Seriously - Does anybody here remember EVERYTHING they have ever posted

[TheDebbieDee]

on a social media platform?

Can anybody here say that they are proud of or that they agree with EVERYTHING they have posted in the last 3 years? What about the last 5 years? How about the last 10 years?

If you are proud of and still agree with everything you posted on social media platforms then you need to STFU and go find your own planet to live on...

[hlthe2b]

1. Of course I agree, but doubt this will sway those immovable on the issue. Some seem to be

wanting not only their pound of flesh (which I think they've gotten), but her head on a pike.

Until some come to realize the truth of points brought up by LGBT advocates with whom she shared a very constructive panel this morning on AM JOY and that even the strongest LGBT advocates may fail a uncompromising "purity" test, they only embolden their true opponents. But, i think this small seemingly unmoveable group has to come to this realization on their own. Every thread, every post that has tried to discuss this essential truth, has only led some to "dig in their heels" and divide the DU community at large.

[yardwork]

6. Many gay people supported Joy. However.

It's unfortunate that in the well-intentioned effort to support Joy here on DU and on other websites, the hurtful impact of the words themselves were unjustly dismissed.

I believe that this attack on Joy by digging up old posts and tweets from a decade ago was unjustified trouble-making, an effort to divide Democrats.

That said, I'm very disappointed in the many responses, here and elsewhere, that dismissed the words themselves as "nothing." Again, gay people were thrown under the bus, even while many of us were writing in support of Joy. Very disappointing.

[hlthe2b]

9. I thought that, at least early on, most commenters were acknowledging the ugliness & painful impact

of the comments attributed to her. I think you are right that as the discussions went on a good bit of frustration took over and many failed to acknowledge that as the heart of the issue.

Still, it seems to me that for a small few, NO apology, NO explanation, NO discussion has thus far shown to be sufficient.

We need each other to fight for serious issues--some that impact us individually directly and some because of our shared ideals that are under attack by far more hostile and harmful opponents and actions... Whether we end up divided as a course of our own failed efforts or as the result of outside manipulation, the effect is the same. I'd hope we could all come to that realization.

[dsc]

10. No the dismissal was from the start

it isn't gay people's fault that those defenders dismissed those words. I am more than a little sick of every time a straight person does something wrong it is somehow a gay person's fault.

[hlthe2b]

12. I was not doing what you are accusing me of doing, but I'll just say I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

[yardwork]

31. No personal attack intended, I assure you.

I was making a general comment and didn't intend my post to be personally directed at you at all.

[hlthe2b]

33. much appreciated...

[yardwork]

30. I saw the same.

Good to see you, dsc. I know how committed you are to teaching young people.

[Ms. Toad]

59. From the beginning, the defenders asserted:

(1) she didn't say those things, but
(2) if she did, they weren't that bad

Anyone asserting that the statements, in and of themselves, were harmful was attacked, accused of lying, had their words twisted, etc.

I'm fine with Joy's apology. I'm not find with DUers insisting that the content of those posts were not that bad - and with bullying LGBT DU members who were naming legitimate concerns, and continuing to post snide digs at us on this matter.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

2. I remember a lot of it and I wish I could take some of it back.

I would like to believe I have matured, and my opinions and ways of speaking to people have changed.

[greymattermom]

3. I've always thought that the internet is discoverable by anyone.

So I've always posted pictures of flowers and my gorgeous children and grandchildren on Facebook. DU is the only place folks might have an idea of my opinions, and even here I keep it toned down. I've also told my children to never say anything negative or even to say they are sick on social media. Your next job may depend on it.

[oberliner]

4. Does anybody here pretend that their past comments were not actually made by them?

But were instead the result of a nefarious hacking for which there is no evidence?

[Trust Buster]

5. Ah, the goal posts are being moved.

If reminded, I could probably remember my past posts. And, if I couldn’t specifically remember, then I think I would come off looking foolish by playing the old “my account was hacked” card. That was the only issue with her.

[TheDebbieDee]

8. Please! That was never the only issue with her...

Don't insult my intelligence with that - YOU are trying to move the goalposts!

[Trust Buster]

14. Nope, she should have owned it all along. "I" have insulted no one.

[TheDebbieDee]

16. This goes back to "REMEMBERING EVERYTHING YOU HAVE EVER POSTED" issue...

If some one confronts you with something embarrassing/horrible you may have said/posted in the past that is unlike something you would say today, it would be stupid to own it without checking to see if you actually said/posted it!

Your rationale about instantly confessing to and owning everything attributed to you is extremely naive...

[Agschmid]

20. She didn't go there, the immediate response was "I was hacked"

This isn’t about remembering what was posted.

[Ninsianna]

41. actually her immediate response was, zi am sorry for the dumb things I wrote.

This is about actual evidence her posts were manipulated.

They were photoshopped at the very minimum.

The problem with appeasing the mob by apologizing even when falsely accused, is that it will ever be enough.

[Agschmid]

43. Nope, that's not accurate.

I didn’t even really comment on this until today, honestly I am much more annoyed by her apparent lack of candor than anything she wrote on a blog.

[Ninsianna]

51. it actually is. back in December

Honestly, this game played by people who don't do their homework and repeat right wing sources is just getting old

[Agschmid]

56. Hey thanks for personally attacking me.

[Ninsianna]

60. It was a simple statement of fact, if you felt it described you,

That is something you should probably address. It wasn't a personal attack

[Trust Buster]

42. And it was equally stupid to use the lame "I was hacked" excuse.

Now those of DU that have given so much crap to fellow DU members for rightfully calling her out for using the lame “hacking” excuse need to step up and own something on your part imo.

[Kirk Lover]

44. Proof that there is hypocrisy on both sides. nt

[Ninsianna]

52. I think people using right wing sources should be called out

and that is literally what was going on here. Spread right wing lies, quote right wing sources and then fail to prove your assertions, then own up to it. Pretending that the women being accused this weekend of things were doing what the right wing mob said imo is pure ratfuckery. Owning up would be great. We'll wait. Or does Breitbart and every other right winger source need to present a script first? Or just another badly photoshopped screencap by a bot on Twitter.

Every DUer who correctly called out the right wing and have been doing so for years now, should continue exposing the folks here to harm Dems.

[Trust Buster]

54. Your post is totally out of line. No right wing talking points are being used.

I held the position that Reid should own her past statements and she should not have used the lame “my account was hacked” excuse. The only talking point I quoted was Reid’s herself. She claimed Saturday that the cyber expert she hired found no evidence of hacking. Common sense is my only talking point.

[moriah]

57. "Are" in this thread and "were" in others are different things.

Though calling HuffPo RW was a little nuts. Not this thread, either, to clarify.

[Ninsianna]

61. my post was accurate. people using right wing sources and taking

have crossed a line. That is what is happening here. The outrage pretends to ignore the sourcing, either deliberately or ignorantly.

[marble falls]

7. Hell, I am not so sure I want to read everything in my DU journal!

[kpete]

11. TheDebbieDee

You are SO funny!


peace,
kp

[TheDebbieDee]

17. I don't understand what you mean - how am I phunny?

[moose65]

13. Full disclosure:

I'm gay, and I can remember that there were a LOT of posts and comments similar to those attributed to Joy that were flying around in 2007. Even though it wasn't that long ago, we were still deep in the Bush era, and gay marriage was only legal in one state (although more were soon to come). It was also before the Facebook era, too. In a sense, it was a different world back then. Many people whom we consider allies were probably cracking similar jokes back then! I won't say that her posts don't matter, because I find them tone-deaf and typical "straight-splaining" (did I just coin a new word??)

A question: I don't think I consider it homophobic to speculate on someone's sexuality. Many of those closet cases like Mark Foley, I could take one look at them and tell they were gay. Is it bad to just point out the possibility? Aaron Schock is obviously gay - am I homophobic for just acknowledging that?

[hlthe2b]

18. Yes.. there were many discussions re: the ethics & appropriateness of those who were "outing" gay RW

politicos. Both John Avarosis and Mike Rogers were doing so and defending doing so at the time. While there were differences of opinions on the appropriateness of doing so, I felt like the discussions were helpful and somewhat "evolutionary" in how many perceived this, even if some were occasionally tone deaf. This article was published in 2004, but I seem to remember similar discussion well through 2007 or later.

https://gaycitynews.nyc/gcn_327/outingoncapotolhill.html

“Are we trying too hard to play fair when the other team is always playing foul?” Aravosis wrote on his web page in March. “Is it time for a new outing campaign?”

Whisper campaigns about the sexuality of federal legislators are part of Capitol Hill culture, but the FMA has motivated some people to expose the personal lives of others in a way that was once considered out of bounds. This June, a flyer circulated at the city’s Pride festival urging people to e-mail the names of closeted gay lawmakers and staffers to an online address.

The increasing anti-gay rhetoric broadcast by supporters of the FMA also seems to have hardened attitudes of activists who otherwise would take a less militant approach to legislative lobbying.

“It’s outrageous and despicable that gay people would help members of Congress pass an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution,” Aravosis said in an interview, signaling a shift from his March efforts merely to facilitate a discussion about outing. “People like that deserve our scorn and public disapproval, at the very least.”

Mike Rogers, a former development director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, now self-employed, has begun phoning the offices of lawmakers who support the FMA and also employ gay staffers, whether closeted or out. Rogers tactic is to first request to speak with the legislator to query them about their support of the FMA despite supervising gay employees. Rogers said he has been unsuccessful in getting any lawmaker on the phone, but has reached senior staff in several offices. In those conversations, he said, he has outed closeted staffers to their colleagues.

[dsc]

38. First, this isn't the sole position on outing by any means

second, many of those in the post in question were not at all like the people being outed here. Clay Aiken, Tom Cruise, Oprah Winfrey, and Justice Robert's son are not in the position of passing laws that are anti gay.

[hlthe2b]

39. I NEVER even suggested that it is. I was merely referring to an episode of evolving discussion on

DU, which in its fullness, brought about a lot more understanding--on both sides of the issue.

[m-lekktor]

15. well, according to some guy who writes for "the Nation" all liberals were homophobes back in 2006!

[Iggo]

28. Homophobes think everyone's homophobes.

Thieves think everyone's thieves.

Racists think everyone's racists.

And they all say the same thing: "I'm just being honest."

[dsc]

40. without the quote I can't comment directly

but just like all people are at least a bit racist thanks to our society all people are also at least a bit homophobic for the same reason. Without the quote I can't say he meant it in this way but if he did then he would be correct.

[tonedevil]

19. Not remembering...

Is a universal human failing. Claiming bad things on your blog are the product of hacking is just weak. Trying to hold on to the hacking claim, without evidence, by saying you don't believe you wrote that is pathetic.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. That's not the issue; the bogus hacking claims are the issue (n/t)

[brooklynite]

22. Let me try to answer this way...

I have ALWAYS thought about my posts before I post them. (nb - I don't hide my identity online, so it's in my interest to make sure my public presence is a responsible one). Hence I've never posted anything that was angry or emotional, and certainly nothing intolerant.

[BobTheSubgenius]

23. My last two posts were about Joy Reid.

The one before those two was about my dog. Before that....kinda fuzzy.

[TheDebbieDee]

24. I'm gonna put this out here and be done with this thread...

The posters here at DU and everyone else who are unable to build a bridge and get over the Joy Ann Reid and similar kerfuffles and who are always so ready to knee-cap Dem and progressive supporters and pols are a part of the reason while Dem and progressive messaging gets squelched!

But I will keep voting Dem and progressive despite you! And I will always be willing to at least hear what the objects of your scorn are saying...

[PDittie]

25. Really?

"If you are proud of and still agree with everything you posted on social media platforms then you need to STFU and go find your own planet to live on..."

I'm guessing this is one you might regret sooner than later ...?

[Iggo]

26. Nah.

Then again, I'm fairly old, so most of my "come-to-jesus" moments happened pre-internet.

For the most part, though, I accept it when people tell me, "I used to be fucked up like that, and now I'm not fucked up like that anymore." People get better than they used to be. It happens. I've seen it. Hell, I've done it.

[Butterflylady]

35. Another oldy hear and I agree totally.

Heck I used to be a pro-lifer till I really matured. I finally came to realize that everyone has a right to their belief and I have absolutely no right to judge them or push my belief on them. So yes, I probably said or thought some things I am truly ashamed of and regret. I guess you could say I finally saw the light.

[QC]

27. I'm pretty sure I never accused gay men of molesting kids

or called someone a "shim."

[PDittie]

29. +1

[keithbvadu2]

32. Well, not everyone has Dotard's great(est) memory.

[Carey1]

34. Amen

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Almost everyone of us have evolved in the LGBT movement, including myself. We look back and can't believe what we were thinking at the time and feel embarrassed at our behavior. We have all come to know a family member, good friends who are gay. How can you ever stop loving someone you have loved since birth. Nothing else matters.

[mountain grammy]

36. I've posted things in anger

Once told someone he was a fucking idiot. I’m no writer, and I know I’m wrong about many things, and try to admit it. I know, without meaning to be, I can be insensitive, but I know I’ve not written anything demeaning anyone for their race, religion or sexual preferences.

I know people change and evolve, and that’s good. There were many who said they thought marriage should be between a man and woman (Obama and Hillary for example) but they didn’t go around making homophobic statements or nasty jokes about gay people. The policy by itself was bad enough without smearing members of the LGBTQ community.

I like Joy and listened to her today, like every Saturday, and today’s show was great. I think she’s truly sorry and she should be, because wrote things to be truly sorry for.

[Ninsianna]

37. it's even harder to remember what you posted when

people go through and the move around your words, pictures and delete portions. There are screecaps.of the same post from the archive and the one from the Twitter "Not a Bot" unearthing brand new, ever more hateful things on its timeline. They have clearly been badly photoshopped, with people arguing that they are her words so wa hat doesn't matter what order the bot has placed them?

This is literally the same playbook used for all those hoax videos where there was much editing and people were like, but they said the words, who cares in what order! They know thisntype.ofnhiax will work with people predisposed to hate their target, and the usual suspects did what they always do.


Released to sloppy right wing journalists, created a Twitter mob to blow it up and then the MSM picked up on the story and people pointed to.them, saying see, it's not just Beeitbart and Tucker and the Daily Sihnap.and the Daily Caller and Sputnik and RT and the Free Beacon etc


This looks and smells familiar because it's the same playbook. Remember how long it took to correct the Planned parenthood crap, ACORN didn't survive, now they're attacking a black woman?

[R B Garr]

45. Yes, the cut and paste bandits,

We need to unearth Jamie Maz Not a Bot and get a good look at him/her.

Great post.

[Ninsianna]

50. "His" timeline shows a bit advancing quite a bit of the Wikileaks

and other Russian crap. The usual suspects defend this crap. It's exhausting dealing with these people who just lie all the time, as with the WHCD. It's just pie after lie after lie.

[R B Garr]

58. That makes sense about pushing the Russia crap.

I bet we would be right if we could speculate about Jamie Maz’s Not a Bot’s motives.

In the meantime, Joy had a great weekend show, as usual. She is a terrific ally for our side.

[joshcryer]

48. Oh it almost certainly happens.

There was a terrible case where a woman deleted Facebook messages to make a guy she had sex with look like a stalker: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5223567/Man-rape-conviction-quashed-police-blunder.html

And of course shitty photoshops have been circulated forever and Facebook is ripe for it because people on there don't actually do due diligence to tell whether or not something is true. For some of us it's just intuition (like when Syria happened a "Defcon 1" message was being spread on Facebook and I pointed out to my mom when she called me in a panic if that was true we were at WWIII and every phone would be going off), but other people are just lost in the noise.

[fescuerescue]

46. I remember everything that I consider to be "on the edge" or "out there"

Unless the person is extremely boring, everyone has thoughts that are extreme, even if they are not of the political variety.

So pretty much remember all my extreme posts.

The mundane stuff? Post like "yea I agree with that." nah.

[joshcryer]

47. My views haven't changed much in the past 20 years.

At most I would simply cease talking about a certain subject in a certain way if it bothered people. I've found that I've had to dial back discussion of "identity politics" but I never really gave it much effort before.

I think Joy Reid's opinion in 2008 is uncontroversial for the time. None of the Presidential candidates were for gay marriage. Prop 8 won because of the black vote (no it's not a myth, liberals who try to reinterpret that result are simply and blatantly wrong).

I never believed the hacking story.

[marlakay]

49. People do evolve

I went through a religious phase for ten years from 17-27. During that time I was very prolife and against abortion.

Church i was going to at time was very that way.

I stopped going to church and believing but stayed pretty prolife until my daughter had a abortion. I realized i had to either believe she was a murderer or change. And I evolved.

I am sure I am not the first person who changed because of that.

Now many years later I strongly believe in choice.

So we need to not be so judgmental. I was brainwashed in a almost cult like rightwing church.

[applegrove]

53. I've made mistakes. And posted. Years ago there was a debate in Ontario

Last edited Tue May 8, 2018, 08:50 PM - Edit history (1)

as to whether the province should allow sharia tribunals when their were indigenous and Jewish ones for civil law. I said you could not ban just Muslim ones. The government banned all civil tribunals instead. That was the right answer. I had not thought it through. Anyhow my support for it is out there in the boneyards of the internet. Makes me cringe to think of it.

[CentralMass]

55. From 2008 ? Yes. If I made comments like those that I've read were made, I'd remember.

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2018, 08:14 AM - Edit history (1)

A few days back I did a Google search on what was going on and the first link I clicked on related to this now blocked archives had a post, from the 2008 primary, "Hillary is an insane racist liar who wants to destroy the Dems.". There was more there but I stopped there.

I can only speculate if it was legit but the link in the article to the blog brought up this so called "robot" that her IT people put in place to block acess.

From what I've read I dont really care to watch her anymore then any of the other cable tv pundits that I dont watch. We all need to eat and I hope that she doesn't lose her job, but I won't watch.