What is going on here?

[question everything]

I stayed away from my computer all day yesterday and now I see several threads about infighting here, etc.

About what? Prop. 8? Are there really people on DU who would have supported it? Really? I thought that most were upset about it.

Blame game?

I think that all of us, regardless of our states, have to work that any State Constitutional Amendment will require a pass by 67% of the voters.

What else? Appointment of Emanuel? Obama needs someone with experience on how to run the White House and how to interact with Congress. Also, he needs someone to be the "bad cop," so that he can be above the pettiness of everyday running an office - any office - especially a politicized one.

Anything else?

Thanks.

[elocs]

1. Now that the election is over we Democrats can get back to our favorite pastime:

tearing apart and trashing each other.

[cliffordu]

2. Don't be comin' in here

getting all up in everyones grill with this level headed view of the tribulations around here.

People got too much time on their hands for level headed views and common sense.

[QC]

3. Apparently, people get upset when their basic human rights are taken away. n/t

[question everything]

6. As all of us should. But are you trying to tell me that some DUers disagree

with this sentiment? Everything that I have seen here - admittedly, I did not read every single thread - was anger at the results of prop. 8 and others, at the ease with which voters could do this.

[QC]

7. There is considerable anti-gay sentiment on DU and there always has been.

Back in 2001 it was common for posters to blame us for Gore's "loss," and that attitude has been a staple of election seasons here.

Check out the GLBT forum sometime, where people discuss the nastiest antigay posts on DU. We never run out of things to talk about.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. news to me. Not once have I seen anti-gay sentiment.

perhaps it only exists in your mind. In that case, your mind needs.

[QC]

11. I suspect that there's quite a lot in the world that escapes your notice. n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. of that I have no doubt. But have I seen actual factual, real sexual discrim.

or posts that attack gays. If the posts exist, they come from freepers, not members.

I also have no doubt that those who see things that are not there have another sort of problem. Project much, do you?

[QC]

14. Ah yes, the No True DUer Fallacy.

antifaschits: No true DUer would post anything bigoted.

QC: Well, look here. The guy's been around for years, has thousands of posts, and started a thread calling us "stupid queers."

antifaschits: Sure, but he's not a true DUer. No true DUer would post anything bigoted.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. if such a post was started, I am glad I missed it.

[QC]

19. Yes, such a post was started. The guy who started it wasn't tombstoned

until several days later and then was allowed back onto DU in about a month.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7309174

[question everything]

15. If you are not gay - and I am not - you will not be able to observe such posts

If a group - Jews, gays, blacks - feel that a post slighted them, was insensitive of their feelings or, more importantly, of they humiliation and discrimination that they feel , then it was. As we've seen during the primaries, there were many comments - on DU, in the country - that women and blacks found offensive, racist and misogynist, yet "regular folks" could not understand the feeling.

If someone say that s/he found a post offensive, others cannot tell him/her that it was not. These are visceral reactions that cannot be explained by any logic and it would be better to let people vent and express their hurt feeling, in my opinion, instead of arguing with them.

I suppose it comes down to the earlier responses: people don't have anything better to do than comment on everything posted, to tell others how they should feel. Perhaps the best thing is to let people vent and express their hurt and sense of betrayal, unless some comments are not the truth. For example, I don't think it is right to blame the black community for the pass of Measure 8. Fun for the comics like Jon Stewart, but the rest of us should search for the facts. As a guest on Bill Maher commented yesterday - the campaign to stop Measure 8 did not approach the black churches to seek support there. And we should be willing to accept this explanation - unless proven otherwise.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. "? All" makes very good points.

[chimpymustgo]

9. And some people get upset when racists start to blame black people for something they had MINIMAL

impact on.

[ben_meyers]

4. Looks to me like some people didn't get their ponies.

I've seen suggestions that the Obamas get a cat for the White House, he'll be busy enough heading cats as it is.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. there are a few purity cops, who attack any and everyone who

does not bow and get on their knees on their particular pet issue. They are no less rabid, in a few cases, than the morons in LDS and other religious groups pushing for religious infiltration of our laws.

Well, being a hetero male, I cannot fathom the personal impact that anti-abortion laws would have on women. Nor will I pretend to fully understand or conceptualize that issue. It is not my body, it is not my choice, it is not my life being altered by a bunch of brain-dead, fat, bald, white men who know what is best for me and my body. Can I intellectually grasp that issue and try to deal with it? sure. But it is not the same. And when a woman get is my face and tells me, "YOU DON'T REALLY GET IT", I am the first to agree. I don't ovulate. I don't get menstrual cramps. I don't have tender breasts, and I will never breast feed. I CAN'T really get it, not with all the deeply personal aspects that only a female of our species can understand.

Similarly, I would be the first to admit that I don't fully "get" how society impacts gays. I don't have a frame of reference from which to deal with it. I don't have the heartbreak of ancient and archaic laws intruding on a personal relationship for no good reason. Again, I can intellectually try, but I will never fully "get it."

If some people demand total compliance with their views, whether it be women's rights, GLTB rights, or even the rights of people of color, well, you won't get if from me. All I can promise is to be open minded, and a best effort to be human, humane, concerned, progressive and rational. If I find something wrong in your position, attacking my sex, my race, my sexual preferences, and me - hell, that's your problem. I won't take it personally, because I am convinced that until you live in my shoes, you are just as incapable of understanding my trials and tribulations, as well as the automatic advantages that a white male has even these days.

And if you try to make it personal, attacking me for being what I am, or being insufficiently deferential to your views and demands, well, fuck you. I am what I am. I try to improve myself, and being human, I often fail. But to attack me for being what and who I am, it is you that has the problem.

[question everything]

12. I appreciate this. I am white and cannot viscerally feel the years of humiliation

that black people still endure.

However, we are Democrats and we should be able to debate, intelligently, the need for equality for all. Mostly, we should reject the idea that a Constitutional Amendment can pass to take away rights that were already granted, as happened in California. What would be next? Restoring slavery?

Yes, people often post on DU to vent and, at least intellectually you can appreciate the pain that women or gays, or non-white can feel when a tyrannical "majority" passes a law, a Constitutional Amendment, no less, that tell them, us, what to do.

Perhaps in such a case, it would be wise for you to just not comment. Let people vent, and express their pain, to commiserate and just... observe.

Just a suggestion based on "been there, done that."

[sutz12]

8. IIRC, Cal used to require 2/3 vote on amendments..

But it was changed, by referendum. And IIRC, the vote on the referendum didn't 2/3 either.

:shrug:

[question everything]

16. That's what I wondered. When I used to live there, in the 90s

bond measures had to be approved by 60%. And I think there was a measure to change that, too.