Hoping to build on the efforts of Prism, dsc and others....

[Smarmie Doofus]

....I've been discussing with Skinner on Ask the Administrators ways in which the long-sought "dialogue" between DU GLBTers and DU "proper" might productively take place:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=2053&mesg_id=2053


Long story short: I thought I'd start this thread as a vehicle for "us" to discuss... essentially among ourselves ( it's of course, a "free country" , or used to be; so whoever contributes, contributes) HOW such a dialogue might effectively be structured.

In other words, if we still want to do this ( I do), what form or shape should the dialogue take?

Let's limit this thread to that question. (There are so many specific areas of contention that opening it up beyond that format will, I'm pretty sure, quickly lead to incoherence.)

Skinner has expressed a willingness to engage in "good faith" discussion only. I believe he means by this that he wants it assumed that he is NOT a bigot, and has established his credentials as a fair-minded progressive and any direct dialogue with him ( or *about* him, I guess) should proceed from this premise.

If the world were only so simple. But , OK, I say we accept this assertion at face value if for no other reason than to get this "dialogue" off the ground. Also, I don't want to be the proximate cause of more GLBTDUers getting disappeared. ( Frankly, that's what tugged my coat to this issue in the first place. Not homophobic posters in other forums --- which personally, I couldn't care less about--- but the TSing of people whom I liked and whose postings energized my own postings... and energized ME, frankly.)

So.... all DU posting rules apply to this and any subsequent thread on this topic. Please do NOT get banned.

So: what exactly do we want to do? How do we want to have this "dialogue"?

[FreeState]

1. Good faith and institutionalized homophobia

How do you get around the two? The problem as I see it is that in order to have a good faith conversation, and this is true for both sides of the discussion, one must not take the complaints and problems as personal. That is something very difficult to do while leaving a door open for true understanding.

For example, it would be hard pressed to say that there is no homophobia on DU. That does not mean the admin/mods/etc are homophobic, but rather that homophobia is present here in several forms (from a place of privilege, trolls, etc). DU has done a great job of removing/not implementing the very visible institutionalized homophobia you see on other sites (GLBT is visible on the header, nowhere on the site that I can find are there references that leave out LGTB people when appropriate etc). Thats not to say that there is not homophobia that is institutionalized here, very little of it if any from Admin IMO, but rather straight people are more than likely to gloss over it, or be totally blind to it when it does appear because of heterosexual privilege.

On the flip side, we as LGBT members need to remember that we cant be so fast to jump on anyone for not seeing what we clearly see. We have the ability to see things from our prospective, but we must be open to the other side if we are truly interested in getting the other side to see what we are experiencing. It easy for me, and I assume others, to become very frustrated with the process. It's also important to note that nearly all LGBT persons and heterosexuals in this society have some internalized homophobia, that does not mean one is a raging homophobe, but rather one is a product of a homophobic society. It is a bit like racism, we all have some on one level or another, it does not mean we act on it or even express it, but our automatic reactions betray our firmly held beliefs on race and equality.

How do we bring both sides of this together to get to were we all want to be? Thats the question.

My only answer is by setting up a discussion were there are rules and open dialog with no finger pointing. For example a thread were we can discuss what is bothering most of us, but with rules of respect that goes both ways. No name calling, no insinuating, and keeping it to the problem on a non-personal level. How one does that in an open forum I don't know...

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. I don't know either.

>>>My only answer is by setting up a discussion were there are rules and open dialog with no finger pointing. For example a thread were we can discuss what is bothering most of us, but with rules of respect that goes both ways. No name calling, no insinuating, and keeping it to the problem on a non-personal level. How one does that in an open forum I don't know...>>>>>

You've summarized the difficulties. And pointed -- at least-- to a way out.

That's what I hoped we'd accomplish w. this thread.

Stay tuned.

[davidinalameda]

2. you can't have a dialogue

if the other side isn't going to listen

until the admins actually say that they're willing to listen to our concerns, anything is going to be a waste of time and energy on our part

[thanks_imjustlurking]

3. I appreciate your trying.

Hope springs eternal, I guess.

[MNBrewer]

4. What's the most we could hope to gain out of this?

[thanks_imjustlurking]

6. Regaining more than a vestige of this forum.

I don't know if it's even worth it - what other forums are available and active? Nothing has the user-friendliness of DU, though, as far as the forum options and layout. Wish they'd clone *that* part of it.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

7. Self delete. nt

'puter hiccoughed.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. Breathing room.

Reinvigoration ( I hope that's a word) of the site and the forum.

Communication with those with whom communication is normally problematic.


And.... we might hope to *feel* better:


'I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow.'
William Blake


These, of course, are *long term* goals.

[QC]

5. I don't think there is bad faith here, but there is some obliviousness, to be sure.

It has always been the case here that homophobia has to be pretty blatant in order to attract official notice.

Of course, most of the homophobia we have encountered here has been somewhat more subtle. *We* see it fine, just as members of racial minorities are sensitive to racism, but others do not, and when we finally get tired of being compared to petulant little girls, having our civil rights dismissed as "pet issues," and so on, and we lash out, then it's all "OMG! The Gays are going nucular! OMG!!!" A vicious unprovoked attack, you know. We were just minding our own business, discussing politics and current affairs in a responsible and sensitive manner, when those awful people went nuts for no reason! It was horrible! {sob}

It makes me think of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT2UmZxzmjs

Some people, like the cop and the "journalist," seem to believe that there is a roving band of transvestites smashing fast food joints in Memphis for no reason at all.

Others, particularly those who have some experience with homophobic bullying, will immediately suspect that Martez and Albert said something nasty to those girls.

Same situation, two very different interpretations on it, based on one's experiences of life.

Something very similar has been going on here.

(And for what it's worth, I am one of those who thinks Martez messed with the wrong drag queen that night.)

[Iggo]

8. delete

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Read this ^ post.

"Hot french-fry grease", indeed. ( Don't know about you, but I'm keeping my head down.)

I had to read this post three times and watch the video twice to get what you're saying. ( I'm getting old; or tired. So .....shoot me.)

>>>>>Same situation, two very different interpretations on it, based on one's experiences of life.

Something very similar has been going on here.>>>>>>>

VERY similar. * Eerily* similar.

So tell me QC, how do we bridge the gap?

[QC]

25. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I wish I had been more clear, but I was trying to be indirect, as speaking too plainly in this forum has been risky in the past.

But now I'll say it directly:

During the last election season, DU's LGBT community was subjected to an extraordinary campaign of homophobic bullying and baiting, much of it right here in this forum. We complained, but little to nothing was done.

However, when some among us got fed up and lashed out, that received official notice.

Since those in charge saw the response but not the provocation, it all seemed to come out of nowhere. The Gays, many of whom had long been loyal and generous members of this community for years, suddenly went nuts and attacked everyone!

Just like those drag queens tore into that McDonalds brandishing tire irons and Lee Press On Nails and whomped the shit out of the place for no reason....

It discourages me that in the exchanges with Prism and dsc, Skinner is still taking the position of the cop in that Youtube video, that everything was fine until people went apeshit all of a sudden.

I like, respect, and appreciate Skinner, but I think his take on what happened here and our take on it are so far apart that I don't even know how to begin to reconcile them.

[Duncan Grant]

9. First, it's not okay for Skinner to hide behind "good faith".

I'm a former moderator and I've been around for 8 years. I refuse to donate money to DU (a direct protest to DU's inept commitment to LGBT people) -- and I want to say this: Skinner, you need to own your part and stop acting like you're above reproach. You say you have a good record on LGBT issues. You say you have made 'good faith' efforts. Well, I say you have not.

One example among many, many others:

Remember when this very forum was so heavily trolled that 75 recommendations were received for another, secondary, LGBT group -- the LGBT Civil Rights and Activism Group? That was 2009; it was the message you never heard. Hello? The clue phone was ringing off the hook. Your LGBT members were telling you that DU wasn't safe for LGBT people and that DU was anti-gay -- but no, you didn't want to hear that or even consider it. LGBT people were telling you there was a problem and your response was to tell LGBT people THEY were the problem. Hell of a strategy, wasn't it? And it looks as if you've still learned nothing. By the way, it took months to get that secondary LGBT group off the ground -- just like this very conversation that Prism initiated back in November 2010. Some things never change. Maybe your advocacy on behalf of LGBT people leaves something to be desired?

I also have a PM from a mod that I'd like to share but I don't dare. But here's a snippet of their response to my message about homophobia at DU: "the mission of the DU website is not limited to supporting the LGBT civil rights struggle." A good faith effort on your behalf, wouldn't you say? That was in response to the ongoing ridicule and mockery of this forum (and its members) in other places at DU.

I have repeatedly asked you to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding homophobia and anti-gay sentiment. To date, you have refused. I have begged you to take a leadership role in the cause for LGBT civil and economic equality -- because your website could be influential -- but you refuse. I have asked you repeatedly to engage in some form of LGBT cultural competency training. Zip, nada. I have invited you and the mods to have a conference call with LGBT members. (Blink. Blink. Shrug.) So spare me the 'good faith' rhetoric. You have not delivered on this issue.

When you can come to this community and apologize (with a smidgen of empathy) for all your derelict advocacy and complicity in the abuse of LGBT people on your website -- then, maybe, just maybe, you would have some credibility as an LGBT ally.

I have more I could say but I'm not going to bother. I suppose people could search for the "Best of DU..." discussions LGBT people had with you back in 2006(?). Same old story in those threads, too. You once had a dynamic, energized community of LGBT people at DU. They wrote articles, they built community, they contributed money, they promoted and defended you -- and for some inexplicable reason, you ignored their concerns and now think you've done nothing that deserves criticism. It's good to be the King, isn't it?

[justiceischeap]

12. To me "Good Faith" means not having a willingness to learn anything about the subject

It's an excuse to say, "Sorry this didn't work out for you but I went into the situation with good faith." I've been watching this particular discussion silently and it kinda reminds of politicians (mostly Dems) who say, while running for election, that they support LGBT rights but once elected do absolutely nothing for the gay community.

If anyone really wants to understand and change the environs here at DU, they have to be willing to learn and accept that the gay community DOES INDEED have a different perspective and what may seem like harmless banter to a straight, white male is something entirely different to the LGBT community. It goes to show how far we have to go in educating people about who and what we are--especially if we can expect this kind of treatment on a supposedly "progressive" message board. I think I will take a cue from Duncan and stop donating to DU until this situation is resolved.

[Duncan Grant]

23. I have a similar perspective.

"Sorry this didn't work out for you but I went into the situation with good faith."

Nail meet hammer.

If my co-worker tells me something (or someone) in the office is anti-gay, I don't get to rationalize or reinterpret their experience. I don't get to respond by saying, "Oh no co-worker, that's not anti-gay at all. You're misinterpreting events. This incident was simply people joking around. They didn't mean anything by it. You're too sensitive." Furthermore, I couldn't possibly look my co-worker in the eye and say something like -- the mission of our workplace is not limited to supporting your civil rights struggle (and management is comfortable being complicit regarding anti-gay actions and activities in the workplace).

I suppose I could summon up some contempt and ask my co-worker what they intend to do -- vote for the republicans? :sarcasm:

The correct response when your co-worker says something is anti-gay looks something like this, imho: Yes, I trust what you're telling me. How can we ally together? Is my own privilege and entitlement preventing me from seeing what your seeing?

[BillStein]

13. I'm relatively new here

But one of the first questions I had when I joined (or, strictly speaking) rejoined was why is the LGBT forum so weak? I still don't understand the how and why, since I wasn't here for so long. But I think any "progressive" leader should be able to understand that if s/he ignores the LGBT's they are wasting a very valuable resource.

When I rejoined, I set up an automatic monthly payment. Since the original promise to hold an honest dialog was made in November, I don't know how much longer I will authorize that payment. I see no reason to support a site that won't support me.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

15. Hi Bill.

It didn't used to be this way.

[QC]

19. Believe it or not, we used to have a large and active LGBT community here.

You would never think it to look around the place now, of course, but this was once a vibrant, fast-moving forum.

[Divine Discontent]

14. Where to begin...

First, I want to thank you, Smarmie Doofus, for bringing forth your request to Skinner, it is important for any who may be feeling how you feel, to step up to the plate and say your piece.

In turn, I thank Skinner for trying to understand the life/issues of GLBT people in a culture that has roughly 50% of our fellow citizens who actively promote or would be fine with our jobs being taken from us, our rights to be 'Gay' in a public society removed, or more directly - the millions who believe we should be sent to ex-Gay ministries/therapy, or face their wrath, like the suffering GLBTers in Africa and other places around the world. Those people are nothing like the Christ they purport to follow.


If you'll indulge me a few moments, as I truly appreciate this thread, and the ability to just say what I feel.



MY OPINIONS IN THE PAST

I am formerly, themartyred, and changed to Divine Discontent after Obama became the president. For reference only, I bring up the fact that I have made plenty of threads that went to the top of the home page, thanks to fellow members. I accepted I was a Gay man in my late 20's, and I have stood up boldly at work for my rights, confronting people who were callous or downright hateful about GLBT, Women's issues, Homeless issues, etc. I haven't been able to post as much as I used to due to a brother's health concerns, and now volunteer moderating duties that occupy 95% of my 'DU time'. There's plenty for me to be doing right now, but I find this an important thread you have started, and I wanted to give my personal thoughts, for whatever small amount of use they are worth.

You can click on my journal to see some of the threads that became the most recommended post on DU. More than a couple deal with Gay issues. One thing I will say immediately about my fellow DUers is this - MOST of DU is not homophobic, and in fact, quite a few who are Straight have crossed that bridge from becoming accepting of Gay people to becoming patently pro-Gay. And, if we see an insensitive post, it is our duty as members to alert on it to the Mods.

These are some of my Gay-specific threads where hundreds of posts, silent posts, and recs occurred that made me know and believe that a majority of my fellow members care about the pain that a large slice of society has burdened on all of us who align somewhere within the GLBTQ community, and how it has made us feel growing up GLBT.

STONEWALL.
Posted by Divine Discontent
Sun Dec 21st 2008, 06:35 PM
If you're in support, please silent kick. We are being persecuted in our lives, everywhere we go, for being "in the way" because of how we were made, and having the audacity of hope to believe we are worthy of equal rights.
Discuss (331 comments) | Recommend (+162 votes)

Just some of the calls for violence against Democrats/Liberals, Gays, Pro-Choice, etc
Posted by Divine Discontent
Wed Aug 13th 2008, 02:43 PM
Discuss (146 comments) | Recommend (+131 votes)

Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Cindy Sheehan - ALL ECCENTRIC
Posted by Divine Discontent
Wed Dec 31st 2008, 07:19 PM
Discuss (193 comments) | Recommend (+103 votes)

Keep speaking, Dr. Dean, you've outraged the out of control Congress & White House, and speak for me
Posted by Divine Discontent
Fri Dec 18th 2009, 04:22 PM
Discuss (52 comments) | Recommend (+140 votes)

School's back in session, and the level of anti-Gay bullying & violence is heating up
Posted by Divine Discontent
Thu Sep 30th 2010, 12:49 AM
Recommend (+18 votes)


I reference those posts to show that I know first-hand, believe me, that saying that those who state Obama hasn't done an excellent job of supporting the GLBT-community that fought so hard for his victory does upset some fellow members, but, we are free to show respectable, and even sarcastic discontent with the White House. I have done so, and the occasional time I have crossed the line, I have had my post removed, but I am still here, and I am still Queer and unless I repeatedly break the rules of the site, I won't be leaving anytime soon. When I have posted legitimate frustrations with the WH policy or decisions, I've seen it insinuated that I wasn't a Democrat, and even taunts about my still being on DU, etc etc etc, however, whenever I took the time to alert on such personal attacks, the moderators assuaged me to believe that they supported equality because many nasty posts were removed, and some people were even let go.



ON THE INSIDE

I know things aren't going to be perfect here, in fact, I know they're not, and even sometimes, mistakes are made - but we're human - and being a part of a volunteer moderating group is not easy. There is no pay, there is often plenty to do. The imaginary drinks are great, but damn, I could use a real one once in a while. We are only online when we're available, and that sometimes leaves hurtful, obnoxious, arrogant, cold-hearted posts up for hours that hundreds see. We try our best, and I often work the late-shift and wipe out plenty of personal attacks that we moderators collectively deem disruptive or hateful. Spending hours a day moderating isn't easy, but I believe nearly every time, we get it right - and for being human, what more could I ask?

I do know this - if I was chosen as a moderator because I am Gay, GREAT! It would be then, a thoughtful exercise on their part in making sure we're represented. If I was chosen as a moderator without thought to my being Gay, and it was done because of my contributions and overall site behavior, GREAT! Either way, I'm fine with their reasoning as to why they chose me. But in so doing, I have tirelessly represented, as best as possible, the heart of my fellow Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer fellow members.

I can assure you that there have been zero times since I have became a moderator, where I felt I needed to write Skinner about how my fellow mods reviewed a particular post, thread, or member. Also, I can assure you, that there have been times, when some fellow moderators did not understand fully, why a particular person, subject, or insensitive comment offended me - and after speaking up, and stating my problems with whatever - every single moderator has appreciated having that input, and rarely has that even had to be done, because (at least speaking for this incredible group of mods) they already seem to catch plenty before I have even signed on. By speaking out on the name-callings, we are letting it be known, that we will not stand for belittling statements made against us - whether they be getting our 'pony', our 'unicorn', our 'pet issue', or something nastier.

I am very honored to volunteer with several of the kindest, most versatile, understanding liberals that I could ask for. They are pretty A-OK in my book. In fact, I demand pay for us immediately or we're going on a general strike! Oh, wait, I volunteered for this.... sh*t.



THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW THE SITE IS RUN

As for the Admins. They too, like many, are very busy. There are times where they're not reachable for a little while. But they always answer a question in time. I think EarlG is a hoot of a guy, and quite likable.

And, as for the often discussed Skinner, I will say this, and I hope he isn't offended, as I don't state any of this entire commentary of mine to be anything but thoughts on the subject. We all are imperfect creatures, but --- and it's hard to put this into words - I'll try though, because my admiration of him for something particular that has struck me since I became a moderator is extremely noteworthy - he - despite his flaws/misunderstandings on any issue that we all have from time to time - is perhaps the most "supportive of his members" administrator you could ask for as a member. I say that coming from an inside viewpoint, and without naming names, posts, or threads, I know firsthand that this dude takes more time deliberating on decisions, is more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, and often (to a fault sometimes I'm sure in some people's eyes), is willing to believe what he's told from us members. If there's anything I admire him for, it is that - he really does "think" about his decisions, and for that I give him my absolute highest regard, because, I know that is a rarity on these types of boards.

I believe he is deeply owed that respect, and I will give that to him.



THOSE WHO ARE GONE

As for those we've lost from this site, I know we each have those we miss, and chuckled at their posts, hearing from them, heck, I even had idle thoughts of dreaming about dating one of them, but when people are let go from being members here, as far as I've seen in the past several months and in researching the past, they personally have escalated matters to a point where there is nothing left to do but ease their frustration and our own, and let them know they need to move on.

I am not saying I know fully of decisions of the past, but I can state for my own feelings and firsthand knowledge of ongoing matters of being actively involved that I wouldn't be moderating if I felt there was an aire of negativity about my being Gay, or the Gay members of this site. I feel welcome.

Surely, there has been an occasional decision that wasn't right over the years, but I don't think I could find a better internet home where I am more welcomed by the administrators, moderators, and fellow members, than I feel being at Democratic Underground.

And for that, I am grateful to them for coming up with this site, and for doing the best they can in having a 'small city' to oversee, and running it as fairly as possible.

Smarmie Doofus, I applaud you once again for the thread in seeking a better dialog between the GLBT members and the rest of the site. I hope that every member will alert posts that are insensitive, and give a sentence or two why they feel that way, as I know I didn't always use to alert when I was offended. The more we are visible, and state our thoughts about things of the past & present, then the future will be better for it.

Now, back to work for me, my fellow mods need me

all glory to GOD in the highest,
Divine Discontent

[QC]

18. delete

[Smarmie Doofus]

60. Thanks. I like DU a lot also. That said....

...there are reasons that many folks here, in this forum, are chronically dissatisfied.

It's possible that some specific complaints are not grounded in reality.

OTOH, it's highly unlikely that GLBTs, as a demographic group, are less equipped than any other demographic group with the requisite social skills to participate successfully in a forum such as this. Yet the judgment of the administrators *appears* to indicate that we are. Or that they believe we are.

Appearances may be and often are misleading. Hence the need to talk about it.

Thanks again for the kind words and for your innumerable contributions to the site.

[Divine Discontent]

74. Thank you, kindly!

Yes, I agree that there is the need for discussion about it all, and ultimately, I think that's a very good thing.

Perhaps a few ideas from folks will pop up, or some already have an idea or two for going forward.

Again, thank you for your very kind words,

Here's to all of us!

[Duncan Grant]

16. Context post: For LGBT DUers, when does it get better? (Prism, 11/1/10)

Here's the link to Prism's original post in ATA on 11/1/10.

[Duncan Grant]

17. Context post: Ok so when are we going to have the gay talk that Prism asked for (dsc, 1/29/11)

Here's the link to dsc's original post in ATA on 1/29/11.

[QC]

20. Pay particular attention to this post -->

and the post linked in it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=1827&mesg_id=2154

They perfectly illustrate the difference in perspectives we are discussing.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

22. Yep. nt

[Duncan Grant]

24. + infinity

Textbook example of what I was trying to say above in post #23.

[mitchtv]

26. Thank you, those who have hung on

in spite of the resistance to our aspirations and the denial of our equality. I long to see the DU I remember.

[TriMera]

27. I also appreciate you guys and your efforts. I don't

know if it will do any good. I don't even like to come here after there has been even the smallest gain for LGBT rights. Let's take the DADT repeal, for example, it was a full week or more before the call-out threads in GD and GDP finally stopped. I don't post that often, mostly because I don't want to get TS'd, but I'm here almost every day and those times make me sick. Others in this thread have talked about the effects of sustained homophobia and I would have to agree. We've all been through it and we know what it looks like. That's probably all I should say on the subject right now.

[TrogL]

28. I suppose I should say something

This may end up being a bit of a rant.

First off, my credentials, although they shouldn't be necessary - my arguments should stand on their own merit.

I'm bisexual. Those of you who have watched me post over the years will have noted a variety of wives, boyfriends, girlfriends and even boi-friends in my life. I'm currently married in a straight relationship but a few years ago was gearing up to get married in a gay relationship (except it blew up in my face).

I have been heavily active in LGBT rights in Canadian politics. Three Prime Ministers know exactly who I am and where I stand on issues. I've addressed Parliamentary committees on gay marriage. I've attended a nude gay wedding.

I've been a moderator for a number of terms. I've spent my fair share of time in the hot tub. I've been involved in heated discussions on a variety of issues. I've chewed out Skinner when I've disagreed with him.

I don't put up with shit from nobody.

If the mods or admins were being homophobic they'd hear alllllll about it from me. If that didn't work, you'd hear allllllll about it from me - at length.

One of my big things on DU is logical fallacies. Actually, it's not just on DU, when I addressed the Parliamentary committee, I pointed out that the Freeper types were getting into slippery slope, undivided middle and a bunch of other fallacies.

Here's the thing. I've got lots of gay friends. Sometimes they do stupid things. Sometimes they say stupid things. I'll call them on it. That doesn't make me homnophobic. I do the same thing to my straight friends.

A straight guy at the office got fired. He got fired for yelling at the boss and screwing up bigtime. He didn't get fired for being straight. If he had convinced himself that his boss was heteroophobic, he might have come to that conclusion, but he'd be engaging in fallacy of the undivided middle.

Another thing. The guy who got fired was told over and over by his colleagues that yelling at the boss was a bad idea, that certain things he was doing at the office weren't going to work and were probably going to get him fired if they did fail. He did it anyway and got canned to cries of "what did you expect?" Sometimes friends offer advice. You may not want to hear it but it's offered with good intentions.

Just in case it isn't painfully obvious, here it is in black and white. People here get banned for a variety of reasons, but the number one reason is usually for just being a jackass, either right from the get-go or after a long history of causing shit.

I do systems analysis for a living. One of our tools is something called a cost/benefit analysis. It's pretty basic stuff. If you're going to (continue to) do something, you need to justify what it's costing you to do it vs what you get out of it. If the numbers don't add up, do something different.

So let's look at two scenarios. In both cases, LGBT people have become attracted to DU but some are causing a bit of havoc.

Scenario 1 - ban gay people at random

COST - loss of revenue (assuming they're contributors), piss off non-homophobic people, get DU labelled as an unfriendly place for LGBT people
BENEFIT - don't have them horrible gay people to deal with :sarcasm:

Scenario 2 - ban disruptors of all sexual orientations

COST - loss of revenue (assuming they're contributors), piss off their fans (assuming they have any)
BENEFIT - (relatively) consistent application of the rules makes DU an attractive place to be for everybody except disruptors

So, to review.

1. It's my personal experience as a mod that LGBT people are not being treated unfairly. Several of the mods ARE LGBT.
2. Saying that the only possible reason Skinner could have banned certain people is because they're gay is an exercise in fallacy of the undivided middle.
3. Sometimes LGBT people engage in strategies that to others look like they are counter-productive. When we point that out, don't snarl at us and don't blame us if they don't, in fact, work.
4. It doesn't make business sense to target the LGBT community.

[FreeState]

61. Thanks for sharing your perspective as a moderator, but I think its important to realize your

experience is not typical of most of us here. That is not to say that your experience is any less relevant or important than others. I've been here since the site started (lost my login info once after a summer break and started with the current user name), I have never been a mod, and my experience is 180 degrees different than yours. Im sure there are others with simular and dissimilar experiences and perspectives as well.

I don't think the only or even the main gripe GLBT posters here have the past banning. When it comes to banning the main issue is transparency, when a whole group of people are banned and there is no official word on why, people wonder and is creates an environment that is not conductive to progress. I really think one area DU could improve on in general is to make some of the administrative decisions more transparent. I'd love a system where if one was banned there was a note about which rule was broken and if applicable a link to the offending post, or a copy of it if it has been deleted.

That being said, the uproar over the banning is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the issues those I have discussed this with are referring too. The main issue as I personally see it is that some posters are allowed to harass, disparage and minimize the GLBT posters here over and over. We can alert on these over and over but the same posters do the same thing over and over. I'm not talking about obvious in your face homophobia, Im talking about systematic subtle homophobia that is often only visible by the targets of such actions and those who have had similar life experiences. I'd post a link to you to show an example, but that would be a call out. It's very difficult to have an open discussions of issues when we can't give examples (and its really not fair either to the other poster, I see the reasoning, but wish there was a way to talk about it as a group with Admin rather than just alerting or sending a note to Admin. Maybe a temporary forum where LGBT members could discuss this with admin thats not visible to the others posters would help in such a discussion, that way no one is publicly called out and not involved in the discussion.) From my perspective the way DU is set up creates an unfair burden on minorities when it comes to ensuring racism, homophobia, bias etc are not present here. The GLBT forum is hardly the only minority group here having some of the same issues. Admin keeps telling is these issues don't exist that we have misunderstood on some level, however the exact same complaints are present in several of the other minority groups. There is in my opinion a huge disconnect between admin and the minority poster on DU. There should be zero tolerance for homophobia and statements of less than 100% for equal rights on DU - thats the best way to deal with whats been happening.

[Smarmie Doofus]

69. Excellent idea re. bannings:

>>>>When it comes to banning the main issue is transparency, when a whole group of people are banned and there is no official word on why, people wonder and is creates an environment that is not conductive to progress. I really think one area DU could improve on in general is to make some of the administrative decisions more transparent. I'd love a system where if one was banned there was a note about which rule was broken and if applicable a link to the offending post, or a copy of it if it has been deleted. >>>

The status quo banning process is not only "not conducive to progress", it is *chilling*. People are in essence "disappeared". Stalin did it this way.... as did numerous RW Latin American regimes in the 70's and 80's... precisely because the secrecy ( or lack of explanation) involved in doing it this way instilled feared into , and fostered *silence* among those left behind.

No, I'm not comparing Skinner to Stalin or the mods to the KGB; I'm saying that bannings could be done ( when they absolutely MUST be done) more humanely and intelligently. And with less injury done to the political environment.





>>>>That being said, the uproar over the banning is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the issues those I have discussed this with are referring too. The main issue as I personally see it is that some posters are allowed to harass, disparage and minimize the GLBT posters here over and over. We can alert on these over and over but the same posters do the same thing over and over. I'm not talking about obvious in your face homophobia, Im talking about systematic subtle homophobia that is often only visible by the targets of such actions and those who have had similar life experiences. I'd post a link to you to show an example, but that would be a call out. It's very difficult to have an open discussions of issues when we can't give examples (and its really not fair either to the other poster, I see the reasoning, but wish there was a way to talk about it as a group with Admin rather than just alerting or sending a note to Admin>>>


Why can't examples be provided via cut and paste; w. names, etc, excised?

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. Skinner will be joining us on Tuesday. (3/8).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=2053&mesg_id=2231

I assume he'll start a new thread. Perhaps not.

[SidDithers]

30. Will non-LGBT DUer's with opinions on LGBT issues be "allowed" in this discussion too?...nt

Sid

[Uta]

31. Will gay-purged DUers be allowed in this discussion too?

Read this fast, my friends,

THe power of the DU Tombstone is huge. To be excluded from any conversation on the most active and most important Dem website there is, strips one of one's voice. I was a member and frequent contributor since 2001, but was banned swiftly by Skinner,("Gay purge" of May 09) with other gay or gay-supporting DUers.

I understand that Skinner did not set out to ban gays. But I believe he DID set out to silence a particular view point that VERY MANY of DU's gays shared.As a result, DU's gays have been reluctant to express these views.
It was his "shot accross the bow", and it remains a chilling effect for DU's GLBT community.


I emailed this to DU admins some months ago. Unanswered.
Still relevant :



Skinner, Earl, et al,
I still follow DU regularly, particularly the GLBT group where many of my old buds post.
That I cannot post there is hurtful. I really do feel like a ghost . I haunt .
It is hurtful that I can't post. I recently tried , as Rita Lee, but you deleted Rita's posts before she was allowed to make contact with her old pals. Good work. I dont think any of my old compatriots got the idea that I still exist at all.
I hav'nt communicated with another gay activist since May 2009, when I was TS'd.
It does give me comfort to read DU and see that the conversation continues.

The power of a DU tombstone is huge.

I'm an out lesbian, living in the most conservative county, of our Nation's most conservative state , but no one in Owyhee County , Idaho has excluded me from the conversation.
DU has.

I have not gotten over it. It hurts me. Continually.
In real life, I know very few other gay people. I am quite alone. I was in a community of fellow gays at DU.
But not since May 2009.
I'm separated from the only gay community, I've ever known.
Is this what you really wanted to do?
Well then, Mission Accomplished.

My username since 2001 was sheeptramp. During name-change amnesty, I switched to Vanje.

After almost a decade of DU membership, I would VERY MUCH like to hear your justification for TS'ing me abruptly and without warning.
Please show me the post that broke the rules.



I cant help but note the 2010 DU GLBT census. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x169226

Theres just about half of the old self identified DU GLBT and allies checking in this year.
Is DU unfriendly to its GLBT community? You got some 'splainin to do.

Susan aka vanje,aka sheeptramp

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. Good question. I've copied your post to my browser and....

... hope to reference it when Skinner "comes". Also... unless I misunderstood ( wouldn't be the first time) .... there will be no deletions from this thread. Period. ( People should be civil anyway.)

As i've mentioned, the bannings of GLBTs bug me infinitely more than the non-bannings of homophobes.... or the deletion of homophobia-tinged posts. And I know that sort of thing drives most here apeshit.

My feeling is ....and has long been.... that there should be *fewer* restrictions and fewer bannings in general... particularly where "our" issues are concerned.

"Rules" and "codes of ethics" are ALWAYS used against minorities and the marginalized. ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE; not just here. Rules are for the "little people"; as Leona Helmsley famously observed about taxes ( Was she wrong?). Fewer rules= better rules, imo.


That's a minority view here... and it is also anathema to Skinner... so, fear not, "that old dog won't hunt". ( But I'm right anyway.)

So I hope there are people here who wish to opine on what they have seen as toleration of homophobic posts and a "civility" double-standard applied to posters who take them on.

[Uta]

34. Many Thanks nt

[thanks_imjustlurking]

43. "the bannings of GLBTs bug me infinitely more than the non-bannings of homophobes"

Of course. Someone who's not there hasn't a voice to be heard, for good or ill.

[Smarmie Doofus]

52. Mmmmm ... yeah. Kind of like hearing that friend was killed...

... in a car crash.

Experienced also that way... i.e . as a kind of death.... by some who are banned. ( See post 31). DU's trivialized this , on occasion , as ridding itself of "toxic personalities".

Call me crazy; I find that bothersome.

Whereas...... homophobic posts (*in general*; there are exceptions) don't bug me as much. Usually says more about the poster than anyone else. ( It says, "Look at me; I'm an idiot!", is what it says.)

THAT, to me is "trivial". It's dandruff.

I know most here don't react that way.... and truth be told... they are probably *right* to be outraged, and I'm probably wrong not to be.

[Uta]

53. Word : If you're going to flame out....FIRST

PM your support peeps , and get their contact information.
Because once you are tomb-stoned at DU, there is NO way to communicate with other DUers.
Swap email addresses.
Friend -up on face-book.

Do it.

You'll still miss DU, mark my words, but, at least you comrades will know that you actually are not dead!
And that will give you comfort, because being dead sucks.
And you will also feel a little less dead.

[Uta]

54. So here .

Find me @ [e-mail]

Susan aka sheeptramp aka vanje aka Uta

[dsc]

37. welcome back

I would like to hear his answer as well.

[Iggo]

44. .

:fistbump:

[QC]

48. That's a touching post, Susan,

and it's a reminder of something easily forgotten, namely that for many people DU is a lifeline.

For those who live in conservative places, DU might be their only contact with other progressives, LGBT people, or any other community they are cut off from.

For quite a few others, unfortunately, DU seems to be more a convenient place to abuse people. That was certainly the case during the last election season, when a whole pack of new members showed up running from one end of this place to the other dispensing identical talking point insults (no need to catalog them here--we all know them)and setting up grave-dancing threads and high-fiving one another every time they managed to harass a longtime DUer into flaming out.

It was obviously great fun for them, but for those who considered DU a community, it was like having an old friend turn on us suddenly.

The reason I bring it up is not to dredge up the past but because so many of our problems here, and not only the LGBT-related ones, come from allowing DU to devolve into Lord of the Flies during that time.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

55. Yep. This may not be real life, but it's not meaningless either.

Certainly people can get hurt, and that should be kept in mind. Sometimes kindness is more important than a strict interpretation of justice.

[Uta]

56. Its real life nt

[thanks_imjustlurking]

68. OK. nt

[racaulk]

77. It's nice to see you again.

I understand what you mean about how hurtful it is to be banned from a community you care about. You and I were members of another online community, one from which I was banned around the same time as the Purge of '09 here. To be part of an online group of people you care about and feel you have a lot in common with, and then to suddenly be dismissed from that community without warning, explanation, or recourse...well, like you said, it sucks.

I've missed talking with you Susan, and I hope you are doing well. I hope you're able to stick around. :hi:

[Uta]

78. Thanks

I hope I'm able to stick around too.
its great to see you here.

[Smarmie Doofus]

33. Why... I said to myself... not?

AFAIK, yes.

As long as non-glbters are capable of civility.

You guys can do civility, yes?

[SidDithers]

39. Yes. I can do civility...nt

Sid

[closeupready]

35. If you are going to surprise us for a change, Sid, and start now with actually discussing topics,

rather than simply sniping or posting "unrec", then sure. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

[Duncan Grant]

38. In my community we have a saying, "There's a time to step up and a time to step back."

My preference would be for you to "step back" and let LGBT people share about their experience. Once that's complete, you can choose to "step up" -- if you still feel it's necessary.

FWIW, I'm trying to "step back" myself.

[pinto]

36. As a fellow member here, a gay DUer and a moderator, I look forward to the discussions.

In all of those roles. LOL.

The focus on good faith, civil discourse, and the give and take is great to see. I'll comment a bit, I expect, from a purely "pinto" perspective. And will follow it all. :hi:

[readmoreoften]

40. I'm not quite clear on the demand for "good faith". Let me be more precise:

I am LGBT. I'm Jewish and white. If a Muslim or African-American/Latino group accused me of bigotry, my first response would be despair: I don't think of myself as a bigot and in fact I know that in my heart I am not. But it is quite possible that I'm unaware of my own behavior, and/or that I'm capable of seeing my actions from a perspective I've never experienced. So, if a Muslim or African-American/Latino group accused me of bigotry--not a person, but a substantially-sized group--I would have to take into account that I may not be what I imagine myself to be. At the very least I would check to see whether or not my actions and rhetoric matched my self-perception.

My first approach would not be to make demands on the group that accuses me of harm. What I would ask, however, is for the group to believe that I am honest when I say I have no secret desire to be a bigoted person or to behave in a biased way. The second thing I would ask is if the group can explain to me why they are so upset with me: what exactly is going on from their perspective that I just can't see. Then I'd work really hard to try to see things from their perspective.

One thing is for certain: if I am in a group of people and there are oppressed people within that group and a majority of those oppressed people (not all, but a majority) approach me to tell me that I am behaving inappropriately, if my response is to insistently demand that I am not behaving appropriately and refusing to question myself, the subtext of that assertion is that the group in question is incapable of recognizing their own oppression or recognizing antagonistic behavior towards them. This assertion, in itself, would demean the oppressed group and this critique of their capacity to judge their experience would underscore their original criticism of me.

Instead of approaching this as a "mutual critique", what might help is a few questions "Where did you think I went wrong specifically? What am I not grasping here?"
If LGBT posters are flaming people out of rage, and being banned because of it, to the point where there are very few LGBT posters remaining on DU, perhaps the question is "What am I asking them to tolerate that other minority groups wouldn't be asked to tolerate? What is dog whistle language to this particular group of people?"

Just a few thoughts on a potential approach.

[Duncan Grant]

45. ^ This post. ^

Excellent post. :thumbsup:

[Smarmie Doofus]

46. Your logic is unassailable. I'll let Skinner speak for himself.

( He's pretty good at it.)

But... I think he's past this part:

>>>>>My first approach would not be to make demands on the group that accuses me of harm. >>>>>>




I interpret his use of "good faith" to mean precisely this:

>>>>>What I would ask, however, is for the group to believe that I am honest when I say I have no secret desire to be a bigoted person or to behave in a biased way.>>>>>

A not unreasonable assertion. A not unreasonable request of us, imo.



I think he's ( and we are) right about here:

>>> The second thing I would ask is if the group can explain to me why they are so upset with me: what exactly is going on from their perspective that I just can't see. Then I'd work really hard to try to see things from their perspective. >>>.

This is thornier stuff:

>>>>>refusing to question myself, the subtext of that assertion is that the group in question is incapable of recognizing their own oppression or recognizing antagonistic behavior towards them. This assertion, in itself, would demean the oppressed group and this critique of their capacity to judge their experience would underscore their original criticism of me. >>>>

Not necessarily ' a bridge too far'.... but *thorny*. ("I'll mix what I like!" i. e. Leave my metaphors alone.)

We'll see.

[ThomCat]

62. Variations on your exact post have been said repeatedly

I wish I had faith that Skinner was going to be able to "get it." Unfortunately, I think history shows that he's convinced that he's innocent, and we're the ones somehow persecuting HIM. :(

Until he says otherwise, and we hear otherwise, there isn't going to be any kind of hope here.

[Jamastiene]

41. Ok, so my long post is gone now.

Ever since Service Pack 1 update for Windows 7, I've been getting blue screens. Poof! Gone in an instant.

I cannot rewrite it. It was too long anyhow. I'll hold my words until I can say it without possibly getting granite. I do want to ask what the record is, officially, of the most people getting tombstoned within a 24 hour period on DU. That would be an interesting statistic to know.

Otherwise, I will say I'm too late to Rec this, but not too late to :kick: We need to talk. Something ain't right.

[Uta]

42. That would be a good question for ATA forum. nt

[QC]

47. The Windows 7 update made my laptop start bluescreening, too,

so I said to hell with it and installed Ubuntu on that sucker.

So far, it's been great.

[swimboy]

49. Four years ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x137283#137442

[Puglover]

50. Hullo Mr. Swimboy.

I can't even begin to tell you big the smile is on my face seeing you here. :hug:

[swimboy]

70. It's great to see you too!

You've put a smile on my face. I hope all is going well since we last talked. :hug:

[Uta]

51. I love this post!

I was'nt on it. 4 year past, I had not found.....my nuclearity quite yet.

I promise you , its on now.
Thank you.

[dsc]

57. I won't be able to participate on Tuesday

as I will be gone all day. I will try to post on Wednesday.

[ThomCat]

58. Good faith means acknowledging problems, and YOUR

responsibility for them so that you can solve them.

It does not mean that you insist as a Rule for the discussion that everyone has to consider you innocent of bias and has to ignore everything that has happened under your leadership. That is not good faith.

That is starting with a whitewash, and insisting that everyone agree to it.

That is not the way to solve any of the systemic problems here. You keep insisting that this is YOUR site. YOU make the rules. The way YOU run YOUR site is supposedly YOUR credential for what proves that YOU are a good person you are, with no bias, but at the same time nobody is allowed to hold you responsible as the head of YOUR site, and nobody is supposed to look at your history running this site to explain the history of problems here?

That's one hell of a double standard. That's requiring one hell of a blind spot, all to make sure you can't be held responsible. You demand to get all the credit, but oh hell, you can't take responsibility.

:wtf:

[Creideiki]

59. My prediction for the results:

We'll be able to use the LGBT forum to swap recipes, talk about puppies and kittens, and compare gardening tips.

Provided we never, ever, ever use a number. Or at least, no prime numbers.

I hate to approach the whole thing with dim hopes, and would love to be surprised. Just in case, my partner knows CPR. I doubt he'll need to practice it, though.

[Behind the Aegis]

63. Thank you for your efforts (and the others as well).

My personal opinion is nothing of great importance will be achieved if we start with "good faith." The fact is many of us feel the damage is too great, so it is better to start from the ground and work up, "good faith" being a stop along the way. It is better to start with civil discourse and open, honest communication. Part of that honest communication is going to be a discussion of people's attitudes and actions, currently doing this is verboten. While, I feel current DU'ers shouldn't be "called out," unless they participate in the discussion, it will be important to discuss attitudes and actions we see daily and have been seeing for awhile. It is also important to determine some guidelines so it is not a free-for-all.

I propose:

• no calling others names such as "bigot," "sellout," or mentioning current DU'ers not involved directly in the discussion. If clarification is needed about the comments/actions of a current DU'er, then the comment is made with a notation that a link to the post has been sent to Skinner (or his designate), and if a response is produced, Skinner (or designate) will acknowledge the receipt of the PM and the link. (Example: I was appalled that a poster, on more than one occasion, referred to this forum (GLBT) as a "viper's den." (PM sent to Skinner (other) with link). (That was just an example, no PM was sent.))
  
  
• attempt to be as clear as possible. Some people here are better writers than others, so if there is a question about something written, don't assume the worst, ask what s/he meant.
  
  
• acknowledge and accept that EVERYONE is biased on some level.
  
  
• do not expect everyone will know where you are "coming from" or understand your examples. Be prepared to expound upon things you write and understand a question about it doesn't necessarily imply 'ill will' or is a passive-aggressive snark.
  
  
• do not threaten each other or be passive aggressive. (Examples: "I will walk out and take others with me." or "You will be banned/This is my board.").
  
  
• respond to what is written, not what you think was written.
  
  
• start with tolerating each others' opinions and positions, and work to acceptance, and, if all goes well, understanding.
  
  
• a first post might include background information as to provide a point of reference as to where you are coming from in terms of this discussion. (Example: I have been a member of DU for 6 years. I was an advocate for GLBT rights in college. I served as an officer in GLBT student groups. I have presented on GLBT causes and concerns for 20 years to scores of universities/colleges. I have spoken publicly about the rights of GLBT persons on the steps of the capitols of GA, SC, NC, and DC. I served as a HIV/AIDS counselor/educator for 7 years. I worked as an advocate for GL and male rape survivors. I have studied GLBT identity acquisition issues/concerns, diversity in the GLBT community, women's issues as they pertain to GLBT concerns, and have spoken and presented on all of those topics on numerous occasions. While I am no longer as active as I once was, I still read and engage in learning about current events and topics which concern my community.)
  
  
• attempt to use "effective "I" statements," as opposed to addressing others.
  
  
• distinguish between fact and opinion, as they are not always the same.
  
  
• speak from your own experience.
  
  
• understand a response may take time.

The above are my suggestions to starting a meaningful dialog. I hope other will add to or refine what I have suggested.

[FreeState]

66. This +++

Thanks, you have written very well what I believe would be a great starting point and guidelines! I only wish I was as good a writer as you are:)

[The Philosopher]

64. I've lost faith

ever since the Bush first won a decade ago, but it never hurts to talk. Unless it's a situation used to show how a group of people are overreacting and the cause of the problem.

However, there's no question something is up, or else no one would be saying anything. I hope there's total transparency in the matter. About the Purge, the context is muddled because a lot of those deleted posts can't be read. There's also a matter of obtuseness to consider. I think many of us have seen homophobia that's overlooked by others because it doesn't break the rules blatantly. There's a post linking to another thread where Skinner talks about a poster "borderline" breaking the rules, but not blatantly, so the post isn't deleted. While it wasn't a homophobic post (the one he discussed), Skinner's commentary shows that sometimes things are overlooked for a reason or another, despite the ultimate rule that this is his website and he can do what he wants (even though he doesn't delete a borderline post).

[closeupready]

65. Because I'm really lost on what happened when and who, etc., I am really looking forward to this

conversation -

No posts will be deleted, nobody will get banned, and finally, we can have an honest discussion about what happened, who got banned, who's biased and who's not.

I am a GLBT member of DU since 2004, and nobody will ever talk about what happened and why everyone is pissed off at DU and Skinner. I suppose maybe people think they aren't allowed to talk about it - maybe they aren't - but all that does is keep people in the dark.

Just because I am GLBT, doesn't mean that I automatically "get it" - that I understand why people are pissed at Skinner and DU. Some valuable members have been banned, but if they did death threats or personal insults, they deserved it. If they got banned for other reasons, then we can all hear about it on Tuesday.

[Prism]

67. Oh. Lord.

This should be interesting. I'd love to have a conversation in good faith . . . if we didn't already have responses about the purge and right here in this thread from actual mods that are already screaming "Well, you had it coming, but let's discuss how you had it coming, shall we?"

I'm not sure what dictionary everyone else uses, but that does not comport with my idea of good faith.

I've given up on this, and the responses from various sectors haven't made me feel any better about it.

We shouldn't have to beg straight people to act towards us with basic human dignity - it is not 1969, for fuck's sake.

When you spend years "educating" people about your community, and they still treat you like a bunch of uppity trouble-makers, the smart money is on the idea that they're not interested in learning.

[mitchtv]

73. 69 was some year

I;m reading this all , not inspired to add to much except one word I associate with this forum that always gets my posts deleted ; "over moderation", (kind of like papal infallibility)

[swimboy]

71. Some of my thoughts

You should know that I tend to think the best of people until they give me just cause to think otherwise. I have rarely understood what was going on behind the scenes although I've been here through a number of disappearances. In fact, I've never understood how the people who knew what was going on gained their knowledge. That said, there are many people I miss terribly and I have really dialed things back because I didn't understand what on earth happened.

There are some good posts in this thread. I've gone back and read some earlier threads that are examples of the general problem. The Snickers ad generated a lot of threads where one can find instances of LGBT members trying to explain why they found the ads offensive and some other members calling us crybabies, humorless, etc. There was another lengthy thread about marriage equality around Thanksgiving where some members tried to explain why civil unions were good enough and exactly the same as marriage in all but name with the earnest efforts of LGBT members to explain were discounted or ignored.

In the thread I posted here from four years ago, some of the posters seemed really wary that I was asking for special rights not to be mocked or criticized for my position. I admit that I am taken aback that my goal of equal rights and treatment would be mocked or criticized at Democratic Underground, but I don't expect to control speech in America. What I find completely odd is for posters to say I can't expect not to be criticized for wanting equality who then take exception to being criticized for their comments.

I know people won't always be persuaded to see things as I do, but a handful seem not to be content not to persuade me to their way of thinking. Any of us can be wrong from time to time (even me!) but generally, LGBT people have a more accurate perspective on our issues than non-LGBT people. I take an interest in sex discrimination and racial discrimination but I don't expect I will have the same understanding of that as those who have experienced it firsthand. I want to learn so there is less undesired prejudice inherent in my soul.

Some people haven't grasped the idea of the privilege in which they operate. Some don't realize that sometimes institutionalized prejudice results in scattershot personal reaction.

I have gotten angry before but it was focused enough that I rarely regretted it. There is a role for anger in stoking courage.

I'll be at work tomorrow but will want to read the dialogue and participate if it's ongoing.

[CreekDog]

72. I'm wondering how many GLBT'ers are actually still at DU.

If you've lost half or if the community is a shadow of its former self, how much of a conversation are you going to be able to have?

Whatever actions, rules or whatever led us to where we are now, it sure seems like this particular topic forum is a shadow of its former self. Perhaps so many GLBT'ers have left that this forum doesn't have critical mass anymore.

I really think this is about two fatal weaknesses of the rules and their enforcement of them here at DU.

1) It takes moderator consensus to lock offensive posts --one moderator disagrees and it stays. Are moderators always perfect? Well, a moderator who cannot see the offensiveness in a post that all the other moderators see may be making a mistake and DU is allowing their mistake to harm the entire board and its membership.

2) Posts are locked all the time for far less than offending women, gays, etc. Note posts that the moderators can't agree to lock which demean women, gays or whomever and then look at all the locked posts saying even milder things about Obama.

Just this weekend, there was an active, busy thread which posted an article from Yahoo calling women "gold-diggers" and "slutty" and much of the thread contained posts that broad-brush all women as sharing those those stereotypical characteristics. I didn't bother alerting on it...based on the answer to my question in ATA, there's no point. DU's policy of 100% moderator consensus is held in higher regard than locking offensive posts. It's like that Senate anonymous hold thing.

Anyway, the same weekend, a post from a questionable source about Muslims attacking Christians in Egypt and it was locked because the article's source was suspect and not appropriate. See the disconnect?

Sometimes I wonder if there is a moderator among the whole group that upon hearing something is "sexist", "homophobic", and/or "racist" then 'digs-in' and then sets a higher threshold to be convinced that one or more of those things are true. And when that one moderator can veto a well-deserved lock, then things can turn out very badly.

So then what happens? The people offended get angry, feel wronged, feel slighted, they begin to shift the blame from the OP to the Administrators because it is their adminstration that's allowing it to happen.

They get angry, they lash out, they get tombstoned. All very predictable.

But the net effect is a less diverse community and the policies and their enforcement of them brought us there. Sure you can say if one person got themselved TS'd it's arguable that it's all their fault. If a third of the gay community at DU gets TS'd, then something about the policies here have played a role in reducing diversity at the site.

And I would hope if the people running this site are white, male and straight that they would be particularly careful that they are not overlooking an unfairness that is harming posters of a minority group or groups. We all have our blind spots, it's not unforgivable, provided you do something to ensure that someone without those blind spots is helping you make decisions.

(oh and I just checked, the thread about women that I mentioned is still wide open:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x530410 )

In the aftermath of promised increased attention to civility (last summer), the idea that this kind of thread stays open should really raise some eyebrows among those who can do something about it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

75. I'm pretty sure I read each of the 70 -something posts in the thread.

In an officially "no holds barred" thread... I can't find a single example of incivility or ad homin-ism. ( Hey... maybe I wasn't so wrong after all; you know: as far as less being "more" where moderation is concerned? ) True, almost all of us are pissed to one degree or another. (Some much more than others, I'm getting.) But, rumors to the contrary, we can think and feel ( as well as walk and chew gum) at the same time, it would appear.

So , I'm feeling ... are you ready..... "cautiously optimistic" about our imminent dialogue.

Hey. Skinner said the following on ATA:

>>>I understand that on some level, I don't "get it." I have always been a straight white male, with all the privileges that it implies. I could not possibly know what it is like to be gay. But it does seem perfectly understandable to me that that you would feel used to or habituated to being marginalized, misunderstood, excluded, ridiculed, or double-standarded. Which would inform your perception of the things that happen here on Democratic Underground.>>>

This is not your run of the mill Fred Flintstone. And he definitely doesn't strike me as any homophobic evil genius. I hope we don't treat him as such.

In the first place he doesn't deserve it. In the second place it would be foolish for us to forgo the opportunity to" win him over" whatever that phrase may mean. And I imagine it means something slightly different to each of us.

I am so tired of the polarization that has... for YEARS now... characterized GLBT's relationship to the rest of DU. It's old, tired, tireSOME, tedious and does neither DU nor GLBT DU any good.

I have high hopes. Which is unlike me. This may mean something.

[Creideiki]

76. I think Skinner doesn't "get" what the outcomes of the privilege are

Seriously--Sundog's posting of the number 7 was not some diabolical plot to undermine Skinner's authority--if anything it was a warning to the people still here to lay low and hope that the privileged straight people would find their better angels; and his banning offends me like no other. People here were wondering what the hell was going on and why people were falling like flies. We couldn't say that one of the pet moderators feeling his privilege had put up a flypaper post and was going around, apparently gleefully, smacking any gay person who posted in that thread.

And then for two years we couldn't even make an overt mention to the fact that the FIRST purge (granted not the first, but the first of the Grand Obama Party) happened. Then there was a SECOND purge and we couldn't make an overt mention to that fact. This forum was a minefield--my postings about puppies, recipes, etc. were trying to point that out--there is virtually nothing controversial we can say here because if it threatens the privilege of the straight monoculture, it gets locked as controversial. By mods who were assigned to this forum who were explicitly in the hostile to gays crowd.

Uta, aka Vanje, pointed out that for many people, the southerners, the inter-mountain westerners, the non-urban midwesterners, this forum is a lifeline. Since that first purge, I've pretty much left, and if this is painting a target for future annhilation, sobeit. I've found other forums--PHB, Box Turtle Bulletin, Waking Up Now--that are fulfilling the original purpose that this place had for me.

In the end, the Democratic Party just isn't all that into us. I'm okay with that. I'll work with and support Democrats who are despite their party, and leave the left to rot in the wind. That's a party strategy message, btw--if the Democrats can't become something other than yet another big corporate, straights-only, management over workers, male-dominated political party, then they can either change and become small business, gender-inclusive, orientation-inclusive, pro-labor, or they'll just be Republican-lite (Blanche, I'm looking at you...) and fall by the wayside. Truman was a wise man. Too bad too many here are into the superpatriotic football game to see that wisdom.