you're really all about the elevated tone aren't you?

I call out those who act suspiciously.  But I am courteous.

I didn't call you any obscene names.