The latest "banning" (NYC_SKP) is an interesting lesson on REPUTATION.

[IdaBriggs]

ON EDIT: I accidentally copy/pasted the post in duplicate - my apologies!

NYC_SKP and I are on good terms outside of DU; we met here, extended the relationship to Facebook and have spoken on the phone several times.

He is not a misogynist, a racist or a homophobe. He is a California Democrat, currently supporting Bernie Sanders (not a Republican), and personally has a long history of political activism in favor of causes near and dear to the hearts of most people on this board. His "real life" credentials are excellent.

On DU he has continued his tradition of service by acting as a moderator in a major forum back in "the olden days", then host in half a dozen forums on DU3. His participation over tens of thousands of posts was polite, respectful and courteous enough that his hide level is nearly non-existent. He has regularly made financial donations in support of the site, and is a "recognized" name to many of us.

His banning has the site in an uproar with an all-out near flame war. There is grave dancing by those who found his passion for his preferred candidate annoying, joy from the purely anti-misogynist crowd (many of whom count their "hides" in double digits with multiple time outs due to their rude and borderline abusive posts), and frankly consternation from his friends/other long time posters because if it could happen to him over ONE POST then it could happen to us, too.

Banned. Cut from the club. Not "time out/come back and explain yourself" - BANNED. No chance to clarify what you were thinking, apologize if required, or defend the post.

What is the value of an online reputation using a pseudonym? Especially in a for-profit discussion forum? For him or against him, his reputation is in tatters; he is now an accused misogynist, a stupid over the top rude idiot - a fool who doesn't belong among the "decent folks" on this board --

What value the hundreds of hours he spent here?

I have been a member since 2004. DU has been a part of my life on a near daily basis ever since. I have shared public triumphs (recounting New Hampshire presidential election, American Red Cross during Hurricane Katrina), personal tragedy (death of my father, loss of my beloved dogs, the story of my sister with MS), and the joy of getting pregnant/giving birth/raising my now eight year old twins. In 2012 when I began figuring out the connection between micronutrient deficiency, growth retardation and cerebral palsy, my first public discussion on the topics began here, and when I worked on the dratted paper explaining it all, I talked about that, too.

This site is someplace between a habit and a home. I have a reputation here. What is that worth? In real life my family walked with our newly elected Democratic Representative in a local Memorial Day parade and I am NOT a racist, a misogynist or a homophobe. I am a rabid supporter of civil rights issues, I support legalization of marijuana, but think people who chance losing their children over it are idiots, despise illegal drug use, and am adamant about a strong social safety net.

Am I DEMOCRAT enough for this board? Is my reputation strong enough to survive a mistake or a mistyping or a misunderstanding or a temporary moment of over the top passionate typing? If or when I am banned, and the grave dancing begins (the Woo Wars alone ensure those!), how will I handle the "little death" of that moment? Will the glee of the cruel erase the good memories I have made? Will I question the number of hours I have spent here, reading and responding to "imaginary" people, and wonder why I bothered?

What will my reputation be worth? How will I be remembered? Will I be mourned?

This playpen is run by good people who deservedly receive income from their efforts. I submit that there is a value brought by long term members and that at some point an arbitrary kick to the curb is inappropriate by our hosts. At some point you stop typing or texting and pick up the blasted phone to repair a relationship before it goes off the rails.

If you value it, anyway. That is what you do when you care about people. And yes, with thousands of posters, many of us long term, the phone tree approach might be necessary - the details are not mine to work out - but (to circle back again) NYC_SKP is not the first "long timer" who has been booted; some have been welcomed back, and some have not.

This is an online discussion forum, and the long term rules are still being wrestled with. A good reputation has to have some value.

Doesn't it? Or is this place just a "what have you done for me lately/posters come and posters go" internet site instead of a community?

I post under my real name. I have received death threats (thank goodness not serious ones!) for some of my public stands. I am REAL - and so are the rest of the PEOPLE who post here. And, to be fair, at some point the board itself has a "personality" with a reputation of its own: thoughtful discussion, courteous behavior, insightful views....all provided by quality posters who bring their best to the site on a regular basis.

Long term versus short - a reputation for being a "good" poster either has value or it doesn't. The whisper I hear is "who is next?"

And that is not a good reputation for this place to have.

[MohRokTah]

1. It is my understanding a banned DUer can approach the Admins to request reinstatement.

From what I've read (on places other than DU), one such banned DUer was allowed to return even after making public threats of violence against another DUer, so it seems to me that NYC_SKP has options here as what he did is not nearly so horrible as making a threat of violence against another DUer.

[Ed Suspicious]

246. At least he's allowed to grovel.

Maybe an admin will take pity and offer him a short chain and collar.

Reek . . . I meant NYC_SKP, you're one of the lucky ones.

[MohRokTah]

248. I doubt seriously if an admin would consider a reversal if the banned subject makes no request.

[Jesus Malverde]

270. It's likely he's a teachable moment

I totally understand the admins perspective. It's akin to a rancher hanging a dead coyote on a fence. The other coyotes will learn or risk the same fate. Fairly obvious in context.

[Jim Lane]

367. If you're right about the admins, then they're being too narrow.

If I were running this site (and, please, no lectures, I know I'm not running it and the First Amendment doesn't apply and so forth), I would look at these threads and I would see a huge number of regular contributors stating themselves to be unhappy, with a small number even expressly saying that they won't renew their Star memberships.

Under those circumstances, I would at least consider taking the initiative to ameliorate the decision, even absent a request from the banned member. It would strike me as a sensible step to take for the good of the site.

[MohRokTah]

382. I disagree completely with that.

If the offending member makes no request, there is no contrition thus proving the original ban was 100% correct.

[MrMickeysMom]

442. To me, this is a little like begging...

When, in fact, so many have petitioned on his behalf, knowing what has already been explained, then the same message is given to the administrators.

[MohRokTah]

454. It matters not if the whole of DU petitions on his behalf.

If he cannot bring himself to display contrition, the ban was just and righteous from the beginning and it should not be lifted.

[MrMickeysMom]

456. So, he should feel remorse for saying something that did not warrant same?

I don't think so.

[MohRokTah]

473. What he said absolutely deserved the ban hammer.

Those who try to justify his misogyny duplicate it.

[MrMickeysMom]

551. That means that you accuse me of the same misogyny by my statement now?

Really? What a statement that is...

Do you have any other colored shirts in your closet besides brown?

[Long Drive]

592. You are so right

It is PRETZEL logic.

[sabrina 1]

621. No he did not, and a vast majority of the WOMEN here on DU do not agree with this at all.

There was NOTHING in his comment that even came close to 'misogyny' and please stop using that word, you clearly don't understand the meaning of it. It diminishes women to see it tossed around like this for purely political purposes and to me is more indicative of sexism than anything else. USING WOMEN for one's own purposes is sexism. So please refrain from doing it or by your own stated standards it is a bannable offense.

[MohRokTah]

624. Ye, he did, and you're just making shit up.

There is no way to ell what the majority of WOMEN here on DU think about it.

[akbacchus_BC]

494. I agree with you, NYC will never ask to get back in,

that would be futile. I love NYC but we have lost a great DUer!

Nevertheless, this place is becoming too censor for my liking!

I thought it was free speech within a certain boundary, uphold democratic ideals. Now I can't figure out what are Democratic ideals?

[MrMickeysMom]

552. I think you pretty well hit the nail, akbacchus...

I'm not gonna do more than suggest what I did… which is to question the administrators about it.

I don't expect any real answers from Skinner, but he needs to hear us.

[Jim Lane]

497. Where we differ is that I see grounds for contrition on both sides.

NYC_SKP should not have posted what he did. EarlG should not have banned him for it. If each side refuses to budge until the other side acknowledges error, then nothing will happen. If there's to be any improvement in the situation, someone has to make the first move.

Personally, I'm pessimistic. I wouldn't be surprised if each side does feel some contrition but also feels enough anger to prevent any unbending (i.e., there will be neither a request for unban from NYC_SKP nor an unprompted change from the admins). Therefore, the status quo will remain, to the detriment of NYC_SKP and of DU.

[sabrina 1]

430. I agree with you. A huge majority of members here are opposed to this banning. Regardless of the

business aspect of it, sometimes people have to admit they are wrong. It takes a strong person to do that, and I think that Skinner has shown an ability to do that in the past.

[bvar22]

675. I thought it was pretty funny,

....shades of George Carlin, and the way he showcased hypocrisy in our laws and language.

Wherever you are, Skip,

[roguevalley]

299. I remember writing directly to the owners about some guys who posted that they

raped women and girls in their youth when they 'didn't know any better' and they were not only not banned, I got no response.

I loathe the word used by NYC. But I also know about the moment taking you away. I also know that the owners are some of the bigger supporters of Clinton on this board. I also know that the owners Discussionist site routinely says the same or worse about Hillary without penalties. I guess its hard to say no to the money ads generate because Discussionist either has to be modded or dropped if you want to keep a 'reputation'. Maybe it is all about the benjamins that its still the seething cesspool that it is. I don't come here like I used to and I suppose even though I am an FDR-HST dem with a hard left lean and a desire not to die of my old age in a fascist state run by corporatists and their friends like Mrs. Clinton, that makes me a bad person.

Ban me too. I don't care but lets not pretend that only his one action led to this. Given the crud that gets to stay, it rather beggars the reasons behind NYC's banning.

I wish he were back. When the older people here leave, it won't be the same. When a things history leaves, no one can rightfully and accurately tell the truth about a place. I won't link to the posts about the rapists. Its in archives and is about a year or two back.

Sue me. Ban me. I miss you, NYC.

RV

[sabrina 1]

447. NYC did not use that word. Just wanted to make that clear. Otherwise good post.

Maybe DU never was what we thought it was. And that is what a lot of people are wondering now, is it just an online Campaign Headquarters for Hillary Clinton. Fine, if you own a site you can make it whatever you want it to be. But then you need to tell all those who are wasting their time here, donating to the site etc assuming it is NOT a Party site, but a Democratic site where it is okay to prefer one candidate over another.

If believing that a certain candidate is not the best thing for this country right now, gets you banned, then a whole lot of people are going to have to be banned.

They will continue to advocate for the candidate they believe is better for the country, just not here.

Maybe that is a question that needs to be asked 'Is DU now an online Campaign Headquarters for Hillary Clinton'. Because if the answer is 'yes', a whole lot of members here are in the wrong place. We definitely have a right to know this imo.

[Petrushka]

506. Good question!

If this site has become an online campaign headquarters for Hillary Clinton (or for any other candidate), DUers have a right to know. Hopefully, the admins will answer "no" to your question . . . soon!

[LuvNewcastle]

513. Thank you. I've been thinking the same thing.

I'm not one bit interested in celebrating the wonder of Hillary Clinton. I think she's an awful candidate and would be an even worse President. This banning was more about saying bad things about Hillary than making a slur against all women, which is absurd. If this site is going to turn into Hillary Headquarters, all I can say is that there's a big web out there. Or I could actually get something worthy accomplished.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

520. I have seen worse posts from a few members over the years, which have resulted in a hide, but not an

outright ban.


If this is a payback for skip being anti-Hilary then the owner/admins should be open to say so.

Otherwise one might come to believe that DU is now officially endorsing Hillary Clinton, and if that is the case the owner/admins need to make that clear when the donate to the site.

[mylye2222]

619. + 1 000 000 000 000 000..

It is exactly what it looks like.... an advertisement toward the most vocal not Ready For Hillary DUers...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

522. ...

Maybe that is a question that needs to be asked 'Is DU now an online Campaign Headquarters for Hillary Clinton'. Because if the answer is 'yes', a whole lot of members here are in the wrong place. We definitely have a right to know this imo.

May I take this to ask the admins?

[antiquie]

526. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=8004

[sabrina 1]

633. I think the question does need to be answered. My email and PMs are filled with DUers who are asking

if Bernie supporters, which are a majority of the membership here, are not welcome here.

We know that with the takeover of the Dem Party by the Third Way that Progressive Dems are not welcome, except for their votes for the choices made NOT by them, but by the leadership.

See comments by Rahm and Axelrod eg.

A clear message is now being sent finally, that no, you do not take our votes for granted anymore. Enough is enough. If we have no say in this party, and we have not for a long time, then do not count on our votes for YOUR choice of candidates anymore.

Times are changing, people are no longer going to put up with what we did a few years ago.

And if we progressives are not welcome HERE, it would be the fair thing to do to tell us.

[roguevalley]

577. 2 million % sabrina 1. I sort of think this is a one party

site. Everyone with a different idea is a 'hater'.

[2banon]

595. You nailed it right on the head Sabrina. And i believe you answered your own question.

DU is the internet campaign headquarters for HRC, clearly. Skinner himself trotted out the endorsement for her, speaking on behalf of DU. That was a few months ago, if memory serves. It's pretty clear to me, the fix is in and no one else shall be considered.

Kind of reminds me of the Chicago Convention of 1968 in a way.

[Aerows]

598. I have the same exact question

I *will* vote for Hillary if she wins the primary, but this incident was just bad form.

I'm very unsettled by this.

[Cha]

597. So what if the Admin support Hillary? It's their board.. they initiated it and kept it up and

running these years. They have a right to support who they want.

And, they have a right to ban SKP for his "clever" little misogynistic slur directed at Hillary Clinton.

"Troll"

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...

"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979

How SKP responded..

"Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973

Posted it in his journal too.. just in case anyone missed his Hide..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP

EarlG (Administrator)

"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans

If SKP wants back he needs to own it and apologize to the Admin when asking to be re-instated.. not try to wiggle out of it like others are trying to do for him.

Those making excuses for him.. from saying "it wasn't directed at Hillary" to "he really didn't say it" to "he was only joking" are doing him absolutely no good.

I actually appreciate what the Admin of DU have done for our Democracy all these years.

[roguevalley]

626. I expected a reply because I know I wasn't the only one who wrote

I expected action. Nothing happened. They may own it but we support it too. It does matter that they do. It influences a lot in my mind but then that's my opinion.

[H2O Man]

2. Recommended.

Thank you.

[GusBob]

3. By clicking here you have read and understand and agree to the terms of service

a single violation may result in having your posting privleges revoked

that is todays lesson

[tkmorris]

7. True enough, but misses the point by a country mile

[GusBob]

12. from the op

'the rules are still being wrestled with'

the rules are as posted. clear as a country day

[IdaBriggs]

21. Do I need to edit for clarification? I was referring

to the LONG TERM rules of Internet forums/discussion boards in general. The TOS continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of our community (as they should). Fifteen years ago most of us weren't aware of some of the language we would now be using on a daily basis, and logically, our customs will continue to evolve over the next decade.

[Buzz Clik]

39. A harsh reality of life. Bad judgment coupled with pissing off the wrong person: everything changes

It's a shame, really, but it happens every day.

[JDPriestly]

164. Now, again, please type onto DU the exact wording of NYC_SKP's post and the post before it

and see if you really think that he used bad enough judgment to be banned. In spite of all the talk to the contrary, if you look at the facts, NYC_SKP did not mention Hillary by name and did not use the very naughty "C" word at all.

He was banned for innuendo, no, more precisely for making a joke which we all use every day in some small way.

Besides, if he had used the "c" word, we must remember why it is a prohibited word. That specific four-letter word is considered to be vulgar. There are many polite phrases that really mean the same thing but that are not considered vulgar. We use them all the time.

Using a polite phrase that means the same thing is an insult, but it is mild is acceptable in society. And saying it is just an opinion. There are a thousand polite ways of saying the same thing as using the "c" word. NYC_SKP, like it or not, used one of them that is considered to be a synonym to some but is not at all the same word. In fact, it makes you laugh rather than be disgusted if you are normal.

People are going to say much worse things about each and every candidate in this presidential race before the election is over.

Good heavens! I'm rather disgusted with the ignorance and lack of understanding of linguistics and the social use of language demonstrated by this banning of NYC_SKP. I expect a higher level of intelligence and sophistication on a board as liberal as DU.

Show me where NYC_SKP actually used the "C" word.

[Buzz Clik]

190. You were doing so well until this:

I expect a higher level of intelligence and sophistication on a board as liberal as DU.

Take that little insult, kick it up a notch or ten, imagine that you had been doing that to 50 posters a day for a week, and there you have Skippy.

As for the rest, you're addressing the wrong person. And, considering that bereavement over Skippy's banning has been going nonstop for 24 hours, I'd say the admins have been really patient.

[Rhythm]

208. A lot more patient than in the past...

And, considering that bereavement over Skippy's banning has been going nonstop for 24 hours, I'd say the admins have been really patient.

I remember a time *cough*Purge*cough* when all it took to get the ban-hammer in here was to publicly mourn tombstoned members with a Roman-numeral-titled thread, and say nothing more.

[dbackjon]

232. I was one of the purged. Banned for one thread that didn't violate the TOS.

[QC]

265. 7

[enigmatic]

268. I remember 2008

And the Gay Purge. The ugliest moment ever on this board and this place still hasn't recovered from it. And a good chunk of those who cheered those bannings on are still here, still posting. Which is why I rarely post here anymore.

[QC]

273. -Yep. Notice how many of the nastiest primary warriors of 2007-8

(or their zombies) are here clucking their tongues over the ugliness of Skippy's post--and yes, it was ugly.

Someone who called Hillary "morally depraved" and "an inveterate liar" and "a vicious politician who will stop at nothing to get what's coming to her" is now wringing her hands over the unseemliness of other people's much milder remarks on that same candidate.

These past few years, I come here more for amusement than enlightenment.

[enigmatic]

276. Agreed

Couldn't said it better.

[sabrina 1]

569. Amazing, isn't it? It makes you seriously wonder about people. How they can totally change overnight

almost. Something has to be the cause of that.

As for coming here more for amusement than anything else, I've heard a lot of people say that. I used to come her to learn, and I did, years ago.

Not so much anymore. But so long as we are led to believe that it is okay to support a candidate we believe is best for this country right now, although recent events have led many here to believe it is NOT okay, until some official notice that states this is an online campaign headquarters for Clinton, which has not yet been said, I will continue to assume that we who support someone other than Clinton are still welcome here. Though it is hard to feel secure that this is the case.

[QC]

571. I used to tell people things I learned at DU and they would say,

"How do you know all this stuff?" Then I would give them the link.

Now, not so much. I come here to see people I have known for years and maybe enjoy some drama and catch up on breaking news, but it's not the same. This is still a fun place, but it's not the education in politics that it used to be.

This is my fourth primary at DU, and I've seen the nastiest supporters of a candidate in one primary becomes the nastiest supporters of other candidates in later primaries. Some people just like being mean.

[pecwae]

579. And from all indications

this next primary season might leave few standing. '08 was bloody and the results left a bad taste in my mouth. It changed DU irrevocably in every way. The tone that was left discouraged me from continuing as a Mod or active member. I rarely stop by now. There's no need for the mean spiritedness and life is far too short to indulge in the meaningless back and forth. It's kind of sad what's become of the place.

[Egnever]

581. I think you have captured this place perfectly

This place is much more entertainment than informative now days. It's like Democratic WWF!

[enigmatic]

591. For some here, it's not really about issues, politicians, the party, or even politics

It's just a game to them. That's how they can easily slide from position to position, from candidates they despised one primary to cheering them on the next. Some treat it as another RPG where they take on a role and then switch sides after awhile to change things up for them. And stalking, harassing others is part of the game to them.

And yes, for some it's about the bullying that they can get away in regards to other people they, for whatever reason, hate. That's why you see certain people's posts alerted on all the time, no matter if the post is alert-worthy. People bully and hate for reasons that often make no sense, but that's humanity. Obviously when they carrying the bullying and stalking into RL then it much more sinister.

I've been on message boards for 20 years or so. Some as innocuous subject-wise as you can get, yet this kind of thing that we see here happened on most of those, too. It's about the personality types that inhabit them, not necessarily the subject matter.

Once I learned that lesson, it became much easier to disengage from that nastiness and chaos on message boards but I still get drawn into them; that's why I came back here after not posting for years. I found a candidate I backed and wanted to be a part of a group the was like-minded in support of him. But as this Primary season (which still hasn't even officially started yet) gets closer and closer, I realize i'll most likely bow out again and look for other boards and blogs to be a part of, because I know as a veteran of 3 other primaries here, that the toxicity here will be off the charts and I just don't want to be a part of that anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

593. What you said

and I expect this primary to have a healthy dollup of antisemitism with a cherry on top to boot.

[enigmatic]

594. Like I said, it's a game for some here

I know you're one of those who has been bullied here and I really don't know how you stand to come back here; I would have left years ago. To me, this place is just not worth the abuse people dole out here on a regular basis to those they hate. I admire you for sticking to your guns about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

596. I left due to antisemitism

and am ready to leave again. I will not post at a place that allows this.

Now that the abusers are not ignored, but confronted...a verbal bloody nose...they are rather confused.

One got utterly gobsmacked when told I don't hate that person (I know that person does hate me for whatever reason that I care little for) but I care also not to know them. I don't hold any ill feeling towards that individual either. Person, I know, has no idea how to respond.

But I did a lot of reading into what makes these people tick. To be honest, if it wasn't because they will byte, they need a real warm and tight hug. But the bullying is about their needs. A hard lesson, but one now internalized.

[Aerows]

603. Nadin

I'm not one of the criticize and bully crowd, but I'll still give you and everyone else that experiences it a hug

[Aerows]

600. This is the post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5692646&mesg_id=5699469

Whole thread is an eye-opener.

[QC]

601. Check this one out!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5692646&mesg_id=5699079

[Aerows]

605. Sad

vitriol laced post there.

How do you get off that particular bandwagon and get back on the Hillary bandwagon?

I keep editing myself because I don't want to call anyone out and get banned, but that particular DUer has some interesting ideas about what makes a politician, a democracy and many other things.

[Bonobo]

609. That is probably the most bizarre and unexpected reversals I have seen on DU.

It is nearly pathological.

[Aerows]

611. Odd, isn't it

that someone was so stridently opposed to Hillary Clinton, but is now all smiles about her campaign.

I wonder what her epiphany was.

[Bonobo]

613. It goes beyond odd into the realm of something else.

I was a big Obama supporter but after 8 years of his presidency, I have (I think) my own ample reasons for changing my opinion.

OTOH, my own opinion of Hillary has not changed.

Thank you for shining the light on this, Aerows. It is educational.

[enigmatic]

614. That's why I really do urge those who may have joined after 2008 to check the DU2 archives

during the primaries. See for themselves just what was going on, and by who. Also, Right around the time of the inauguration and afterwards. Most of those threads (except some in the LGBT group where a chunk were deleted) are still around. along with those who engaged in the worst of bullying of DU's LGBT members. It's a true eye-opener.

[Bonobo]

620. OMG, LOOK AT THIS ONE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6186699#6188982

[L0oniX]

667. Kinda makes what we have now look like a church lady group.

[SixString]

674. That's interesting.

Funny, yet pathetic.

Wow.

[enigmatic]

607. yep

Another great example.

[enigmatic]

606. That was one of many in 2008

I think for people to really get an idea just how bad it was in 2008 during the primaries and who were the one engaging in the worst of the viciousness, they should really go back into the archives of DU2 and see for themselves. Because it was pre-jury system and there were mods instead a good chunk of the worst stuff was deleted but you ca still get an idea what was going on and who was driving the worst of it. Many of them are still here to this day; some under different names but most aren't.

People can make their own judgement on what's going on now in light of what happened then.

[SusanCalvin]

428. "and this place still hasn't recovered from it"

I'll say. The two LGBT groups (well, I think only one existed at the time) most definitely.

[Rhythm]

462. Note that my post-count hasn't gotten above 6000 yet...

Even though i've been here since '06, and used to be really active in here.

Too often now, it's a poo-flinging extravaganza, and i have little time in my life for it.

[ladyVet]

583. I've got you beat!

I've been here since 2001 (joined to post in 2004) and I haven't hit one thousand yet!

I've been here long enough to see that bans come for some folks for the wrong reasons, some never come at all, and some come only after the member has been so egregious that he/she can't be ignored any more. It seems to be the way of the Internet, sadly.

[Chathamization]

584. That's one of the reasons why I prefer unmoderated forums. There's less inequality and selective

enforcement of the rules. Also, in my experience, the conversation isn't any worse because of lack of moderation - in fact people tend to be nicer to each other from what I've seen. Unsurprisingly, moderation isn't able to force people to be pleasant.

I also wouldn't mind a place with daily/weekly posting limits. A lot of times an active 1% of the user base ends up dominating the discussion.

[SusanCalvin]

344. .

[QC]

355. !

[Rhythm]

544. VII

[orpupilofnature57]

362. I was banned from two groups in two weeks, both were the same subject,,

and all the banishment and censorship and hiding, all has one thing in common, the issue being discussed, and all those Ostracized were not Hillary supporters .

[Maraya1969]

285. NY SKIP always treated me nicely here. Even when others were

ragging on me he and a few others would be the ray of sun peaking through the horrible storm that happens when you start a discussion that is controversial or you mistakenly post a hoax.

I can't believe how nasty this whole place can be sometimes.

Plus how many times have people written apology posts about their behavior in the past several weeks or days or months? I've seen many of them. None of us are on our best behavior all the time. I have screwed up plenty.

I hate to think that one crazy post from a temporarily demented mind would get me kicked out of this place that I mostly consider "Home"

[UTUSN]

406. You speak for me, thanks. n/t

[Aerows]

608. Well said!

[JDPriestly]

369. If people stopped answering my comments, I'd shut up. I just feel like I have to respond to all the

good people.

We are all trying to do the right thing for our world and for each other. And we are all learning.

For me this is a question of what the boundaries are, whether they are consistent as to what we can express and what we should keep to ourselves on DU. It would be a dull place if no one ever made any silly jokes.

But then we have to consider the line between a silly joke and a degrading expression or remark. It can be hard to decide where that line is. I think as I said that it would have been good to remove the post but leave NYC_SKP on the board and then maybe post a notice that we should be careful about insults that have sexual or gender connotations about candidates. We should all be careful about each others' feelings.

One Hillary fan posted a few lines from the article that Bernie wrote in the 1970s about women's liberation. The lines she posted gave the impression that Bernie was some sort of sex extremist and some sort of woman hater. That for me was far more sinister than what NYC_SKP did and not just because I am a big Bernie fan. The post by the Hillary fan was completely misleading.

If I read an insult or a joke that can be viewed as an insult, I judge the person who wrote the insult more harshly than the person being insulted if I think there is no reason for the insult. But if I read lines quoted from an article that suggest the article is about something that it is not really about, then I can be mislead and that is very unfair.

Hillary is a refined, well educated woman. We all know that. We are trying to choose the best Democratic candidate we can find. Each candidate has good qualities and bad qualities. But it is unfair to misrepresent the candidates or their writings or statements, far more unfair than to just throw some stupid epithet at them that has no meaning in reality but is rather just hot air.

This is a serious business. We really need the best candidate we can get. Apparently we have four contenders. Let's give each one due consideration, their policy proposals, their donors, their backgrounds, their personal lives, their philosophies, their personalities, their appearances (counts little to DUers but a lot to most non-DUers), their voides, everything. We want to choose a candidate who will do two things: 1) win and then 2) strongly lead the country in the right direction.

If we make a mistake and get bogged down in petty issues like what word is used about this one or that one, we will divide ourselves irreparably and lose the 2016 election. We cannot afford that.

So let's be tolerant of each other's mistakes as we go along. The stakes are very high, and we are all likely to be emotional at moments.

[SusanCalvin]

435. +1000

[LuvNewcastle]

532. Well said.

[Aerows]

610. Well stated

JDPriestly, and from the heart.

We all make mistakes.

[bbgrunt]

197. +1000.

[okasha]

210. There is no "polite way of saying the same thing

as the word c**t.". It is misogynist and demeaning to women.

If laughing at it is the standard of "normal," I am perfectly happy to be abnormal and to have no "normal" people as friends.

[JDPriestly]

230. I could probably think of a dozen polite ways to convey the same meaning.

I'm a woman myself and probably won't bother, but the fact is that the forbidden word list should be very short. Otherwise we will all find ourselves in trouble. And the creative use of language, the joking, the kidding around, will become less common and we will all be bored.

What is demeaning to women is the fact that the work that is considered to be women's work like teaching, etc., and the biological functions of women like nursing babies, like taking the birth control pill, like menstruating, etc. are all considered to make us less than men or have to be hidden or not talked about, etc.

A stupid word like the "c" word doesn't really bother me that much. The utter obsession in our society with the female breast, which apparently causes so much titillation in so many males that we have to keep them covered even when feeding our babies, now that is demeaning to women. The fact that I can't go for a walk in my neighborhood alone at night for fear of being raped. Now that is demeaning to me as a woman.

I could make a long list of things that are demeaning to women, and the "c" word would be far from the most important on it. I think the fuss about what we are called is a distraction from the real insults to us as women. That good pre-school childcare is so expensive and that women who work and have children have it so rough, those are things women should be upset about and screaming about, but the "c" word. Really????? Is it all that important? Not to me.

[okasha]

256. Really? Do you think you could also think up a dozen polite ways

to say n*****? Or f*****? Please, be my guest-- let's see a few of your "dozen polite ways" to say c**t.

[AtheistCrusader]

396. Not often I want to rec one of your posts.

today is that day

[okasha]

397. Thankee.

[AtheistCrusader]

417. When you're right you're right.

I can't believe JD has been getting away with that ridiculous deflection. Like we can't read or something.

[snagglepuss]

297. Nail meet hammer. nt

[boston bean]

343. Using the c word just allows us all to plainly

See how one feels it is on to demean women. It's not zero sum.

[JDPriestly]

359. Please show me where NYC_SKP used the "C" word. Please.

Fact is he didn't. The post should have been removed because it was rude, by NYC_SKP should not have been banned.

Over a word he never used??? Come on. That makes us women look extreme.

[boston bean]

376. That's what you want to hang your hat on to

Determine women are extreme. That statement makes me uneasy.

Nope sorry.

[JDPriestly]

401. He did not use the word. and his post is taken out of context. But as I said, I am not answering

posts on this topic once I finish those now on my My Posts page because I think we have other things to talk about. I figure the Mods must be thinking about my statements on this issue by now anyway. I have defended NYC_SKP and that is that.

[skepticscott]

512. Seriously?

That's like defending someone who posts that "Barack Obama is just another nigg*r" By saying.."But...but...they didn't actually use the word 'nigger'!" Please tell us you're not doing that...

[marym625]

409. I agree

Unfortunately, after the feminist movement took power over the word, that power has been given back to the hateful. Something that many just can't understand. It's something that the LGBTQ community did with the word "weer " What Dykes on Bikes did with the word "dyke" even having to go to court for the right to use it.

Thanks for this

[JDPriestly]

372. That word is demeaning to women. There are a thousand more clever, hidden ways to demean women.

Talking constantly about their clothes, their weight, their make-up, their size, etc. can also be ways to chop women down to size. Personally, I view the "c" word as showing more respect for the strength of a woman, her ability to take strong stances and hold true to her ideas than some of the other demeaning ways that women are spoken of.

Female candidates and the families of candidates need to look good. That means dressing well. But when the candidate's appearance becomes the primary topic of discussion, it is more demeaning than using the "c" word in my view.

In fact, the first time someone called my the infamous "b" word, my heart jumped for joy because I knew that I had not been viewed as an object of submissive femininity. I felt it was a triumph and that I had finally arrived in my profession.

If you saw me, you would understand why I felt that way.

So we are all different.

[boston bean]

377. Then maybe accept there are many women

Who do feel it is demeaning to refer to women as cunning stunts. And it does not make them extreme or weak or their opinion less than.

[marble falls]

524. Its not that the word is demeaning to women, its that the user is demeaning women with that word...

I don't care for Hillary Clinton (but I will vote for her if she gets the nod), but NYC SKP was using the word to demean Hillary Clinton as a woman by using using the pun on that word.

If someone one were to refer to you as a "c...... s....", how would you take it? Were you demeaned and reduced to the word or were you complimented?

I agree: NYC SKP has made an incredible contribution to DU. But he did a pretty rank thing with his punning stunt. Hedoes deserve a chance to explain things and apologize.

[Cooley Hurd]

333. A-fucking-agreed!

A backstory is in order...

Back in 2004, I was a mod during the 2k4 primaries. It was surely a contentious time (Clarkies vs Deaniacs). The word "bitch" was used in regards to Condi Rice.

With the little shadowy icon next to my name (which indicated I was a Moderator), I posted this (forgive me, I cannot find the original link so I will paraphrase):

"In regards to Condi Rice, I think it's safe to say she is a 'bitch'".

I received a PM from EarlG, with the subject line, "I wish you hadn't said that".

Of course, a dressing-down was VERY much in order. He did just that. And I learned.

I guess my point is that, there is a VERY real learning curve here at DU. I came here in 2k2 as Liberal as they come (refresher: I stuffed envelopes for George McGovern in '72, Jimmy Carter in '76 AND '80, and for Mondale in '84, etc...), but hadn't mastered political empathy yet.

This website, of which I've been a member sine 2002, TAUGHT me that empathy. MY bona-fidas as a Liberal and a Democrat can not be disputed, but I fucked up. I was trying to be cute with humor, but fell flat on my face. I, of course, wasn't banned, but I learned.

I hope the admins will take NYC_Escapee's entire record into account, and reinstate him.

He's a good-un.

[JDPriestly]

366. Thanks. It would never occur to me to talk or write certain words, but as I said in another post,

my husband learned his English in great part in the Air Force. It's pretty spicy. But I can't think of anyone who respects women more than he does. Words are just words. It's the feeling behind them that counts. And as you point out, compassion and empathy are learned.

So be it.

We are all learning on DU. I couldn't count how many times I have started a post, expressed an opinion, checked it out on the web for a link and then decided I was wrong or not quite right and either started over or simply did not post.

And we learn even more from each other.

We are always learning. I would say that DU is a movement of learning. For all of us.

I suspect that NYC_SKP really regrets the slight slip he made. He probably just thought it was funny.

[boston bean]

378. Word are not just words. They are representative of

a persons character. If no one ever said a word we wouldn't know them.

[JDPriestly]

400. On that we agree, but poor judgment is a character trait that many have.

It's tough to make the right call all the time. Some come closer to that goal than others.

But I'm not going to answer any more posts on this topic because I think we have more important things to discuss.

I don't want to be rude, but this topic has its limits.


I always feel like I have to answer most of the responses I get to my posts, but I think I will leave this topic.

[sabrina 1]

172. I guess we had hoped that a progressive Dem forum would not be uncaring as to simply throw people

away for what was actually, a post that doesn't come close to some of what I have seen get a pass here.

We were clearly wrong, and maybe it's time to reassess how best to use the time spent here which apparently can be wiped out for one post interpreted the wrong way.

[closeupready]

243. 'wiped out for one post interpreted the wrong way' - yes.

You have tag teams on the board who alert each other when someone on the 'enemies list' makes an ambiguous post - you can just imagine how it goes.

[akbacchus_BC]

498. Says the person who congregate with the Cave Dwellers! You

have no say in this, especially if you are going to justify the banning of NYC.

Just go away!

[stevenleser]

570. I find your OP an extremely worthwhile read even as I disagree with you here in general

I don't think you can post an intentional spooning of any racial, ethnic, gender or orientation slur and expect to get away with it.

I know your take is that SKP was somehow mocking the previous poster who was banned as a troll shortly thereafter. Here is where your Talk about reputation definitely comes in.

A poster known to have been a relentless critic of Hillary who posts something seeming to continue the pillorying of her using a spooned version of the c word? Well that would seem to a lot of people to be the right interpretation based on his reputation for attacking Hillary.

Since you know him IRL and say he isn't mysoginistic in general, I will take your word for that because I know you and I trust your opinion. However, he would not be the first person who wasn't a racist or misogynist who got so caught up about a disagreement with someone that they lost their temper and used a racist or misogynistic or other slur against them, or a spooning or euphemism of the term. Someone who does that is being discriminatory in that moment, whatever their normal behavior toward minority and diversity groups.

[JDPriestly]

151. Please post in precise and verbatim terms NYC_SKP's prohibited post and the post before it.

He did not use the naughty, naughty, must-not-say "C" word. He did not mention Hillary.

He may or may not have been calling Hillary a naughty, naughty, unforgivable word. It's hard to say. He may have been just having a laugh. Let's don't be so pompous about things.

The rules are posted, but we have courts and hearings and we present and argue and discuss evidence. And sometimes we allow transgressors to just apologize and continue to live in polite society.

Let's temper everything with compassion and reason.

I don't think that was done here.

And, yes, I would defend a Hillary supporter who goofed a tiny bit just as I am defending NYC_SKP. It's my calling in life.

[JTFrog]

233. Here:

This was posted in another thread by a mirt member.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026777709#post347

Troll's post:

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...

Skip's reply:

Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!

Posted for informational purposes only.

[JDPriestly]

250. No use of the "c" word. No mention of Hillary in NYC_SKP's post. I can understand removing

the post, but not the ban on NYC_SKP. The rules are not clear enough on the use of circumventing expressions for a forbidden word to allow NYC_SKP to foresee that he might be banned if he repeated that "funny" tongue twister.

[JTFrog]

267. I think the intent was clear.

He had gone way overboard with the Hillary bashing and that post isn't fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled.

Once again people are trying to spin and contort this into anything other than what it is. I've seen it happen several times when long timers go off the deep end. Defending misogyny is seriously unappealing and inappropriate.

[passiveporcupine]

301. The intent might just be the way you take it

when I read that, it didn't register the same way with me at all. It didn't offend me at all.

I think a lot of people tend to jump on things said by people they are not happy with (oppositional political views), and misconstrue their words, not intentionally, but emotionally.

I hate the c word. I am a woman. I didn't take offense at NYC_SKP's post. He was making a joke on what someone else said.

I have to say I've been a little bit taken aback by the strong push for Hillary by the forum admins. I think that has a lot to do with this banning. They were the ones who over-reacted to his post, and took the worst meaning from it they could...not necessarily the way he meant it.

But that is just my perception of what happened. Nobody really "knows" what is in another's head unless they spell it out for us. We all make a lot of "assumptions" of what other people mean by what they say.

[JTFrog]

304. You've been taken aback by the strong push by the forum admins to support a Democratic Presidential

candidate? On DemocraticUndergound.com? Seriously?

Personally, I've been taken aback by the amount of hatred shown toward a Democratic Presidential candidate on DemocraticUnderground.com. And the amount of hatred coming from that poster in particular lately just makes the excuses and defenses being tossed out here that much weaker.

[passiveporcupine]

307. Yes, I have been

Because it felt to me like they have been so 'for' Clinton (a centrist at best on economic and foreign affairs) that they are not even considering the viability of Sanders as a potential candidate who is far more "liberal" than Clinton, and stands for almost everything this forum should be interested in. You cannot say that about Hillary. Her strong points (according to her history) are being a woman and being somewhat socially liberal. So I'm surprised that being the admins, they are taking one side against the other, instead of remaining neutral so everyone feels comfortable here.

[JTFrog]

309. "Her strong points (according to her history) are being a woman..."

Nasty sexist remark.

And we're done here.

[passiveporcupine]

317. I am a woman and don't think it's sexist to be called one

Do you really not think many of her supporters are feminists? And possibly are disregarding her weaker points because they are so determined to see a woman in office?

I've been reading here for a long time and I see this from quite a few posters, starting with 2004 to today.

I sincerely want a woman President, but not just any woman. I'd love to see Warren as POTUS or VP, but I think Sander's history is stronger on the right issues. Warren has not always been as progressive as she is showing now.

For me it's about issues and support, not gender. But for many it is about gender, just like a lot of blacks voted for Obama for the first time because he was black. And I totally understand that.

[JTFrog]

327. Sigh.

But for many it is about gender, just like a lot of blacks voted for Obama for the first time because he was black.

Do you realize how incredibly insulting that statement is? The policies put forth by all of the Democratic candidates are going to be far superior to anything the Republicans offer. That is what people voted for when they voted for Obama. The policies he talked about during his campaign. To suggest otherwise is to perpetuate right wing myths.

This woman will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. If that happens to be a woman, then that's just an extra bonus in my opinion.

[passiveporcupine]

332. I've also repeatedly said here

that I will support Hillary in the general election, if she wins the primary. I will always support the dem party.

What I say about Hillary I say from my observations of her in her years in politics, not intended to insult (you are free to take it as an insult, but that is on you, not me) ,but intended to speak the truth.

[JTFrog]

341. Your perception of the truth.

Which seems to be incredibly clouded if you are going to be so dismissive as to claim that Hillary's biggest strength is her gender.

You can pretend it's not insulting all you want, but words have meaning.

[passiveporcupine]

363. I think I explained why I consider her gender to be one of her strongest points

I don't stand with her on any of her old positions...except for her being a woman and supporting some common social issues, primarily women's rights.

I see her changing her stance now on many important issues, but is it just campaign promises, or will she actually stick to this new direction she seems to be heading in the campaign?

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Or, you could try to explain to me why you support her (using examples from her past)? In another thread of course. Maybe you can show me where she has made a strong name for herself on important progressive democratic issues besides feminism. Maybe you can enlighten me. I'm open to it.

[sabrina 1]

586. You don't think that being a woman is a strong point? I consider it to be as strong a point as

being a man. But then I am a woman so maybe I'm just a little biased!

[JTFrog]

587. Well that's an interesting spin.

You go with that.

When someone throws out that women will vote for Hillary just because she's a woman and blacks will vote for Obama just because he's black, it is hardly being used in the context of being a woman is a strong point or being black is a strong point. It's insulting and demeaning to suggest that voters are either too stupid or too selfish to consider important issues that have nothing to do with the gender or race of a candidate when they vote.

I am a woman, but I am not biased. I don't believe that a person's strength is defined by their gender or their race.

[Duckhunter935]

536. yes one above the others

they allow insults to the other ones that are not anointed almost every day. Very democratic?

[MADem]

306. Who do you think 'she' is that SKP's new pal was referencing?

The thread was complaining that Clinton wasn't giving a press conference after her speech (like anyone does that, but whatever).

The thread was ABOUT Hillary. The spoonerism was "obvious" and indefensible.

The TOS is a good read and makes it quite clear what can earn a ban. He's been firing on all cylinders for awhile now.

[SusanCalvin]

345. What?

That was *it*???????

[nadinbrzezinski]

354. Yup, that was it

and many on this site did not see the horrible term in there.

[Duckhunter935]

537. yep

never said THE word as many wrongly insist.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

216. Hmmm...no

The rules are posted. We agree on that.

The rules are clear? No, the rules are (I believe) intentionally) vague to give lattitude for various situations.

The rules are not applied or enforced consistently. This is in part due to the nature of the DU3 jury system; in part because the site is policed by humans; and in part because EarlG and Skinner interfere selectively. In the end, it's their house and their rules, but it seems like standards have become a moving target. Thake this thread, of rexample: GD has rules against "disruptive meta", but what is "disruptive" is not defined. So Cyberswede's gravedancing/news of ban hammer thread was allowed to stand; Flying Squirrel's poll on the topic was locked by the mods-- er, hosts--- as OT; my thread asking Earl G to clarify his reasoning was locked; this thread is allowed to stand.

If I were a wagering man, I'd bet a nickel that NYC-SKP will be allowed back conditioned on an apology and a promise to go and sin no more. I agree what he did was wrong, but I don't think it's banworthy, given his otherwise relatively clean record. But that's another point of contention with these rules you call clear: repeat offenders with multiple hides get a time out lasting no more than 90 days once their hide count reduces down below 5, while I've seen posters with otherwise spotless records in front of juries get the ban-hammer (most often from Earl G). So the when the admins (Skinner in particular) are asked about a specific poster or behavior, the person doing the asking is encouraged to alert and vote against that behavior on jurise, and the self-policing aspect of the site is emphasized; however, in a situation like this, a poster with a relatively clean record, but who does get annoying from time to time, makes a really stupid mistake, he's banned. Either the site is self policing or it's not. Let the jury do it's job. If the admins are going to drop ban hammers, they should focus on those who have multiple jury time outs, or those who are chronically going through life with 2-4 hides; or they should emphasize the benefits of ignore and trash thread and let the site police itself as it is allegedly designed; or they should admit that DU3 has become toxic and look at clearer rules or a modification of the current system.

...and yes, I'm in the market for another political discussion site. There are a lot of interesting folks here at DU, but this is just getting stupid.

[MADem]

312. There's always Discussionist...people who hate not being allowed to make

jokes about the c word will have more latitude there.

You might have to fight back against wingnuts, but you will find a less liberal atmosphere over there and could probably safely toss more insults over there, too.

SKP would find community with some of those guys in that they hate Hillary Rodham Clinton too...

[SusanCalvin]

349. If you find

Another active liberal site, please let me know.

I'm not even specifying one that doesn't have issues, because every one I've seen has had.

This, however, is the only one I know of that's currently active.

[Jester Messiah]

429. Pathetic how the censorship brigade always hides behind that.

"You're not allowed to disagree with me, it says so in the rules!"

[LuvNewcastle]

535. It is pathetic.

I look at those posts and ask myself why they don't go off and build their own sites. Some here have declared it HillaryLand around here and any dissent will be quashed. We're going to have to see where this leads. If this becomes one big Hillary support group, I have no interest in that. Might as well be a site about growing turnips.

[Duckhunter935]

538. I so agree

[sabrina 1]

452. Then why do so many people here get to stay after many violations? Either the rules apply to

everyone, or people are going to wonder why they don't. I think the admins need to be forthright with the membership here. A vast majority of DUers support Bernie Sanders right now. Approx 10% support Hillary Clinton. If NOT being a supporter of Clinton is going to get people banned, this place will be pretty empty. Otoh, the owners have the right to make the site whatever they want it to be, but Sanders supporters, the vast majority here, are beginning to feel they are not welcome. Just make a general statement that this site is a campaign headquarters for Hillary and most of us will honor that and move on to where we can advocate for the candidate we believe is right for this country. But don't pretend that the comment made by NYC was worthy of a ban, it was not.

[Duckhunter935]

540. we never seem to agree

but I certainly do on this, thank you so much for saying it.

GO BERNIE!

[nashville_brook]

4. amen -- thanks for taking the time to write this!

this is DU at its worst, and you're correct to focus on the issue of reputation b/c that's what this crowd targets in their attacks. it's the thing of value they can destroy.

THIS:

At some point you stop typing or texting and pick up the blasted phone to repair a relationship before it goes off the rails.

at the very least folks should be developing relationships outside of the PM system here. get to know people *outside* of this bubble, and cultivate relationships that foster understanding.

[boston bean]

8. I will agree, DU is at it's worst, but I presume we have different reasons as to why that is.

For me, I don't think it kind to women on this board to have to put up with misogynistic posting.

It's a common here. Whether someone wants to believe it or not.

There are too many examples to count, yet when pointed out, there is always some reason it is not misogynistic and women are just overreacting. As we see here in this case. The excuses, the defense of it, in my mind puts DU at its worst.

[nashville_brook]

11. please...give it a rest with the misogyny. everyone knows that's not what's at issue here.

[NuclearDem]

17. It's obviously just an attempt to silence Sanders supporters.

Or some shit like that.

EarlG on the grassy knoll!

[nashville_brook]

22. banned for a tone complaint on a spoonerism.

eyes to the roll, indeed.

[Lizzie Poppet]

67. And pro-2nd Amendment types, too!

[Duckhunter935]

542. oh yes

we are usually alert stalked and the admins say it does not happen. All you have to do as look at the hides, the alert text and some of the comments to know it does.

[2banon]

194. That was bit OTT, Rude, Nasty, Snarky.. yet it seems ok to the community here.

and it is also illustrative of the double standards and contradictions the rules of engagement are, all in the eyes of the beholder.

[okasha]

215. Oh, snap!

[boston bean]

37. Thanks for proving my point. nt

[2banon]

157. If that is considered evidence of misogyny in your mind, that proves you have no idea what that

actually means. And I'm speaking from a position of a life time of real misogynistic abuse.

In the final analysis, anybody can alert on (and rationalize the alert every manner of accusation - label it anti-Semitic, misogynist, racist, ad nausea, solely based on and because of DISAGREEMENT ON POLICY.

That should always be considered as the basis of an alert - but too often it isn't.

That is very disturbing and quite frankly pathetic.

[nashville_brook]

288. amen -- how can we expect problems of REAL misogyny to be taken seriously

when this sort of thing passes as legitimate.

i'm so tired of seeing the feminist movement crash and burn on this stuff. such a waste.

[whathehell]

103. Really?...Then can you tell us just what IS at issue here?

[nashville_brook]

295. gladly -- the poster was judged by a separate and unequal standard than an HRC supporter

the hide is fine with me -- but for site admin to ban a decade-long user for *repeating back* a spoonerism, in jest...that's just beyond the pale.

so, the issue is: to what extent are Sanders supporters being held to a different standard that puts them at risk of banning...and moreover, since the election is a LONG way away, what impact will this have on this community? are we willing to ban everyone we disagree with WHEN/IF we find that one thing we can alert on for tone?

is that what we've become?

i think we have much better things to do, and i think we're much stronger together than divided. but hey...not my board. i just watch in amazement.

[whathehell]

353. I'm a Bernie supporter too, but I'm not sure you really know he was judged for not supporting HRC

Can it be proved in any way?

I understand how you feel, though -- I liked Skip too, and even though I do NOT like his implied slur,

I too thought an outright ban for this one time was too harsh.


FWIW, he CAN ask to be reinstated -- It's been done before and he's obviously well liked here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

437. This is not surprising though

And some of us have said this was going to happen for years.

This is not a bug, it is a design feature.

[Duckhunter935]

541. yes we all know what it is about

some can not even admit he never said THE word

[Adrahil]

555. "Everyone?"

I dunno... Calling the only female Democratic candidate a c**t seems pretty godammed misogynist to me!

[sabrina 1]

71. Women are NOT overreacting, some women are, the majority of women here are

not seeing misogyny in ever little thing. And I do not wish to be characterized as a weak person simply because I am a woman. I have stated this before many times. You represent YOU, not every woman on this site, by a long shot. Speak for yourself when you are interpreting something YOU view as misogynistic.

There was no misogyny in that post, period. And I deeply resent women being used this way for political purposes. Enough of this nonsense. DU has gained a not very good reputation wrt to women's issues over the years due to this kind of overreaction to every perceived slight.

[boston bean]

84. I deeply resent you speaking for me. I will speak as a woman. I've never met

a woman who likes to be referred to as a "c*unt"? You? If so, I would assume it is a tiny minority, and I am speaking for the majority.

I will write what I want, and express myself how I want. You have absolutely zero control over that, so stop trying.

[sabrina 1]

132. You have spoken for 'women' and I am stating the fact that you speak ONLY for yourself.

That word was never used by NYC_Skip, and repeating that it was won't make it a fact. THIS is what I am talking about. Now you get personal.

I can read, even though I am a woman thank you, so I do not need ANYONE to interpret what I am reading for me, especially when it is a deliberate attempt to MISINTERPRET what was written.

I will write what I want, but will never falsely accuse someone of something they have not done, even if I don't agree with them politically.

Or as you 'implied' wrt to what I 'like' in this comment. A disgusting personal attack, and then you wonder who so many women here have never been part of the women's forum.

[boston bean]

146. Don't tell me who I can and can't speak for.

You said that you weren't one of those weak women, implying many others who take offense are. That is to what I was referring.

So, you were speaking against other women, implying others who don't feel as you do are weak.

Now, again, one more time, stop speaking for me and telling me who and what I can or cannot speak of or about and how I choose to do so. That is all. Thank you very much.

[sabrina 1]

156. And another personal attack! Stop speaking for me, that is what you were asked to do,

because you do NOT represent the views of many of the women here, which I know because many of them have told me so.

Speak for yourself, and stop deliberately misinterpreting what people say. I will correct any false statement about me, as I am now doing, 'you are speaking against women', when I see it, relentlessly.

[boston bean]

167. What exactly is my personal attack. My pointing out that you writing that you are not

one of those weak women?

Is that a personal attack??

I am not deliberately misinterpreting anything you say, nor anything else here. I've written back to you your words, to which you don't speak to after writing them, but move onto other tangential points, which to me are trying to get me to stop speaking the way I want to speak.

How do you know I don't represent views of many women here? Are you speaking for them??? Why are you holding me to some standard you won't hold yourself to.

[hfojvt]

278. it's the interpretation

"I am not one of those weak women" was NOT, in my view, written to attack other women as weak. It was pre-emptive. It was a DEFENSE against an expected argument like "you are not ready to goto battle over the C-word? Then you are weak."

As I am reading this subthread I am seeing a lot of "I read that as an attack".

Whether the "misinterpretation" is deliberate or even a misinterpretation. Accusation and counter-accusation, tone of mutual hostility.

It should be a relatively simple matter if one person says "phrase X" and somebody comes back with "you just said phrase Y" to sort of calmly explain what was meant by phrase X. Language is apparently open to interpretation. Like this exchange that I read just yesterday. First, I was accused of saying something and I denied it, tried to clarify it, finally I get the reply "just say what you mean" which I found to be puzzling because I am quite sure I WAS saying what I meant. But so it goes. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6727266

[boston bean]

287. I read it just fine without a circular interpretation.

But thanks anyhow.

[Lizzie Poppet]

316. Personal attack?

Um...huh?

[sabrina 1]

322. Were you talking to me?

[Lizzie Poppet]

335. Well, I responded to your post...

...so yeah.

[sabrina 1]

368. No, actually, you responded to what you believe is important. Nothing in my post was addressed by

your response. And the same goes for THIS response, nothing in my post was addressed AGAIN proving my point, that the real issues facing women in this world today, are not really that important here on DU, most important, what will get over one thousand responses, is 'who said what that I can be offended by'.

How truly sad that is.

I wish we get that many responses to a post about the plight of women in Afghanistan.

But having made an attempt to get some interest in women's ACTUAL issues here on DU, I gave that up a long time ago, and go elsewhere to discuss the real issues women in this world are facing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

381. No, I responded to your accusation of "another personal insult."

You made that accusation in response to a post containing nothing that a reasonable person could construe as a personal attack. I thought you might want to explain that frankly bizarre accusation, but apparently not. If you're going to say something nasty about someone, maybe you should back it up when called on it...

Also, don't presume to tell me what I believe. You're not qualified.

[sabrina 1]

391. Trivia, again you prove my point. Comments on the internet, I am repeating this because you seem to

be still missing the point, have ZERO to do with addressing the issues, which I outlined once again as I have done before here on DU to no avail, which women are faced with DAILY, HOURLY in the world today.

Again, you ignore the points regarding the actual, real life plight of women in the world, and again, focus on what is important to YOU. 'Someone on the internet said something I am offended by'.

Thank you, I always like it when I don't have to go looking for examples of the points I am making.

[Lizzie Poppet]

416. Ah, I see: falsely accusing another DU member is "trivia."

Your inability to acknowledge that you fucked up (and then hiding behind sanctimonious poutrage) is a lot more illustrative than anything I've done here. Just because someone calls you out on a shitty false accusation against another poster doesn't mean they don't consider the many and serious issues facing women important. They just have the ability to focus on more than one thing at a time .

You came in to a thread about reputation and the situation with NYC_SKP, got into a barely-on-topic pissing match with another poster, slandered that selfsame poster, then flailed embarrassingly at me with some nonsense about "ignoring" the plight of women. Spare me. If I "ignored" that very important topic in this thread, it's because it's not the goddamn topic of the thread. Not because it isn't important to me, your desperate attempt at bullshit amateur psychoanalysis-by-internet notwithstanding.

You want to have a discussion on the plight of women worldwide? Start a fucking thread...or select an existing one that's already about that subject. Don't try to hijack someone else's.

[sabrina 1]

420. As I said, internet chit chat doesn't help women who have real issues. And another example of the

point I made.

Thank you again!

[Lizzie Poppet]

432. No, it's NOT an example of the point you made (obviously).

But given your completely fabricated false accusation of personal attack levied against another poster, it's pretty obvious you're going to see what you want to see, regardless of how far that is from reality.

I'm done here. This is a waste of my time...and this is why there's an Ignore button.

[BainsBane]

390. Sabrina, make a poll

Ask women if they like to be called the c word. Go on. I don't think it's at all far fetched to assume they don't. In fact, I think it is pretty bizarre to think otherwise. Now, if you happen to like it yourself, have at it, but you don't get to decide the rest of the site needs to be subject to verbal abuse. The irony of course is you determine mere differences of opinion amount to personal attacks against you, while insisting other have no right to object to bigoted slurs.

Know this. You don't speak for me EVER.

[sabrina 1]

395. Why on earth would I want to do that? No one was called that word. And frankly, here is what I am,

as a woman, far more concerned about, trying AGAIN to get some interest in the REAL issues that face women today. I have worked with women who have been adversely, putting it mildly, affected by our Foreign Policies, left without husbands, children, homes, income, ending up as refugees in countries that are already overburdened with the blowback from our WARS and INVASIONS. Iraqi women, once enjoying rights we are still trying to get here.

Afghani women, who have been shouting out to the world for help, whose dire situations are made even worse, by OUR WARS.

And Libyan women, Syrian Women, Palestinian Women. Sorry by your 'outrage' du jour holds no interest for me, sticks and stones compared the real suffering of women here, and around the world, is the reason why many of us women here on DU go elsewhere to talk about what can be done, starting with our own government, to help these women, and what can be done to help women in this country so badly affected by policies like Welfare Reform. But I know you are not interested in this issues, so I'll stop there.

Excuse me if I can't conjure up the 'outrage du jour' over a comment made on the internet.

And no one was called the 'C' word, so your request is irrelevant to this issue.

[BainsBane]

410. "Real issues'

You say that often, yet when the Hobby Lobby decision came down, you were no where to be seen in the discussion. You don't get to determine what real issues for me are.

Calling it "my outrage du jour" is disingenuous. EarlG banned NYCSkp. Bigoted terms violate TOS. Now if you think that unacceptable, no one is forcing you to participate on a site where one is expected to refrain from such speech.

This outrage isn't mine. You are the one outraged that Boston dared to say she found the term insulting. This OP is in outrage to NYCSkp's banning. The outrage is yours for insisting a difference of opinion amounts to a personal attack.
You are outraged that some women here are expressing their own views.

If you only care about war, how is it you are even in this thread engaged in outrage that Boston and Lizzie had the nerve to voice an opinion you don't approve of? Because you are in this thread showing that what you object to is women who speak out for their rights and demand respect. That is your outrage. You have devoted a good deal of time here in outrage that some women refuse to accept being degraded and debased. That is your outrage, and you have dozens of posts in this thread expressing as much. You have demonstrated that you have no shortage of time to devote to outrage on this particular subject.

[sabrina 1]

414. I'm sorry that you find me more worthy of interest than the real issues facing women today. Your

comment only confirms my point. WOMEN HAVE REAL ISSUES. They are NOT 'who said what on the internet'.But if that's what you are interested in, that's your right I suppose.

I'm flattered to an extent, that you are so intrigued by ME that you follow what I discuss on DU.

I will repeat this for you. I do not discuss serious issues re women on DU. It is not a forum that is known for its support of women.

We leave you alone to focus on what is important to you. Many DU women are very busy in RL where it counts and are more than happy to leave DU's womens forums to their own devices.

Sorry to burst your 'gotcha' moment, but if you paid attention to me and many other women here, you would not have made that utterly ridiculous 'observation'.

Again an example of why so many women on DU stay out of DU's forums.

[BainsBane]

495. "It is not a forum that is known for its support of women"

I wonder why? Perhaps it has something to do with some going around telling feminists that everything they care about isn't real, that they aren't "real women." Perhaps it has to do with someone claiming that corporations planted women and people of color in the Democratic Party to divert it from its true mission. Perhaps it has to do with the fact some people see most of humanity as beneath them, as less than real, and whose lives are worth less. Perhaps it has to do with some insisting that every issue related to women's rights--whether language, rape, domestic violence, or reproductive rights--isn't important.

You claim to be too busy to care about issues related to misogyny in this country and care about "real women" overseas, yet you have managed to spend many hours in this thread on an issue you claim isn't real. You suggest there is something other than real about concerns over language on the internet, yet you devote a good portion of your time on that same internet. You aren't in Syria or Iraq helping women. You post online, on the very internet you insist is less than real.
You have demonstrated you have plenty of time for this discussion. You simply choose to spend it telling members of this site that they are less than "real," than their concerns don't matter because you and you alone are fit to determine what has value. You focus on Doctor Oz. I care about domestic violence, rape, and human trafficking, but my issues aren't real. What is real is to pay homage to great men--be they accused rapists fleeing justice or Republican charlatans promoting quack diet cures. They are who really matters. The lives of the rest of us, insignificant, not "real."

[bettyellen]

463. Nailed it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

424. Can I add Mexican women to the list?

[sabrina 1]

425. Yes, and women in all war torn areas of the world, where rape and abuse and death and poverty

are the results of these wars. I mentioned the countries where WE are responsible for the plight of those women, who before our 'interventions' had pretty decent lives, Iraq and Libya eg. Because I believe we have a responsibility to them.

But of course there are so many other places in the world, including right here in the US where women's issues are not being addressed while we PRIVILEGED people here think that a misplaced word is the biggest issue women are facing in the world today. But I have never had much success raising these issues with the women's groups here, so I don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

427. Well I have been covering the story of Nestora Salgado

a United States Citizen, who is a political prisoner in Mexico. I guess she got what she deserved for standing up for First People's rights!

This is not an issue that MOST US Media will cover... or know how you deal with that.

I posted a short note on the upcoming elections on Sunday. You'd think that a country where a civil war could lead to a river of refugees would matter, but not really.

So if we do not care about that (NAFTA, PLAN MERIDA), why the hell do you expect people to care about Iraq, where we sent our troops?

of course, but I actually mean it. People really do not give two shits about it. Not until it affects them directly.

Anyhoo, what's on the tube tonight? (Seriously, I need to kill a few hours before going to pick my mother at the airport)

[sabrina 1]

440. Well, you care and I care, and lots of DUers do care, but my point was that the women's forums here

have a reputation of not caring about such issues, but of focusing on trivia, yes trivia, and they have taken over women's issues here on DU and most of us, have just let them have it their way. Because to argue over a misplaced word for hours and hours and hours, days sometimes, is simply a waste of time that could be better spent, doing what YOU are doing eg, or what I may do in RL

The problem with our abdication of the women's forums here is that they have succeeded in turning women's issues into 'look what that guy, who doesn't agree with me politically, just said'.

DU is not the place to discuss real women's issues so we don't.

The important thing here though, is the USE of women for political purposes. THAT I find to be despicable, and it done every election cycle.

If NYC_SKP had said something along the lines of 'who cares about the women in Iraq' THAT would have bothered me as a woman, or 'who cares about Mexican women' you get the point, that would have bothered me. But to claim that women are being protected by banning him for what he DID say, shows a huge lack of understanding of women and the issues they face. THAT may be because most of us DU women allowed the few to take over the issue here.

I don't know what's on TV but hope you find something interesting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

443. Well we could TRY to start those conversations

and ones on infrastructure... you know REAL Issues. What they have done is what academics at times do, it is valid, but does not buy the groceries at the end of the day.

[bettyellen]

465. What personal attack? Why are you defaming DUers with this bullshit?

[Prism]

188. The "L'etat c'est moi" dilemma of DU

It's a pet peeve of mine on DU. If someone is part of a community, they claim to speak for the entire community. Disagreement with them means you disagree with the ENTIRE community. It's a cheap shielding tactic meant to silence opposition and evade criticism.

In another SKP thread yesterday, I saw a female poster get called a "useful tool" because she didn't agree with another one of these posters who think their individual opinion represents all women.

I thought that was a far more profound attack on someone's womanhood than SKP's ill-advised spoonerism.

But, of course, it is not only allowed, but approved of and encouraged. If people want to talk about attacks on women on DU, they could do a lot worse than look in the mirror and observe how women posters who don't agree are dismissed, belittled, denigrated, and attacked around here.

It's always the same posters doing it.

I just roll my eyes. You can't purchase self-awareness at a 7-11, unfortunately.

[JackInGreen]

200. so

Much
This

[sabrina 1]

223. Thank you, good post. I agree that women are attacked here constantly for not

agreeing, no matter how civilly, with some of those who believe they speak for all women here.

I certainly have been attacked, even attacked for saying 'as a woman'. I'm not supposed to make a statement of fact even when it is relevant to the conversation.

I think people have had it with the portrayal of women here frankly. We are NOT weak, and you are correct that calling a female poster a 'useful tool' because of a disagreement, is far worse than SKP's comment. Using women for political purposes isn't going to help anyone's campaign, quite the opposite, we are not blind.

[enigmatic]

272. I've been an admirer of your posts since 2008

Very glad you chimed in today and I agree with you.

[BainsBane]

389. No, people speak for themselves

and because you don't care to deal with the content of the speech, you accuse them of trying to speak for everyone. In Boston's Bean's case, she explicitly said "for me," which makes your ploy particularly weak. On her post about the c word universally regarded as the most offensive term to use against a woman, one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out women don't like being called it. What you really mean to say is you don't want to hear from feminists who believe women deserve respect, just like you became angry when I said black voters themselves determine who best speaks to their interests.

Which misogynist attacks you happen to find worse is completely irrelevant. Now who is trying to speak for women? Why would you even presume that was your position to judge? One attacks a woman simply for being a woman, using the foulest and most offensive term in the English language to do so. The other attacks someone's behavior. Since you aren't a woman, you don't get to decide which forms of misogyny matter and which don't. Someone recently told me to "check my privilege." Too bad he doesn't take his own advice. In one full stroke, you denounce someone giving their opinion as trying to "speak for women," while having the nerve to substitute your own views when you aren't a woman at all. You did the same thing last week by announcing that being gay gave you special standing to address issues concerning black voters.


Now, the poster you insisted had no right to an opinion did not ban NYCSkp. EarlG did. I suggest you address your concerns to the administrators.

[Bonobo]

394. "What you really mean to say is"...

Ugh. Beautiful. Telling people what they "mean" to say and then arguing against it.

It's pretty funny.

[Prism]

516. I admire your ability to hallucinate exchanges out of thin air

It's almost like cooperative storytelling. With yourself.

I'm at pains to understand who you think you're replying to. Not me, because I condemned Skp's language and said he was asking for a ban. I did so right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6778002

I wasn't talking to Boston Bean. In fact, I was simply backing up a few things Sabrina observed and commented upon, adding my own observations from this week and DU in general.

Prism speaks for Prism. If you asked me what is worse, using an unpleasant spoonerism or trying to attack a woman's very agency, I pick the attacks on agency. Guess what? I get to have that opinion! And nothing you can say can stop me from having it. I don't even have to be a woman to have that opinion. Just a human. Must chap your ass a bit, sure. But, fortunately, we haven't appointed anyone Guardian of Allowable Opinions around here, though I can see you forever angling for the job. Being a woman doesn't mean getting a special scepter that instills in you the power to bully other women, ya know. I'll back up Sabrina all day long.

I'm only slightly surprised that you haven't slowed down one bit after you racially beclowned yourself to the point where even your friends winced in your direction and had to bop you on the nose with a metaphorical newspaper. I mean, I was embarrassed for you at that point. And yet here you are, undimmed by shame or any attempt at self-reflection since then. Worse, you're trying to fashion a new fantasy conversation that happened where I spoke for black people. I didn't. I spoke as a gay man on an issue that had parallel overlap with a black issue (both LGBTers and PoCs were in the same boat with Sander's speech). This isn't even a subtle thought, and yet it continues to elude you.

Anyway, I look forward to the next imaginary conversation I'm certain to have with you in reply. It's always a thrill to learn what my mouth is saying in someone else's head, and god knows, you'll be certain to tell me.

[sabrina 1]

545. Thank you, you have saved me the trouble of responding to a similar post that was directed to my

name, but had zero relationship to anything I said or thought. You have stated beautifully what I would like to have said in response to this 'tactic' of conjuring up imaginary dialogue, then attributing it to other posters.

I noted that you were told that because 'you are not even woman' you had no right to have an opinion which is a simply stunning statement imo.

But this is what has become accepted here on DU as 'feminism'. Which is why so many of us women do not participate in the 'women's forums' and never have.

It is an attempt at 'thought control' which appears to have worked as so many people here are now afraid to utter any word that might in any way be construed as 'anti-woman'.

Excellent post, it speaks for me far better than I would have stated it so I won't bother to respond the 'imaginary conversation' that was directed to me and if you don't mind, let your excellent response suffice to express what I would said, only not so well.

[Prism]

631. Consider them our Bizarro characters

There's Prism and Sabrina, but then there's also BainPrism and BainSabrina. I'm always excited to watch BainPrism at work. He's a wily guy, always saying outrageous things. A sassy fellow, who never hesitates to oppress with his cruel dismissal of Serious Justice.

I bet he even wears a dark cloak and lurks in the DU shadows, waiting to pounce on whatever innocent happens his way.

He is my shadow personality. I want to be him *wistful sigh*

[sabrina 1]

632. Lol, that's a good way of putting it! Sort of like an imaginary friend! Or maybe, and imaginary

enemy ...

[pacalo]

588. Well done.

[Bonobo]

393. Once again, you have skewered the real issue magnificently! Bravo! nt

[sabrina 1]

491. Exactly. I have never put anyone on ignore, and with rare exceptions have generally been willing to

engage even those other people won't engage, but reading this thread where so many women are telling this small group they do not speak for them, yet they don't seem to notice, or hear what other women are telling them, I think engaging in any kind of discussion is a waste of valuable time. That was my initial reaction to the Women's forums here when I first came to DU. And I abided by it, except when they came to GD and began to try to dominate the issues there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

470. Yup

[nadinbrzezinski]

471. yup

[Duckhunter935]

543. Thank you

[pecwae]

133. Gods, Sabrina,

thank you for writing that! I'm sick of a handful of women acting as if they represent me. I represent ME. They represent themselves.

[sabrina 1]

152. You're not the only one pecwae, from what I have been hearing from other women here for a long time

is that THEY are sick to death of being portrayed as weaklings who grab the smelling salts for every perceived 'slight' and it diminishes the real issues also, which is another reason why it is so bad for women in general.

This situation eg, creates the impression that a woman who is strong enough to run for the WH isn't strong enough to withstand a comment on the internet that has been completely misinterpreted. And that affects ALL women.

[hifiguy]

169. sabrina, you are one of DU's gems

[madfloridian]

261. Yes, she is.

[Enthusiast]

315. +1 a whole bunch!

[markpkessinger]

339. Amen to that! n/t

[notadmblnd]

269. Nope, she's not the only one.

One can call me what they will. I really don't care. I'm confident in my identity and my worth in the real world where there is so much more to fight against and advocate for as you've pointed out in one of your earlier posts.

I don't pretend to know what sort of hurt those who are so severely wounded by the use of certain words here- have suffered in their lives, but I do think the hurt must have been to the bone for them to live with such anger which seems to me to be all day every day.

So much energy wasted, when we all could be out there helping real women make real social and economic gains. Because it is then that I think we will gain real parity with men. In fact, I think if we weren't so often our own worst enemies and that if we could unite- the possibilities of what we could do as women would be infinite.

But as a woman, I refuse to be angry about being a woman and the lot we currently have in life.

[2banon]

599. Hear! Here! Well Said!

[dorkzilla]

364. Amen, Sistah!

Oh wait, was *that* sexist??!

[catchnrelease]

375. You are right on!

[LovingA2andMI]

503. Sabrina 1

You Go! On a Roll

[Petrushka]

510. Brava!

[KoKo]

529. ...!

[unapatriciated]

580. I feel the same way...

before I say anything more on the subject. I feel the need to put in this disclaimer for those who think they speak for me.

**No I do not like the C*** B**** word or any other slur, nor would I like to be called that (even tho I have been many times by male and females).****

I also realize that there are real issues that need to be addressed. Poverty, income inequality and health care rights are just a few. So I don't have time to get worked up over words when actions by those in power have been a huge detriment to women for a very long time.
When I went to the ERA rally in Washington last year, not one person spoke about the problem of slurs against women. It was about poverty, income inequality, health care rights and getting the ERA ratified. This doesn't mean I like those words, all it means is that they are low on my list of things that need to be addressed and changed.

[pacalo]

589. You go, girl!

[nadinbrzezinski]

472. Many folks are tired of the bullshit

and it is exactly grade A bullshit.

You are not alone

And to edit for those folks, I am talking for myself, and what I have been told by other women, but I am talking for myself. I would never presume to talk for otehrs, UNLESS I am given permission to do that.

But while they spend days on a world, we have real issues to deal with, including poverty and how that affects REAL WOMEN every day. They won't speak about that. I will... though not here. They are but one reason.

Perhaps something good will come out of it. and we will start talking issues... one can dream.

[A Simple Game]

159. Excellent post and says it exactly the way it is. There are a few on DU that

do give women a bad name with their over reaction to what they and few others perceive as misogyny. I would say they are over sensitive but that would be perceived as misogynist. Then again I suppose over reaction will probably set off an alarm.

[sabrina 1]

166. Thank you. In many ways it is the fault of women like me and so many others who told me they feel

the same way. We simply avoided the women's forums here as they were wrought with conflict, infighting etc. So rather than speak up, many of us just focused on the main forums.

But enough is enough and this incident highlights the image that has been created by a few people here of women in general, using Women for political purposes.

Thanks for your post, and it says a lot that people have to 'watch what they say' here. Well, this woman won't be doing that, anywhere.

[seaglass]

227. Why is it weak to stand up against slurs? Are just women weak when they say it's unacceptable or is

it also weak for gay or AA people when they object to slurs?

[sabrina 1]

240. THIS topic is about women. To react to every little perceived slur, 'perceived' is the operative

word, is WEAK. This banning sends a message that the woman running for president isn't tough enough to withstand a comment on the internet which a few have interpreted as a slur.

THAT is bad for ALL women. I am supporting Sanders in this race, but I have met Hillary and there is no way this represents her. She is anything but weak, she has handled some of the most vile attacks from the Right throughout her political career, so the portray her as someone who needs to be protected like this, from something most people didn't even SEE, is doing not only HER but all women a huge disservice.

If people really think women are so sensitive that they must be protected like this, no wonder we can't get the rights that we should have had a long time ago. Clearly the perception is 'they can't handle it'. AND I RESENT THAT as a woman.

[seaglass]

271. This topic is about NYC_SKP getting banned but I get it if you don't want to expand your theory

of "weakness" to other groups.

NYC_SKP getting banned has zero to do with whether Hillary is tough enough, the idea is hilarious. Hillary is not being "protected", she doesn't even know we exist. People are objecting to sexist slurs being used on DU and many have acknowledged that it was - even women in the Bernie Group. People who stand up for themselves are not weak.

[sabrina 1]

329. No, you don't get it, you don't get it at all. The game of using women for political purposes is

not a game women are going to play. DU has had a longtime Reputation of not being the place to discuss the serious issues facing women, not just in this country, but all over the world. The focus here has always been on trivia.

So most of us women here on DU simply went elsewhere to discuss the issues that face women globally.

Clearly you don't 'get it', which is fine. Not my problem.

Now, lets talk about racism. Our entire Foreign Policy is racist, but ssssshhhhh, on DU we don't talk about that. Fortunately just about everywhere else we DO.

No one who supports women can possibly support the wars this country is constantly involved in.

But I know, you would like to confine the discussion to 'someone said a word that offends me'.

I am not interested in such trivia, I am interested in the real world issues that face ALL women, especially minority women who are the most affected by US policies, EVERYWHERE.

DU doesn't talk about actual Women's issues, DU talks about distractions FROM the real world issues of minorities, especially women who are minorities, and that is why most of US go elsewhere, talk to all over the world who are so adversely affected by the policies that are taboo here on this forum for political reasons.

So go right ahead and be offended by a few words. I prefer to ignore such trivia and deal with the real issues faced by women, minorities especially, and Gays, when our government SUPPORTS regimes who oppress all theses minorities, but here on DU that is not of any interest because we are so nice and safe in our comfortable homes, reaching for the smelling salts because, OMG, someone said something on the internet'.

I have met and talked to women of various ethnic backgrounds who are actually DOING something for women and minorities, putting their own lives on the line. So I view your comment here as simply sad, and confirmation for me that my decision to work with minority women and children from all over the globe, rather than waste time here on this forum arguing over words, was the correct one.

[seaglass]

373. The men and women in my life think calling a women a c*nt is disgusting and directly relates

to how women are perceived and treated. If you can't comprehend something THAT basic I don't have anything more to say to you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

474. Actually (and I will risk a ban, an alert, what have you)

there is a group of women, small, very loud, that screams misogynist for any perceived use of a word. Many people here, not talking for them, just read their posts, do not agree that the perceived slur was the C word. It was a political ban, used by a certain very small and loud group.

To be honest, this shocks me not. I expect this unequal "enforcement" of the "rules" at this site anymore. There are political winds here that are coming from the top.

And by the way, my candidate is big money. I don't care who in the beauty contest wins. This will be called misogynist by this crew, though I refer to both primaries, since the elections really are a show.

And while they play victim, there are a slew of issues that affect real women every day, that they will never touch. It is to the point that many of us do watch what we say, and what we do and walk on eggshells. They are one of the reasons.

Of course, some of the behaviors that have come from that crew, and a couple others, will not be tolerated at any site I run. Why? My tolerance level for personal attacks, stalking behavior and bullying, is extremely low. And they are the first ones to scream when they do it.

And with that, I think you and I are probably going to be done.

[seaglass]

548. Many people, men, women, Bernie supporters, Hillary supporters, uncommitted do know what that

phrase meant. For those who didn't know before this, they have been pointed to google, the urban dictionary and a metallica video. NYC_SKP had responded to a post with that phrase earlier so he knew. I accept that others interpreted NYC_SKP's use of the phrase differently but to deny what the phrase means is just not credible to me.

It is ridiculous that you and others are using outspoken feminists on this board as scapegoats for what NYC_SKP posted and for what the Admins did. If some feminists had their way, including me, it would be clear in the TOS that calling a woman a c*nt is subject to automatic ban - it's not is it?

You think you walk around on eggshells while you accuse a subset of women on this board as being responsible for NYC_SKP's ban? WTF.

I give zero fucks about your thoughts about outspoken feminists on this board nadin, in fact I mostly ignore your posts because it's difficult to get past the constant sneering condescension to see if you have anything worthwhile to say. That's a hint, btw. It is laughable that the biggest fucking victim on DU is accusing others of playing victim. Maybe a little self-examination would be in order.

[nadinbrzezinski]

572. You know what

Folks who are into issues, not just words, find all this comedic to s point. You know why? Working class women don't give a damn about 50 shades of gray. Or a word.

They care about things like child care. Getting enough hours. The mass incarceration crisis. Look, I am a feminist who has actually broken glass ceilings. I am sorry if I do not consider people who care only about language, which is not trivia, but might as well be for people in the lower strata of society actual well feminists.

You want to talk issues, sure. You want to talk trivia and think that matters far more than equal pay, poverty wages, sexual abuse in the work place, and other real issues that affect people every day, knock yourself silly.

What I see here is that people have mostly had it with the PC language brigade. If that is what passes for middle class feminism these days, no wonder many people in the hood I have spoken to have utter disdain for it. So do I by the way.

I know I am risking a ban hammer here. But caring about shitty novels, I am being kind using the word novel, and PC language ain't gonna put food on the table, or get De'Andre out of jail, or get enough hours.

You want to discuss policy. Let's. I suggest we start with Bill Clinton's welfare reform and the crisis of mass incarceration.

[R B Garr]

623. I'm finding it kind of naive that someone who is a journalist

doesn't realize the significance that words carry. Let's just say that if someone called you a "sock cucker", they aren't actually talking about socks. It's really just that simple.

And your use of "PC language brigade" sounds like a personal attack, yet you said you had a low tolerance for that. That appears not to be the case.

[nadinbrzezinski]

629. It is two camps

Sabrina stated it well. DU does not have a reputation outside DU as more than a language debating society as far as women's issues are concerned.

And giving far more importance to a word, instead of gasp, appropriating that word like it's happened in a few English speaking countries, is indeed part of the problem.

You want the place to sound like a linguistics graduate school seminar, by all means. Just don't expect many people to take the site seriously when it comes to women's issues. For that matter, on issues of race or poverty either.

[R B Garr]

630. Hmm, I'm seeing it more of a common sense issue rather than two camps.

By any journalistic standards, as I'm sure you learned in your journalism classes, vulgarity is approached with caution if not just outright rejection. I doubt you or anyone you know uses the word "c--t" in your writings. I highly doubt you use much vulgarity or obscenity, and that is just basic common sense.

As far as quoting or referencing Sabrina, I have to disagree with you again there, as well. From what I've seen of her position, she is not even acknowledging that the word was used in this latest reference to SKP. But as I said earlier, if someone calls you a "sock cucker", they are not talking about socks. So if she's in denial about the use of the word/slur, then taking anything seriously she says after that is rather meaningless. We also can't talk about other DU'ers like this because of the alerters, so that's not a good idea to continue with analyzing her position, which appears to be false from the start.

Anyway, I know this is the internet and journalistic standards don't necessarily apply, but I look at it that some are just saying that not every corner of the internet has to be a belching fart sack, so to speak. They just are saying it in a lot nicer way than I just did, and I agree with them.

[notadmblnd]

625. You know Nadin, I've never been a big fan of yours- but I really got to give it to you here

You are on point on this one girl!

[840high]

251. ...^ that

[snagglepuss]

296. +1 nt

[hifiguy]

338. Speaking in the imperial "we' is supposed to lend gravitas or something.

[rbnyc]

478. +1 nt

[madfloridian]

486. ....

[sabrina 1]

5. Very well said. Witnessing this is not my idea of how a liberal forum or group of any kind, should

work. And the 'whistper' I'm hearing is that many are rethinking their participation here.

The Internet has grown since the days when DU first provided a place for Progressive Dems to congregate.

I don't agree that NYC_SKP's reputation has suffered at all from what happened. The forum however may have suffered quite a bit.

For all the reasons you stated in your OP. Why waste time and money somewhere where after years of helping MAKE this forum what it is, it can all be thrown out over one relatively harmless post.

THAT is what many people are saying from what I am hearing.

The difference today with being banned from a forum like this is that there are now so many other avenues where Democrats can continue to fight for what they believe in.

And without the pettiness that has often been a hallmark of partisan forums.

From my pov, if this banning is justifiable, then I have a long list of my own who would not be here yet would never have advocated for that.

The grave dancing threads are disgusting, even when it is someone I did not agree with.

The forum takes on a 'reality show' atmosphere that is not what people want to participate in.

Anyhow, thank you for your post, NYC_SKP needs to be reinstated or this forum will have lost its reputation to a great extent and many of its members will simply move on to where they can advocated for their choice of candidate without fear of being silenced.

[KoKo]

173. ...!

[bbgrunt]

209. sabrina and Ida, you are real life heroes. thank you.

[840high]

253. Amen.

[MADem]

314. There's always Discussionist.

Fewer rules, more insults...since that's what some prefer....?

No real need for people to hide their lights under bushels, either. A critical mass of disaffected DUers could really have some fun over there.

More freewheeling and the fights are knock-down, drag-out. Never a dull moment for those who like that kind of stuff.

[Flying Squirrel]

637. How many times are you going to use that line?

Nobody who objects to the way the owners of this site administer the site is going to move to another site owned and administered by the same people. Quit being absurd.

[MADem]

638. You are not a hostage. You are not a victim. You have options.

That's just one. The user interface at that site is clear and simple, and there are plenty of naughty words bandied about without repercussions. Sounds like a good fit for anyone who wants to argue and use disparaging language.

This is a private website. It functions under the TOS guidelines, which are linked at the bottom of this--and every--page. They're pretty clear:

In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

One more thing: Don't push your luck.

The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.

Using language that distrsses a significant percentage of the population is not promoting a positive atmosphere.

[Flying Squirrel]

639. "DU is supposed to be fun - don't make it suck."

And yet, NYC_SKP gets banned for having a little fun with a troll, while people like you who make DU suck continue to make it suck. If the most important thing about DU is for it to be a fun place, seems to me this banning was exactly backwards.

[MADem]

641. Yes-- he and the troll were "having a little fun" by using a spoonerism to

disparage a candidate neither of them supported. Ha, ha, ha...too clever by half.

That's why he got the boot.

If you don't like that, take it up with the admins and see how far you get. I think EG made a great call.

I'm not going to help you keep kicking this pointless thread, so knock yourself out and enjoy the last word.

[Thespian2]

371. Thank you, sabrina 1

this entire discussion about NYC_SKP is an eye-opener...I thought this forum allowed discussion about important topics that are changing the world we live in...possibly, I was wrong...

[Bonobo]

398. Cruelty.

Cutting someone off from what is clearly an important part of their life -when they are ill- and with NO WARNING is simply cruel.

And cruelty is the LAST thing we are supposed to be.

Compared with getting "hurt" by a spoonerism, cruelty is the far, far worse thing.

It makes me a little ill and not like this place very much.

[sabrina 1]

404. Yes, it is cruel. It's been an eye-opening situation though and sometimes we need to stop thinking

we are the 'good guys'. Those grave dancing threads are sickening.

[Puzzledtraveller]

480. I agree with everything you said.

I have begun to question the authenticity of many a poster these days. When the efforts to marginalize and steer conversations away from anything that deviates from the script are so common and obvious I begin to wonder.

[leveymg]

6. What does this mean about the reputation of DU "if it could happen to him over ONE POST then it

could happen to us, too."?

From the outside, it looks pretty much like he was purged for being a persistent critic of Hillary and his use of a bad word was a pretext to ban him. That raises the bigger question - was this action by Admin, while arguably justifiable on account of the member's use of an offensive word (actually a pun) -- good for DU?

I would argue it makes us look petty and doctrinaire, which is how our enemies portray us. Is that the reputation we want?

I urge Admin to reconsider, show leniency, and reinstate him with a suspension.

[carolinayellowdog]

18. what does this mean about the reputation of DU?

irreparable damage

[peacebird]

35. The 'bad word' he used was 'Cunning stunt". Frankly. I think the misogynistic police are absurd.

I say this as a 58 year old woman. It is absurd the number of times that particular card is thrown here. And the thought police alerts are ridiculous "the offender posted 'two words, one syllable each' so he meant eff you" and the like.
Good grief. If that is the level it takes to alert around here these days, well it is freaking pathetic.
As is BANNING someone for posting 'cunning stunt'

[ms liberty]

77. this 56 year old woman agrees with you. n/t

[glinda]

99. As a 60 yr old woman I also agree.

[nenagh]

130. As a 70 yr old woman I absolutely agree with you.

[Thirties Child]

217. This 80-year-old woman agrees.

[GCP]

280. And this 66 year old woman agrees with you all

No need for the stridency.

[dorkzilla]

352. This (nearly) 50 year old woman echoes that...

Last summer I posted something which I thought to be innocuous enough and because I used the word “woman” in the title I got FLAMED by that group. I was literally stunned at how brutal they were. I CLEARLY meant nothing sexist by it but I was told that I was, in no uncertain terms, a raving misogynist. I even got an email saying I needed to change the word “woman” to “person”. I pretty much stopped posting here after that, save every once in a while. I lurk, but I’m SO turned off by the bullying and the self-appointed bestowers of “official" womanhood. It’s really tiresome. I don’t need to prove my feminist bona fides to anyone, nor does anyone else.

[SusanCalvin]

358. 63 and agree.

I completely get not, on the spur of the moment, being able to resist a Spoonerism. Yeah, the word implied was at best vulgar and at worst misogynistic. But I honestly don't think the post was meant badly.

[unapatriciated]

582. another 63 yr old woman who agrees that banning was an over reaction

this in no way means that I approve of what he posted a hide and a suspension would have been more appropriate.

[mnhtnbb]

111. I followed links for two posts this a.m. using the very same language

some years ago applied to Sarah Palin. Both of the posters are still members in good standing.

While as a 64 year old woman I doubt I'd use that language on a message board,
I have used it verbally myself on occasion over the years.

[SusanCalvin]

539. IOKITAR

It's OK if they're a Republican.

No, I certainly don't mean I really think that!

I mean that I loathe inconsistent application of rules and standards. I also don't particularly like (what I believe to be) either knee-jerk overreaction or targeting.

[yuiyoshida]

124. I agree

and I am 28!

[JohnnyRingo]

128. I was warned once (or twice) about usage.

The word was "hysterical". The overall context I used it in was benign enough, but I was informed that a group here got together and decided that word was unacceptable in any form if a woman is referenced. I know I was alerted on, but nothing came of it.

I began to argue the nuance, but quickly realized it'd be safer to post funny pictures of Muhammed.

[hifiguy]

178. It is the hypersensitive language police

who need to go, not good DUers like NYC_SKP. I took a year-plus vacation from DU because I couldn't stand their passive-aggressive BS any more. Now a year after returning it is more of the same old shit.

[GCP]

281. Yes indeed

I've been a DU member since 2001 but it's getting so that I avoid it most of the time because of the PC police.

[pacalo]

374. Same here, hifiguy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

575. Worst because they get away

With so much

[MelissaB]

131. 50 on the dot and agree as well. n/t

[1monster]

140. This 59 year old woman also agrees with you.

It's like using a flame thrower in a balsa wood shack to take out a fruit fly.

[Hiraeth]

141. Agree.

[Shrike47]

205. Me, too. 68 year old woman.

[sabrina 1]

218. This woman agrees with you also. I am happy to see so many women speaking out finally about the

portrayal of women here. Thank you.

[tblue37]

244. Editing reminder: the first word in that phrase has two syllables, not one. Obviously you know

that, and I know you know that, so I don't mean to imply otherwise. I just want to mention that while focusing on the point you wished to make, you committed a slight and insignificant slip of the keyboard, because as we both know, many people will magnify and harp on even such a minor mistake as a way of dismissing a post's entire point.

[peacebird]

283. The alert on 'two words, one syllable each' was a different alert. I mentioned it to highlight the

Thought police, people who alert on what they assume the poster meant, not what was written. In that case the alerter said it meant 'F you', I said in rejecting the alert that I thought it meant 'bye bye'
But thank you! I guess I wasn't clear....

[tblue37]

293. Ah, I see. Sorry. I just didn't want to see you jumped all over for something insignificant. nt

[peacebird]

294. I appreciate it! Thank you very much!

[KoKo]

257. This DU Woman agrees with you also. n/t

Last edited Sat Jun 6, 2015, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

[hifiguy]

340. Yet they have been allowed to

get away with their passive-aggressive bullshit, their alert-stalking, and their appalling disingenuousness that verges on outright trolling and, with only one exception I can think of, that being the tombstoned and unlamented iverglas (who once attacked me for being Asperger's after I disclosed it, though she was aided and abetted by some of the usual suspects) none of them has ever faced any consequences that I am aware of. Things that make you say "Hmmm...."

[Pastiche423]

370. Same goes for this 61 year old woman!

[Bonobo]

399. I have been smeared by them as being a misogynist.

and actually driven into a confrontational position where I -regrettably- have come to feel the need to keep punching back - a place I never wanted to be - they are bullies with a single weapon and their goal is to ruin reputations.

And yes, they do claim to speak for all women.

It is a joy to see normal women speak up against the ridiculousness they have engaged in over the years.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

483. Your post was alerted on, and here are the results:

I was Juror #3.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:33 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I have been smeared by them as being a misogynist.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6787473

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Normal women"-- would it be acceptable to refer to any other group as normal, just because you prefer their tone and don't make you want to "keep punching back?" Just all around inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:42 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the alerter is way off base. I agree with Bonobo. This post is fine; Leave it alone.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "Normal women"? Someone want to define that for me?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: it is an opinion - not one I agree with but just an opinion
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see the problem Leave it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This doesn't seem like a logical alert to me. More like alert trolling by force of habit.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Bonobo]

505. I actually think I am being alert stalked now. nt

[Jesus Malverde]

509. It means you've made an impact.

and should behave!

[Gormy Cuss]

565. I agree with juror #4

Of course, I'm probably one of those pesky abnormal women he referenced.

[JTFrog]

549. "Normal women"

Maybe it's time you considered the possibility that you've been smearing yourself.

Just sayin....

[Bonobo]

550. Judging by the posts in this OP and subthread, it is clearly long since past the time

when some of you considered a lot of things that you clearly have never done.

Just take the time and read and I think you will get the idea if you are open to actual reflection yourself.

[JTFrog]

553. Is it fear that makes you reply to an individual as "some of you"

or just hatred?

Speaking of judging posts, it looks like the admins have had time to read, reflect and consider a few things themselves.

Good on 'em.

[Bonobo]

554. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.

But I think it should be clear there are quite a few woman on DU that do not care for you and others speaking for them. I don't blame them.

[JTFrog]

559. I am speaking only for myself.

Do you really think that the men of DU appreciate you and your Men's Group speaking for them? I don't blame them for being embarrassed.

[Bonobo]

561. Do you think the women of DU appreciate your HOF group?

Seems you have worn out the warm fuzzy feelings some time ago.

And it is not my Men's Group and there IS no "men's Rights Group.

You know why there is no "Men's Rights Group"?

Because no one thinks that anyone needs to advocate for Men's Rights.

Do you know why no one feels the need to advocate for Men's Rights?

Because we are not MRA's except in the mind of some people here who are looking for boogeymen to justify their raison d'etre.

[JTFrog]

562. I edited.

That group is on my trash list so I didn't get the exact name right.

Feminism has never been about warm and fuzzy. It's always been an uphill fight. Warm and fuzzy isn't gonna get us very far.

[Bonobo]

563. Great. So let me say for myself at least.

I think MRA's are idiots and I don't think men need to advocate for their "rights". So that takes me pretty far outside the range of "Men's Rights Advocates"

But I do think that they deserve a place on a huge discussion board to discuss their own perspective on things.

I'm glad you have it on trash. You should.

[nadinbrzezinski]

475. Agreed, and the hypersensitivity police really needs to look in the mirror nt

[Egnever]

488. The responses to this post are breathtaking

And oh so lovely to see!

This whole affair was worth it in my opinion just for this sub thread.

[peacebird]

517. I was sure I would be alerted on and hidden. SO amazed and relieved to see the responses here!

[haele]

668. He gave people who wanted him gone a weakness they could exploit.

Heck, I'm a 55-going-on-56-year old woman who has worked all her life in a particularly chauvinistic "man's field" - the US Navy and Shipyards.
Look, I have been called all sorts of names and propositioned all sorts of ways throughout my life - and the only times I have been called a "c" word to my face was by other women. Might be a unique experience amongst women, but then again, I was also never actually abused in my life other than through unsafe employer practices.

I grew up poor and even though I absolutely admit to experiencing "White Privilege" - and frankly exploiting it when I could when competing for a job in which I had talent and qualifications - I have always been seen as a minority at the workplace, or in my "class" groups one way or another all my life.

My pay has been and still is in the lower ranges of my salary level. The only time I have ever received equal pay for equal work was in the military. My opportunities for leadership position or advancement have been limited by the preconceptions of the limits of experience or strengths I should have had due to my gender, totally ignoring my actual experience or how I can leverage my actual strengths to overcome my physical weaknesses. The few times I've not experienced those limits was when I applied for positions or merit advancements "blind" - using initials rather than my given name, and no gender information.

I have had men tell me they were surprised, because they had initially thought I slept my way into my position of authority. Or was a lesbian (as one XO told me, he protected "his gals" because if upper body strength wasn't an issue, as a group, lesbians made the best sailors.)

I have been to foreign countries where women are property to be bartered, and experienced the overt sexism from peers in those countries, so much so that I had to send male co-workers or subordinates to get the tasks done, because those "men" couldn't believe a mere woman could be an engineer or a project manager - or a Chief Petty Officer in the United States Navy.

I work to change all of these things every day. I shouldn't have to work twice as hard as the average guy, nor should I have to put up with twice the shit, but I balance my reactions, figure out what I have to let slide, and bull my way through the rest of it. And hope to teach some people who hadn't thought about what they were doing some reality along the way.

In my experience as an American female, I know cruel and disparaging words and jokes can be a warning sign of disrespect and outright hatred or distain for a particular targeted subset of humanity or person. Those same words and jokes can also be a sign of exasperation, or of someone's attempt at trying to fit in with other strong personalities within their particular group.
Or they can just be a sign of "what was I thinking, trying to be cute?" when someone experiences a brain fart and lets loose with a little bit of that lizard brain stench that all of us homo-sapiens carry within our souls.

The trick is to identify where these words are coming from. Because all of us have said things in haste or to be cute with an "in joke" that we feel monstrously guilty about later on, because we never want believe that we could be the type of animal that would be so damaging. We're supposed to be people...

My parents and grand parents taught me "words are warning signs of what may happen, but the actions are always the reality of what happens". Both words and actions have to be taken in context, unless one wants to go around punishing everyone for the random thought crime that typically go no-where.

Haele

[NaturalHigh]

682. "I think the misogynistic police are absurd."

Thank you.

[blm]

112. m, I was a tough Clinton critic on this board since the early years - no one ever

went after me from the admins. And I tangled with some of her staunchest supporters, especially from 2004 - 2009.

I do stand with your request for leniency.

[leveymg]

123. Same here, and thanks for all you do here.

I believe that NY_SKP may have been a bit aggressive in his tone and language, and needed a time out. But, in the totality of circumstances, the death penalty is too much and a bad precedent here.

[KoKo]

175. ...!

[sabrina 1]

258. That's exactly how people are perceiving it, right or wrong, people are wondering if being a critic

of Hillary is the real reason for this. Personally I would like to know, I'm sure others would also.

Because if that is not the reason, then these same standards with are pretty low to be banned under, will apply when someone uses ageist comments against Sanders. So far, that seems to be just fine and acceptable. But to me, ageism is a serious problem in this country.

[Jester Messiah]

433. Of course it is!

It always makes for an interesting game when the umpires come out wearing the home team's ballcaps.

[sabrina 1]

450. Well I think we need clarification on this. I certainly don't want to waste time on a site that is

no longer what it purports to be. If it has transformed into a campaign headquarters for a particular candidate, who I do NOT support it would be only fair to tell me 'you are in the wrong place'. And I know I am not alone in wondering about this.

[SusanCalvin]

533. Right you are about ageism. (And other "isms.")

Sauce for the goose, and all that. Is there a four-letter word for "old".....? ;->

[MADem]

9. The guy routinely engaged in vicious personal insult.

While I have empathy for his medical issues, his history of victim blaming and this latest misogynistic attack on a female Democratic candidate was way the fook over the top. If he'd said that same remark about Liz Warren there would be calls for his head on a pike.

I am not going to miss him, or his hateful, bile-filled rants. YMMV,and that is fine, but I'd had enough of his bad attitude a long time ago.

I don't wish him ill but I'd as soon not see him back here. He made women and POC feel unwelcome, and that was HIS problem.

[beevul]

282. "vicious personal insult" goes on all day long...

"vicious personal insult" goes on all day long, all week long, all year long, essentially unchecked here at DU.

Anyone that hasn't seen it isn't paying attention.

Looking at it now that the entire context has been made know, specifically that his post was a reply to an obvious troll using the obvious trolls own words, it sure looks to these eyes that while your characterization of the 'statement' in question seems to be the prevailing one...


It is not an accurate one.

[MADem]

303. What are you saying?

That makes it 'ok?' Because some people ignore the TOS, we all should?

No, thanks. I'd rather see the admins step up TOS enforcement. It's not that hard to not call people names, and to converse like adults instead of like disruptive trolls.

The guy was CHUCKLING/AGREEING with that troll...not 'challenging' him. He welcomed the guy...named 'Feel the Bern' to DU and was hardy har har-ing over his 'tongue twister.' The full transcript of their exchange is in that 1000 post thread.

There is NO QUESTION that he thought 'Feel the Bern' s' comments were just hilarious--I urge you to abandon that excuse-making effort because the facts are plain. He liked what the troll was saying. And that and his reputation for personal insult were his undoing.

[beevul]

384. I'm saying that yours is not the only opinion, hereabouts.

That makes it 'ok?'

Not everyone sees the same "It" here.

Before full disclosure of the post he was replying to, what little attention I had paid to all this seemed pretty open and shut in terms of evidence.

Now, after I see who and what He was responding to, its not so open and shut.

The guy was CHUCKLING/AGREEING with that troll...not 'challenging' him.

That's your OPINION. Nothing more. In fact, many on DU disagree with that conclusion, including a whole lot of the fairer gender.

There is NO QUESTION that he thought 'Feel the Bern' s' comments were just hilarious--I urge you to abandon that excuse-making effort because the facts are plain.

Spare me the lecture about how "plain" the facts are. You claim theres no question he was laughing, yet you've made up your mind already the reason for the laughter, with out any facts in evidence to support that conclusion. In fact, unless you can read minds, you can not KNOW the reason he was laughing.

So again, please spare me the "the facts are plain" B.S.


Not to mention, A DUer has talked to him on the phone, last I heard, and he has confirmed exactly what his intentions re:that post were, and it is as many of us thought, contrary to the narrative being pushed by some of its loudest adherents around here.

[MADem]

469. I hardly find a post facto defense dispositive.

One has to suspend all reasonable logic to believe he wasn't agreeing with and chuckling over that spoonerism.

I stand with the DUer who has never--not once-- given me reason to doubt his veracity or integrity in nearly a decade and a half. I side with EarlG on this. No question.

You? I don't know you. You have an opinion but you've failed to sway me to your POV. It's unlikely that you ever will, either.

We will have to disagree on this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

476. Ask me about it

I have been the victim of a constant crew that does this regularly. Yet they have yet to face any kind of real music over it.

Of course, they have their uses. And now I know it is not a bug,. but a design feature.

So spare me.

And as a woman I am made unwelcome here regularly, and not by him either.

[MADem]

485. I don't subscribe to a "Two wrongs make a right" POV.

Just because you, or anyone, was alert-stalked or swarmed, doesn't make it right. It's happened to me as well, if that makes you feel any better.

It is helpful if you discern a pattern, to notify someone on MIRT so they can examine the histories. That only works with newer posters, of course.

[nadinbrzezinski]

487. I notified the owner of the site

why I know it is not a bug, but a feature.

So eggshells are in order, and I will avoid posting real issues here. Or alerting, or participating in juries. And if the antisemitism (when) gets off the rails again. I am gone.

[MADem]

489. My experience of the admins is that they do a good job dealing with

disparate personalities here. I have had a difference with them once or twice but I don't hold it against them. This is their house--I am a guest in their home. I know that if the place no longer meets my needs, I can show myself out.

You can and will do what you want, but opting out of jury participation only reduces your footprint here and also minimizes your ability to effect change. To shift "community standards" you have to be part of the community.

[nadinbrzezinski]

490. I believe the jury system at this point is unethical

It is that simple.

And I refuse to participate in what is quite unethical.

Suffice to say, what I have found about THIS site, makes me take it even less seriously.

[MADem]

493. Well, you have every right to your opinion. I just don't share it. nt

[sabrina 1]

534. No, he did not. And this was NOT a 'misogynist' attack on anyone. And if that is why this happened

to 'protect' a 'female candidate' from a random post on the internet, THAT is misogynistic in itself. Women don't need to be protected from every perceived slight.

This nonsense needs to STOP. The infantalization of women. Because it is down right insulting, paternalistic and shows a terrible lack of understanding of women's issues.

[MADem]

573. Yes, this nonsense DOES need to stop.

Glad the admins took steps to do just that.

Your opinions are your own, but they aren't deciding the outcome here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I oppose the ban but there is nothing liberal about calling a woman a c--t...

I oppose the ban but there is nothing liberal about calling a woman a c--t even if it was done in a clever and circuitous way.

[Octafish]

29. I've yet to see the post where NYC_SKP wrote that.

I've read all about it, seen people d-nce all around it. Yet to see where he/she actually wrote it.

Not doubting you, DemocratSinceBirth, I just would like to know exactly for what it was that NYC_SKP got tossed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I am being 100% candid. Of course you can think I'm not being candid but I really am...

As soon as I saw the phrase "Cunning Stunt" I knew it had to refer to one thing so I googled it verbatim and this is the results:


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cunning%20stunt

[Octafish]

49. I did not say that, though. I asked where is the post?

Thank you for the background.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I know you didn't, Octafish.

The exact quote is on SKP's transparency page. You can not see the post he is referring to because it was a low post count troll who was immediately terminated though a mod posted the entire exchange.


The term is also in SKP's Journal...

I am not part of the banning party but It gives me agita when people argue that isn't what he said, albeit cleverly and circuitously.

[snagglepuss]

98. Here's the exchange.

Troll's post:

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...


Skip's reply:


Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!

IMO skip is being blatantly ironical, letting the troll know that he is on to her and it seems very clear to me that skip's comment is a reference to what the troll is doing.

[leveymg]

127. EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THE ABOVE ^^^ - SKIP'S ACTUAL EXCHANGE OF WORDS

Upon reading this twice, I'm not sure I would have hidden Skip's reply, much less tombstoned him. His response does seem ironic in tone, and it could be read as merely humoring the troll. Benefit of the doubt applies here, and that normally goes to the accused.

Summary execution was way too extreme in this instance.

[MelissaB]

135. Thanks for that!

Edited to say AARGH! I should have replied to snagglepuss above.

[KoKo]

186. Agree.......

SKP has a very sharp, incisive wit (those who are familiar with his posts, know) and I read it exactly the way you did.

[Hiraeth]

158. Thank you, snagglepuss. and. wow.

kind of like - When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.

Hunting trolls is a dangerous occupation around here.

[CherokeeDem]

162. I had not seen this exchange....

Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:49 PM - Edit history (1)

If he was replying to a poster, then he should not have been banned for this alone. I might have repeated that statement to the troll as well in this context and I despise the c*** word.

I understand the mods cited other disruptive behavior, behavior I had seen from NYC_Skip and found disturbing. However, there is no questions this board lacks the ability to discuss political issues and has morphed into a junior high school argument in the hallway between classes, very immature.

I hope that if NYC_Skip wishes to return, he will be allowed to do so.

[blm]

196. I have used that style of exchange with trolls, too.

.

[blm]

174. I agree.

.

[hifiguy]

185. Absolutely nothing in that post

Is even worthy of a hide. He was clearly playing word games with the person he was responding to and addressing no particular person other than the troll's (?) own words.

[Orrex]

262. Or a Sanders supporter was greeting a fellow Sanders supporter,

responding in kind to share the insult/joke.

At this point it is impossible to second-guess the intent of the post, but the intent is subordinate to its impact. Admin determined that it was sufficient to ban NYC_SKP, so that's the end of it.

[MADem]

318. +1000 nt

[shanine]

203. Thank you!!! nt

[Babel_17]

213. I'm amazed a long time, heavily participating, member got banned for that

I'm choosing to make that ban mean something positive.
I'm going to let it serve as an eye-opener as to how a forum can be gamed, or go wrong, or at the very least be said to have veered off the tracks.

So on that Tombstone let it also be said, "Learn from this".

[Octafish]

292. Thank you, snagglepuss. You are absolutely correct.

That is a LOT different than what's been portrayed. I feel very sad for all involved, apart from the troll.

One of the best posters in all DU got the ziggy for observing what another poster wrote. Nowhere did NYC_SKP call anyone that horrible, horrible word. It has become Swarm strategy to find fault with the messenger, rather than the message. Once enough anger builds, even the best DUers can forget to edit a response.

Me, personally, I think I draw the line here: Those who think "Money trumps peace" policy deserves a pass. I'd ban all those, not people who work for democracy through their writings on DU.

[neverforget]

337. that's what all the hub bub is about?

[OnyxCollie]

492. It's the Holder Doctrine applied to DU. nt

[uppityperson]

602. THAT IS NOT QUITE RIGHT. "Feel the Bern." was the troll's name, NOT what they wrote

This is what they wrote, am on MIRT so can look it up.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...

[Orrex]

122. That's what baffles me about this whole thing.

Claims that "he didn't use the c-word" are disingenuous at best, because the phrase that he posted is an unambiguous use of exactly that word. There is simply no way that he didn't mean it as written, and he's facing the consequences of his deliberate use of that offensive term to refer to a possible Democratic nominee for POTUS. No one can seriously believe that he didn't know what it meant or that it doesn't mean what it means.

If someone had laughingly referred to Obama as a "Numb Digger," we wouldn't be splitting hairs about whether or not they'd really used an offensive slur. We'd all recognize it for what it is, and that would be the end of it.

The same applies here.

[jeff47]

170. Google search reveals that word is in 1,180 posts on DU.

And that's searching for the four-letter word, not when people use stars or underscores or "c-word" to hide it.

Kinda odd that such an offensive, inexcusable slur is just fine more than a thousand times.

[2banon]

204. So the actual word has been used in 1,180 posts on DU, and allowed to remain without deletion?

Kinda odd that such an offensive, inexcusable slur is just fine more than a thousand times

Agree. Speaks to something very disturbing and pathetic, which will remain unspoken.

[uppityperson]

604. Not quite. Searching for a word pulls up not just the post with the word, but often posts on either

side of it in a thread. And even with some being in quotes, discussing what someone else said, still it is too much.

[Orrex]

206. I agree that that's odd. Those posts should have been hidden.

And, depending on context, the posters should possibly have been banned as well.

Good point!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

222. I would like to think I would be similarly offended if he wrote that about somebody I didn't like.

There are gender neutral words to show contempt.

[MADem]

320. As I've noted elsewhere, if that remark had been aimed at Liz Warren,

there'd be calls for heads on pikes, never mind pizza deliveries.

[Orrex]

426. Exactly and undeniably correct! (nt)

[Jim Lane]

496. So you believe that people's reaction depends on their position in the nomination fight.

Your clear implication is that some of us who oppose Clinton and who disagree with the ban would be cheering for the ban if the post had been about Warren.

As to me, personally, that's not true. I think banning a longtime member over one post is wrong, period. I'll concede, though, that some people on my side would indeed apply a double standard, as you outline.

BUT: If you believe that's true of some (maybe even most? maybe even all?) of us who like Warren, do you also believe it to be true of some Clinton supporters?

It's certainly not true of all of them. There are plenty of posts along the lines of "I support Clinton and I disagree with NYC_SKP on a lot of things and I think that post should've been hidden but the ban was excessive."

Still, if you agree that some Clinton supporters would also apply a double standard, then the obvious question is whether that attitude played a role in the ban.

The follow-up question is whether, if it did, that fact would weigh against the fairness of the ban. My personal opinion is that it would. Does your attack on a perceived double standard imply that you agree?

[MADem]

500. Yes. I do believe that many who are minimizing would be pitching a fit

were Warren insulted in that fashion.

I think some people who dislike HRC are giving a pass that they would not give if the target was EW.

Here's my view on the matter. Don't call ANYONE those kinds of insults. How hard is that to do, really?

This poster has said some pretty inflammatory stuff in the past, too. I think his history caught up with him. The TOS talks about that, too.

I think the ban was appropriate. I think the poster is a better fit over at Discussionist, actually. He could get into some real dust ups over there, and maybe hit a few GOP targets while he's at it.

[Jim Lane]

523. But do you believe it also works the other way?

You write, "I think some people who dislike HRC are giving a pass that they would not give if the target was EW."

Do you also think some people who like HRC are not giving a pass that they would give if the target were EW?

My personal belief is that both assertions are correct. In fairness, the issue should be simply the choice between "zero tolerance for this vile insult, one strike and you're out" versus "we shouldn't ban a longtime member over one post unless lesser penalties have been tried and found wanting." Reasonable people can disagree about that. On each side of the nomination fight, however, there are some people who would apply a double standard -- their attitude toward the ban would depend on which prominent female politician had been named.

You agree with me to the extent of seeing hypocrisy on one side. You haven't commented on whether you also see it on the other side.

You also refer to this poster's history. I don't know whether the admins agree with you, but if they do, it means there were earlier occasions when a warning or a limited time-out would have been appropriate. Such a course might or might not have prevented the latest incident, but it would have been worth a try.

[MADem]

525. We'd have to see that happen for me to say.

You could call the Senator a bad word and we could sit back and observe how much outcry you generated, and from whom, but you would probably end up being tombstoned.

I don't think the admins view as their charge the requirement that they coddle or rehabilitate people. Since SKP basically took the POV that people who raise hackles (like the Charlie Hebdo crew) were the cause of their own misfortune, he shouldn't be shocked that his own chickens have come home to roost.

In any event, I've always been on the Just Don't Do It team. It's not all that hard to be civil and not resort to personal insult. And it's not like DU hasn't talked this out--there has been discussion about the POV towards the term in other countries, for example. But the bottom line is that we are not in UK or Australia. Enough people have weighed in over the years and said "This bothers me." There's been a community consensus that 'that' word is a no-go zone. If it bothers people, the polite and civil thing to do is just not repeat the word, or reference it in spooneristic fashion.

Perhaps SKP will take his enthusiasm for anti-Clinton posts to Discussionist. He'll probably get into some interesting conversations there.

[MH1]

58. Could you point me to the post?

Seriously, the one hidden post on his transparency page does not do that. It's kind of like the saying "perverted minds will see perversion everywhere". (ok that's not the common saying but there is one like that)

Maybe he meant it, maybe he didn't, but I think it's unfair to read into the post. I never would have taken it that way at all if someone wasn't pointing it out. (in fact, I'm still not sure if that's the post in question, it seems such a stretch).

The funny thing, I wouldn't consider myself a NYC_SKP supporter AT ALL - I've probably considered putting him on ignore a hundred times, but I have a very high bar for that - and I really like this site and the admins (Skinner, Elad, and EarlG). I just don't see this one. At all.

There have been OBVIOUS trolls here (you'd Better Believe It!!) who have literally posted thousands of trolling posts before getting booted.

NYC_SKP has probably posted several other posts that were more hide-worthy or even ban-worthy than this one, yet they weren't even hidden.

I respect the Admins' right to run their site as they see fit but I am scratching my head over the disparity.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. All I can say is I knew immediately what he was referring to and googled "Cunning Stunt'" verbatim

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cunning%20stunt

[snagglepuss]

201. Here's the exchange

Troll's post:

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...




Skip's reply:

Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!







IMO skip is being blatantly ironical, letting the troll know that he is on to her and it seems very clear to me that skip's comment is a reference to what the troll is doing.

[OneGrassRoot]

515. See Snagglepuss's #98 post above. :) n/t

[MH1]

521. Yeah, saw that. I think Snagglepuss is probably right.

I think SKP could have been just flagging the absurdity of the troll using that strange "tongue twister" phrase, and if I had seen the entire exchange at first, I'm pretty certain I would have read it that way. (Really, who would even say that phrase in normal discourse? Obviously the troll meant it the way it was taken. I would have assumed SKP's use of it was to draw attention to and mock the troll.) I don't blame people who were witness first hand to the whole exchange for being a bit perturbed about the outcome.

Oh well, I think this goes to the O.P.s point of reputation. I think EarlG probably overreacted in this case but there's no doubt that SKP's previous history influenced EarlG's interpretation of the post and caused that reaction. And, it's their site. They may want to not get a reputation for capriciousness in banning people, but it's still up to them.

Also I'll make a mental note that when playing with a troll, be very careful about how you use any of their words.

[whathehell]

114. Thank you. I feel the same and I can't help but wonder if those up in arms about the banning

would be so upset if he'd used a "cute" racist play on words?

I'm guessing not.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. This whole speech is so very opposite of SKP's own views regarding provocative speech made by

others that I find it to be very disturbing. The guy went on and on and on about how people who use insulting or denigrating speech do so with intention and that they should expect retribution and in fact that they wanted retribution. There was not a hint in any of his postings that he himself would treat insulting language toward himself or his own with anything other than swift retaliation.

I guess I am always repulsed to see people plead for mercy they refused to show toward others.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Folks need to find a set of principles and stick to them even when it's inconvenient./NT

[ProfessorGAC]

20. A Fair Point

I am, however, conflicted over any zero tolerance and "life without parole" policies, whether here at DU or anywhere else in life.

I'll go as far as saying the zero tolerance is a loser's way out.

That being said, i can't really disagree with anything you said. Just pointing out that there is a dichotomy driving my POV on this issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. So the guy who was most adament that all insulting speech should be met with strong reaction is also

the guy who should be allowed to use insulting speech?
His views toward the free expression of others were very strict, while he allowed himself great leeway in the use of denigrating and intentionally taunting language.

It's a towering hypocrisy.

[magical thyme]

83. one can be punished for using or implying insulting speech

without total banishment.

Time out with offensive post deleted would serve. Deleting the offensive post with a warning that a 2nd offense of that type will result in banishment would serve.

Total banishment without warning strikes me as excessive. It really changes the nature of this board, and not in a positive way.

[trotsky]

153. NYC_SKP didn't think so.

The workers at Charlie Hebdo were murdered - something a little worse than total banishment from a website, I think we can agree! But he refused to call them innocent victims. Constantly hammered the point that there were consequences for offending people. Well, guess he gets to live that a little bit now.

[magical thyme]

198. agree or disagree w/NYC_SKP, the board's owners have the right to banish, but that doesn't make it

the best option for their discussion board as a whole, imo. It has created a toxic atmosphere which may or may not blow over.

[trotsky]

247. Key three letters in your post: "imo."

We don't run the site. We are at the mercy of the admins.

But it is poetic justice that NYC_SKP faced severe consequences because people were offended by what he said.

[Orrex]

260. That is the default objection whenever a popular member gets the boot.

I've seen it many times on many posting forums. "He or she was such a major presence. This will have a negative impact on the community," etc. It's all a shorthand way of saying that popular or prolific member should be shielded from the consequences of his or her actions.

It has created a toxic atmosphere which may or may not blow over.

I would argue that it creates a toxic environment to allow such infractions to go unchecked.

[kjones]

415. Wouldn't that be "too big to ban," so to speak? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

519. Care to speak to NYC_SKP's clearly stated views about those who employ insulting or provocative

speech? That's what I am talking about, and not one of his defenders has mustered any response of any kind.
He stated that those who engage in provocative speech do so knowing they will get a strong reaction. He posted much, much material about how any critical speech must have value and be moderate or it is just a form of violence itself, then he paraded around DU wallowing in provocation and intentionally insulting verbiage.
What do you think about that? Should he be forgiven and allowed to return to say artists should be censored and that others must watch what they say while he continues with full license to denigrate? Why should that be the case?

[magical thyme]

590. This is a discussion board. All members are entitled to discuss their opinions.

You're talking about retribution. It's interesting that you find what you claim was NYC_SKP's opinion on censorship so horrible, and that you want him censored because you disagree with him.

I'm talking about what is best for DU as a whole. Banning members for stepping over an invisible line is not good for DU as a whole.

I really have nothing more to say on the matter. I'm really not interested in *anything* you have say on it either. Have a nice evening.

[ProfessorGAC]

252. Like I Said, It's A Fair Point

In this particular case, i get it. I just don't like zero tolerance policies in any case. Like i said, i'm conflicted. I'm sure not defending anyone here. Just expressing a tangentially connected POV.

[trotsky]

147. You win the thread, Bluenorthwest.

This was a guy who posted repeatedly that the Charlie Hebdo staff who were murdered brought it upon themselves. Consequences for speech and all that. That if you offend someone, you bear responsibility for whatever comes of that.

Poetic in a way.

[Bluenorthwest]

302. I am an artist and I had a long spate of being threatened by racists who were offended at some

things I was doing and saying. So this 'if you offend someone' bullshit is very personal to me.

And you you will notice that the OP nor his defenders will address the things he said and did at that time. They can't. They won't acknowledge it nor what it means.

[blm]

163. Ever been on prednisone?

I think his health issues and necessary but harsh prescription meds could be a partial explanation.

[Act_of_Reparation]

171. Yes.

And despite the pain somehow I managed not to call women c---ts.

[blm]

189. Not talking about the pain - talking about the side-effects. Also...

did you read the actual exchange? NYC was repeating the slang as posted by a new troll.

snagglepuss (10,343 posts)
98. Here's the exchange.


Troll's post:

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...


Skip's reply:


Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!






IMO skip is being blatantly ironical, letting the troll know that he is on to her and it seems very clear to me that skip's comment is a reference to what the troll is doing.

[hifiguy]

284. How is this not as obvious

To people as a bear in a phone booth?

[blm]

323. heheh…beats me…..

I'm starting to realize that I could have easily said much the same thing to a suspected troll. I've mirrored their words to use against them many a time in the past.

[zappaman]

379. He wasn't "mirroring" the post.

In fact, he capitalized the first two letters of the phrase and then added how it was a tongue twister that he said everyday just to make sure everyone got exactly what he was talking about.

Hardy har har.

[blm]

528. The exchange, to me, sounds more directed at the troll. I think he made a poor choice

based on his increasing ill temperedness, but, I also see room for forgiveness.

As you know, I spent years around people who took humor right to the edge and were sometimes pilloried for it. Perhaps that thickened my skin - or my eardrum. I also listened to a LOT of Derek and Clive in the early 80s which uses that word and others as punctuation.

To me, context is everything.

[Bluenorthwest]

357. Is he claiming that his huge hypocrisy is symptomatic? No, you are and you do so as a way to avoid

addressing what I actually brought up, which are the poster's own views about the very sort and style of speech he himself got banned for.
How about discussing what I brought up instead of playing Doctor?

[NuclearDem]

14. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about SKP.

What I do care about is how utterly contaminated this place can be with casual sexism.

If you're afraid of getting banned, then I'd probably suggest not calling a woman a c***. Damn near anything else sexist you can get away with, but I think we can maybe just agree c*** has no place here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. My thread on this topic sunk like a stone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026781413

[Arugula Latte]

102. To me there is a double standard here.

If you say you are against gay people getting married, you will be banned, as you should be.
If you say you are against abortion rights, you can stay. That makes no sense.

[FlatBaroque]

19. Slightly off topic

Is it not ironic that the political figure at the heart of this "kerfuffle" is Hillary Clinton. Ironic because one of her biggest flaws is her divisiveness. What has happened here because of this banned poster is a temporal reflection of the candidate and her character. The thing that makes this relevant is the level of vitriol and viciousness (and hypocricy) by some members. This does not bode well for a unified election.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. People who use a slur toward others are to blame for that, the target of the slur is not to blame.

Lots of people make multiple negative posts about Hillary Clinton that thrive on DU. The figure at the heart of this 'kerfuffle' is the poster who used denigrating language about her. That poster is the divisive figure, that poster made the divisive statement. The choice of words reflects on the poster's character.

[nashville_brook]

24. should all "divisive" posters be banned?

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Is that what I said? No it's not. Why not address what I said? Too much for you?

Apparently so. My point is that a person who is attacked with a slur is not the person to blame for the use of the slur. Argue that the person called names is asking for it if you like, I'm not going to agree with you.

[Buzz Clik]

28. The vitriol is par for the course. Every time.

I'm not buying that this is Hillary's fault.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I like folks who evoke strong passion

As the saw goes if you don't have haters you aren't doing anything.

[Sheepshank]

41. hmmm, this is just like blaming the vicitm

I don't believe that HRC is responsible for any personal and socila divide. Political divide will occur and has occurred since the formation of opposing parties. This blaming this was just as annoying when RW'ers would blame Obama for racial divide. People, assholes that they can be, are responsible for their actions.

[bettyellen]

61. Exactly. The divide here falls among those who will excuse sexism in all forms...

And it maybe because they realize Hillary has a lot of feminist supporters who they enjoy offending.
I get pegged a Hillary supporter all the time just because I speak up about sexism.
So far I'm divided on my primary vote. But too many here wants to peg you as something so they can insult you. Not hating Hillary is a huge sin.
It's fucking stupid.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Wait ... what? ...

Is it not ironic that the political figure at the heart of this "kerfuffle" is Hillary Clinton. Ironic because one of her biggest flaws is her divisiveness.

People (DUers) pick a side and shoot at each other ... and HRC is divisive?

How, pray tell, would any real life political figure NOT be "divisive" ... there will always be someone that disagrees with him/her.

[tblue37]

259. This is like blaming Obama for being "divisive." The people blaming him for

being divisive are the very ones who are constantly attacking him for absurd or outright false reasons, yet they blame him for the consequences of their* bad behavior.

The same thing happens when Hillary is deemed unelectable because of the accumulattion of "scandals" surrounding her. The only reason so many "scandals" are associated with her name and her political career is that a very real vast rightwing conspiracy has been slinging at her every bit of mud and monkey poo they can come up with. Almost every such "scandal" (the scare quotes are deliberate) is trumped up nonsense--like Benghazi, which, even after a brazillion Republican led investigations have cleared her and the Obama administration of wrongdoing, is still being constantly harped on and used as proof that she is unfit to be president.

In fact, the most recent Benghazi investigation is being timed to ensure that the results will be released right before the election. Even when the results turn out to prove her innocence, as all of them have done, the inattentive public won't notice the details. The Repubs are counting on voters to hear "Benghazi" for the millionth time and think bad thoughts about Hillary in connection with a terrible event in which Americans were murdered by Muslim extremists. That will, they hope, both smear her with blame for their deaths and also associate her with Muslim terrorists in the minds of many voters.

Thus, despite her complete lack of culpability where Benghazi is concerned, a whole lot of Americans have heard *forever* that she is somehow at fault for what happened. Since most Americans don't pay attention to current events, and even those who "look at" news reports never read past the headlines, they end up believing the Repubs' completely false Benghazi narrative about her. And then there are those who thoughtlessly assume that where there is smoke, there is probably fire. Republicans deliberately create as much smoke as possible around Democratic candidates and office holders, and the smoke is almost always based on lies. But low-info voters see all that smoke and assume the Democrats under assault must be guilty of something to be surrounded by so darned much smoke.

Thus Hillary and Obama get blamed for the divisiveness deliberately created by the constant unfair, OTT, and dishonest Republican attacks on them.

[okasha]

274. Bull. Shit.

If SKP's sexist remark had been made about Elizabeth Warren, the same people who are trying to mitigate SKP,'s offense would be after the poster with pitchforks and torches.

And there would be no such comment as "All this strife is a reflection of Elizabeth's character."

Do you also blame the Charlie Hebdo murders on the victims?

[uppityperson]

313. Hillary made someone insult her with a sexist slur? WTF? Victim blame much?

[WillyT]

25. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

[Octafish]

26. Thank you, IdaBriggs.

We don't have time -- and DU can't afford -- to lose the people who made DU into a force for Democracy.

[Buzz Clik]

34. Actually, we have the time and we can afford it.

Very shortly, we will find some other shiny topic to be the target of our endless obsessions. Maybe new sexual revelations about the Duggars or Sarah Palin will say something awful.

Plucking NYC_SKP from DU will be like taking your hand out of a bucket of water -- there will be no hole left behind. When the turbulence settles, we will have moved on seamlessly.

[Octafish]

51. Thank you for your 2 cents, Buzz Clik.

Profound, really.

[tkmorris]

78. In your example...

While the water surface may appear to be unmarred, just as it was before, the depth will be measurably decreased. I think that is a remarkably apt analogy though I don't think it illustrates quite what you thought it did.

[Buzz Clik]

107. Will NYC_SKP be missed? Will his absence be noticed? Yes to both.

Will DU be any less capable of moving forward without him? No.

[Flying Squirrel]

110. No, people will remember this

For a very long time, whether he is allowed back or not.

[Buzz Clik]

121. There are two really important points here (since we changed the subject slightly):

1. There are rules in place that can make you disappear if you violate them. Even if those rules previously were not applied consistently and to their fullest extent, NYC_SKP's banning has demonstrated that the rules are there and enforcement is possible.
   
2. Disagreements, even strong disagreements, do not justify every conceivable reaction.

Will we remember this? Of course. I'm sitting on four hidden comments, and you can believe that I have modified my behavior in the wake of Skippy's demise. I also have no doubt that some will see this as bias against their candidate being played out in a "violent" fashion, and they will not forget.

Want to add another stick to the fire? Dig around a bit and see is any of those capable of invoking a lifetime ban have an honest-to-god, take it to the bank conflict of interest. Tread lightly.

[Fumesucker]

118. Given that on the larger scale this place is meaningless anyway, the same is true of anyone

Me, you, Joe Schmoe from Idaho..

[LexVegas]

27. Sexists aren't progressive. nt.

[giftedgirl77]

31. I hope all of this nonsense only reiterates to the Admin

that they did the right thing in banning him.

[NCTraveler]

33. Said banned poster is full of unbridled hate.

Has been for a while. Even some of his supporters have been asking him to tone it down. They refused and turned it up. They had a track record of extreme anger and a complete lack of willingness to turn it down. Even after their "online friends" had repeatedly asked them to. They had a track record. The only way to claim that poster had a good reputation is if you weren't on the receiving end of their unbridled anger or are willing to ignore their track record of hate. I will say said banned poster posted some excellent things on the environment. Even there, if you attempted to debate them, they would go extreme anger on the spot. The reputation you speak of got them in the end.

[Buzz Clik]

38. "Hate" is a bit harsh, but, most recently, he certainly had little regard for his targets.

The only way to claim that poster had a good reputation is if you weren't on the receiving end

^^^this!^^^

[NCTraveler]

42. Hate is a strong word and I probably shouldn't have used it.

Anger would have been a better word. I do think I can say they have a clear hate for Hillary herself, but I was making a different point that required a different word. Thanks for making me think that out better.

[Jesus Malverde]

40. Great post

We are just people's feeding an advertising platform that can most of the time be fun.

Nothing more.

[RufusTFirefly]

94. This is a simple but excellent point

I'm troubled by our loss of true public discourse and of a true public space. Many of the fora that people treat as public are decidedly private with financial goals that although they may often be in line with the public interest eventually trump them. When the going gets tough, the almighty dollar carries the day.

In that respect, this forum (and others) are much like today's Democratic Party. Although there may be a groundswell of popular opinion in one direction, it is the people of power and privilege (i.e. the "owners&quot who make the final decision, even if it is at odds with what the majority of the group believes.

In 2004, the vast majority of Democratic delegates opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, yet "the Party" chose someone who voted for it. We are on a similar trajectory of cognitive dissonance in this upcoming election. Ultimately, we the people concede, because we're resigned to the fact that although we may have strong opinions and are even given an opportunity to voice them within certain constraints, the reality is that we are not in control.

There's a crucial difference between DU and the Democratic Party, of course. DU truly is private and would certainly not deny this. But both DU and the DNC are driven by money, not democracy.

[nichomachus]

148. As always

follow the money, follow the money

[KoKo]

546. Interesting points....

I'm troubled by our loss of true public discourse and of a true public space. Many of the fora that people treat as public are decidedly private with financial goals that although they may often be in line with the public interest eventually trump them. When the going gets tough, the almighty dollar carries the day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

231. There is more to this site

Than just that. And I will leave it at that.

[Jesus Malverde]

263. I know what your referring to

The cliquish community of baby boomers in their twilight years reminiscing about their great music, culture and experiences. Reminding us how awesome they are. Lots of lonely people in need of contact.

Mostly I ignore dat, I know I'm a minority on this forum, reminded every day.

DU is a business and we are the product. If the admins ever wanted to sell the site, what do you think the metric would be? It's new post counts and page views. I'm here for news and politics, got some?

[nadinbrzezinski]

387. Has not one bit to do with the cliques

And that is all I am going to say

[Aerows]

385. Might as well ban everybody, though

We've all been guilty of indiscretions.

[Bonobo]

403. Jesus! That was fucking beautiful! Pithy and wise and piercingly true. nt

[Jester Messiah]

434. Yep. I guess the site's got enough eyeballs on ads that they can tell users to get lost.

Must be nice to be that comfortable.

[Jesus Malverde]

457. If you understand web advertising and page views.

Banning him is actually a pay day for the site. Thousands of page views on multiple threads. At 2-5 cents a page view it adds up.

10,000 page views x 3.5 cents /100 = ~$350 from this thread alone.

Ironic (a thread about being poor and going homeless) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026748167, with 15K page views, bizarre as it was, a good day for the admins.

[Jester Messiah]

461. True enough.

Thank goodness for uBlock.

[Jesus Malverde]

464. Adblock and click to flash as well.

[Jester Messiah]

467. uBlock is less of a resource hog than Adblock.

Give it a shot, I never looked back.

[Jesus Malverde]

468. Thanks! Im using "little snitch" too it's a good utility...nt

[SusanCalvin]

547. Yikes!

Thanks for prompting me to switch from the Kindle to the computer. Or get off my rear and sideload Firefox.

[marym625]

43. So very well said!

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I will say that the,"am I next" is not really a whisper. And I find the "grave dancing incredibly sad.

Great post. Thank you again.

[Enthusiast]

319. I find the "grave dancing" incredibly sad too. And it pisses me off.

[MineralMan]

44. Once a DUer's post count has risen past a certain figure,

it is impossible to have read all of that DUer's posts. We tend, as individuals, to focus on certain topics in our reading of DU, since it would be equally impossible to read every thread posted here. What that means is that we may not have a clear all-encompassing view of who an individual DUer is or how that DUer conducts him or herself in all circumstances.

Reputation is often based on a limited subset of interactions.

[IdaBriggs]

45. Valid point. I have also seen people talk about him being abusive

Which I have NEVER seen, and welcoming them to DU years before he joined.

It is a big discussion board, and we remember what we want to remember.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. He espoused very clear views about people who use insulting or denigrating

language. After Hebdo he wrote extensively on the subject. He self deleted the worst of them but there are still many posts in which he goes on and on about free speech being in need of restraint when being critical of persons and things others hold in high esteem. But then he himself causally uses denigrating language.
Hypocrisy is one thing, but folks who want to silence others while they themselves want to be permitted to say anything no matter how vile are fascists.

[MineralMan]

59. "We remember what we want to remember"

That is absolutely true, and we all have evidence of that. DU is what it is. It has owners who decide things. Unlike most discussion forums, we also have some control by the users of the forum. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than most.

Getting angry when the system operates as it was designed to operate doesn't accomplish much. Understanding the limitations of the system enables the intelligent person to stay within acceptable boundaries.

One thing that many DUers don't understand is that the vast majority of DUers have no hidden posts at all. The vast majority. Every one of those DUers manages to stay within the bounds of community standards. Those who do not or cannot are always at risk of being unable to participate here. It's not difficult to stay within those boundaries.

[tblue37]

264. Like so many others on DU, I have never found it difficult to refrain from attacking

other people on the board or from using forbidden language. I have been here for 11 years and have made almost 16,000 posts without a hide. For the most part it's not that hard.

Nevertheless, as someone who serves on a LOT of juries, I have seen people being alert stalked and suffering undeserved time-outs because of that. For example, within a single hour one night I served on two juries for completely innocuous posts by nadinbrzezinski that should never have been alerted on. Of couse I voted to leave her post both times, but one of them still got a 4-3 hide. It was an outrageous hide, and I actually PM'd her to say how sorry I was that she was being alert stalked like that. But when someone becomes a target of malicious alerts, eventually the alerters will get lucky and find a jury with a majority of jurors who dislike the poster and hope to get him/her timed out or even banned.

Nadin used to post much more often, but she abandoned DU altogether for a while because of the stalking (and also because she was often directly attacked in nasty posts that somehow did *not* get hidden). Even now that she is back on DU, she posts far less frequently, and it is obvious that she does not feel safe in expressing herself.

[PeaceNikki]

47. JFC, he's not the first long-timer with lots of friends and non-friends here to get the ban hammer.

The drama over his banning is ridic.

He fucked up.

[tammywammy]

115. +1 n/t

[kentuck]

48. Is it inevitable?

That we will all be banned sooner or later?

[hifiguy]

346. There are certain people here who will never be banned,

If they haven't been banned for all the snide. slippery, disingenuous, quasi-trolling and outright lying they have already done, they are as bulletproof as Superman.

[UTUSN]

412. Bwah-HAH!1 I'm only here for being inconsequential!1 n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. If one of my very good friends came to a party at my house and called Obama an N-word

He would be asked to leave, immediately, and not invited back. Ditto c-word, f-word, and other slurs that actually hurt people. Maybe I'd make up in time, but being told to get the fuck out and not come back for that type of behavior is not unusual or cruel, and it happens every day in our actual lives. People cut off family members for shit like this, much less some schmoe on the Internet. Besides, the c-word incident was simply the straw that broke the camel's back for NYC SKP. His behavior had been atrocious for months, if not years.

Sometimes, we say enough is enough. All communities do. Y'all can mourn your friend (he's not actually dead, you know?). I'm going to be happy to be in a "party" where that type of behavior gets you sent the fuck out. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here. And I'm comfortable having the same measure applied to me.

[PeaceNikki]

69. The OP is trying to claim that NYCS was defending Hillary's honor from a troll or something.

In another thread she was anyway.

[IdaBriggs]

91. To clarify, he was PLAYING with a Troll.

This is per his personal conversation with me, on the phone. I believe him. This post, however, is supposed to be about the bigger picture of online Internet reputation, although your remembering of your own interpretation of my comments does prove the point that my "reputation" influences your perception of what I say.

[PeaceNikki]

108. "I say that to myself every day, over an over."

How is that 'playing with a troll'? To many of us reading that, including EarlG, it sure looked like he was agreeing with and laughing with the troll about the phrase in context of HRC.

"I say that to myself every day, over an over."

SO coy.

[Lizzie Poppet]

236. The actual exchange makes it pretty damn clear...

...that he was throwing the troll's shitty words back in its face.

EarlG screwed the pooch on this one.

[PeaceNikki]

249. "I say that to myself every day, over an over."

How is that 'throwing the troll's shitty words back in its face'? To many of us reading that, including EarlG, it sure looked like he was agreeing with and laughing with the troll about the phrase in context of HRC.

"I say that to myself every day, over an over."

[Lizzie Poppet]

254. I think it was an obtuse, ill-considered bit of satire.

Given that Skip has never posted anything to make me think he's an MRA, misogynist, etc., but has recently posted some real head-scratchers (since his medical treatments for a brain issue, I might add), my very strong inclination is to view that one as return fire at the troll that went badly wrong.

Of course, Skip is also a Bernie supporter (and pro-2nd Amendment poster), so perhaps I'm slipping a nice little tinfoil bonnet on for this one.

[MADem]

325. It doesn't read like that at ALL.

He was CHUCKLING with that troll, welcoming him and gleefully celebrating his not so clever "tongue twister."

He liked what 'Feel the Bern' was saying.

[jeff47]

183. 1,180 uses of that word were allowed to stand.

According to Google's site search. And that's explicit uses of the 4 letters. Not spoonerisms as NYC_SKP did or hiding it behind "c-word" or stars or underscores.

So more than a thousand people at your party use the word, and you show one the door.

[alcibiades_mystery]

245. Oh well

It should be applied more consistently. Glad this particular usage bought the shitcan, though.

[IdaBriggs]

482. Your post has been on my mind all day (and I have had to peek

as I am busy with family). I think the "guest at a party" is part of the problem. Good long term posters bring value to a site and a community. Instead of thinking of us as "guests" I think it is actually more "friends who chip in rent money, bring beverages, and in the case of the folks who volunteer, help you re-roof your house and clean up after everyone else as needed." Booting those folks out of your life over a misunderstanding or over-the-top out of context comment ... I have a very dysfunctional family of origin, and most of the folks who do that have "issues" that make me glad for the times when the temper tantrums mean I don't have to walk on egg shells around them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

527. You say it was a

"misunderstanding and over-the-top out of context comment." I don't see it that way. I see it as a deliberate use of an extremely nasty word by a person who has grown increasingly nasty and unable to control himself.

I'm fine with my friends and family "walking on eggshells" around me if their required delicacy involved n-words and f-words, and c-words. Good. Walk on fucking eggshells. Maybe the effort will get through to them that this kind of shit is massively harmful and inappropriate. That's not dysfunctional. It's boundary-setting, and it's the only route to open and honest relationships: "Here's the shit I will not put up with if we're to be associated. If that's the kind of shit you do, be the fuck out."

[Rex]

52. YEP. DU3 brought into existence an easy way to posters to track each other

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~Rex

I think it is a good thing.

[Bonobo]

405. You nailed it. Nailed. it. big. time.

Auto-categorization.

Much like the internet itself.

Little rooms to keep us divided into our own categories so we can be coalated and defined.

[closeupready]

53. There's a shrill handful of members who stalk others.

This has been noted by a number of people. Nothing is done about it.

They must have a list they share, and gang-alert on even the most ambiguous statements, harassing and insulting 'enemies' here. I believe NYC_SKIP must have been on one such list, because of the sequence of events leading to his PPR.

Suffice it to say it's probably better to avoid controversial discussions where people can post their opinions in good faith and learn things, change their mind, and persuade others, because it leads directly to revocation of posting privileges, over time.

[Rex]

60. Careful, you will attract a following with that line of thinking.

You are 100% correct and this was easily observable in our now dead META forum. Also one of the main reasons we don't have a META forum anymore - people could not be nice to each other. Lines in the sand were drawn and now some here have charts and notebooks full of who needs to be punished etc.

What I've learned, best not to engage them at all...why waste your time? Took me a longtime to learn that.

[closeupready]

75. "best not to engage them at all" - bingo; ergo, ignore comes

in quite handy. It's almost exactly the e-equivalent of how I comport myself in real life - engaging my friends warmly, and completely and utterly ignoring those who seem to only want to tangle and be drama queens.

Cheers.

[Rex]

76. Cheers.

There are more than enough people here to talk to on a daily basis and have a pleasant conversation or even a heated argument - and none of it requires for us to belittle ourselves with 5th grade behavior.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. Meh...I've been here 10 years as a_m

Had my share of flame wars, and plenty of people think I'm a complete shithead.

The martyrdom and melodrama over this is silly. There is no "alert cabal." Most people manage to get through their time here without repeated hides in a short period, or acting such an ass that they get shitcanned. It's not a high bar, really. Nor is it a conspiracy.

NYC_SKP has one person to blame for the revocation of his privileges: himself.

[Rex]

70. SKP didn't have repeat hides in a short period, just one hide then a ban.

Been here since the beginning and YES a few people here do keep score. Thankfully it is just a few with nothing better to do I guess. I think 99% of us here really do want to have a discussion without it ending up with poo all over the walls.

It is the GOLDEN RULE: you takes your chances when you post. Post something positive and productive and there should be little worry about getting shitcanned.

Do the opposite...

[Horse with no Name]

100. It seems that no matter how innocuos of a post I make

I get huge pile on's by the same people over and over.
I rarely venture over here anymore because of that.
I am sure I am not the only one.

[closeupready]

113. People who live personally frustrating lives ...

"Misery loves company."

[jeff47]

187. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID SUCH AN OFFENSIVE THING!!!

[Horse with no Name]

195. I see what you did there

[madfloridian]

219. Ha, know the feeling.

No, you are not the only one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

413. The pile ons are by design my friend

and why I take this place with a mount everest mount of salt

On the bright side, you stepped on somebody's toes, so they released the stalking crew.

Their goal is indeed, to drive you away.

[Horse with no Name]

418. well honestly after this last year

I try not to take myself too seriously since I am only passing through.

[nadinbrzezinski]

419. Very true

two deaths in the family and this seems like the real joke it is.

[Horse with no Name]

422. Well after realizing what it meant to be literally silenced and not just figuratively silenced

It dawned on me that I shouldn't waste my precious breath..whether it is is talking or typing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

423. There is that too

Though I would never do that.



I won't ask for details either.

[Ichingcarpenter]

54. The weak can never forgive.

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
Mahatma Gandhi



We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Genuine forgiveness does not deny anger but faces it head-on.
Alice Miller

Forgiveness is a way of opening up the doors again and moving forward, whether it's a personal life or a national life.
Hillary Clinton

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_forgiveness7.html#RvlW4k7oJUb8653p.99

[Rex]

63. We must not be inflexible in our ability to change our own opinion either.

Nor does it take much to admit we can be wrong about something. Hell, I've apologized for being wrong and an ass at times and I am still here...not missing any bodyparts.

[KoKo]

92. ....!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

55. Ida--good post. Here's what I tried to post three different times, but

Every time I hit Send, it was too late; the thread had been locked.
.......

The people who should be banned are the folks who repeatedly bait women and show up to spit on women's issues. Especially those slimy enough to hide their psychological warfare behind decorous words. Trolls, and nasty little boys.

It sucks, what NYC-SKP said...but when I think of the context, his behaviour, commentary, discussion was never sexist before. He's a guy who has clearly been a feminist ally.

As a veteran of many major surgeries and trauma, I know that you can get triggered. Become a different person.

I don't take slurs against women lightly, as you probably know. Back on DU2, I was FizzFuzz...in those days, "lady-baiting" was rampant, and the woman responding with appropriate righteous anger was always the one who got tombstoned. Happened to me and a LOT of other feminists.

So, ordinarily, I'd be the last person questioning such a ban....but the full story casts a different light.

I wish the obvious misogynists who are pathological enough to purposefully hide their aggression behind trollish word games would get the permanent kibosh.

[Kali]

241. nailed my feelings on this perfectly!

"I don't take slurs against women lightly", and

"So, ordinarily, I'd be the last person questioning such a ban....but the full story casts a different light.

I wish the obvious misogynists who are pathological enough to purposefully hide their aggression behind trollish word games would get the permanent kibosh."

[tblue37]

266. +1. nt

[leftyladyfrommo]

64. I was banned once a long time ago.

It was for asking one of the most innocuous questions. And I've had a couple of posts blacked out also for just a comment that someone took wrong.

It's very disconcerting. Personally I wish the moderators would just leave stuff out there unless it is really over the top and most of us recognize that when we see it. And we are pretty good at calling out people for that sort of thing.

I am a firm believer in free speech whether I believe it or not. I would rather make my own judgments.

[sendero]

95. In forum moderation...

... as in just about everything else, you get what you pay for.

[Gregorian]

125. Civility doesn't come from banning.

Absolutely. Not only that, but every time I see a hidden post, guess what I do? I read it.

Who are we hiding these posts from?


Now in their defense, we do want a forum that looks civil to the outside world. But civility doesn't come from banning. It comes from forum members setting limits, and acting on the failure of members to uphold them. Let the world see the fools who break the rules.

It's just like trying to eliminate murder by using the death penalty. How shortsighted.

[LiberalLovinLug]

225. Good points

(I too always click to see just why a post was hidden from my sensitive innocent eyes...shhhhhh)

And many times I find I side with the hidee. Sometimes a point is made more clear by being pushed by off-color language. Sometimes I can see it was said with forgivable passion to make that point. I have a tolerance for human emotion, even extreme, if I can see the context, especially on an internet forum where the only "weapon" is words.

I agree that posts should still be hidden though, like you say we want the forum to look civil. We live in a polite society. I think this was a great improvement over simply eliminating the post entirely. A good middle ground.

But IMO the admins have gone way overboard if NYC-SKIP was banned for this one word salad innuendo repeated back in response to another poster who used the same terms. It was a mistake, I'm sure he knows that now. Should have been maybe a time-out ban for a few days or a week perhaps at most.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

279. agree.

No dialogue, no learning.

[lonestarnot]

65. I hope skinner lets him come back. This is not a good thing.

[Jester Messiah]

436. That would be "showing weakness."

I'd bet you a shiny penny that the mods won't risk it.

[jwirr]

68. Thank you for posting this. But I will not join the discussion - after all - who is next?

[LiberalArkie]

72. There appears to be a certain segment of people who do not desire liberalism to thrive

they say they are liberal Democratic people but they are liberal in the corporate sense. They desire liberalism to die. Do you think that after President Obama's term is over that a real Liberal black man can be elected? People will talk about how that "Liberal black president" sent even more jobs off shore than that "Liberal" Clinton did. They will talk about how that black president rallied congress for the Patriot act. I had hoped that he was the person we voted for. I think that Obama may be the last Democratic candidate for many years.

I hoped the we could vote for a liberal woman for president. But at the present that does not look like how it will be. The reason I feat Hillary, is that I fear that if she is elected, there will not be a liberal woman candidate for many years. It may end up being death of liberalism in America. I am not against blacks or women in office, I am (probably like NYC_SKP) afraid of what these pro-business at any cost, anti-liberalism pro-conservative democrats are doing to the party of Will Rogers, FDR and Jimmy Carter. Because I do remember when the Clintons and the Democratic party would not be seen with Jimmy Carter. I remember a lot of people here on DU laughing at Carter (such a country bumpkin), not acting presidential by being out building houses for the poor and helping the poor in Africa.

But I am an old fart, what do I know. Been punched too many times, and too accustomed to the feel of black jacks and fire hoses.

[raouldukelives]

117. Sometimes I feel almost exactly as you do.

I use my personal C word virtually every time I am here. "Corporatist."

You can call me whatever you like, but you call me that, and were gonna tangle.

It immediately brings visions to my eyes of melting ice caps, Middle East armament, South American death squads, gasping and suffering sea life in the oceans, Mexican drug cartels laundering money, fellow citizens abused & tortured in corporate prisons, watching friends & neighbors in living and dying in excruciating pain because they cannot afford medicine, slavery as bad as any imagined for our third world friends compliments of us, perpetual war and the mass extinctions of our animal kingdom.

Does your country, your people, dream and fight for democracy and freedom? Good luck, we will try to keep you chains to assure our profits.

Save what little is left of your natural world? Good luck, we will try to obfuscate and ignore the truth until our shareholders are satiated.

There are things we have the power to change. They all depend on our personal actions, every day and in every interaction.

We have the choice not to use, not to emulate and not to crowdfund the C word.

[snagglepuss]

360. "I use my personal C word virtually every time I am here. "Corporatist."

Hear Hear Great post. Deserves it own thread, way too good to be hidden in a such a long thread

[raouldukelives]

627. Thanks! nt

[sufrommich]

137. "Do you think after President Obama's term is over that a real Liberal black man can be elected?"

"The reason I feat Hillary, is that I fear that if she is elected, there will not be a liberal woman candidate for many years."

You know except for this president,every single president,good and bad,has been a white guy. And yet you're making the claim is that if female or POC presidents don't toe whatever line you've made for them that we'll have no choice but to stick with the white guys. That's a mind numbing dumb shit,tone deaf statement masked as "concern" as I've ever seen. Here's an idea,POC's and females aren't the borg,I resent the hell out of statement like this, let me know when our long line of white,male presidents are judged by the same ridiculous standards,because using your standard,we should have never elected another white guy after Richard Nixon.

[bettyellen]

479. This should be an OP!

[Person 2713]

678. Keeping it real

[hifiguy]

347. Excellent post. nt

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

73. Great post Ida!

I do have to wonder why we can get away with misandrist comments such as,
Dickhead, dick, cocksucker, and the like.

But the moment one spoonerism is uttered that is, or could be misconstrued, as misogynistic is grounds for a ban.

If, and I do say IF, any prejudice was at fault why isn't it a two way street?
Ban members for saying, Dickhead Cheney, for example.

Oh, what about asshole? Sorry, guess that's just a common thing.

Really this has gotten outta hand.

As Dems we petition all sorts of things I guess we should start one for the reinstatement of
NYC_SKP!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. Because not all pejoratives are the same...

As I say, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, I live in the real world. In the real world if you call a generic male a dick or dickhead he probably will get a bit upset and shrug. If you call that same male a c--ks----r he is liable to take a swing at you.

I don't know how anybody could really refute my proposition without being deliberately obtuse or disingenuous...

Calling a man a dick lacks the sting of calling a woman a c--t.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

116. I appreciate your comment..

I live in the real world also. But I'm afraid that anything I say to you will be misconstrued. I hope not.
I'm male. I have been fighting for women's rights for a long time. I am born from a woman that was a feminist before that was cool. I married and have been together with one of the strongest woman I have ever known. We raised a daughter that is equal to any person on this planet.

I will never refute your position, I embrace it!

But what you say about males is not true. Your statement is disingenuous, dismissive. Men have rights also.

The sting is the same!

Equal rights for all sexes!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

220. I oppose all form of bigotries...

My argument is simply some words are more offensive than others...


Dick is synonymous with idiot. The c-word is synonymous with a woman who is contemptible in evey way imaginable.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

275. Ok, accepted. Thank you for clarifying.

[deurbano]

229. How is "cocksucker" misandrist?

Seems it would be homophobic or misogynist... It's insulting the person sucking the cock, not the person with the cock.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

277. Depends on your point of view...

Males can be misandrist without being homophobic.

Critical thinking.

[deurbano]

289. Explain it to me.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

330. Ok...

critical thinking...


Examples
noun
1.
disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence:
The questions are intended to develop your critical thinking.

[deurbano]

331. Right. Got it.

[ann---]

79. It it had happened

to someone you didn't know or like - would you even care if they
got banned for the same horrendous thing?

[JonLP24]

80. TL;DR

I'm seriously kidding. I read every word and strong recommend this post as I can tell you put a lot into it and I don't mean effort. My first impression was someone is usually here to snark at these type of things, internet brings out some pretty interesting characters -- I've seen "If you hate America so much why are you even this site?" at DU, seriously like foreign policy are like sports with teams & cheering sections.

What I mean is I don't have much of a community of like minded people outside the world wide web because I live in the most conservative city of 250,000+ so I put a lot of value to this place and especially from the valuable posters & contributors, thank god the # of mockers went down, so much better especially with the rise of ugly during primaries (you might find a lot more support if this wasn't a primary & not for a wrong candidate as all I have are positive memories of him. Behavior matters more than an inappropriate joke or simply doing or saying the wrong thing as like you said if you're positive person you will learn, understand, or correct whatever mistakes you made if and when you make them so having a chance this or that seems appropriate not something so arbitrary when there are these second chances lasting for years and don't mind them here. Truly racist/bigoted or right wing I want to see gone

[sufrommich]

81. His passion caused him to revel in a shared c**t joke

aimed at a female presidential candidate? Good grief,some of the mental somersaults being done to excuse this guy's behavior are amazing.There were a lot of DUers were who favored Hillary over Obama in 2008,I don't recall any of them having so much "passion" for her that it caused them to share racist jokes with a banned troll.

[whathehell]

119. Thank you..Excellent point. n/t

[JTFrog]

383. ^^this^^ n/t

[samsingh]

85. i'm a strong Hillary supporter, but i'm beside myself trying to understand or accept the ban

it makes the investment of time here appear to be a waste of time.

[RR2]

87. Scary stuff, I have heard of others that were targeted and banned.

Censorship[edit]

Democratic Underground has been criticized by some current and former members for an overly broad censorship policy that extends outside the bounds of its stated terms of service, for banning members with opinions perceived as unpopular among the membership, and for limiting free speech for political reasons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

[ms liberty]

88. K&R...n/t

[Half-Century Man]

89. According to my profile, I've been here just over two years. I'm shocked.

I'm here every single day, most days I'm here for hours. I read, write more responses than I post, pitch in where I think I have a valid point, or make a dumb joke.
I like it here so much I didn't notice the time passing.

I do not consider myself of any particular importance here, more of a sideline player.
I have no idea of my reputation here (nor do I want to know, I'm quite comfortable in my modest self delusion). But after reading Ida's post, I realize I'd hate to lose something I just learned the value of (oh, by the way Ida, thanks for this bit of enlightenment).

We grow here, we learn, we support each other, we collectively mourn the passing of members, and we most definitely sharpen our claws on each other (all the better to deal with whatever political stupidity we run into in real life).

[Horse with no Name]

90. I am fortunate enough to be able to interact with him outside of here as well

using our real names.
I guess I missed what happened but he is a good guy and it appears that those that come here to simply run off good posters have a notch on their belt...but...make no mistake, NYC's reputation transcends this place and that is a very good thing.

[boston bean]

101. Who ran NYC_SKP off of DU to get a notch on their belt? nt

[pecwae]

143. Which explains

why many long timers are no longer heard from.

[valerief]

93. Do you remember the first time you heard the words bastard, bitch, and ass used

on a TV show? A sitcom likely. I remember being shocked when Cloris Leachman said, "Go suck an egg," on her MTM spinoff Phyllis. She'd used the word suck and didn't mention a vacuum cleaner.

I can't remember when I first heard the forbidden swear words used regularly on TV--I didn't watch much television in the 80s or 90s--but once I did, I was amused. There was a sea change. Why there was, I don't know, but there was. Those words were no longer "magical." They'd lost their power to insult and had mutated to common slang, used for entertainment. Today, even basic cable goes to minimal effort to bleep out the magic word fuck.

Giving a single word or phrase, especially when used out of context, the power to banish one from a discussion board or social group or job is like believing in ghosts or that Dubya is smart. It's magic thinking, something we're supposed to outgrow at age seven. The fact that conservatives have bastardized the concept of political correctness and embraced magic words doesn't surprise me. While one's history should be considered before banning, so should the context in which the magic word was used. But that's too complex for the black-and-white thinkers. I think we call them authoritarians now.

And before someone points out again that I had used a magic word and was banned from a group (which I probably won't see, because I probably have already put that person on Ignore), please note that I had trashed that group BEFORE I got the ban. I didn't care about the ban. It made me laugh. I trash a lot of the Bernie vs. Hillary threads. They bore me. If I want to watch a horse race, I'll turn on TV "news" shows. In fact, if I'm banned from DU, my life won't change. I can post elsewhere. I'm adaptable and complex. I'm not an authoritarian.

[JTFrog]

191. Not caring that people were upset at your calling a woman the c-word

does not resolve you of anything. It just shines the light a little brighter.

[valerief]

212. Yes, my wordplay to a previous post where I referenced a prominent Republican.

BTW, looks like I missed you! Ciao forever.

[JTFrog]

214. I'm heartbroken.

And nobody, I mean nobody, buys your ridiculous "wordplay" bullshit.

[boston bean]

97. Wanna keep a good reputation.. Don't call a woman a "c*nt"... that would be my advice to all

who are concerned with their reputation.

[whathehell]

129. Exactly. It's as simple as that and had the slur been about race or sexual orientation

instead of gender, I doubt ANYONE here would be condemning the ban


Sexual and Racial minorities MATTER -- Females? Not so much.

[Thinkingabout]

105. There should some control in one's life which would dictate words used are only meant to be

hurtful, calling a female a c--- is one of these words, it not only offensive to the person in which this was intended but to myself and probably many others. If it was not known to Skip, then I am sure they have got his attention now. It doesn't matter to me if he did not say the word directly, it was understood by myself, we are better here on DU than doing this, honestly I thought this would not have been something Skip would have posted.

[blm]

106. Proud to be rec #101.

Thank you.

[tularetom]

109. He was a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment and a vocal opponent of the Democrat front runner

And those opinions earned him a lot of opposition around here.

He did a stupid thing and got his ass in a sling because of it, but I wonder if there were people just waiting for him to screw up because of his advocacy of unpopular positions.

[nichomachus]

145. You can't criticize the "front runner?" What's that all about?

Hillary was the far-and-away front runner all through 2007. And that was in a crowded field. By January 2008, an "also ran" named Barack Obama left her in the dust. So, let's wait until January 2016 before we start anointing the "front runner."

Edited to change 2014 to 2008.

[tularetom]

165. I couldn't agree more but there is a large segment of the DU population

that feels strongly just the opposite.

There is also a rather large bloc that is in total opposition to the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

NYC_SKP didn't belong to either of these groups and he was very passionate in asserting his beliefs. He strongly believed in the right to keep and bear arms, and he was a outspoken critic of Ms Clinton.

He was on somebody's shit list because of it and when he screwed up - he was gone, just like that.

[HooptieWagon]

155. That is exactly what happened.

[whathehell]

160. "He did a stupid thing and got his ass in a sling"? No, he did an ugly, bigoted thing and got

those results. I'm tired of people dismissing the use of hateful words and actions as "stupid".

They're not stupid. They're ugly, and reflect an obvious contempt for those he speaks of.

FWIW, I always liked Skip -- I agreed with him a lot and he was good with me.

I think banning him was a bit harsh, but he did reveal a misogynist element in himself.

Had he targeted RACE or Gender orientation with his slur, we wouldn't even be having this conversation,

and you probably know that. There would not be NEARLY this level of objection to the banning

but I guess we women don't count that much.

[Gregorian]

120. I feel the same way about his banning as I do about America's judicial system and policing.

In a civil society that is functioning properly, people (citizens) do the policing. That's how it started, in tribes, before there were cops with guns. Or administrators. I belong to a European forum full of brilliant people, and one quickly discovers the rules if they break them. The forum descends on them with admonishment. And chronic troubles leads to simply being ignored. Soon the offenders either shape up or leave. And without real mod presence, that forum has been a shining beacon of civility and fun like none I've seen.

The problem I see is that we've delegated what should be a personal and important aspect of society to someone else. In fact, this delegation of doing our work for us is the crux of the problem with the world today. Give someone a badge, and the problem is solved? It is definitely at the heart of global warming, but I digress.

So who says the admin don't have biases? When you give the power to a small group, you better expect unbalanced results.

I shouldn't add this, but I have no problem with WORDS. I do have a problem with the sentiment behind the words, and how it tarnishes the quality and dignity of this forum.

[Hiraeth]

138. very well said. Especially this -

So who says the admin don't have biases? When you give the power to a small group, you better expect unbalanced results.

I have equated posting here as tantamount to being employed in a "right to work" state.

[corkhead]

126. Thank you. I believe banishment was ham handed and I hope it will be reconsidered.

Not one of the DU owners proudest moments imho.

I hope I don't get in trouble for saying so.

[KamaAina]

134. What he did was wrong, certainly

you can see for yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026775414#post55

But banned? For one childish remark?

[corkhead]

199. some have pointed out that the context is missing because he was responding to a post we can't see

because that poster was TSd and his/her post was deleted. His post was hidden which was the jury system doing it's job. Not sure why that got stepped on from above the way it did.

[hifiguy]

351. The entire context has been posted on this thread

by snagglepuss and others. A ban is an absurd response.

[madfloridian]

136. Ida, you are so right. It could happen to any of us at anytime.

It only takes few folks to do it. Good post.

[RufusTFirefly]

139. A poverty of forgiveness and an unsettling reverence for authority

I don't believe that people who do wrong shouldn't be punished for it. And I don't believe that rules shouldn't be followed.

But I do believe that people should be given an opportunity to atone for their sins and that even the most well-established rules should be subjected to healthy questioning from time to time.

I'm troubled by a lack of compassion and an absence of questioning that appear to have infected our society.

[FourScore]

142. Thank you, Ida Briggs!!

You have articulated so well what I have been thinking.

NYC_SKIP can hopefully take some comfort that us old-timers are advocating for him.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. Ida I also post under my name

And quite frankly the swarms, (which are allowed) arbitrary bans and a few other things make me take this site not at all seriously at all.

Let's not talk about the racist dog whistles that were used against Obama and now Sanders. And I have no horse in this electoral race.

I cannot truly be as charitable as you are to the owners either.

Let's just say I do not share anymore a lot of stuff here. Nor do I have the interest.

[boston bean]

149. You are still here and have much support... So, I'm not sure what you are concerned about.

Now, if you choose to use a vile misogynistic, racial, homophobic slur, you are going to probably get the ban.

That is the lesson here. Nothing more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. Actually if the antisemitic drivel

Continues, it will confirm why I left the first time.

For you it is myoginism. For me it is racism in general, antisemitism in particular.

I have no need to post at a site that has allowed far worst (imho) than a word that while insulting, I found last night some folks do not even know the dictionary definition off. Or for that matter the origin.

I expect antisemitism to go up. 2008 and the southern strategy. On the bright side this will assure that Jews will not vote for Hillary. I know this site is used to test crap.

[MelissaB]

150. Please read reply #49 by snagglepuss

I think it's too important to miss.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6784393

[IdaBriggs]

161. I agree with the interpretation, which was confirmed in our phone conversation.

Others did not, and again, it goes to reputation.

[Corruption Inc]

168. The "who is next" question is a good one

There's a clear hit list created and maintained by the conservative ideologues that put themselves into positions to ban people here. I'm sure I'm on the hit list for supporting alternative media, Warren, Sanders, Greenwald, Snowden, universal healthcare, holding war criminals accountable and, being against the TPP and corruption at every level of our government.

A shift has occurred in American politics. The republicans are now the corruption party, full of extremists and criminals. The democratic party is now the conservative party and what used to be the democratic party is now the progressive party. Until this site's members recognize that it's going to be a constant source of conflict with lots of censorship, blind partisanship and the endless name calling and insults.

The atmosphere here is oppressive rather than open, especially for progressives which is why so many of us are speaking out. The risk of doing so makes this site less and less appealing for me as it's clear almost anything I post will be attacked, lied about and/or blocked. The banning of nycskip is the first of many to come IMO.

[sufrommich]

179. Are you calling Skinner and admins "conservative ideologues"?

[Blue_In_AK]

176. Thank you.

Well said.

[Blue_Adept]

177. A lot of people are saying it's one remark...

but I really doubt it was just one remark.

Yes, that remark should have earned him a proper hide and a vacation for a bit to calm down and realize what he was saying and why it offended.

But if the admins did their due diligence, which I suspect they did since they don't ban longtime members at the drop of a hat, they would have seen what seemed like someone becoming more unhinged in many of the threads around here.

Look back at the recent roosevelt island thread. It looked like he was so vehement and intense in it that the first half dozen posts at the time it was posted was telling him to calm down because it was so over the top.

And that was populating a lot of topics that he was involved in, either as starter or participant.

The cunning remark was the straw that broke it.

[Javaman]

180. You're right.

of the now dozens of posts regarding the topic, your post and your post alone has given me real pause to think about DU.

I have always respected your posts and insights.

Cheers and peace.

Javaman

[IdaBriggs]

193. Wow...Thank you!

[daredtowork]

181. NYC_SKP's comment was vulgar and demeaning to women

I'm glad hrmjustin linked to the actually comments, because the way the EarlG's banning remark said NYC_SKP had been "clever" left room for speculation that some interpretation, and possibly political leanings, had been involved in the decision.

As a person who loathes "Victim Hillary" posts, and who will call a specious one in a millisecond, I regard this ban as the right call. Good job EarlG!

If the site owners do want to show some mercy regarding NYC_SKP's history of service and recent brain surgery: perhaps some exercise in rehabilitation is in order? Such as an essay or two about the challenges women still face in seeking equality in the 21st century...?

[2banon]

221. Speaking as a Woman who has suffered a life time of abuse, and as an early Feminist Activist,

I completely disagree with your assessment on the post in question/discussion.


I've seen others who share your perspective here on DU, but from my life experience and frame of reference.. I see it as a petty, quite insignificant dig. period. nothing worthy of a jury alert or certainly not banishment.

Maybe I'm just a Real Life Old School kinda of gal. I don't know. But quite frankly, there is something quite irrational and unjustified going on here to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

226. Recommend

This is the insanity of silly season: now with more spleen (tm)

Before it's over people will be banned for sneezing out of turn

I wish I were kidding. This is an early start to the great purge.

Of course the antisemitic whistles have started, like when Obama started to take off. If they continue I will self ban myself. It will confirm to me why I left to begin with. I got no horse in this race, but as a Jew I will not vote for Hillary.

Knowing a tad what this place is, I expect to see the slurs that make it on the road.

[daredtowork]

234. I don't see how we can deal with the MRAs

if we don't draw the line at a certain level of vulgarity. It's not like the mods go around banning every "fuck you" and sexual reference. This was setting the bar extremely, sleazily, low.

[nadinbrzezinski]

238. Problem is he did not use the word

But he was on the radar for being a muscular anti Hillary poster.

Which reminds me, I run a non partisan local paper. I don't bother posting here day to day, just the facts, coverage of the race. Because gasp!!! I know, covering all the candidates means I got a gasp... I know, perry launches presidential bid.

I took enough grief from the usual crowd for pointing out from listening to the speech, he is doing the great rebranding.

There was a time that post here would have led to some discussion as to how.

We also do a lot of policy. Nope, not fit for DU. And when we have the great Southeyn California fire, DU can go look for it on CNN never mind we will be spending lots of quality time witb CAL FIRE

This place is truly a watch what you say, either with us or against us kind of a site. Triple so during primaries

[2banon]

239. Appreciate the Rec' ..

considering we have disagreed on a completely separate matter (The Draft), I take this rec from you as a gesture of good will. Your point about this being 'silly season' is well taken.

It just saddens me to see irrational actions in controlling the political message is ruling the day at this pre-primary point in time. Someone posted (in a different thread a day or two ago) something of a comparison to the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago where things went off the rails for the party.

I did not weigh in to take issue with the perceived CAUSES of the party implosion and the UNDEMOCRATIC means to control the nomination process - although I think it's an interesting lesson imo in HOW NOT to alienate the base, HOW NOT to purge, HOW NOT to marginalize, HOW NOT to engage in all manner of machinations to promote and put forward an UNPOPULAR candidate (and pretend that he was popular)..

All that to say this banning reeks of the sort of machinations involved in controlling the nomination and nothing to do at all with misogynistic slurs.

The real issues of concern are lost in the fog of smoke and mirrors. and that's quite disheartening.

[Jester Messiah]

439. +1

[Loki]

182. I have been at DU almost since its inception after the 2000 *selection

I've donated money to keep it up and running when Skinner, Elad and EarlG were scraping to make ends meet and still do. Is this what we have become, intolerant, dismissive and basically becoming what most of us have worked so hard all of our political lives to defeat. We have seen the enemy and it is us. Lay down the daggers, swords , and ill will. We have bigger and more dangerous problems facing us all if we start by eating our own. We may not all agree on a candidate, but I know one thing, no matter who that candidate is, I will be backing them. We all get a little hot headed now and then, but for fucks sake, do we really want a Republican President and congress to take this country down because we can't or won't compromise? Most of you don't know who I am and see my lack of posts as an outsider who's posts and comments barely make a wave. But I'm here and I'm not going away, at least not yet. Don't make me want to.

Lee

[Marr]

184. He would not have been banned if he'd been a Hillary supporter.

That's a fact.

[2banon]

207. Indeed. That is a Fact.

[nashville_brook]

291. ^^THIS a thousand times!

[Bobbie Jo]

308. Or...

Absolutely NO ONE would be clamoring for his return (or the injustice of it all) if the "joke" was directed at EW.

That is a fact.

[Logical]

328. So true, and I am sure Skinner will do it again. I suggest everyone be careful. nt

[FlatBaroque]

350. You don't have to be careful

so much as you should consider falling in line. The party machine has decided who their masters want as the Tweedledee candidate. Tweedledum is still open for debate.

This is a simple situation where a minority have the power and ability to overturn the will of the majority. That does not last forever.

GO BERNIE

[uppityperson]

380. Skinner did not ban NYC_SKP so how can he "do it again"?

[Doctor_J]

386. Quite true, and all criticism of Mrs. Clinton will be classified as misogynistic and woman-hating

my star's going to expire soon for the first time since there have been stars. The embrace of conservative policies and the hatred displayed for liberals here is very troubling.

[okasha]

388. Very true.

He would not have called Hillary a c**t had he been one of her supporters.

[Bonobo]

408. Hillary Mojo! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

446. If a Hillary supporter called a woman a c--t I would tell him he is trash and that's a fact.

eom

[Marr]

557. If a loyal Hillary supporter had made the same remark in the same context about, say, Warren...

...there is no way that person would have been banned. A time out, certainly. But banned...? No.

I think you know that, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

566. In the 1,000 + post thread on this topic I was the first to say it's a shame ...

In the 1,000 + post thread on this topic I was the first to say it's a shame and a ban was inappropriate.. A timeout of thirty days or so would have been in order.

[Renew Deal]

466. That's not a fact

It's not true. Anybody here can choose to prove me wrong, though I don't recommend it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

481. Bingo!

[treestar]

192. He should be banned for cleverly calling Hillary

the C word. That's not acceptable. No matter how long someone has been posting or what their supposed wonderful contributions are. Some things you just do not do.

[JTFrog]

202. I applaud EarlG for doing the right thing.

I don't care who thinks they are above the rules here. Sexism and misogyny have been rampant since the day DU3 went live. The jury system is a joke. But now it looks like the admins have started paying attention and have put their foot down. Good for them.

This isn't the first time folks have lost their shit over a member being banned over misogynistic shit. It seems to be the petard that many are willing to hoist themselves upon. That is not the kind of community standards that I think DU should strive for.

[RKP5637]

211. K&R!!!! n/t

[BainsBane]

224. I don't believe NYCSkp is a misogynist

Though he did use a misogynistic slur. He let his antipathy for a candidate overwhelm his ordinary posture in regard to gender issues. I like him, and I am sorry he was banned. I personally would like to see him reinstated, perhaps after a reasonable time out.

I think, however, it important to point out that misogyny and racism are less about who people are than what they do. I am a feminist, but that doesn't exempt me from acting and speaking in sexist ways. I care deeply about civil rights, do my best to listen to the concerns of people of color, but that doesn't exempt me from acting and speaking in racist ways. I, like everyone else, am influenced by the society I live in, which is both sexist and racist. Few if any people are either entirely without prejudice or full-blown bigots. It is not an either/or scenario.

I think what NYCSkp did was resort to sexist cultural messaging to denounce a candidate he opposes. That is often how sexist terms are used. Some try to justify them based on the idea that the person deserved it. Obviously no one calls anyone they think well of such terms, not in seriousness anyway. That is why I and a number of what you dismissively refer to as anti-misogynists have objected to sexist language being used here against conservative women. It's never okay, whether directed at someone we dislike or coming from someone we like.

As you note, that doesn't define NYCSkp in his entirety. Many of us know of his many positive contributions to the board, and you know of his positive actions in real life. He screwed up. As for the banning, that's above my pay grade. That should be addressed to the administrators.

[Kali]

255. another good post

[tblue37]

228. KnR. Excellent post. BTW, another OP pointed out that NYC_SKP has had several brain surgeries and

is on long-term medication, which might very well have affected his temper, his ability to handle frustration, and/or his impulse control. Such side effects could easily lead someone to step over a line, especially if he thinks the line is drawn a bit further back than it actually is.

I am glad DU doesn't allow the c-word, but I do think a warning, a demand that the offending post be deleted, and perhaps a one- or two-week time out would have been a more appropriate response than an outright ban in this case.

[Dont call me Shirley]

235. Admins used a sledgehammer instead of a surgical knife in dealing with skip.

Ida Briggs, thank you

[frazzled]

237. All I have to say on this topic

(and I have said nothing so far) is that the threads and posts on this subject have now reached numbers that probably exceed the discussions of 9/11 at the time it occurred. You'd think that Los Angeles had just been bombed.

So let's step back. My observations have been that equal numbers of defenders and detractors have posted on these threads. So for what you perceive as "grave dancing" by the latter are matched by the number of "cult of personality" posts (if we're going to assign negative phrasing to posts on an equal basis) by the former.

This isn't the end of the earth. It's just an Internet squabble. I'm sure SKP will probably be reinstated after an appropriate "rest" period. I doubt that the admins' actions were taken on the basis of the post in question alone, but rather after a certain number of incidents.

I don't often look at names of posters when I read a post. I look at content. So I don't even have a picture of SKP or his "reputation" one way or another.

I just think: another day at DU.

[d_legendary1]

242. In my opinion the (insert group/cause here) Nazis have taken over

Can't make a comment about how someone else deserves the ESPY without being called a genderphobe.

Can't talk about eating a burger without the Vegetarians tearing you a new one.

Can't talk about cop shootings without the police sympathizers (or actual police who knows) calling you an anarchist/cop hater.

Can't talk about Hillary Clinton's ties to Wall Street without being labeled a misogynist or some related term.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember checking out D.U. during second Bush term and it was a place of discussion and of ideas. Now its come down to defending ideology and viewpoints instead of learning something new. What's worse is that people have been abusing the alert system to get people kicked out/banned. I didn't comment much since I loved reading the forums and stories (which explains the low post count) until recently when I decided to post Florida stories (people need to know how crazy our leaders and some people are).

I'll still keep posting despite the noise since there are people here who aren't clinging to their beliefs and want to have a conversation about the world today. Those people keep me going.

[MisterP]

286. the mobbing goes hand-in-hand with an increasingly-rightwing party line

it's not that economic injustice is being papered over with social issues, it's that empty "identitarianism" and a strangely Victorian view of gender are being raised up as good and noble reasons for mobbing

warnings and temporary suspensions for dropping c-bombs is about preventing a trashy, hostile environment (Discussionist!); banning members for mentioning hunts in this or that central-English county is about seeing women as lesser beings that have to be swaddled from anything that any one of them might dislike: it's the most Victorian thing there is, pure and simple

and I say this as someone put NYC on Ignore like the first day of DU3 and who finds foul language badly overused to the point of white noise

[marble falls]

290. Fair enough post of this topic. NYC SKP should be given a chance to go and sin no more.

[OKNancy]

298. Funny thing about banning. I saved you from a ban twice when you first signed up

Back when we had moderators, you were on the chopping block at least two times.
I was the lone NO vote. I saved your ass. LOL

So, at least you have one Hillary supporter to thank for your years here at DU.

[JTFrog]

305. That is an interesting tidbit. n/t

[IdaBriggs]

321. THANK YOU!!!

I did not know that!

It has been a privilege!

[Cooley Hurd]

336. The moderator hot tub was kick-ass for helping put thing into perspective...

[Oilwellian]

300. Thank you, Ida, for such a poignant piece (I hope that's not a spoonerism)

I've been here since the beginning, and seeing a long time DUer kicked off the site after years of dedication and support, certainly does give one pause. Despite Skip's reputation here being shredded in such a knee-jerk manner, I want him to know he is valued, as a fellow liberal, by many. Those who try to silence us, will never succeed at killing our ideas.

[awoke_in_2003]

310. I agree, Ida...

for me to remember a username (in real life I am a face guy, not so good with names), you must have been around a while and be worth remembering. You, and NYC_SKP are two of those names. "This site is someplace between a habit and a home"- sadly, for me, it is becoming more of a habit. I can only take so much of some of the people here, whose sole purpose seems to be to stir shit.

[Vinca]

311. One offensive post does not a horrible person make.

They should let him back after an appropriate "time out."

[Enthusiast]

324. K&R! IdaBriggs, your post has hundreds of recommendations!

[truedelphi]

326. I am so en-heartened to realize that this place is still a community.

That when one of our members is suffering, even if it is a more trivial thing like being banned, the rest of us react. Some to celebrate, some to mourn.

For me, over the years, DU has been many different things. It provided me with valentine hearts at a point in time when life really did not seem to be worth it. It gave me something to do when an un-named and apparently un-diagnosis-able illness kept me so plastered with pain killers that DU was for a while my one and only outlet. (Within a week of getting a real diagnosis, the pain killers went in the trash.)

Friends have come and gone - some very fine people lost to the real tombstone, others to the less final DU tombstone. But those DU dispossessed are now on other websites (thank goodness for Wordpress, so we hang out at forums created by necessity when DU was not willing to be tolerant.)

I hope that NYC Skip is allowed back. I am glad to see people protest his loss. Like others are saying, this recent ban brings to light some of the idiosyncrasies about DU's style of management. What is the difference that someone can say something ONCE and be banned, overnight, while others continually harass and pester and pester and harass?

So I guess the policy is that you cannot be allowed one outright slur, but if the slur is implied, you can slur again and again and again!

[KoKo]

531. ....!

[whatchamacallit]

334. I think they'll let him come back

Some years ago I appealed to Skinner and he gave me another shot. I guarantee he's regreted it ever since, but he did it. 😜

[markpkessinger]

342. Superb post, Ida -- thank you! n/t

[Thespian2]

348. Thank you!!!

Beautifully written...The Admin can ban me for supporting you...I support you...

[orpupilofnature57]

356. Turned me on to tons of information, and was kind

about my ignorance . A well read, well versed person I'll miss his many contributions to THE CONVERSATION .

[littlewolf]

361. people have been banned and let back in for far more serious

offenses - correct Mr. Pitt.
I think NYC_SKP should be allowed back in.
(I will probably get banned for this.)

[orpupilofnature57]

365. +1000 !!!!

[Liberal_in_LA]

392. kick

[UTUSN]

402. All I know is the personal KINDNESS he gave me. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

407. OFFS. NYC_SKP is a big boy.

If being a member here is important to him, he'll petition the admins. If not, he'll find other outlets.

Every single one of us posts here as a guest of the admins. At anytime for any reason we can be banned. It's been that way since at least the beginning of DU2.

[nadinbrzezinski]

411. My irony meter just broke

seriously...

And I will leave it at that.

[Gormy Cuss]

441. Good, because it's the simple facts. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

444. Nah, the use of demeaning language

to criticize demeaning language. There, it broke again.

I must say, it is what makes this place so much "fun."

[Gormy Cuss]

445. Calling him a big boy is nowhere near in the league of C***

but you knew that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

448. Sorry but demeaning langauge *IS* demeaning langauge

It is not a matter of what perceived league you are at.

There, it broke again.

[Gormy Cuss]

449. Sorry, false equivalency is false equivalency

and my irony meter is at 100.

[nadinbrzezinski]

451. Once again, you used demeaning langauge

live with it, or not. It really does not matter to me.

If I dared, gasp, to alert, it would survive, becuase there are no equal standards here. So my irony meter will hardly recover.

Have an excellent night and feel free to have the last word in this "conversation."

[Gormy Cuss]

568. Since you invited me to do so, here it is.

Once again, you're making a false equivalency just as you did at the start of this conversation.

Here's an analogy for you: throwing a nerf ball at someone isn't the same thing as shooting him with gun.

[MadDAsHell]

421. The Admins know where their bread is buttered...

I have to assume they're fairly smart and pragmatic people, they've found a way to make money off of all of us.

Primary and GE coming. Huge ad money to be made. Who is going to bring more ad-views to DU, Hillary or Bernie?

[MannyGoldstein]

431. Are we certain that's what butters their bread?

I don't believe I've seen them break down revenue sources

[Adrahil]

556. So you think calling Hillary that is a perf ctly acceptable tactic?

I'd bet big bucks B nie wouldn't think so.

[MadDAsHell]

585. I don't. But I also don't believe the admins are on some noble cause.

They're capitalists, running a for-profit website for a living.

[Adrahil]

628. Homestly.... You think that decision was based on profit?

Sometimes the folks on this site drive me nuts.

[MadDAsHell]

634. You do realize we're talking about the same admins that allowed pro-Prop 8 ads in 2008 right?

And continue to allow conservative ads?

[Cha]

612. "Who is going to bring more ad-views to DU, Hillary or Bernie?" Why does it have to be an either or

thing? What are you trying to say?

[Cha]

615. Oh, and "..they've found a way to make money off of all of us." It's not like we haven't gotten

something out of DU after all these years.

[rbnyc]

438. I'm so angry right now.

This is the first I'm hearing of this. NYC_Skip has been a great ally. There's no way in bell he's a misogynist. I don't even know where to go from here.


Edit:

I just read the offending post. Give me a fug-bucking break.

Years and years of service, and that's it?!

I'm so disappointed. I know there is tension between the more establishment-favoring faction here, and the more reform/political revolution-favoring faction...to put it far too simply...but I thought that in general our community bond meant more than this.

[2banon]

453. yeah. the hatred for Bernie supporters is rather palpable in that act..

[rbnyc]

455. I added text in edit...

...at the same time you were responding. But I think we remain on the same page.

[Renew Deal]

459. I don't agree with that.

And maybe it's because I love everyone (and I mean it). But from the beginning this has been about the C word. DU has a long history on the subject. I posted about that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6781399

The admins have a zero tolerance policy. The word cannot be used against members and Democrats. It has nothing to do with who supports who around here. Don't believe me? Use the word right now towards any other member and prove me right.

My opinion is that he knowingly used the word and the ban was predictable. I also think he should be let back in at some point soon.

[Duckhunter935]

576. the sad thing is THE word was not used

It would be nice if people would acknowledge that simple fact

[Adrahil]

558. So banning a member for calling HRC that word is a sign...

of hate for Bernie supporters. Really?

That word is so identified with support for Bernie that this is an obvious attack?

[2banon]

567. Do you honestly believe that word is identified with Bernie Sanders and his supporters?

[2banon]

460. Well Put, and yes, We're on the same page.

Yes, the Party establishment rules the day here, and rues dissent from support of their anointed one and she who shall never be criticized based on her policy positions or her credibility as a bonafide Liberal/Progressive. But of course it should be simply assumed, taken as a matter of fact.

Accept it... sit down and shut the f**k up..

2004 deja vu. didn't work out so well then.

I guess they're expecting different results with the same methods this go round?

I think of how hard Howard Dean worked toward the 50 state activism/outreach, to be totally discarded by Debbie S. in Florda. sad, sad, sad, sad. and pathetic.

[SoapBox]

458. I skipped the replies...

To just say, one of the best posts I've read.

Thank you.

[Puzzledtraveller]

477. Rec #300!

Spot on Ida

[IdaBriggs]

484. Wow! And thank you!

I am glad I was able to articulate my concerns in such a way that so many fellow DU'ers responded so positively. I cannot thank everyone enough! I think this is a personal "best" as far as "well received posts" - I just wish it was caused by a less upsetting event.

To all, and

Thank you, everyone!

[DonCoquixote]

499. OK, let's say using that slur is an instant ban

MY worry is that people who tease at slurs get here and are given at best, a slap on the wrist. If you are going to enforce rules, you need to make it look like you are not just trying to please a faction, period. It does not help that the right wing types get Discussionist, and that there is a new site dedicated to you know who. It is not that she does not deserve a site, but here, of all places, do people who are to the left of Billy Big Dawg have to be treated like second class citizens? If we can get slapped off, and another faction gets to stay until they get their sock puppet nicely sewn up, it tells us we are ugly stepchildren. All because we want SOME pressure on Hillary to at least lean leftward, away from the donors that are blasting megaphones in her ear.

Yes, I understand, some people are mad about 2008, the same people that still say "Clinton should have won, Clinton would have fought harder, etc" despite the fact she had to walk back the fact she made her bones by making deals with the right wing, even if they would gladly have her and Bill burnt at the stake. However, the fact is, if you really want to WIN, you will need the help of the very same leftists you would rather get rid of. That is because as far as those coveted "Reagan Democrats", those "independent" voters that are so coveted, they have proven that they will pick a real GOP, because their brains respond to Fox news. There is a reason why we get our asses handed to us every mid term; because we support people like Alison Grimes that will not even admit they do not vote for the GOP, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz that works as hard to bury progressives as the GOP does, then toss away what Howard Dean won for us.

In short, the issue of slur, especially sexist slurs, is a sexist issue. If NYCSkip had used that against a fire breathing GOP Monster, he would still deserve a ban. However, many of us know stalking horses when we see one, and remember how so many good, solid liberals, even ones that turned out to be feminists, were branded with the "sexist" label to make it clear who you better support. Hillary's more rabid supporters did her NO favors by trying to twist arms, and while there is no Barack Obama, they are giving the GOP plenty of Ammo, as Hillary will be pressured to abandon the liberal base, yet again, which means we have to pit an army of wounded marchers versus a rabid base with an unlimited checkbook. The only thing that will beat the Koches is solidarity, and that does not happen unless we act as a family, one that does not feed bread and water to the stepkids while the pretty kids get all the cake they want.

[akbacchus_BC]

501. Not reputation! I cannot understand how the

DU Admins would ban a person who has been here for so long. A Democrat needless to say.

Perhaps the Admins are purging old ones in anticipation of new ones but let me tell you. their decision was very unwise to ban NYC!

[pablo_marmol]

502. Thank you Ida. Strong post. NT

[Cha]

507. Aloha Ida, I'm friends with SKP on FB, too.. been friendly for years because he's a fellow

President Obama supporter for starters. We had a strong connection with that, including other members of the Barack Obama Group, that so many scorn on DU. So you make a connection and have a rapport.

And, SKP appreciates Obamacare... and thank goodness he joined! He's posted in great detail about his experiences on here.. how it has helped immeasurably with the medical crisis that he's had, and I'm thinking he appreciates that others have been helped by it, too.

I know SKP is not a "misogynist", a "racist", or a "homophobe". That's not what got him banned. He directed a misogynistic slur at Hillary Clinton for all the board to see..

I think he needs to own it.. admit he was wrong and apologize to the Admin and see what happens. All those who are in denial about this are not helping him. Imv, they are enabling. Of course, he'll probably come to his own conclusion on this, too, in spite, of all those who don't think he did anything wrong.

It's great that you've spoken out for your friend.. that's what friends are for.

I agree that the Admins who run this Board are good and caring people.. who have kept DU up and running through thick and thin.. and it has only gotten better over the years. I really respect them. Even more so now.

I think the "whisper you hear" are people being a little bit paranoid. Are they going to direct a misogynistic slur at Hillary Clinton or anyone else? If not and they maintain a level of civility.. Why would they worry? And, who knows.. maybe it wasn't just one post. Maybe the Admins took more into consideration.. they will have to be asked.. which I'm pretty sure there are questions in ATA doing that very thing. Could be wrong, though.

I was just on a jury where a poster was flirting with the "C" and being oh so clever.. but, it got a 4-3 Leave. The alert was..

"Another man pissed that a long time DU'er was TOS'ed for using the c word on our Democratic candidate. The backlash is strong toward women on DU because administration called out misogyny. This is the fifth post I have seen tonight with men playing with calling a woman a misogynist slur.."

I won't post the rest of the alert as it reveals a name.

This is not going to end well if it keeps up..

Here's what got SKP banned(if more hadn't been taken into consideration) the troll's post and SKP responding..

"Troll"

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...

"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979

How SKP responded..

"Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973

Posted it in his journal too..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP

EarlG (Administrator)

"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans

As you say.. others have been banned, with good reason I will add, and have returned..

I hope he realizes his mistake.. apologizes.. and maybe he can come back to DU. It's up to him first and foremost. Mahalo, Ida~

[Cali_Democrat]

617. Good post, Cha.

I really liked SKP, although he was a bit over the top recently.

I hope he's allowed to eventually come back.

[Cha]

618. Thank you for reading it, Cali.. yeah, his "over the top" got him banned and those making excuses

for him are not helping him.

He needs to own it and apologize.. and I don't think using any of the excuses that some are throwing out there are going to work.

Like "he was only joking" "he really didn't say it.." "it wasn't directed at Hillary.." ".. the Admin is biased.." I've seen it all and more.

Everyone makes mistakes.. but, you get nowhere unless you own up to it and don't try to cover it up. Apologize and see what happens.

[barbtries]

508. i'll miss him.

thank you for your post.

[Petrushka]

511. Excellent post. Thank you!

[OneGrassRoot]

514. What a fabulous post. Thanks for this, IdaBriggs. n/t

[Pooka Fey]

518. Excellent post, IdaBriggs. Reflecting on Nathaniel Hawthorne

Watching the grave dancing and the hotly debated justifications for his banishment , I keep being reminded of Nathaniel Hawthorne's classic book "The Scarlet Letter".

This notion of the moral righteousness of punishment for sin is our legacy of the Puritan founders...how is it possible that this ethic is still imprinted upon the American character after 4 centuries? But here it is on DU, plainly visible.

I've spent a decade living abroad, so I do have a basis for which to compare cultures. This attraction for simplistic binary thinking - good or evil - with us or against us - one misstep and you're out -- it's a very American personality trait.

And it plays nicely into a political dynamic where we can severely censor words and language use, but then overlook many much more harmful crimes.

I loved your essay, IdaBriggs. Thank you.

On edit: I'm a longtime DUer, I recognized NYSKP by his user name, but I don't know him at all- so I have no opinion other than it seems harsh to banish a long time member over one post. A time-out would have seemed more appropriate to me.

[aikoaiko]

530. One has to remember that our admins once banned MiddleFingerMom because...

...they thought one of his cheeky posts was homophobic. I know...it almost incomprehensible.

Fortunately they realized that was a mistake and reversed their decision after many people petitioned on MFM's behalf.

I'm glad they did so before he died.

[tymorial]

560. The linking of bigotry to a lack of support for a "minority" candidate is not new.

There are certainly many republicans who are bigoted individuals. They may attempt to proclaim there lack of racism and/or misogyny but inevitably their language eventually reveals their true colors. It is also true that some republicans disagree with the president on matters of policy alone. Yet, how often have we seen those objections summarily written off as stemming from racism and nothing more? I cannot speak to the motivations behind the banning. Though I've lurked for a long time and comment far less, I did not read the offending post or the thread. Therefore I cannot speak to the specifics. I can however see how support for a minority candidate can create strong emotions. Many fully support the president to the point that they cannot reconcile any disagreement of his policies with anything other than racism. For many I believe this is purely an unconscious reaction... it is the only explanation that makes sense to them. For others I do believe it is a means to silence and shame. Imposing guilt is a strong tool. Again, I do not know what the motivations are with NYC_SKP's banning. Please do not think I am intending to pass judgement on the administrators or anyone in general. This is mere observation as to the reality of identity politics in general. I do however anticipate that as we move further into the primaries we will see misogyny linked directly to a lack of support for Clinton even where there is no evidence. If she becomes the candidate and eventually president, many will summarily write off a lack of support as a hatred of women in general.

[2banon]

564. Yes, this is actually in play currently. I will no doubt be accused of a "self loathing Woman" for

opposing HRC and any critical summation of her policies. As an old, long time Feminist/Activist, I find this trend very disturbing, destructive and extremely dishonest.

[tymorial]

574. Oh you can bank on it.

You'll be called a traitor to your gender. Cool use of Frida Kahlo for your icon btw.

[MadDAsHell]

622. The politically convenient use of "racist", "sexist", and other buzz words is indeed a monster...

that can and has been easily reversed and used against us.

Agree in the Kahlo icon!

[rbnyc]

578. I wish I could rec this again. nt

[emsimon33]

616. So well said and so needed to be articulated!

I have been lurking a lot because the site too often seems to be run by a pack of wolves who will send a poster to the jury for what seems little more than they are trying to get the person banned.

This banning of NYC_SKP has brought me back out in the open to express my horror. I agree that if a person's 1000s of past posting count for nothing, then all of us are doomed.

Democrats inhabit a large tent unlike the lock-step, zombie Republicans. If we can't disagree and disagree sometimes with tongue in cheek, then, as I have said, we all are doomed and DU is doomed!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

635. kick

[Flying Squirrel]

636. Kick

[Flying Squirrel]

642. Kick

[Flying Squirrel]

643. Kick

[Flying Squirrel]

644. .

[Flying Squirrel]

645. ..

[Flying Squirrel]

646. ...

[Flying Squirrel]

650. ....

[Flying Squirrel]

653. .....

[Flying Squirrel]

655. ......

[Flying Squirrel]

656. .......

[Flying Squirrel]

657. ........

[Flying Squirrel]

658. .........

[Flying Squirrel]

660. ..........

[Flying Squirrel]

661. ...........

[Flying Squirrel]

662. ............

[Flying Squirrel]

663. .............

[Flying Squirrel]

664. ............

[SidDithers]

665. ...

Sid

[Bernie 2016]

670. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bobbie Jo]

672. Welcome to DU

Did you even know SKP?

You just registered...

Oh wait, never mind. I get it.

Welcome back then.

[SidDithers]

673. .................

Sid

[SidDithers]

671. ...

Sid

[SidDithers]

640. Wait. NYC_SKP Was banned?...

Sid

[madfloridian]

647. Yes, banned. No warnings,no time outs, banned.

There was a big celebration thread.

[NaturalHigh]

681. Yes, a thread in very poor taste.

A lot of grave dancing by that crowd.

[SixString]

648. And he didn't even have five hides.

Unlike some.

How's that MIRT gig going ?

Perhaps you should just stick with the .
That seems to be your forte.

[Le Taz Hot]

649. Outstanding post!

After several months being away from this place, one of the fist things I heard was NYC_SKP was booted. It's like booting Ghandi, seriously. The guy is a peacemaker and you are right, if he can get banned any of us can get banned. I PM'd with him several times and we tried to get together when he was in my area but either he or I could never fit it into our schedules.

It truly is jaw dropping. DU REALLY needs to reconsider.

[madfloridian]

651. I agree.

[lpbk2713]

652. Across the more general spectrum ...

I sometimes wonder if decisions like this are not made impulsively.
I would hope a good deal of thought goes into the final outcome.

[UTUSN]

680. I also agree. Thanks. n/t

Last edited Wed Jul 1, 2015, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

[SixString]

654. Kick.

[pnwmom]

659. Are you certain a single post was the cause of the ban?

It seemed to me that the poster had seemed different -- not his usual polite self -- for a while. So when I read that he had been banned, it wasn't a shock.

[L0oniX]

666. That ban was NOT impartial. Who's next?

Most already know that ban was bogus because Skip was responding to a troll that got banned just before Skip did. Because the troll was banned no one could see what Skip was responding too. Convenient ...right? We'll some of us saw it.

[misterhighwasted]

676. Happy that He is banned. Hope its forever for using that

..ugly word at all towards anyone in this public forum.
Stupid & smug of a grown man to do so.
Hope that good ol boy laugh he got was worth the consequence.
Admin handled it the only way they could have.
He asked for this ban.

[brentspeak]

677. If you want to know what a disaster this website has devolved to

Consider the following post which was alerted on but not hidden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6890655

[Lydia Leftcoast]

679. A Minnesota DUer was banned for

answering a poll question the "wrong" way.