It's gotten so bad that a jury allows "you atheist arseholes" to stand 4-2

[cleanhippie]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=121873978&alert=202#post202


What. The. Fuck.

[Rob H.]

1. Feel the Christian love!

Ironic, especially coming from that particular poster. Then again, he starts with the ad homs every time he's been backed into a corner.

And where the hell is the host who's constantly tut-tutting nonbelievers about name-calling and rudeness and claiming she'll call out believers if she sees name-calling and rudeness from them? (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath that any of the hosts will say or do anything about that post. He's said worse than that and yet he still hasn't been kicked out.)

[Curmudgeoness]

2. It has been this way for quite a while.

I would not have waded into that morass, but that is because I choose not to argue (discuss???) with fundies. But there is no reason that this should ever have been allowed.....when has it become acceptable on DU to call other posters by derogatory names? Oh, that's right---whenever they are atheists, as well as a few others.

[dimbear]

3. Agape from our devoutly Christian nation. n/t

[Phillip McCleod]

4. cray-zee..

..and par for the course, of course.

atheist calls 'bullshit' on bullshit -> 'you atheist arseholes'
christian calls all atheists arseholes -> that's ok..

all atheists apparently ARE arseholes according to a randomly selected sample of all currently online members of the site. of course internet polls are notoriously inaccurate so we can't read too much into *one isolated incident*

[Apophis]

5. That particular person really needs to re-read the teachings of his/her Jebus.

I'm sure Jebus would approve of that behavior.

[frogmarch]

6. The 4 “keep it” jurors realized that

“arseholes” is a euphemism: an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant. They knew the poster meant well, and that by not calling atheists "assholes," was being very polite.

[BillStein]

44. huh?

Isn't that just the British spelling of the same thing?

[frogmarch]

46. Yes, it sure is.

I'd considered adding to my post, but although I was being sarcastic, I thought that maybe the jurors really did think the "arsehole" poster was being polite.

[BillStein]

47. sorry

brain freeze

[frogmarch]

48. :-) It happens to me

all the time.

[deucemagnet]

7. I alerted that post.

I thought it was such a slam-dunk ad hominem that I never even considered that it might not be hidden. Highlight the white text below if you want to see the results. Or, if you want to believe that DU is truly a place for progressives, don't.
[font color= "FFFFFF"] At Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:43 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

"Atheist arsholes?" Really?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:50 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's a useful post; "arseholes," shouldn't be enough to wipe it out. Suck it up, atheists, the poster has a point here.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Rule #682: Not British? Then don't use the word arsehole. It demeans us all. But most of the post was legitimate debate. It should stand, despite the uncalled for vulgarity.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Could have made the point without the name calling.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Well, you did call the poster's brain a "noodle." Maybe you both need to dial it down a little.

Thank you. [/font]

[skepticscott]

9. The flaw in your thinking

was in not realizing that most Duers agree with him and enjoy seeing nasty atheists be insulted and put in their place. Getting a jury here that would have hidden that would have been pure luck.

[deucemagnet]

10. After I got the results I thought that maybe I could have gotten a hide

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

if I'd written a better comment or quoted the group SOP. I won't be so quick to assume that an ad hominem attack against atheists is an easy hide in the future. And on a site that is supposedly populated by progressive democrats, no less.

[trotsky]

14. One of the darker sides of the jury system, one that's been there from the beginning.

"Yeah, it was an attack, but you atheists deserved it."

I have seen similar judgments against other unpopular groups.

[Rob H.]

16. "Suck it up, atheists, the poster has a point here"?

And he couldn't have made it without calling all atheists assholes? Fuck you, anonymous juror.

[backscatter712]

20. You can alert on a jury result.

Might result in that juror getting slapped for that remark.

[Iggo]

17. Did you click TOS violation?

[deucemagnet]

19. I did not, although I should have. n/t

[Ron Obvious]

8. Weird

Why does it say "your alert was sent" under that post? I didn't even read it, let alone alert on it.

Must be because it's your link, but that seems like a bug to me.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. That always happens if a DUer posts a link to a post they alerted.

[kdmorris]

11. Guess they don't consider that

rude, inappropriate, over the top, etc.

If someone had posted "you Christian arseholes" AND drew the same jury, it would have been hidden. That really burns me up - they claim persecution and get all the breaks.

[amuse bouche]

12. I no longer give a crap

what religies 'think'

I have grown to loathe and detest the lot of them and have zero respect for their brainwashed nonsense

[RKP5637]

57. +++ 1,000 +++ n/t

[truebrit71]

15. I apparently got the same jury when I alerted on it...

...cannot wait to start posting about all of those religious arseholes and the things they've been shoving down our throats all these years...i'm sure the jury would vote to uphold that post right? Riiiiiiiiiight...

[trotsky]

21. Take heart, we still win a few now and then!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121875348#post13

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:40 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: A personal attack combined with an implicit defense of homophobia. At least that is what I gather from the context.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: skepticscott is not insulting other DU'ers, he's actually being sarcastically factual about the RCC's views on homosexuality. When it comes to homosexuality, the RCC is bigoted... as are SOME roman catholics.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: not seeing what alerter is seeing

[cleanhippie]

22. Hooray! And note that one juror even sees his homophobia too!

Jut like humblebum. They even shared the same avatar image.

[mr blur]

23. And that's not all they share -

Why, it's almost as if...

[skepticscott]

24. Unbelievable

Juror 6 isn't seeing it? A direct call out and personal attack? Maybe they had the love of Jeebus in their eyes..

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1218

[cleanhippie]

26. +1

[LiberalFighter]

27. I checked it out and thought it was a personal attack on the poster

and a general attack on all atheists. I don't know if anything will happen but also did an alert.

[skepticscott]

28. Our friend Stretch

has been give a thirty day time out from Religion. This after already having been put on notice previously for the same crap. Third time a charm?

[trotsky]

29. He gets a notice, and now a timeout.

How wonderfully lenient.

I have to wonder if any atheist would be treated so forgivingly.

[skepticscott]

30. No, they wouldn't

The hosts were ready to ban me completely from Religion for doing once what they're giving him a third shot at. No prizes for guessing who was behind that...

[skepticscott]

31. Not to mention

that the post has still not been removed. Might have been nice if the hosts had at least seen to that. I suspect "you Catholic douchebags" would not still be up there if an atheist had flung that.

[trotsky]

32. Suspect?

Hell, I can tell you with absolute certainly that if an atheist had spouted such an equivalent phrase, they'd have been PPRed. To heck with a timeout!

[skepticscott]

34. Ok, yeah...I was trying to be measured

I know damn well the mirror image would not be tolerated...and that the hosts would be getting bombed with hate from every side from leaving something like THAT up.

[mr blur]

33. Ah, that would explain why,

he didn't set a jury on me for telling him to fuck off. I did wonder...

[backscatter712]

35. And when I go in GD and call Islam the nasty bullshit it is, I get a post hidden.

There's religious privilege in action, folks!

[skepticscott]

36. And miracle of miracles

The hosts FINALLY found it in themselves to have it taken down...Better late than never, I suppose.

[trotsky]

37. Please note...

The hosts didn't take it down, they requested the hateful individual delete it himself in order to return to the group.

[Rob H.]

38. So all it took to be let back into the clubhouse

was deleting the offending post and now everything is cool again for that poster? Man, but that's unbelievably weak. Talk about a textbook example of double standards--any atheist who'd said that about all believers would probably have been straight-up PPRed or at least permanently booted from that group.

[Iggo]

39. That's alright. We're assholes. We can take it.

[trotsky]

42. More than that - we deserve it! n/t

[Iggo]

45. That's right!

[skepticscott]

41. They wouldn't even have done that

if not urged to. They would have let him back with no conditions...and this was his second time...he was already on notice for an earlier series of nasty rants.

[skepticscott]

40. Well, they (finally) caused it to be taken down

after quite a while a quite a bit of prodding...as noted...better late than never...

[trotsky]

43. That is true.

We can always hope that he learned something, too. But I'm not betting on it.

[AlbertCat]

49. I know!

I got a post "removed" because I called Bachmann a "stupid bitch"! A comment aimed at a single person, not the entire female gender like they pretended it was.

But "atheist arseholes" is not as offensive?

[onager]

50. Well, be damn fucking careful about saying "female" too.

Some people will get all medieval on you about that - at least from the safety of their keyboards. In some way I haven't quite figured out, it's supposed to be some sort of subtle insult equating all human fem...women with female animals.

Maybe I'm just stupid, which is quite possible.

And I can sympathize with you. I once made a single-word post about Ann Coulter that got deleted immediately. ("Tw*nt).

To cheer you up - at work not long ago, a WOMAN who was a recently promoted executive (and engineer) called down to ask about a test procedure we were doing.

She thought the procedure was taking too long, and asked if she could come down and observe us doing it.

No problem. I wish all execs would do that, instead of sitting on their butts and sending idiotic emails demanding we just work faster.

She observed the procedure and said: "OK, I'm convinced. It really does take that long. You won't ever hear me BITCH about this again."

I'll have to warn her about saying such things on DU...

[AlbertCat]

51. Of course verbs have no gender

like "to bitch"....

[onager]

54. Apparently that verb does.

Nor is the verb form of “bitch” distinct in connotation from the noun. “Bitch” is just one on a long list of insults for women who won’t shut up. Shrew, virago, harpy, harridan, termagant, scold, fishwife, and on and on and on.

When you “bitch,” you don’t just complain. You complain constantly about insignificant things. You nag. That’s what the verb and the noun have in common, and that’s why they’re still gendered.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/05/23/round-and-round-we-go/

Wikipedia notes: When used as a verb, to bitch means to complain. Usage in this context is almost always pejorative in intent. Allegedly, it was originally used to refer to the stereotypical wife's constant complaints about petty things, effectively tying in the etymology with the vulgar slang for an unpleasant woman.

[AlbertCat]

55. When you “bitch,” you don’t just complain. You complain constantly about insignificant things.

"You complain constantly about insignificant things." Like complaining about the verb "to bitch"?

Oh well, I guess I'm just a pig, knave, brute, jarhead, dolt, boor, choad, wanker, scumbag, dick, dicking around.


OK, SERIOUSLY I do understand that in a male dominated history, words that describe what they perceived as pushy women not staying in their place were coined, and to think such a thing is not insulting to women would be ridiculous. But quite frankly, I never use the word with gender in mind, as I call men bitches all the time. I am not responsible for the word's etymology. "Bitch" as a noun can also mean a difficult task... "that test was a bitch!"

The word has multiple meanings and some have moved well beyond the initial meanings. Like the word "awful"... used to be "aweful"....or full of awe...meaning " inspiring reverential wonder or fear". That ain't what it means now.

Still, I suppose a campaign to clarify its insulting past and change its current status is not a bad idea. But it's an uphill climb, because, unlike a word like "nigger", it just has too many uses far afield from its original insult.

[Lordquinton]

56. s that it still carries that meaning.

You may not intend it, but saying someone shouldn't be offended by a word designed to offend someone...

To see how it translates, substitute it with it's meaning "Hey Mark, stop being a difficult woman!" "Man, that task was a difficult woman!" kinda shows how the other side feels. Like the term Gay, it meant happy, uplifted, until very recently, now people use it as a negative, and use the same reasoning you do.

Not trying to come down on you, just trying to raise awareness.

[LostOne4Ever]

52. I fail to see

I fail to see how calling Bachmann that would be offensive. It is just stating a fact!

[AlbertCat]

53. It is just stating a fact!

That's what I thought!


(I made that comment during her "I met a woman who told me the HPV vaccine made her daughter autistic" lie)