Where can I find a list of words/phrases that are banned on DU's Guns forum? n/t

company you'll never have a problem.

fair to let new DUers who participate in the Guns forum know what those words/phrases are.

IMO that would reduce the number of alerts and workload on mods if such information were widely known.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=288003&mesg_id=288003

I'm sure you can think of what those might be, whether you're a firearms owner or someone who thinks firearms should be strongly regulated. Use the Golden Rule when you write and ask yourself if you'd like to be called something or another.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

It's a very short list, and you already know the terms. If not, proofread your posts and see if any of the words you use are insulting to firearms owners or advocates of strong regulation. All you have to do is be reasonable and polite, and you won't have any problems.

on this subject and have internalized the information. I also have enough common sense to know what is insulting when used as a label for someone with whom I disagree. As those who know me know, being disagreeable is something I'm quite good at, but I try to do it in a polite way, as in this exchange.

The general rule of thumb might be: If you have to wonder if the terminology you are about to use is appropriate, use different terminology that is less insulting. That's the rule I follow.

It's not rocket science.

Using "insulting" as a guide is unclear. There are some who participate in the forum who are insulted by the mere presence and arguments supporting the possession and use of firearms by anyone other than the military of civilian authorities. There are some who want all firearms melted down and consider anyone who would even think neutrally about firearms to be disturbed or wantonly destructive. Similarly there are those on the side of possession of firearms who are insulted by the insinuation that there should be restrictions on the possession of long arms or handguns as it is a civil right. They seem to be insulted by the idea that one would not be open to using a firearm to defend themselves or loved ones.

I agree with you on the Golden Rule (although that is creeping into Religion :rofl: ). Clear but flexible guidelines are good. People tend to lose perspective when passions are inflamed.

to do. The basic rules of DU forbid personal attacks. So, all a person has to do is ask him or herself whether they'd feel insulted or attacked by being called a particular name. Of course, it would require a little thought and a bit of putting oneself in another's shoes for a moment.

For example, someone who preferred not to eat animal products would have to think about someone who does eat them when writing a term like "murderer" in reference to the latter. With that thought, a better word could easily be chosen. Perhaps something like "carnivore." Using a less insulting term would, perhaps, lead the carnivore not to use a term such as "granola-cruncher" in a response. Civility would be maintained. The disagreement would be less intense.

There are many such examples, of course. One need only read GD for a while to view many others. :rofl:

I saw the thread from February with the clarification from Krispos42. Some of the terms were the typical ones used by both sides: Obvious ones = hoplophobe, gun nut, gun grabber, gun worshiper, etc..

Basically it was some of the obvious terms plus a notice that the mods were stepping up activity to restore or I guess implement some civility into discourse on the forum. They asked us to alert on what we thought were infractions to the DU forum rules. I would imagine as Mineral Man said, that keeping the language civil and the arguments on point, would go far in maintaining that civility.

DUers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=288003&mesg_id=288003

N.B.: If you're looking at the list of threads in the Gun topic, it's the thread immediately under the one you started. Its title is pretty clear, it seems to me.

Which begs the question of why you posted this thread, since you had already read the thread to which you requested a link. It is the very thread you were seeking.

DUers are smart enough to figure out for themselves what is civil and what is not. A few examples of name-calling expressions were given, along with a call for improved civility. No list of words is needed, as I have said in other replies to you. Just some common sense and respect for diverse views should be all that is required for people of good intent.

at the top of the gun forum.

we need a sticky mods!

edit: the silly goose that I am put a ? instead of a !

thats pretty good LOL:toast:

it's a thankless job but they have created a more civil level of discussion in the gun forum.

except in unusual cases such as a link to porn sites or advocating physical harm to others and a handful of cases when my patience was worn thin by pure hate posts.

The one thing I remember from the beginning on DU is a few people attacked pro-RKBA DUers to the point they retaliated in kind only to be promptly tomb stoned. To them it was a game to provoke pro-RKBA DUers so they were banned.

Things are infinitely better today and IMO those who are banned are provocateurs from sites like that one representing the other political party.

awaits us in the future as DUers try to find ways to not only skirt the letter of the law but its spirit.

When you find your rights constantly under assault, even by people who *CLAIM* to be progressives, it's not suprising. Plenty of folks who are quite willing to jump into bed with the Republicans to tell us which rights we have or don't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

when the people who dislike guns resorted to insults, then I knew I had won the argument.

It reminds me of some quotes,

Use soft words and hard arguments.
English Proverb

Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.
Victor Hugo

pro-con side they try to defend.

:thumbsup: :toast:

proportion of sensitive members given that perhaps 65% of the population support gun ownership and 35% oppose gun ownership?

There are a number of gun-control/prohibitionists who post here for the purpose of punking 2A-defenders and to attack their respective characters. Sometimes they take a "take the highroad" and look down on pro-2A folks; sometimes they engage in the kind of smear which would be called racist and sexist in other quarters. And that is the point: other quarters. There seems to be a license for some anti-2A people to make the kind of regular attacks on their opposition which would not be tolerated in other forums.

Frankly, I think some of the anti-2A folks don't really care about the instant issue; they are getting off to anonymous bathroom wall attacks, and feel it's okay that they can finger-paint the stalls with their auto-induced waste.

I hope this explains the "sensitivity."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

more wise words from cabluedem

BTW the word is spelled their not thier

I think the mods have taken the Hamiltonian approach that enumerating the impermissible terms may be wrongly taken to imply that any unenumerated term is permissible. Which will inevitably lead to a session of "moderation whack-a-mole" as posters try to come up with pejoratives that the moderators haven't explicitly prohibited yet.

what those who support the Second Amendment claim about various laws that infringe upon possessing firearms arguing it could led to total bans as once existed in D.C.

As so many have asserted in various ways since the beginning of our nation, either one supports all rights for all people or no right is immune to denial by a simple majority of the people's representatives.

Let's bear in mind we're on private property here, and in order to be here, we users have agreed to abide by the rules the owners of the property have laid out.

I meant to say that by not maintaining a list of impermissible terms, the moderators avoid having to play "Whack-a-Mole" by having posters try to circumvent the rules by using pejoratives that have not (yet) been added to the list, and instead the mods can assess a post by whether it shows an apparent intent to be abusive, rather than whether or not the exact words used appear on some list.

Whether you consider that to boil down to the same thing you described, I leave up to your judgment.

and along the way provided food for thought and cause to laugh.

Thanks, many thanks to all :toast:

:D

Come on man, we should be used to that...:rofl:

under these new, gentler and kinder rules of engagement? :smoke:

Not that it would have stifled him any. If anything... it would have enraged him even more.

I had no idea.

:rofl:

...well, since before I joined DU. The rules had to be expanded because the same people who couldn't take it were evidently still quite eager to dish it out.

should be referred to. Someone fairly pointed out that using the word (or prefix) *anti* came across with a negative tone. That problem could be resolved by using a pro/pro approach:

PGC = pro gun control
PGR = pro gun rights

Of course this can become quite absurd because the phrase "gun control" means so many different things to different people. So then you have to define gun control. Ah well ---- bottom line, keep your front porch clean before you complain 'bout the other person's porch.

one of which is to discuss 2nd Amendment and that's DU's Guns forum.

SCOTUS said in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual, pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

I routinely use pro-RKBA to express support for and now to acknowledge that natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right.

Is there an acceptable DU way to identify those who oppose SCOTUS' decision?

;-) We'll call them, oh, unarmed.