moriah
moriah's JournalSo, one of our three critters successfully dispatched a rodent.
The unlikely suspects:
1) Sandy, an eight-year old, 10 lb long haired dapple dachshund who has some predatory instincts, but to her owner's knowledge has never actually caught anything.
2) Hazard, a partially deaf, extremely chill cat my roommate found wandering as a kitten in the middle of the road. He still has fighting instincts when cornered, but apparently doesn't notice anything from keys jangling to vacuums. He did, however, freak out majorly from fireworks, so he might have some hearing in unusual ranges (maybe even the rodent range).
3) Ash, the kitten I adopted from the shelter long before his mom would have taught him how to hunt. He's much more of a "cat", and has always enjoyed thrown or moving toys and attacks them viciously, but usually would then bring it back for me to throw again. It could have been him, but if it was I think I would have woken up to the rodent on my bed, deposited there because it stopped playing but Mommy can throw things and make them move again.
It wasn't eaten, just killed. All three critters are well-fed, and got treats since we couldn't tell which slew the dragon.
This "Bernie Sanders Glowsticks" Meme Was Made by Someone Who Wants to Kill You
Edited to delete link to picture just to make sure no one here falls for it.
http://mic.com/articles/143020/bernie-sanders-glowsticks-chlorine-and-isopropyl-alcohol
A short infographic pulled straight from the Anarchist Cookbook called "How to make Bernie Sander's Glowsticks!" [sic] found its way to Tumblr, DeviantArt and Reddit in the past 48 hours.
Ostensibly, it's a guide to making small, blue glow sticks. It's even stamped with a fake "Bernie Sanders approves!" message at the bottom.
These instructions do not tell you how to make glow sticks. These are instructions for how to make a deadly chlorine bomb.
Bad, bad 4channer!
Seriously, this is awful.
GD:P Meta Lesson 101: Trolls: Don't feed them, don't accuse them.
At some point everyone has to be responsible for their own behavior, and remember that "s/he started it" wasn't a good excuse for bad behavior even in gradeschool. Civility should be the ideal.
But not everyone is civil. Some, as the article on this subject I'm highlighting mentions, are just assholes online because it's easier to be an asshole when you're not face to face and we all gotta vent somewhere. Sometimes there are genuine disruptors, often referred to as "trolls". The meme that there is a mighty Clinton paid troll brigade doesn't help -- those are not trolls, but shills, and accusing Clinton supporters of being either for having the audacity to express their opinion is REALLY GETTING OLD... uh, sorry about that. I'll moderate my volume....
Still, the way of dealing with both is the same. Since you can't control their behavior, you control your own.
There are three rules to remember if you think you're dealing with a "troll":
1) Don't feed the trolls. If they're doing it for personal amusement, they are just going to get enjoyment from your responses. If they're a volunteer or paid brigade supporting or opposing a candidate, your reply gives their arguments a kick and more visibility, which accomplishes their goals for them. Disruptors thrive by disrupting. If you ignore them, they can't disrupt anyone, get bored/told by the imaginary payroll manager to move to another forun, and go away.
2) Don't accuse them of being trolls. Not only is that feeding them, the article points out that sometimes it's hard to tell a real troll from J Random Asshole. Remember what opinions resemble -- we all have them, at least one person on the Internet thinks ours stinks, and usually vice-versa. Plus, it's a really lame thing, to go ad-hominem when you can't find another reason to say why they're wrong. Lastly, it's a personal attack, and recent Ask the Admins indicate there will actually be RULES here after the primary is over! Which is to say, better to start practicing new arguments. Just not with trolls.
3) Report suspected trolls to the Malicious Intruder Removal team. Even if the troll has been subtle/prolific to not be caught right away (the vast majority of Obvious Trolls are Obvious), if circumstances warrant they can get Admin to make the call if needed. Don't try to play detective on your own, especially not in public forums.
Remember, the idea of "trolling" came from fishing. If you think someone's a troll, don't take their bait!
Congratulations, Bernie supporters, staffers, and volunteers!
They deserve a round of applause from everyone.
Remember, the Primaries are not supposed to be a fight, but more of a job interview with each voter.
Congratulations, Bernie, the voters in Indiana chose you.
Blast from the past: DU's old rules!
https://web.archive.org/web/20110721225652/http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.htmlFor Civility (talking about and to members of Democratic Underground)
The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.
Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.
Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.
Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.
Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.
Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.
Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.
Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.
Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.
You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.
You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)
If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.
There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.
I can see why Skinner thought we should grow up some and not have to live by a ton of "thou shalt not"s.
Too bad we haven't....
To my fellow Hillary supporters: this isn't the time to gloat.
I have been lucky enough to see few posts actually doing so, but even a few are too many.
Because I was her supporter in 2008, and really did believe in her vision, I remember how disappointed I was when I had worked my heart out for a candidate who came so close, but didn't win. It didn't mean I approved of everything she did or said, but I was proud of her for being gracious in defeat once all votes had been counted. I was proud of her that, even in her letter to the Superdelegates asking them to consider her, she said no matter what that she would work to unite the Party.
The people who worked (and are still rightfully working) for Bernie, for his vision and message, are feeling the same things Hillary supporters felt after the math was just no longer sustainable for Hillary. Feeling disappointment, feeling helpless since despite all their work Bernie doesn't have a great shot at winning anymore, feeling voiceless particularly if they haven't been able to cast a vote yet, and feeling like the Party doesn't care about their issues.
The last thing they need to help overcome such feelings is for Hillary supporters to gloat, suggest their vision wasn't a good one (it was), suggest they were insincere, or suggest that just because they can't, just yet, bring themselves to vote for the likely Nominee that they are actually supporting the GOP's values.
For everyone, no matter what another person says or does to provoke us, it's our responsibility to choose our own reactions. There have been horrific attacks against Hillary that, in my opinion, remind me of what I expect to see on Free Republic or Redstate. But if posters like that drive you batty, we have the ignore feature. There's no need to take the low road.
Essentially, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. That's the best thing Hillary supporters can do right now -- be sympathetic and as a result, take the high road.
----
On edit, just to be clear, I admire the people who can engage those posting majorly OTT attacks against Hillary without resorting to personally attacking the user saying them. I try -- sometimes with humor, sometimes with facts. But there are some things that have been said that all I can do is alert, and some posters repeatedly saying them that made it better for my serenity to let them have their DU, and let me have mine.
But at some point probably before August (at the latest, Labor Day) this website generally goes into "GE Footing". Whoever our Nominee is, he or she will not be subjected to those attacks on DU then, unless Skinner changes a long-standing TOS provision. People making those attacks repeatedly will lose posting privileges.
Also, there is a difference between being happy for your candidate's win, and happy for another's loss. The only people I might gloat a little (edit: okay, a lot) at their loss have Rs beside their names.
Oklahoma: Where raping an unconscious person's throat is legal if they were drinking.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/oklahoma-court-rules-that-forced-oral-sex-is-not-rape-if-victim-is-unconscious-from-drinking/An Oklahoma court has stunned local prosecutors with a declaration that state law doesn’t criminalize oral sex with a victim who is completely unconscious.
The ruling, a unanimous decision by the state’s criminal appeals court, is sparking outrage among critics who say the judicial system was engaged in victim-blaming and buying outdated notions about rape.
But legal experts and victims’ advocates said they viewed the ruling as a sign of something larger: the troubling gaps that still exist between the nation’s patchwork of laws and evolving ideas about rape and consent.
The case involved allegations that a 17-year-old boy assaulted a girl, 16, after volunteering to give her a ride home. The two had been drinking in a Tulsa park with a group of friends when it became clear that the girl was badly intoxicated. Witnesses recalled that she had to be carried into the defendant’s car. Another boy, who briefly rode in the car, recalled her coming in and out of consciousness.
Sorry if dupe, but it just hit my FB feed and I'm outaged.
I never actually thought my state, Arkansas, would have better laws regarding sexual assault than others, even Oklahoma. But despite the antiquated term "deviate sexual activity" to refer to oral, anal, or penetration with an object, it's all class Y Rape if the victim was unconscious -- even if the unconscious person consumed the alcohol or drugs willingly.
For our definitions:
(5) "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is temporarily incapable of appreciating or controlling the person's conduct as a result of the influence of a controlled or intoxicating substance:
(A) Administered to the person without the person's consent; or
(B) That renders the person unaware a sexual act is occurring;
(7) "Physically helpless" means that a person is:
(A) Unconscious;
(B) Physically unable to communicate a lack of consent; or
(C) Rendered unaware a sexual act is occurring
Any of the above would have covered what happened in that case.
Oklahoma legislators have some work to do.
Why, and why not, to "Call It"...
First, a primer for people who aren't familiar with DU's process:
Every election season, at some point, DU goes into "GE Footing". The reason is pretty clearly stated in the TOS:
The reason why DU must, at some point, enact this policy isn't truly to discourage Democratic participation, but because it's impossible to tell if a poster's criticism of the Nominee or other Democrats running is legitimate concern or GOP baiting. If you've never served on the MIR team, you may be blissfully unaware of just how crazy it gets -- but even outside of election season, DU is such a popular forum that GOP trolls show up all the time.
It's also because even if we may never nominate a perfect candidate, WHOEVER we nominate is better than the alternative. Obama, as great of a job as he did, was not in politics long before his election in 2008. Continuing to harp on that after he was our Nominee wasn't going to help us defeat McCain. We needed to be working on building him up, not tearing him down. He chose a running mate with a great deal of experience in public service, and that's one way we deal with a nominee's less than stellar attributes. No President does it alone. Hillary will, if she does win the Nomination, look for a running mate to overcome her own negatives. I'm not sure who she'd pick and who would say yes, but I have confidence it will be someone both experienced and to her left on several areas. (Would Dennis Kucinich accept? I always liked him.)
Finally, people want to come to DU and see constructive discussion of how to make our party and country better. Primaries, while they are ESSENTIAL to our Party and Democracy because we do need a chance to vote our conscience, and it's the way we show the direction we want the party to go -- can get extremely ugly when we become attached to our candidate. There comes a point when the ugliness is not helping the Party anymore.
But there are also good reasons NOT to rush to a call, (and no, they don't include things I wanted to slap my candidate for saying in 08).
First, we still have states that haven't voted. Even if the math seems terrible, they deserve the chance to vote. Until they get that chance, suppressing their voice on DU too is not going to help with the fact they may rightly feel disenfranchised already because their states are voting so late.
Second, people who are passionate about the Party and their candidate deserve some time to come to terms with what our election gave us. I don't think our process is anything close to perfect, but we can try to learn and make future primaries more Democratic. We need to listen, as a Party, to those in it who have legitimate criticisms of how the process played out this time, and try to make positive changes (alternatives to Saturday voting, just as one example). If we do listen, and do try to work together, it will help people feel less ignored, shunned, left out.... and that's a huge theme I am seeing here among dedicated Bernie supporters.
Third, those dedicated and passionate supporters have obviously demonstrated they do care about the Party enough to actually participate in the Primary process, which speaks to their ability to work with the Party if they are welcomed instead of feeling like they are tossed aside just because their candidate didn't win. I want to see civility and constructive work to get Democrats elected. I want to see that passion help us in the General.
So instead of asking Skinner to "call it" just yet, I propose that those of us who want to have Democratic Underground not suck try to reason instead of attack... sympathize with instead of insult, listen rather than assume...
And try to remember we really are on the same side.
No, Paul Ryan, you don't get to make the mentally ill "own" this act of terrorism.
Apparently, we shoot people, not because irresponsible politicians make false, incendiary remarks that cause violent people to do violent things and get praised for them in the press and think they are fighting for a noble cause, but because we are so dangerous that Congress must do something.
There's no doubt our mental health system is broken. Believe me, I know. I give thanks daily that I have my medicine now. It was a long, hard road. But the only person I was dangerous to was myself.
In fact, even if all mental illness were magically cured, gun violence would only decrease by 4%. But since over 60% of gun deaths are suicide, sensible gun registration, waiting periods, and background check requirements would save more lives — people’s lives like mine. I don't think many Republicans like him care much about us, though. If he did, wouldn't he have gotten more of his fellow Republican representatives to vote for the Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity Act of 2008?
Why is he only saying this now? It's because we always have to believe that evil is “other" — so since this terrorist is white, Christian, and Conservative he must just be “mentally ill".
But we are not “other". We are your friends, coworkers, and loved ones. We are not dangerous. And we will NOT accept the stigma gun advocates continuously place on us, when we're the ones most likely to be killed by guns, not the ones doing the shooting.
Posted in full with permission, links in actual article explain context.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/2/1455956/-No-Paul-Ryan-you-don-t-get-to-make-the-mentally-ill-own-this-act-of-terrorism
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Arkansas
Member since: Tue Jan 8, 2008, 09:18 AM
Number of posts: 8,311
