First, I corrected and shortened the titles of the lists (and kept them separate.
Next, I placed a warning message at the top that simple political bickering in the comments would be deleted with discussion.
Third, I returned the censored words except for one: murderer. Yes, "murderer" has probably been uttered by someone. But the nature of the usage of the word is similar to the other expletives because its utterance is intended to be inflammatory. It also does not contain any truth as far as I can tell in that one cannot convict a sitting president for murder by ordering troops to combat. I will check with a lawyer on this one, but I believe it is true. So, 1. No truth at all, and 2. Inflammatory or slanderous. If a word has a small bit of truth, or is true only in a slight context, I would consider keep for that reason. Words can go on the list by default. If someone objects, there should be some discussion, but based on accepted criteria and then either removed or retained.
Last, I added a lot of words to both lists, which take them in some new directions. I hope this helps to mitigate the sense of hate in the Against list.
* first, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I have considered it at some length.
* ok, so I didn't want to make this a politicaldebate as much as sort of a survey of the words chosen in a political debate. I had thought of this list (actually, both lists including the GOP list) as sort of saying something without saying something. In fact, I personally don't agree with some in the list.
* However, I think you are right, some of the words are indeed quite mean-spirited, if not simply name-calling. I think my tentative desire is to remain true in the collection and collect the words, no matter how harsh, but this is not a scientific activity. Therefore, it does not have any obligation to truth or purity (even if I could measure it, right?). So, in the spirit of making the list something someone could also show their child as an educationalexercise, I decided to excise the more vitriolic entries.
* For good measure, I will make the jettisoned words available upon request.
* In addition, I will suggest a criterion for evaluating whether a word is appropriate or not: If the word does not address a specific characteristic of Bush or the administration, or its use is plainly intended to offend or berate or to smear... put more simply, if it would not be appropriate for a kind to learn the word, it will be removed. I hope you will send feedback on this criterion.
* Finally, to address the one part of your comment that I thought an attack on the Dems (ok, not really, maybe a mild attack on the Dems..). I don't think sour notes are unique to the Democrats as a group - I have heard much worse about Hillary Clinton uttered. However, following on your mention, I will also change the names of the lists both to represent more abstract groups.
* What do you think of these changes (and the edited list..?)
Comments by bernaun
bernaun commented on the list words-against-bush-and-or-his-administration
uselessness,
Thank you for the encouraging words..
February 6, 2007
bernaun commented on the list words-against-bush-and-or-his-administration
First, I corrected and shortened the titles of the lists (and kept them separate.
Next, I placed a warning message at the top that simple political bickering in the comments would be deleted with discussion.
Third, I returned the censored words except for one: murderer. Yes, "murderer" has probably been uttered by someone. But the nature of the usage of the word is similar to the other expletives because its utterance is intended to be inflammatory. It also does not contain any truth as far as I can tell in that one cannot convict a sitting president for murder by ordering troops to combat. I will check with a lawyer on this one, but I believe it is true. So, 1. No truth at all, and 2. Inflammatory or slanderous. If a word has a small bit of truth, or is true only in a slight context, I would consider keep for that reason. Words can go on the list by default. If someone objects, there should be some discussion, but based on accepted criteria and then either removed or retained.
Last, I added a lot of words to both lists, which take them in some new directions. I hope this helps to mitigate the sense of hate in the Against list.
Any thoughts..?
bernaun
February 2, 2007
bernaun commented on the list words-against-bush-and-or-his-administration
* first, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I have considered it at some length.
* ok, so I didn't want to make this a political debate as much as sort of a survey of the words chosen in a political debate. I had thought of this list (actually, both lists including the GOP list) as sort of saying something without saying something. In fact, I personally don't agree with some in the list.
* However, I think you are right, some of the words are indeed quite mean-spirited, if not simply name-calling. I think my tentative desire is to remain true in the collection and collect the words, no matter how harsh, but this is not a scientific activity. Therefore, it does not have any obligation to truth or purity (even if I could measure it, right?). So, in the spirit of making the list something someone could also show their child as an educational exercise, I decided to excise the more vitriolic entries.
* For good measure, I will make the jettisoned words available upon request.
* In addition, I will suggest a criterion for evaluating whether a word is appropriate or not: If the word does not address a specific characteristic of Bush or the administration, or its use is plainly intended to offend or berate or to smear... put more simply, if it would not be appropriate for a kind to learn the word, it will be removed. I hope you will send feedback on this criterion.
* Finally, to address the one part of your comment that I thought an attack on the Dems (ok, not really, maybe a mild attack on the Dems..). I don't think sour notes are unique to the Democrats as a group - I have heard much worse about Hillary Clinton uttered. However, following on your mention, I will also change the names of the lists both to represent more abstract groups.
* What do you think of these changes (and the edited list..?)
Thank you again!
bernaun
January 31, 2007