An internet truth regarding sexist/misogynist comments

[boston bean]

The questioning and confronting the behaviors/comments is the offense, not the sexist/misogynist comment.

In other words, the victim of the attack becomes the offender, and the true offender becomes the victim.

This is sick and twisted thinking. Why do people, in this case women on the internet who often subscribe by paying a fee to these services, have to be the ones to put up with this? The common suggestion is to ignore it, don't respond. Think about it..... that is just twisted. That is squelching the speech of women who object. Why does the internet have to remain a sexist/misogynistic cess pool? Why is that so damned important. Why is it more important than women having any voice at all?

Women are 51% of US population, and we demand that something start to be done about this across the web. We aren't asking you to squelch free speech. We are asking owners of these private websites to respond to the needs and wants a large portion of their paying customers are asking for. Women do not want to be inundated with sexist/misogynist comments under the guise of free speech.

Internet owners are squelching the free speech of large swaths of women by allowing sexist/misogynist comments.

Think about it.

And women, start demanding it be addressed in places you visit on the web. Yeah, you'll be attacked, maligned, comment stalked, and have your internet experience ruined. But it's for a larger cause. SPEAK UP!

[MineralMan]

1. Absolutely. Speaking up is essential.

Good post.

[yuiyoshida]

242. Yes!

[geek tragedy]

2. Re: last paragraph, men should speak up too

(Sorry for the whataboutmenism)

[boston bean]

3. That would be nice and welcome, of course.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. DU Rec.

[Wounded Bear]

5. In my experience...

all too often those that scream loudest for '1st Amendment Rights' seem to be defending their right to be assholes and demand that they suffer no consequences for their actions.

[Gormy Cuss]

6. ^^^This^^^n/t

[Wounded Bear]

7. Yeah, and it applies across the board...

to basically anything regarding 'rights.' RWers tend to sound to me like a bunch of whiners, like Poppa Oyl wandering around mumbling "You owe me an apology" about everything.

Not to derail the thread or anything. Our society's treatment of women sucks, and the internet hasn't helped. We each need to contribute to improving that.

[2naSalit]

27. +1

[etherealtruth]

8. Yep ... that and "censorship"

While I will defend any idiots right to say what they want without government penalty (obviously, like all other rights there are also limitations placed on this) ... individuals and groups may set their own standards.

Groups and individuals participate within societal sub groups that have their own mores (customs, values, and behaviors that are accepted by a particular group, culture, etc.) .... these sub groups will enforce their mores .... subtly and/or punitively.

The "censorship folk" ARE generally those that want to be able (most often) to spew racist, misogynistic, homophobic ... garbage here (against the general mores of the group) without criticism or penalty

[boston bean]

9. This is where the argument fails for our free speech crowd, I can say anything

and you gotta deal, even if it is hostile, bigoted, racist, misogynist.

No, they do not have free speech on a privately held site, and members can and should make sure the owners know how they feel about such things.

It's ironic that the remedy offered many times, is to just ignore it, in other words squelch your speech... Nope, that aint going to work any more.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. How many times has constitutional free speech been explained here?

It's as if some posters just aren't listening.

I agree with you on ignoring the posts/posters is not a solution.

[boston bean]

14. I cringe when I see allies stating they are putting someone on ignore.

or how long their ignore list is.

Can you tell me if I am correct that by placing someone on ignore you take away a chance to serve on a jury for them. Furthering, squelching feminists voice here?

If so, it's like the system is stacked. You are told to ignore, and in doing so, the offenders have a better jury pool. Just trying to make it a bit of a better place for yourself while giving the assholes more lee way....

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. I don't think that is the case.

Jurors can be anyone not on the alerted party's blacklist.

[Gormy Cuss]

61. IDK about juries. n/t

[boston bean]

63. I'm almost positive that if you put someone on ignore you don't serve on a jury for them. nt

[petronius]

99. According to the posted description of the community moderating system,

you are correct.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem

Ignoring the alerted member is one of the seven criteria that will exclude someone from a particular jury...

[boston bean]

100. Thank you petronius. This is one reason I don't put people on ignore.

I'm not going to take myself out of the jury pool.

I think too many feminists have fallen for this and the results may be skewed.

[gaspee]

123. I didn't know that

I have a huge ignore list - misogynists, homophobes, racists, overall jerks... no wonder I don't get much jury service...

[seabeyond]

126. many people have the same ignore list, and skinner and others promote an ignore list. pool

of jurors just beome more unbalanced because for some, it is not interaction on du, but being on the juror list...

[OilemFirchen]

144. OTOH:

Ignoring someone does not prevent said poster from serving on your juries.

Several posters here tout their massive ignore list. It's self-defeating.

I ignore posters by not reading their stuff.

[boston bean]

155. No, that is not the case. Ignoring persons make it so you can't serve on a jury for them.

However, they can serve on a jury on a post of yours.

[OilemFirchen]

164. You mean "can't" in your subject, correct?

If so, we are in agreement. Otherwise:

Members are excluded from serving if... they are ignoring the alerted member...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem#juries

[boston bean]

165. yes, but putting them on ignore doesn't prevent them from serving on a jury on a post of yours.

LOL, I not only mistyped to make it more confusing... I think I misread your posting as well..

harrumph!!!! Sorry!

[OilemFirchen]

166. That was my point.

If one believes in jury manipulation, the last thing one should do is amass a large ignore list. Or, for that matter, any ignore list at all.

[boston bean]

167. right. I was confused as admitted above and made a confusing situation even more confusing..

mea culpa...

see my edit, you might not have...

[OilemFirchen]

168. We kewl. (n/t)

[Egnever]

16. Why is that confusing?

First amendment rights aren't there to protect you from being offended. They are there to ensure that the ideas and positions that are often offensive to many are protected.

It is not about ensuring peace and harmony.

The idea the ones that should be screaming loudest about first amendment rights are the ones everyone agrees with is silly

[boston bean]

21. There are no first amendment rights on a privately held website.

You agree to terms. Many women would like to see terms that address sexism/misogyny and make it unacceptable.

Nothing wrong with that now, is there?

[Wounded Bear]

241. I'm not confused...

I find it ironic. That's all. Somehow "good manners" have mophed into "political correctness" and are to be shunned. Meanwhile, as people's rhetoric gets more and more charged up with personal insults, real dialogue disappears.

People who start whining about how their free speech rights are being "stifled" generally don't understand. It's not that I want them to shut up, I just don't want to listen.

[seabeyond]

17. that one is what puts me in a fit of giggles i see so often. in discussing a womans issue, i am

bombarded with people telling me i am not allowed, cause that is judging another, and they have their right to free speech. it is a huge wtf? a person can speak. i getta criticize.

[steve2470]

151. agreed nt

[tea and oranges]

11. Kick!

Victimhood is a blessed status, according to the rw, racists, sexists, & extremist religionists everywhere.

That they deny there are victims other than themselves tells you what navel-lint sniffers they are.

Hell, I’m so old I remember when “common good” was more important than the personal right to be a hateful asshole.

Tiresome as it is (I've been confronting men now for 40 years) it still needs to be done. Ignoring them, especially in print, doesn't work. Those misogynist words just sit there for all to see.

Much as the sexist men on du would hate to admit it - they're being fueled by the same crap as the teabaggists.

[malthaussen]

12. Oppressed groups are always advised not to be confrontational.

It's quite maddening, really, because often those who contribute such advice have the best will in the world. Yet the history of oppressed groups in the world suggests that avoiding confrontation will not solve the problem.

I am reminded of the scene from "In the Heat of the Night," where Mr Endicott slaps Mr Tibbs, and Mr Tibbs slaps Mr Endicott right back. Endicott demands to know what the sherriff is going to do about it, and the sherriff responds in shock "I don't know." The oppressor expects different treatment from his ally. But his ally is so surprised that the oppressed has dared to raise his head, that he doesn't know how to react.

I'm very much afraid that our society is still in the "I don't know" phase.

-- Mal

[etherealtruth]

13. +10000

[treestar]

15. There has been progress in that they are on the defensive

their precious right to see and use women as objects is being eroded.

[seabeyond]

18. +1. nt

[alphafemale]

19. As a woman I am for free speech.

I am not affected by the speech of nattering dumb asses.

I certainly do NOT need to be protected.

Oh...faint...fan....I am a woman. I cannot bear anyone saying things I disagree with.

Remove those thoughts from my vision please.

AAARRRGGHHH!!!

PLEASE! Let them speak.

They prove my point.

[boston bean]

20. It is hate not speech.

And no, I don't want to deal with it in public internet spaces that I pay money to. Women have a right to these spaces as much as any misogynist does. Why in the world is the onus on women to educate, talk nicely, explain, and put up with something that is so obviously hate. It makes for a space that is hostile to females. No, again, it is not speech, it is hate. It is about control of women and keeping spaces female free. Websites that allow this might as go back to the 50's and 60's before and just after, where yeah, people had rights, but they weren't allowed to exercise them due to hostility and rules and allowances for those who hold the power. There are a bunch of rules on every privately held website as to what is acceptable. Time to start making it uncomfortable for those who are hostile to women.

Why is it necessary to spout hate and bigotry? Why does anyone want to do that? Why, because if they do they are usually racists/misogynists/sexists. Honestly, what do they bring to the table, except making females and minorities uncomfortable and making their lives miserable and making them to afraid to post? Seriously.

[alphafemale]

22. I don't give a rats ass what they say.

That type of thing doesn't even rise to the level of mosquito in the room in my life.

If you are afraid to post because of the response you may get YOU are the problem.

I have never had an issue or problem with dealing with negative comments on my own.

At least not since I was 6 or 7.

I can deal with the REAL WORLD.

I DO NOT need outside help because I am a woman.

I DO NOT need some banning of "things that upset me" because I need protection.


I mean....you want the world sterilized of things you do not like.

Seriously?

[boston bean]

23. I deal with it every day and work to make it better, you?

Yeah, many times women don't speak their mind because of the hostility generated against them, by misogynists that have free reign to harass, intimidate and make one feel powerless.

You don't experience that at all ever, then you don't get to judge how others feel about this.

No one would be missing one thing in their lives if misogynist/sexist/racist comments were not allowed.

I don't want a sterilized world, I want a world where women as seen as persons. Not punching bags for misogynists.

[etherealtruth]

24. You are right ...I have been guilty of "just ignoring" ...

... many things.

I don't fear the hostility (I don't appreciate it, but....) ... I have always felt that the idiots were not worth my time. I see how my approach (on many levels ) has been wrong.

I can see how this emboldens those engaging in this type of behavior .... further, this type of behavior is normalized and encouraged when those with similar bigoted thought processes do not hesitate to jump in.

[boston bean]

25. baiting, alerting, comment stalking are all issues

that makes one tailor their speech as to not offend the offender and risk punishment. We are talking about bigotry, not just a spat between members.

How many times has a feminist had something hidden for engaging a misogynist/sexist in a way that wasn't nice. Why do women have to be nice to misogynists and sexists???????????????????

It's a real issue.

[etherealtruth]

28. I have always viewed this as a real issue

I am reassessing my approach (BTW I am not stating that you are accusing me of not viewing this as real)

[boston bean]

30. I never thought you were! :)

I am so appreciate of peeps like you here! It's ones like you who keep me coming back and taking this issue head on.

[justiceischeap]

132. That happens a lot on DU

A woman or women speak up for themselves when there is an over the top sexist comment and we're the ones that get alerted on and our posts hidden and nothing happens to the person who made the comment.

Then the woman gets locked out of the conversation and there are generally more sexist remarks made about her specifically and she can't defend herself.

That definitely needs to be addressed.

[seabeyond]

40. i do not give a fuck about hostility. i do not recognize intimidation.

generally see it after and say.... ooops, i was suppose to be intimidate. that is what that is about.

and that is what pisses some off.

meh.

lol

[alphafemale]

26. I deal with it myself. I am strong enough to do that on my own.

I do not need anyone else to clear the minefield.

You claim to be strong?

[boston bean]

29. Yeah, I'm a pretty strong person.

Confronting this bullshit take GUTS!

[alphafemale]

31. Of course it does. And you have several feet of them.

Guts that is. ((((EWwwwWW)))

You do not need outside help.

You've got this.

[boston bean]

32. Were you offering some help in getting private websites

to take misogyny and sexism seriously. By making them places women can participate without such hostility?

[alphafemale]

64. If you want someone else to handle misogyny for you?

I have nothing.

Seriously.

You will wait a thousand thousand years.

You have to do it yourself.

I'm not trying to be hateful to you at all.

I'm just saying....

[boston bean]

66. Speaking about it means I am not handling it.

That I am some meek coward who is afraid to live in the world?

Your words are insulting. Your characterization of me is offensive.

[JTFrog]

38. You are being incredibly rude and obtuse.

Pat yourself on the back for that I guess.

[alphafemale]

51. You need someone to protect you

From pixels forming words on a screen. Formulated in the brain of someone you don't know.

Why should you need protection from this?

[JTFrog]

55. Why did we fight for the ERA?

You're being incredibly obtuse and RUDE as hell. Knock it off.

[seabeyond]

58. and i love alpha. i do. i know this is coning from a different place also.

personally i am loving your voice. all the way back to when my voice was being denied. thru out. you were saying what i wanted to say. thank you.

[JTFrog]

69. I am mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.

And I could give a shit how many people try to tell me to shut up. It's going to take banning me to get me to shut up. So have at it folks.

[seabeyond]

73. i am not walking either. the bigger point? i do not accept redq's walk either. or bigtree.

that simple

[alphafemale]

59. No. I am just disagreeing that I need special protection.

I can handle myself in the real world without censorship.

[boston bean]

68. It is not censorship on a private message board

for women to be able to post without hatred directed at them.

[alphafemale]

77. It's not your message board.

That is the point.

And people expressing ideas you do not like are not oppressing you.

[boston bean]

87. They are not ideas, they are HATE and BIGOTRY.

That is oppressive. This place can be a safe place for women to post without such hostility.

I'll keep on voicing my concerns in whatever way I can to make it better.

The world is changing, and this issue will be addressed and it has already started. I'll be a part of that.

[alphafemale]

92. I live for hostility.

It is the real world.

I will fight anyone that wants it bubble wrapped.

[boston bean]

94. Really, I live for peace and tranquility.

And to champion/fight just causes. But, heh, that's just me.

I am fighting, and it' a hell of a lot more courageous than just accepting it.

[alphafemale]

102. Peace and Tranquility?

Right.

So long as anyone that disagrees with you is vanquished by an authority rather than being able to confront them yourself?

[boston bean]

107. If there is a changeto be made,

hopefully my efforts helped make the change. Therefore, I am not vanquishing my authority.

[Gormy Cuss]

98. Ridiculous.

This thread isn't about ideas an individual does not like. It's about addressing a pervasive pattern of creating a hostile environment for a set of participants. Works the same way whether the targeted group is a gender, a sexual orientation, a race/ethnicity, etc. Whether you personally feel the need for this is irrelevant.

[alphafemale]

106. It is certainly about ideas

Especially when it degenerates to a level that I am to feel oppressed because of a Spider Woman cartoon drawing.

And if I do not see the oppression I am a misogynist.

...right.

[Gormy Cuss]

110. Did anyone call you a misogynist because of that thread?

If so, I'll have to go back check. I missed that.

And again, it's not about you. It's not about one thread on DU. It's about a pattern and practice of images, words, and actions denigrating women.

[boston bean]

111. Many times people take personally an opinion of another.

When all the person is doing is describing why they find it misogynistic. They aren't calling someone a misogynist.

[alphafemale]

112. AGAIN if you feel offended DEAL WITH IT.

Expecting someone else to step in and do it for you is the very definition of someone that is weak and in need of defending by an outside entity.

[Gormy Cuss]

116. AGAIN it's not about you or me. It's about all of us.

I'M not asking anyone to step in just to help little old me. I eat nails for breakfast. However, I recognize that as a society we can do better in terms of treating each other more equitably. I also know that as a Democrat in a Democratic space there's no good reason to tolerate backward, bigoted speech HERE.

[boston bean]

120. You might think this poster is against Hate Laws.

I mean it they protect someone from the same hate we are objecting to. I've never looked at people who called for change as weakling or cowards or needing protection. Hell those are the people that suffered great personal harm in speaking out. This argument leaves me scratching my head.

[Gormy Cuss]

125. Hate laws protect the weak AND the strong.

The strong get to waste less time protecting themselves when the law is on their side because haters have been put on notice.

IMHO those calling for protection ARE the strong because as you wrote, they're often the ones who suffer the personal harm by speaking out.

[boston bean]

127. I also wonder what the person thinks of the civil rights act.

That offers a lot of protections to minority groups. Does she feel that people who fought for that were cowards??

[DURHAM D]

137. Me too.

I was also wondering about the ERA.

[betsuni]

202. Excuse me, I'd like to interrupt for just a second to say, as a cowardly weakling,

how much I admire the strong with the energy and words to speak out and fight. Thank you all. I wish there was some sort of blessing I could send to give you more power to fight evil and I wish I were more like you. Maybe I should try the breakfast nails.

[Gormy Cuss]

211. Salt the nails liberally.

It softens them a bit.

[hifiguy]

138. To be constitutionally permissible

the regulated speech must present a danger of inciting "imminent lawless action". The standard is much like that for inciting a riot. That people may be persuaded by the message itself is no legal importance whatsoever as long as there is no threat of imminent lawless action. Hate speech laws have to be drawn very narrowly in order to pass constitutional muster.

But that is applicable to government and not, as you correctly point out, a private message board. I do think that Skinner and the other admins carry First Amendment principles generally at the front of their thoughts, however within DU's stated terms of use.

And principled disagreement with another DUer, as opposed to trolling, does not constitute silencing or intimidation unless you are living in a world of Total Paranoia.

[boston bean]

140. right... we are talking about hateful bigoted speech on the privately owned internet sites.

We aren't talking about putting someone in jail. So, it makes me curious as to why the poster feels that people who speak out in support of protections for minorities are cowards??

[hifiguy]

141. If you read ALL of the post

I specifically noted that constitutional standards DO NOT APPLY to privately owned websites (or other non-governmental entities for that matter). Jebus wept.

[boston bean]

143. Sorry that Jebus wept. Didn't mean to make him/her.

I did read what you wrote, and I responded.

[hifiguy]

145. By ignoring one of my central points

and the fact that I was actually agreeing with you about said point.

[boston bean]

146. Was there something I wrote that you disagree with.

My response entailed/included the points of another member and I responded with those in mind.

What's the problem?

[hifiguy]

148. My fault. Seriously.

I missed a couple of words in your post, which is what I said you did. I screwed up. My earlier objection is withdrawn due to user error/brain misfire on my part and mine only.

[boston bean]

169. no worries. thanks. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

231. I figured it out ...

to me she reads like Ayn Rand come back to life.

as usual, YMMV.

this is only my opinion.

not saying she is. just saying what she has written reads to me like something Ayn Rand would write.

that is all.

[MADem]

194. I agree with everything you're saying. It's a discussion board, so discuss!

That's how minds are changed; not by shutting people up or getting them tossed over the side!

[seabeyond]

232. you live for hostility also? you do not believe we should stand up for our weak? now, you say

I agree with everything you're saying.

this is what this poster is saying. and much more. and you agree with everything. amazing that. a couple other men do too. men that often are combative cause they say they oppose any kind of hostility at all, and that is why hof needs to be shut down.

contradictions, everywhere.

lots of surprises.

[kcr]

269. Discuss! Unless you want to disagree with misogynists, then shut up!

Do we have that right?

[MADem]

270. Look, I'm not sure why you're giving me so much grief, but you're welcome to your opinion as well.

Let's leave it at that, shall we? You obviously don't want to have one of those discussions with me, based on your "then shut up" comment directed at me.

[kcr]

271. I'm not the one telling anyone to shut up n/t

[MADem]

275. Nor am I. I'm telling people to discuss issues.

That said, you can pretty much tell if a discussion is sincere, or if a pig wants to wrestle with you. I know I can. And like I said, the pig likes it. I have no desire to give a pig any joy, myself.

If you have a different view of that, fine, go on and wrestle those pigs to your heart's content--no one is stopping you. That's just my view, and mine alone.

[kcr]

284. You stated that you agreed with someone who was

Thus my response to you.

[MADem]

285. Someone who was ... WHAT?

Not sure why you're digging this garden, here.

This is the post I was "agreeing" with:

AGAIN if you feel offended DEAL WITH IT.

Expecting someone else to step in and do it for you is the very definition of someone that is weak and in need of defending by an outside entity.

No one needs "protection" from pixels on a screen. Didn't you ever learn the whole "names can never hurt me" rhyme?

Those are COWARDS. You tell them what you think of them, if that floats your boat (I think ignoring them hurts them far more--because it is just your OUTRAGE, and your ATTENTION they seek), you hit alert, and if enough people do that, each and every time the jerk pops up, that person will be GONE.

[kcr]

286. Okay. This isn't all that hard to follow.

Either be sure you actually agree with the person you're agreeing with, or don't get all that upset when someone makes the mistake of thinking you actually mean it when you state agreement with something. It's not that hard.

[MADem]

287. Look, I don't see how I can make this much simpler for you--I even CUT AND PASTED the entire

post that I said I "agreed" with. Why do you keep coming at me and insinuating that I have to agree with everything the poster said since...when? Kindergarten? First Grade?

What's "not that hard" is you not making assumptions and pulling the string beyond what I ACTUALLY SAID, and if you have questions about what I meant, asking them in a civil fashion and not accusing me of belligerence or hostility (in a rather abrupt, to put it kindly fashion, too).

Now, do have a nice day. This is pointless. I like discussions, not nitpicking fights.

[kcr]

288. Yes. You very thoughtfully cut and pasted the "shut up"

And then claim you aren't agreeing with a "shut up". Maybe you don't see it as a "shut up" but it is. . Deal With It is a mode of shut down in my world. Maybe it's warm and fuzzy and meant for open communication in yours. That would be odd.

[MADem]

290. There's no "shut up" in what I cut and pasted. Why would you say that there was?

You're inventing dialogue that isn't there. I don't see it as a "shut up" because that IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. "Deal with it" to most humans means take proactive action to solve your own problem, don't sit on your behind and expect Big Admin to do it for you.

We're done. You are being rude and disruptive, you're casting aspersions on my character, and I have no idea why. I haven't said anything rude to you, yet you're making up things about me. I can't say I like it, and I will say it doesn't leave me with a good impression of you. So again, have a nice day.

[kcr]

291. I explained how there was

Right. That's why that's the go to response every time anyone wants to talk about something. I'm sure you always do that every time, don't you. "Hey, MADem, I'm having a bad day and feel depressed and want to talk abou-""Deal With it!" That's helpful!

[kcr]

268. It's not yours either

Who are you to tell others how they should handle what they don't like?

[seabeyond]

56. speaking out is having someone protect you? some of us see it the opposite. nt

[alphafemale]

95. I do not need anyone to protect me.

That's my job.

[seabeyond]

97. me either. for a lifetime. why? many reasons. utmost... how damn privileged i am.

and in all that fuckin privilege i realize i can be a voice of so many, that were not lucky enough to fall into my privilege. where that alone pretty damn well protects me. with no effort whatsoever on my part. it makes it safe.... for me to speak out in public, at work, in family, with friends.

yea me

i am thinking beyond me.

[Gormy Cuss]

103. And you have no obligation to help anyone else.

Fortunately for you, most people around you don't think that way.

[KitSileya]

142. Thank goodness that isn't a progressive value at all.

Progressivism is all about helping others, and not letting the voices of the weak and weary be silenced by those stronger or with more money. That's the whole purpose of what we do, that minorities and the powerless shouldn't have to fight each and every opponent on their own, but we band together. It's the premise for unions too. I don't want to live in a world where everyone thinks like alphafemale.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

163. ^^^^THIS^^^^

[Scootaloo]

209. Why have standards in any community?

You do understand that this is the issue at hand, yes? Standards of discourse within a community of people.

Your "advice" - which amounts to "SUCK IT UP, WUSSES!!!" - doesn't help anyone, and it completely ignores the issue, so you can self-aggrandize about how awesome you think you are.

You can put up with it? Awesome, good for you, but you shouldn't have to do so. No one should, unless, i suppose, that's what they want to do. Most people who go to a gaming website, or a science blog, or a political messageboard, aren't looking forward to jumping hurdles set up by abusive assholes.

[LittleBlue]

83. Superb

[LittleBlue]

41. Your username gives it away

Alpha female.

If everyone were like you, trolls would find no joy on the internet. They feed on attention. Having all these threads about trolls is just a power trip for them. It validates their trolling. Take that away and they are miserable.

The OP is IMHO fighting a gas leak with a torch.

[alphafemale]

43. lol My user name was originally chosen as meaning "Mom"

But...yeah.

I deal with fools on my own.

I have no need of a whine brigade.

"Make them stop saying mean things.... WhAAAHhhHHH!"

Oh Good...googgly moogly.

[boston bean]

49. Your characterization of this as a whine, is offensive to me.

I am not whining. I am speaking of a very important issue, many women face.

If you don't face it, well then you don't. You haven't added one thing to this discussion except insult.

[gaspee]

128. Offensive isn't the half of it

You are completely mischaracterizing what this is about - and I can't figure out if you're being actually obtuse or purposefully obtuse.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

225. she said she Lives For Hostility ...

if that tells you anything.

Lives.for.it.

and her ideals of governing sound distinctly Libertarian leaning ... to me. YMMV



I just still can not get past the living for hostility thing.

what a thing to live for.

sad.

really.

[seabeyond]

233. this is what gets me. a couple men applauding and saying they agree with EVERYTHING being said, is

agreeing to living for hostility. yet, one i had a conversation with was all about accusing me of rudeness. lol. now, i will be darn if i can find any rudeness in my posts, to that poster. but.... if one lives for hostility not gonna complain about... rudeness, are they?

something isnt panning out here.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

235. I read in a book once = seek and ye shall find. or in other words

you find what you are looking for.

such an odd thing to live for.

Full Definition of HOSTILITY
1
a : deep-seated usually mutual ill will
b (1) : hostile action (2) plural : overt acts of warfare : war
2
: conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle

Examples of HOSTILITY
They were both glad to have gotten through the divorce proceedings without any visible signs of hostility.
The townspeople showed open hostility to outsiders.
Peace talks were stalled after recent hostilities.
Both sides are calling for a cessation of hostilities.

First Known Use of HOSTILITY
15th century
Related to HOSTILITY

Synonyms
animosity, animus, antagonism, antipathy, bad blood, bitterness, gall, grudge, enmity, jaundice, rancor

Antonyms
amity

[hifiguy]

139. Loved your posts in this thread.

[boston bean]

46. I know, I am making it worser!!!!!!!!! LOL

WTH, address the real issue spoke of in the OP if you want to be of any assistance.

[seabeyond]

48. you girl, you. fug. i need to breath out, here. you were so dissed. nt

[LittleBlue]

60. The problem is real

But it's a problem with no solution. Trolls are a force of nature, they aren't something you can reason with. They get around technological solutions and they don't care about societal expectations of behavior. The internet has been trying to combat trolling since its invention, to no effect. Hence the saying "don't feed the troll", as there is no other defense.

In the end, shaming the shameless is hopeless.

[boston bean]

62. I disagree, the problem has a solution. Make misogynists and sexists unwelcome

at private websites.

I'm not into shaming the shameless. I'm into getting owners of websites to make them less hostile to women and more welcoming for women to participate freely.

It can be done.

[LittleBlue]

71. Have you noticed the flood of low postcount guys lately?

No one banned on this forum actually stays banned, not if they don't want to leave. They make new accounts. And the so-called software that sniffs them out is a joke. I see people who I know beyond a doubt are previously banned. Or they're waiting out 5 hides.

So over the last year or so, it's gotten worse. Before these members may have worried about their accounts, some having a lot of posts or being old. But when you ban them, they come back and stop giving a fuck about their conduct because their accounts are new. And they have a vendetta.

I'm willing to bet that Skinner deep down knows it's hopeless. He could come out and say we're taking a strong stand against it, but nothing would change materially. You'd have the same group here posting no matter what handle they use.

[boston bean]

76. They have tools, and if they have the will it can be better.

It was not always this bad. Of course I expect some to seep through, but expect it to be cleaned up, in a day or so, not years or months.

The reason they feel so emboldened to return is because they aren't dealt with properly.

There isn't even a mention of sexist/misogynist comments being against the rules here at DU. Sort of hard to enforce a rule that doesn't exist.

[alphafemale]

131. If pixels on a screen stop you from participating?

I...

...really


How padded do we have to make the world for you?

[boston bean]

134. It is HATE and Bigotry, not just pixels on a screen.

I don't need anything padded. I want things to be better.

I do think the world a better place if people didn't feel so emboldened to be so hostile to women on the internet.

[seabeyond]

47. ya? and what am i? beta? the rest of the women in her... beta? in man talk,

that would be calling me a girl. too fuggin funny

[Tuesday Afternoon]

227. I will have you know I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA. I rule my land.

I am THE QUEEN OF BAKERSFIELD. The squirrels climb the trees at my command. The deer tremble in the woods. The Fish swim in the Creek .... all at my command

good lord.

The audacity.

The Sheer Arrogance.

Amazing.

[seabeyond]

228. you girl... lol. too funny. lots of funny today. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

230. I can not stop laughing over here. Crying tears LAUGHING.

I don't what is funnier the stupidity or the arrogance.

amazed.

astounded.

amused.

I am all of it.

[intaglio]

113. You missed the "Sarcasm" tag

... oh perhaps not. Have you ever looked at red pill reddit or AVfM? The trolls post there and find plenty of joy.

Let the barbarians run free and you encourage more barbarism, you have to f'n well fight them and respond to their nonsensical posts.

[intaglio]

104. Anita Sarkeesian is about as alpha as you can get

The multiple threats of rape, murder and the killing of her family together with the publishing of both her parents and her own address proved a bit much

[boston bean]

109. By offering ways to combat and discussing the issue

some make the argument it is cowardly. That if you effect a change by limiting others opportunity to oppress you, you are vanquishing your authority.

However, I am of the mind that speaking out and effecting change is powerful.

[catrose]

149. Would you feel the same about racists, homophobes, and other haters?

Should non-Caucasions and gays just get tougher and put up with the hate spewing at them? I can't imagine telling someone else that they shouldn't mind hate speech being directed at them. And I don't see why any kind of hater should get a pass because of free speech (which doesn't apply to a private message board).

[steve2470]

153. I understand your point

I just think private websites need to give women a break, from having to deal with male assholes. You are very strong, and that's wonderful. I don't think you or any woman needs protecting. It's just about being more comfortable. I don't want to read RW bullshit all day here, even though I could deal with it.

I do understand your point.

[fleabiscuit]

247. On the internet no one knows you're a dog. n/t

[DesertDiamond]

33. Great post, boston bean! Free speech means A has the right to be bigoted, and B has the right to

call them on it. Then A has the right to say that B has no right to tell them what they can say because of the First Amendment. And B can say, yes I do have the right. It goes both ways.

Dialogue can change the hearts and minds of the people. Buddhism says, plant the seed and don't be frustrated if it doesn't grow immediately before your eyes. It will sprout when it's ready. The seeds of dialogue we plant are never wasted.

At the same time, the seeds bigots plant can also grow, and that's why we must make every effort to counteract them with dialogue.

[seabeyond]

44. then get a hide or you are incorrect. get five hides. get kicked off the board. be silenced.

this is not done by administration with a sense of fairness. this is done by the unknown, connected. masses. inherently injust.

[Gormy Cuss]

108. A is an idiot if A thinks that the First Amendment protects speech without limits.

I'm tired of dealing with idiots on the internet on settled issues. No, there's no need for dialog on whether women are smart enough to vote, or whether gays are all perverts who should be stoned to death. There is no amount of dialogue that will change those minds.

[MADem]

34. There are ways to demand "it be adressed in places you visit on the web" without

getting attacked, maligned, comment-stalked, etc.

Simply report them to the site owners, early and often.

If enough people do that, the offenders will be banned.

Most places have a way to report an offensive comment. Just don't pass it by--take the time to report it.

Engaging the person directly is like wrestling with a pig, in most cases...the pig enjoys the experience enormously.

[XemaSab]

35. I've written Skinner at least 20 times

and posted several times in ATA about sexist trolls on here.

He's never said anything back, so I am left to conclude that he supports them.

[MADem]

67. Without knowing what you wrote, it's impossible to side with or against you.

You could have a point, or you could be making unreasonable demands.

For example, I tend to use the network television standard in my daily life when it comes to language. Here on DU, though, words that would pass muster on network TV, even coming out of the mouths of women, would be jumped on by a subset of people of the female persuasion some of whom in my view are looking to be offended. I don't understand why they refuse to use context, and are silent on the whole "mixed signals" issue when presented with websites like this feminist one.

I think this place is not a "hotbed of sexism." There may be a few jerks, and quite likely, they're trolling people like you because they know you'll reliably take that bait, and you will provide them with a bit of childish glee, but it's not a rank-and-file issue.

MOST people here are good and decent, I've found. The few that aren't, if you can't see them coming a mile away you aren't looking very hard.

[Gormy Cuss]

114. I've asked Skinner several times too. The answer, when he deigns to give one, is a resounding no.

No, there's no problem here. Juries take care of it.
No, there's no need to add language to the TOS. The word 'gender' is enough, even though there are whole paragraphs on other TOS subjects.
Then there's "I'm ignoring your ATA question because that way no one will ever see it. It's as if you never asked."

[XemaSab]

115. He's deigned to give you one?

Wow, you must be a big wheel.

[boston bean]

117. Gormy,

there is not mention of sexism in the TOS. The word "gender" is suppose to cover it.

[Gormy Cuss]

118. Thanks. I'd forgotten that we don't even have that single word "sexism."

[Violet_Crumble]

216. What's the difference between sexism and gender?

The TOS says 'Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic.' In one sentence I think the admin managed to cover just about all the bases on all forms of bigotry that show up at DU. I don't see why that needs to be changed...

[Gormy Cuss]

244. What's the harm in having more words in the TOS?

It's obvious that that single, terse line about bigotry doesn't resonate with enough DUers else a lot more posts would be hidden for violating it. That's why the addition of a few more words like sexism and perhaps an example or two would be an improvement.

Even admin recognizes that the sentence isn't expansive enough because the next line is:

To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood.

Note there's no other racial/ethnic examples, nor examples for other religions, nor any for gender or disability.

[boston bean]

250. Also, gender discrimination is different than discrimination based on sex.

It is in the legal world and it is in sociological circles as well.

Sexism and Misogyny are discriminations based on sex, not gender.

Although many persons of the female sex also experience gender discrimination.

Women throughout history have been discriminated against, hated, biased against due to their sex, having nothing to do with their gender. It is simply their sex.

ETA, cause I want to be sure I am clear, transgendered persons also do face misogyny and sexism not only gender discrimination.

[Violet_Crumble]

276. I'm not understanding what the difference between bigotry based on gender and sexism is, though...

Aren't they the same thing? And given that there is a clear example of what's considered anti-Semitism, and anti-semites still find their way to DU and I've seen juries leave some of those posts, I'm not sure how turning the TOS into a massive toilet roll of additions and examples (I'd be demanding that Islamophobia be added, as that makes an appearance at DU at times) actually achieves anything. I'm on MIRT, and just like on previous terms, they do a great job of getting trolls early on, and admin take care of the ones that sneak under the radar.

[Gormy Cuss]

277. Neither do some other DUers.

I can't advance search but I've seen posts where , when called on writing something sexist, the poster claimed there's no prohibition against sexism in the TOS.

That some anti-semitic crap gets past juries isn't the measure of whether those statements are effective. The question is, how many anti-semitic posts AREN'T made because of that clear example?

As for a toilet roll of additions, toilet paper is very effective.

[Violet_Crumble]

296. I'm kind of suspecting that there's no real difference, kind of like anti-semitism and Jew-hatred...

I don't doubt for a second you've seen posts like that, Gormy, so you wouldn't have needed to search for them. The argument they used is just as stupid as arguing that Jew-hatred's allowed because while anti-Semitism is forbidden, there's nothing in the TOS about Jew-hatred.

I think how it works at DU is that it's admin that deal with TOS violations, not juries, who deal with whatever it is that a random jury of 7 DUers decide is community standards. But admin see every alert, and MIRT see anything that's a 7-0 hide, and admin aren't going to be confused by the wording of their own TOS. MIRT and admin show misogynist trolls the door on a regular basis, as well as others who indulge in other forms of bigotry. Some slip under the radar, but I learnt a while back from being on MIRT and seeing how it worked, that they get caught up with sooner or later.

The problem with a long toilet roll style TOS is that people just don't read it. Apart from long-time DUers at the start of DU3 and when it gets brought up occasionally, I doubt few who join DU even read the TOS. And having seen more than my fair share of anti-semites at DU, no TOS is going to shut up a bigot from bestowing us with their 'truth' (it's always the 'truth' with those types) about why they're right and we're some sort of reverse bigots for not seeing it blah blah blah.

When it boils down to it, I personally wouldn't have an issue with sexism being added (though I would insist that other forms of bigotry that pop up at DU be included as well), but I don't really think any finessing of a TOS is going to be able to do what probably no other internet forum has ever been able to do (with the exception of those that are pre-moderated) and stop bigoted posts appearing. It's what's done once they're there that matters, and at DU we've got juries and MIRT, and while it can be hit and miss, I've posted on forums with no moderation, and this is far preferable....

[Gormy Cuss]

298. The problem with a terse list is that it doesn't represent a teaching moment.

And sure, some people sign on and never read the TOS but many do and for those DUers it would provide a better framework for conducting themselves and also perhaps for input into their thinking when called for a jury. If something's explicitly or implicitly against the TOS, jurors may not make so many "difference of opinion" LEAVE votes for assertions when the "opinion" is flat out bigoted.

That it won't solve the problem entirely is no reason to ignore a potential way to reduce the problem.

[MADem]

294. Islamophobia, yes...then add intersex discrimination (because gender isn't enough), then add

transgender discrimination, and let's break down the whole "orientation" thing, too, with a specific admonition against discriminating against people who are ASEXUAL--because we haven't had anything to say about them to this point. I hope you realize I am being sarcastic, here...

We had a MASSIVE set of "rules" at DU2 and they made the place suck. They changed periodically and you needed to be a DU lawyer to keep them all straight.

We're better off doing what we do best, here--which is behave DECENTLY, be FAIR, and don't be assholes. It's not that hard.

And MIRT does deserve a great round of applause--it is a hard job and they do it well.

I don't understand why everyone is yelling about a guy who acted like an ass, made a few sick, attention-seeking/let-me-get-everyone-so-upset-and-excited threats, was taken out by juries, and tombstoned by the admins. The system WORKED. So...that's not enough?

[Violet_Crumble]

297. OMG. If you think the DU2 rules were convoluted, try adding the I/P forum guidelines on top of that!

And the problem with long, long lists of rules that go on forever, is that the people whose job it is to enforce those rules can end up interpreting them differently than someone else. The more words in there, the easier it is for different interpretations to happen. I'm a civil servant and government's moving in the direction of writing concisely instead of producing thousands of words that induce nothing but 'HUH?' from people who are using government services and who need to understand why they're filling in some form. So I'm all for retaining a short and punchy TOS for DU.

Is it wrong of me to say I agree with you about MIRT, even though I'm on it? The team do a great job and the rest of them do the heavy lifting while I'm asleep on the other side of the world

[MADem]

190. I have to agree with him, and I don't think I'm alone.

I think "gender" covers it. Don't be mean to women, don't be mean to men, don't be mean to intersex people.

People are not supposed to be mean to one another here. We all know this. We don't have to make a list of each and every category of people we aren't supposed to be mean to; we know what the deal is.

It does happen that people get mean at times, and then we see dust ups and we see alerts. Sometimes the alerts stick, sometimes they don't. You can always try confronting the person directly, and turning the "offense" into a teachable moment. If that fails, ignore the person--that'll probably piss them off more if you don't give them the good fight they're seeking.

[Gormy Cuss]

192. Evidence suggests otherwise. n/t

[jeff47]

214. I think Skinner is trying to avoid opening Pandora's box.

The theory behind the development of the jury system was to make it so admins and mods don't have to spend all their time banning people.

If the admins start stepping in to provide "special protection" for one group, there will be demands for other groups to receive that protection. Resulting in the admins going back to spending all their time banning people.

So I suspect the resistance to change from the admins is from the practical side instead of "thinks it's OK".

And no, I don't have a good solution. Juries aren't cutting it, and there aren't enough high-quality volunteers to take care of it as mods/admins - after all, DU2 wasn't exactly a bastion of gender equality.

[Gormy Cuss]

246. It's not special protection. It's strengthening the existing TOS language n/t

[jeff47]

257. You can write anything you'd like in the TOS language

Doesn't mean it's actually going to be enforced by juries.

Which means getting admins and mods involved.

[boston bean]

37. It's been done, here and it falls on deaf ears.

Repeatedly women have been told there is no issue, at least here on DU.

They think the jury catches all this crap, when in actuality it makes it worse. The bigoted posts stands many times while responses that aren't nice enough get hid.

It's a mess.

[MADem]

53. No, it doesn't fall on deaf ears, and if you think that, you need to visit the archives.

There's shit in those archives that was laugh-a-minute chucklefest at the time but would get people tombstoned today.

There's been a very obvious sea change here down the years. People who used to use that Bee word freely wouldn't dare use it here today.

Put away the broad brush. A few trollish goaders does not make a community.

[boston bean]

57. Please do not tell me my experiences are not my experiences.

Are you me?? Do you know what I've done? Do you see everything I see? Do you feel what I feel?

Please stop dismissing me in this fashion.

[MADem]

72. And please don't tell ME that MY experiences are not valid. See how that works?

Are you ME? Do you know what I'VE done? Do you see everything I see? Do you feel what I feel?

Stop dismissing ME! What nerve!

See how that works? You don't like it much, I'm sure--so maybe you should just STOP using that approach to "discussion." It's way too close to "I'm a victim, so I don't need to explain anything."

If people "couldn't possibly understand" it may be that you're doing a poor job expressing the issues that concern you.

Surely, everyone here isn't stupid, and only you're the one with insight?

No one is "dismissing" you, either. That's a canard to paint yourself as a victim, and anyone who has a different POV as some sort of "meanie"--when in reality it is entirely possible that some people--all with good intentions--can simply differ on the approach to this issue.

I think cutting the trolls off at the place where they access sites is the way to go. You, apparently, think getting dramatic and yelling at them (so they can rally their minions to goad, mock and bait) is the way to go.

I have a feeling that a site owner would LOVE the page clicks and revenue from an internet dust-up, but wouldn't like having to sift through piles and piles of alerts without any page clicks to compensate for them....but that's just me.

[boston bean]

81. I didn't tell you yours was not valid. However you did tell me mine were.

lots of words for someone who just flung an accusation against someone when it was they doing it themselves.

Please I don't need your hostility, nor your further manly advice regarding how I should confront, explain, and hope to resolve issues pertaining to women.

I have my own thoughts and ideas, which lo and behold a hell of a lot of people agree with. I'll do what I want to do and how I see fit. Even maybe take in what you have written. But I'll be the boss of me. Thanks.

[MADem]

196. Look at the words you're using to "converse" with me.

I am not being hostile to you, yet you accuse me of it with your first sentence. Then you do it again in your second paragraph, as though repetition will make a falsehood true.

You then accuse me of giving you "manly advice" when you don't even know my gender (and you never will, either).

You might want to look at the way you attack people--and that is what you're doing. You called me hostile twice and then finished up with a comment about being your own boss, you'll do what you want, that frankly insinuates that I'm trying to boss you around and prevent you in some bizarre way from doing what you want, when nothing could be further from the truth.

You don't talk with people--you accuse them of things, like being hostile and giving you manly advice.

And you wonder why people don't like talking to you? If I were thin-skinned, I'd be all full of hurt feelings at being wrongly accused of being "hostile"--twice.

Instead, I'm just going to deconstruct what you said, and hand it back to you.

[boston bean]

239. omg i used words and you think it's me that cant deal

With what goes on on a message board.

There was NO insult to you made.

[MADem]

249. Now you're using snark. I never said you "can't deal." You're inventing that.

Calling me "hostile"--twice!-- for not agreeing with you wasn't enough?

If calling someone "hostile" is a compliment, that's news to me. It's an insult in most societies.

[boston bean]

251. go back and read the exchange and try your honest best attempt

to see where it when awry.

[MADem]

252. I think you might want to work on that mote in your eye, too. nt

[boston bean]

256. ok, as long as you do, which you implied you have. nt

[JTFrog]

39. Oh Bullshit.

Shhhhhh...... Don't make waves....

[MADem]

45. WHAT? This is the exact opposite of "not making waves." I guess you didn't quite grasp the point

I think if it becomes the paradigm that anyone who sees offensive language reports it --rather than providing more "page hits" to the benefit of the site owner--that it could work. Don't add more fuel/trolls to the fire--just report it. Everyone who sees it and doesn't like it should tell the site owner that this is NOT OK.

You know, Mister "Bullshit," (nice way to say "I disagree," there--real civil) -- very recently here in MA a group of supermarket workers just WON their strike action by saying "NO"--they refused to tolerate the firing of a boss who was good to them, and they demonstrated and asked the CUSTOMERS to join the work action with them.

Guess what? The customers DID. They boycotted the store until the workers got what they demanded.

All it takes is ORGANIZATION. It can work.

Or, you can just keep giving the site owners what they want--fights and page hits, over and over again.

Your choice.

[boston bean]

54. We need to be able to speak to one another about these issues.

That is what the post is for, as this is a problem that exists all over the internet, RW circles and Democratic circles as well.

It needs to be out in the open where women can feel a sense of community.

[MADem]

74. WITH is good. AT, not so much. nt

[boston bean]

78. Are you accusing me of speaking at people?

Something is wrong with my tone??

Just leave me alone from here on out. I want to hear nothing more from you. I hope a jury doesn't think that was too hostile of me responding in that fashion to a man who makes a tone argument in a discussion issues central to feminism.

[seabeyond]

84. so well said. thank you. nt

[MADem]

85. I am not "accusing" (loaded word, there) you of anything of the sort.

I will point out that you gifted me with a "You couldn't possibly understand" dismissive post just recently.

You can avoid me if you like--it's easily done. There's a button called IGNORE and if you don't like me, please use it. I'm not going to make a list and worry about responding to the "wrong" person who got huffy with me because they didn't like the fact that I didn't agree with them -- so if you really don't want to interact with me any more, you -- not me -- are going to have to take the steps to make that happen. You need to take control of your own environment here.

Not sure what "man" you're arguing with, there. There are some things DU doesn't need to know. And I'll never tell!

[boston bean]

90. I never said you "couldn't possibly understand".

I will not place you on ignore, I will not relinquish myself to a place where I hide myself from your or anyone elses comments. I will retain my power to speak out, thank you.

I wasn't arguing with you, but sure as hell felt like you were arguing with me. Go back and re-read.

[MADem]

193. I suppose where you stand depends on where you sit.

It sure felt, to me, like you were ripping into me.

Maybe that's why you're not getting your point across? Not every conversation needs to be a confrontation.

[boston bean]

237. excuse me, you were confrontational.

My god, having an opinion and expressing it is not confrontation. Unless, sometimes you are posting while female, some people don't like us uppity women for daring to speak.

[MADem]

253. Perfect example--you're accusing me of sexism with that post. That's uncivil, AND confrontational.

"Some people."

Yeah, whatever.

[JTFrog]

65. We have done what you ask repeatedly with NO acknowledgement.

WE ARE IGNORED BY ADMINS. What don't you get about that? So when we get ignored, why not make a public stink just like the Market Basket folks. Do you think that when the site owners completely ignore and don't respond that we should keep doing the same thing? Or should we take it public like that supermarket and hope that the outrage goes PUBLIC? Is that what labor unions suggest? Don't add fuel to the fire? So fucking sick of the pushback against this. But that apparently is your choice.

All we are doing is plastering our receipts to the windows of DU.

And Mister? You aren't doing very good with this assumption thing.

[MADem]

80. What are you asking for? Do you want to censor unpopular words and thoughts?

What, PRECISELY, do you WANT?

I don't see this hotbed of sexism you're claiming exists here. I think most people here are decent and respectful.

I don't see offensive comments in every thread I visit.

If there are things you don't like, like guns or Men's Rights groups, you can MAKE THEM DISAPPEAR!!! With a simple CLICK!!!!

This site is customizable--it's not going to meet your every need unless and until you use the tools the admins have offered you. You don't get to limit free speech, but you can avoid it.

I think maybe you are expecting too much from a site with a wide range of views.

[JTFrog]

82. I want Misogyny specifically added to the TOS.

I want the community to feel empowered to act accordingly instead of thinking that since the admin don't give a fuck, neither should they.

[MADem]

86. Well, then, we'll have to add misandry, too, if we're going to be fair.

The TOS tells us to not be assholes. Seems that falls in that general area.

I think simplicity is elegance.

I remember the old DU rules--they went on for pages, it was stupid.

[JTFrog]

88. There is a much higher chance of adding misandry than misogyny.

But nice fucking straw batman.

[MADem]

177. Wow. That was terribly rude! And I didn't present a strawman, bat or otherwise!

You might want to review what one of those is.

I think the chances of the admins adding "misandry" to the no-no list hover around ZERO, and I don't think they need to add "misogyny" to it either. Equality is equality, and it applies to race, gender and orientation. By your remarks, and unless I'm misunderstanding your comment, you're basically telling me that you think the admins are biased towards males and against females.

If you think that is the case--and I, FWIW, do NOT think that is the case--why do you stay here? If you really think this place is unwelcoming, why hang around? Why torture yourself at a place where you feel the people who OWN this joint, and RUN this joint, aren't responding to your demands and aren't respecting your wishes?

[MrMickeysMom]

220. Jury Decision...

...which I believe is crap, especially with the last comment about posts being belligerent, which they were not in my book… but obviously I was in the minority.

On Sat Aug 30, 2014, 11:49 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

There is a much higher chance of adding misandry than misogyny.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5465659

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Okay, this was a little too harsh here. Might want to review this thread and see this user's other posts, btw.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 31, 2014, 12:05 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: These kinds of threads are bad enough without flaming for an ordinary remark.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Just wow! Hide the spelling errors...can't take it!
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: MADem is being so belligerent in this thread, I can't see hiding this post.

[MADem]

223. Well, I didn't alert on the post, I just told the poster how I felt.

I figured that was sufficient, anyway.

However, Juror Number Four, I have to admit, gave me a good laugh!

[MrMickeysMom]

224. Yes, that was cute...

[JTFrog]

240. Yea, but Juror #7 was spot on. n/t

[MADem]

248. No, I don't think that's true.

I don't get personal when I disagree with people, and that can't be said for the way I've been treated by some in this thread.

Some people just can't accept that their views will not always prevail. That's not my issue nor is it my problem. I like a robust exchange of ideas. If everyone thought in lockstep, how would anyone learn anything new?

[seabeyond]

101. you want to claim we sit on a balanced scale. so, to keep the balance, include msandry. the scales

are not balanced, with minority. simple scientific/mathematical fact. society tells us, men inherently excel at math and women fail. anther fact. that we are not pragmatic. another fact.

so.... this mathematic graphic, men being so much more visual, should get the message across to easily be seen.

[MADem]

191. We sit on a Democratic website that advocates a balanced scale in the party platform, so

yeah, from that context and perspective, that's where I'm coming from--it's self-evident that this is how our party regards these issues. I support the Democratic Party platform, and the rules of this privately run website fit just fine for me.

We're not out in the larger world, we're in a Democratic-Progressive enclave here.

[seabeyond]

195. um. how many male congress people? how many women? how many men in cabinet? how many women?

all it takes is a platform for you to consider the scale even? intellectually? that balances for you? no.

how many men making rules for this site? how many women?

how much is seen thru mans eye clueless to actual experience of women? how many women to share experience to help educate our male administration?

[MADem]

197. If you want to talk about the demographics of Congress, you can start a thread and send me a link.

If you think that demographic somehow "proves" that DU is unfair. I'm just not making that connection.

I'll wager the female representation at this site exceeds the male representation.

The juries--made up of members--not the admins, enforce the rules. If you're having problems here, you're having it with juries, not the admins.

[seabeyond]

198. you are the one to bring up hte fact it is democratic, women are covered and the scales balanced.

not i

i was addressing your point. which seems to imply, or even flat out state, womens voice is unnecessary as long as we have men speaking up for us. i state flat out... that in no way even a little makes the scale balanced and i would venture to guess, any thinking person would agree.

[MADem]

204. Wow, what a collection of false accusations.

I'm going to cut and paste your words for posterity because I really think this is some rude, nasty ` commentary:

i was addressing your point. which seems to imply, or even flat out state, womens voice is unnecessary as long as we have men speaking up for us. i state flat out... that in no way even a little makes the scale balanced and i would venture to guess, any thinking person would agree.

You're claiming--falsely--that I "flat out state womens voice is unnecessary as long as we have men speaking for us."

Where, precisely, do I drop this load which is entirely of your invention?

You really should be ashamed of yourself. You don't have the right to make up falsehoods like that and shove them in people's mouths.



That's pretty damned rude, if you ask me.

And, FWIW, it's also rude to reply multiple times to one post. Just edit your existing post instead of replying multiple times.

[seabeyond]

207. i didnt see this post. you say, the democratic platform balances the scale for women.

i state, in no way, having a mans voice speak for women, balances the scale.

so

we are clear

if you think it rude or whatever, that is not my issue.

[MADem]

208. I'm done speaking with you. I'm not going to put up with your rudeness and your false

characterizations any longer. So, like it or not, it is your issue--when you create false narratives and ascribe them to people, you're going to get some pushback and callout for that kind of uncivil behavior.

[seabeyond]

212. i am not being rude. i disagree with you. you are the one taking to personal and insults.

and claiming rudeness. you do not like the fact you throw out a guess about jury and i did not buy it. not that big of a deal, but you certainly made it that way.

you state a democratic platform balance the scales for women. regardless if it is all mens voice.

i disagree with you.

you take it to personal, every step of the way.

where have i said anything "false" in this post?

[seabeyond]

199. you throw out a guess more women on jury than men with no facts to back you up.

doesnt work that way. that is not an argument.

[MADem]

201. If you have facts to the contrary, present them. nt

[seabeyond]

203. that just is not how it works. you do not get to make something up and say, prove otherwise.

i do not have the facts, hence did not make a position on the balance of jury. you do not have the facts yet made a position about the jury.

[MADem]

205. Neither do you. That didn't stop you from the accusation you made that I cut/pasted upthread. nt

[seabeyond]

206. "Neither do you" dude, i didnt make anything up. you made something up.

neither do you, what? i will have to re read. cause this makes absolutely no sense to me.

i used facts only. you guessed jury was more women. that is not facts. not a tough one. i am even on board to agree to disagree. but this is getting to bizarre.

[cui bono]

279. No, that is not an equal situation. That would be like adding "whites rights" or something.

Or "no heterophobic comments". Is heterophobia a big problem? No, it itsn't. And misandry is not a systemic problem in this society, misogyny is.

That equivalence only works if it is equal in all aspects, which it isn't. Do whites as a whole need affirmative action? No, they do not.

[MADem]

282. No, it would be like saying "It's ok to make fun of those caucasians."

You can either be for equality in all its forms, or not. This isn't about "affirmative action," and that analogy is lame as all get-out. In fact, I think it's a bit disturbing. The hardest thing to do is put your money where your mouth is, at times, and suggesting that caucasian people be excluded, or "they don't count as much," even if you might not like what some of them have done here and there, is just NOT a progressive way to do things.

It's about not being discriminatory, rude, nasty or mean based on a person's gender, race or orientation. No matter WHAT gender, no matter WHAT race, no matter WHAT orientation.

More "words" aren't going to make the point any clearer. Community standards--the votes of juries--are what rule here; the TOS is simply the guideline that sketches out the general POV.

The jurors can NULLIFY the TOS if they'd like---for example, if someone is trying like hell to be civil, and is continuously goaded and mocked by a person or persons, and finally the person responds in anger and (ah-ha!) the goader alerts, the jury can read the thread, look for context, and decide to not hide the angry post. Technically, the jury is not "following" the TOS by not hiding the rude remark, but they are imparting their own brand of "fairness" to the proceeding, putting the exchange in context.

I'd really love for people to point me to the place on the internet where everything is hunky-dory and perfect, since this place is--all of a sudden--so awful and hateful.

I think most people here are good, and interesting, and helpful, and well-meaning, and that a very few assholes are getting way too much attention (that they're LOVING) with these threads.

If there's any upside, it's that these threads are earning the admins beaucoup bucks. Happy Christmas, admins! May your hits increase! College funds for the little ones, and new shoes for their feet!!!!

[cui bono]

283. But isn't racism and homophobia singled out in the TOS?

How is sexism any different? Of course every single person regardless of their race/gender/sexual orientation should be treated with respect, but in today's society there are groups that are the oppressed, the ones who are discriminated against as a whole and systemically, and women are one of those groups, men are not.

[MADem]

289. Yes, they are, and discrimination based on sex is covered under GENDER.

There's no big diatribe on intersex people or transgender people in that TOS either, or admonitions against specific insults to southwest Asians, or Muslims...but unless you grew up in a CAVE (which is where the disruptors are coming from, odds are good) you don't need to be told--you KNOW that Equality means Equality for EVERYONE.

And just because men--in general-- are not one of those "oppressed" groups (unless you're "Man-ing while Black," that is--that's an endangered species, right there--so there goes your argument in a flash), that doesn't mean it's OK to beat them up or even say "You don't have to worry about THEM." It's not what progressives DO. It's discriminatory, even if you think "they" don't need protection. Because ya know what? One day, they might.

I can't believe you think it's OK to ignore a group because you think none of them ever get crapped on. Ask the men of Ferguson MO about that. Ask those Shi'a men getting lined up and killed by Sunni men. Being a man doesn't protect ALL men from hatred or discrimination.

One more time--Equality means Equality for EVERYONE.

As progressives, that's how we need to roll.

[cui bono]

292. Not sure why you are getting so angry and combative over this.

Where did I say it's okay to ignore a group? If you look at what I said you can see what I mean, no reason for you to misconstrue it just so you can try to take pot shots at me for no reason.

From your last sentence you seem to think there is a level playing field, where as earlier you state there isn't. I'm not sure where you stand on any of it now other than you seem to be against putting the word misogyny in the TOS for some reason and it is getting you a bit upset for me to bring it up.

[MADem]

293. Golly gee, I don't understand why you're characterizing me inaccurately!!!

I am not "angry" nor am I "combative."

Unless those terms simply mean I'm not agreeing with YOU.



I'll stand with the admins--they are doing a great job running this site and frankly I trust their judgment more than yours.

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. Define it.

Then replace all the instances of "women" in your list with "men" and add that to the TOS for misandry.

[JTFrog]

133. Should we also replace all instance of "black" with "white" in regards to racism and add that?

I already know your answer, and while you may think that makes you high and mighty in the equality department, I will just say that you will NEVER get it. That's why your opinions means so little to me. I can't take them seriously.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

159. A couple of comments.

I don't see this hotbed of sexism you're claiming exists here.

We all see different things through self-selection. If you read all of the comments aimed at redqueen, seabeyond, Gormy Cuss, Bains Bane, and boston bean, you'd probably see a hell of a lot different than you do by simply reading the site as you do, or as I do. Just because what you read doesn't show you all of the nastiness that lurks on the site doesn't actually mean it's not there.

If there are things you don't like, like guns or Men's Rights groups, you can MAKE THEM DISAPPEAR!!! With a simple CLICK!!!!

That works simply to insulate you personally from those things. It doesn't remove them from the view of thousands of casual readers of the site who may not be commenting, but merely passing through. The more we leave 'ignored' and therefore unchallenged, the more scummy the site is going to look to all of the rest of the people who are reading without those same filters. Wouldn't you rather have a site that actually is presentable for all readers without forcing them to make accounts and hide a bunch of trolls so they don't mistakenly think that DU is what RWers call it, a hotbed of hatred?

[MADem]

184. Look--I can't stand all that back-and-forth gun bullshit. It sets my teeth on edge.

I could DEMAND that the admins take that away entirely, and they'd probably laugh like hell behind their hands and tell me to pound sand. Why should they remove a popular group where the shitflinging reaches epic levels, just to satisfy ME? I do have the ability to just ignore that stinkfest. Now, if the admins DID remove it for me, would that mean that those kinds of conversations would be removed from the web at large? Of course not. That stuff would crop up at other sites I visit, and it does. How do I handle it when I see it? I "navigate AWAY."

If I see something at another site advocating hate or violence, I don't get all up in it with an idiot, I hit the button and report it. Most places have this--Youtube, newspaper comment areas, etc. I don't whine about things I simply disagree with, but I will challenge hate speech or exhortations to violent conduct. You just can't fix stupid and that's not my job, anyway.

If you want a site that is "presentable to all readers" you will end up with a place that sucks. I mean, what does that even MEAN? What's "presentable" to YOU might not be presentable to someone else. No one shares every single view that YOU hold. No one shares every single view that I hold, either.

What's "presentable" in polite society? No talk of SEX, RELIGION or POLITICS. And let's add no GUN talk either. No JOKES, because some humor can be viewed as offensive by some. No talk of race or ethnicity. No talk of WAR, or national defense issues. Definitely OUT with the WOO--because that drives people nuts. Can't talk about science, it might offend the people who think Jesus rode dinosaurs. I suppose we could try talking about the weather, but then the contrail folk might get all up in it.

So I guess, no, I don't want a site that's "presentable" for everyone--that would be a site with a blank page....and even then you'd find people who want the page filled up with words and pictures. In sum, that's an impossibility.

Look, people come here to exchange views. Some like to exchange them with no small degree of passion. If we were all on the same page, we could all sing from the same sheet music. And the song would get boring in no time.

If stuff bothers you, you CAN avoid it. You can IGNORE people, you can just NOT RESPOND to assholes (that pisses them off more than responding to them, often as not), you can hide threads (I use that trick a lot), you can hide entire groups if they bug you that much, you can use that little alert button, and if the alert doesn't produce a HIDE, maybe that's because the jurors are sick of the drama the alerter is bringing to the table, or maybe the "offense" isn't as bad as the alerter thinks it is.

The point is, it's just not necessary to fight every frigging battle. This site is a buffet--take a plate, realize you can only put so much on it before you become overloaded, and use those tongs WISELY.

I've seen many cases where people DELIBERATELY misconstrue what a person is saying to try to paint them in a certain (negative) way. Even when the person being attacked says "No, no--that's not what I meant, you aren't taking my point" there will often be a pile-on and the person is maligned and berated, and it can, at times, be unfair.

I think if we all spend a little more time LISTENING to each other, clicking on the links and actually reading the articles instead of being FIRST to respond, and if we take the time to say "What did you mean by this comment?" before assuming the worst, we'd all be better off.

Probably too much to hope for--but this is what it is, it's the INTERNET....not my front parlor!

And speaking of that, and speaking generally--I speak for MYSELF. I don't expect this website to "be" something for others to view that's always pretty and nice and I don't take responsibility for the behavior of jerks, either--that's on THEM, not me. If someone says an assholish thing, well, what's wrong with saying "Wow, what a shitty thing to say" and moving on. It's not our job to present some kind of false face to the world, here--this is a PRIVATE site with rules, and people can join and engage in spirited discussion with the group, or get tossed out on their asses if they can't behave.

I think what pisses some people off is that, in the old days, the "mods" would run around like busy little mothers, sweeping up after the elephants and hiding away all the unpleasantness, down to censoring entire subthreads with good information in them. You'd be in the middle of a great conversation, and because some asshole jumped in halfway through a chat, you're entire discussion, with links, pictures, etc., would just go POOOOF. Good people would get punished along with the asshole.

This system, with the juries, isn't perfect, but the "mod" system wasn't perfect either. It just HID some of the ugliness--it didn't really make it go away, it just made it less obvious.

I think if people want to talk on the internet, they need to defend their POV and take a few hits and realize that they're going to not always have people agreeing with their every thought. That's LIFE. It's not the end of the world if someone says something I don't like. Really. I'm not going to demand that the admins censor them--if I can have a reasoned conversation with them, I will, otherwise I'll just state my case and move on and figure their attitude is their problem, not mine.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

189. You seem to not like the word 'presentable'.

I'm not suggesting it would be the most pristine site in the world. Presentable merely means a sit not obviously overrun with poo-flinging mouthbreathers of the sort you find at RedState, StormFront, MRA sites, or, often the comments section of unmoderated 'news' sites.

Again, it's not about 'you' or even 'me'. It's about the overall reputation, and by extension, value of the site in shaping society in even the smallest ways. When you've got a lot of idiotic comments, that no one who regularly posts at the site sees because they've got the idiots on 'ignore' or have, as you suggest, merely 'not responded to them' or 'navigated away', then the average potential new user is going to say 'wow, this place is full of idiots', and more likely than not, not stick around and read articles that actually have value.

Agreement and disagreement is fine, and a fact of online life. Continuing, ongoing abuse should not be 'LIFE' though. And it's not 'disagreement'.

[MADem]

200. This site is not "overrun" with that kind of stuff, though.

And no, it's not about me, any more than it's about you.

And it's not about the "reputation" of the site, either. That's not your job. It's not MY job, either, to worry about DU's "reputation."

It sounds to me like you want to censor speech that you don't like. That's what juries will--or won't--do, according to the way things are run here.

Head over to Discussionist if you want to see some of that crazy talk. I think that site is the greatest thing in the world, because it gives a place for those trolls that you seem to find and I rarely see (before their posts get hidden, anyway) a place to play.

I'm not seeing a panoply of "abuse" here either. If you are, then you need to hit that alert button. If your alerts keep failing, you just are going to have to consider that it might be you that is out of step with the desires of most members here.

[polly7]

170. You and I don't agree often, but ....

good post.

So tired of seeing this place characterized as a hotbed of misogyny when 99% of posters here agree on the issues important to ALL of us .... and yes, I;m a woman with just as much say here as any other. Don't mind the posting, have a broken hand which is *ing it up. A few trolls caught by MIRT and the jury and gotten rid of do not make this a scary, horrible place to post. But then, some of us do things to help people in real life who've dealt with the most horrible things and don't take words on a computer screen - especially a progressive site, as the end of the world.

[seabeyond]

171. do you see any woman here.... shaking in her boots?

[polly7]

172. I don't 'see' anyone. Why, are you shaking in your boots? nt.

[seabeyond]

173. just accuse and imply, refuse to answer. well. i will answer. not a woman is "afraid", or whatever

it is not nice ot imply such things. disagree with others, fine. creating a caricature of others, not so fine.

[polly7]

174. I said what I meant. Don't like it, don't read it.

And don't put words in my mouth, you're horrible at it.

[seabeyond]

175. "Don't like it, don't read it." other option. refute it. as i did

[polly7]

176. You refuted it??? lmfao!

You made up a bunch of bullshit I never said and claimed VICTORY!!!! Whoo!!!! Guess what? I get to post here and express an opinion just like you. If you're going to change someone's words around to play victim with, at least get the context right.

[seabeyond]

178. "do not make this a scary, horrible place to post." sounds like you are suggesting women think this

place scary. hence... where are the women shaking in their boots? no where. a caricature. and insulting at that.

[polly7]

179. Still putting words in my mouth?

Women 'shaking in their boots'? Such drama!!!! I said that a progressive message board where 99% of posters agree on the issues and that gets rid of misogynistic trolls post haste isn't a scary, horrible place to post. Twist that again ......... maybe you can call me a rape-apologist again or harvest my info from a safe haven to pass around - just to get some more of that mean girl hate going you do so well. Insulting??? Don't you even dare. Laughing at me for asking you not to call me sexist terms, bullying a member until she became ill physically and emotionally. Like I said ........ keep it up.

[seabeyond]

180. no. i copied and pasted your words. scary place.

[polly7]

181. Good for you. It's too bad you don't understand that that applies to everyone,

not just yourself and those you wish to make this place known as a horrible, misogynistic den of perverted freaks.

[seabeyond]

182. now. i am clueless what you are saying or implying. polly. enjoy your new house.

the best

and heal quickly

[polly7]

183. Wow. Did you do a search of my posts?

That's actually a bit creepy, considering your obvious hatred of me and anything I say. Weird.

I heal quickly thanks.

Sorry you're still clueless about what I said, I can't spell it out any better.

[seabeyond]

185. i do not know that there is a single person i hate. you started a thread and was on latest.

i got a house. you put the info in there. and sincerely, cause it is exciting. enjoy the house, heal quickly. no fun having owies and new houses are fun.

that simple.

you do not need ot make more of it.

later. i am sure.

[polly7]

186. lmao. nt.

[polly7]

258. Apparently, hate doesn't include making someone very ill over spreading around personal info

and then actually demanding an apology for forcing 'them' to make you do such a cowardly, hateful thing and telling them their (safe haven) concerns were groundless in comparison to your huge need for power, on a message board, ffs. Needless to say, I'd believe you more if you said you were dropped down from Mars.

"You do not need to make more of it". I'll make whatever I feel like making of anything. You don't own me, or this board. All you own is your own 'hate'.

[The Straight Story]

272. Jury results:

On Sun Aug 31, 2014, 03:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Apparently, hate doesn't include making someone very ill over spreading around personal info
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5469811

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Over the top, hurtful, rude. polly7 continues to go back to three years ago, and the event continues to get blown up bigger and bigger. It appears seabyond was sincerely wishing her well in with her new house. Nothing more.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 31, 2014, 03:58 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is silly, and the alert is silly. I just don't see why people get so worked up over silly things on a message board.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There appears to be some "history" between the two posters. Although both could be out of line, without knowing the history it's Hatfields vs. McCoys. As they're not bothering other posters, I say leave it alone.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Seems like a issue that should be addressed privately but not in a public forum.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seabyond is acting pretty creepy here. There is no reason to hide this.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: So tired of seabeyond being a target. Hide.

[polly7]

274. Thanks, the funny thing is, she just demanded the apology for 'making her do those things'

Last edited Sun Aug 31, 2014, 08:14 PM - Edit history (2)

just a few months ago, and is forever digging up posts from waaaaaay back further than that to malign people with.

Sorry, alerter ....... I didn't have to go back three years. And how weird #7 that seabeyond was a 'target' when I hadn't even addressed her and she wasn't even alerted on for saying I'd said things I hadn't, all the way through that really stupid sub-thread. Oh well, any old excuse will do, I guess, lol.

[MADem]

187. I don't take things personally! I like to argue issues and ideas, and, as I've said

elsewhere, I don't expect people to agree with me all the time, because I don't always agree with other people, either.

We're all a product of our experiences, and that's what we, each and every one of us, bring to the DU table. If we're not exchanging those differing ideas here, what's the doggone point?

[polly7]

188. You are right MADem, as long as it's done honestly and in good faith. nt.

[MADem]

210. +1!! nt

[boston bean]

238. and there were no issues and ideas expressed in the OP? nt

[MADem]

254. I responded to your issues and ideas in post 34.

As I said, engaging people who post that kind of gender based bigotry is like wrestling with a pig--the pig enjoys the experience enormously.

I was criticized for my POV, and some of the criticism was personally insulting.

[boston bean]

255. I don't think so. I think you were told by me that ignoring

is not an option. And that is a valid response.

I will not help to cover it up and allow it.

[MADem]

261. Post 34 was my first post in the thread, responding to your OP.

So, I do think so...

I never told you to ignore me. You were the one that demanded I not speak with you, and I told you I'm not going to put you on a list of people that I don't speak with. I just don't get personal, and I don't get so angered or upset that I engage in that kind of stuff.

If the conversation is interesting, I jump in. If it gets boring, I drift off.

[boston bean]

262. I think it all started after my very nice reply and you told me I was talking AT people.

It all went downhill from there.

I didn't fire the first volley.

Still don't like the way you chose to respond to me and it did feel hostile. Take care! have a good one.

[AverageJoe90]

213. Good post, MADem. Would rec this if there was a rec button.

Hell, I actually went after a few racist trolls on YouTube yesterday(it was a video about the African-American man in Minn. who got arrested for sitting on a bench), and reported them. And the good thing is, with YT, is that these days, the minute you flag it, it gets hidden from view, or at least yours, before action is taken. And even if they pass it by, you won't have to deal with that comment anymore.

And Twitter now allows you to completely mute offensive users as well. So that's a great thing, IMHO.

[MADem]

218. You can even block jerks from following you on twitter now, which is a good thing.

They have to make more of an effort to pester you!

They can get pretty nasty on that YOUTUBE, I've noticed. Makes this place look like nursery school, even when there's a knock-down, drag-out flight going on!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

229. this is downright laughable =

Simply report them to the site owners, early and often.

do you NOT think any number of us have NOT done that????????????


and even said pretty please.

good lord.

astounding.

amazing.

[YoungDemCA]

36. K&R. There's plenty of speech that is not allowed at DU already...

The "free speech" justification for saying hateful, bigoted things is ludicrous on its face.

[JTFrog]

42. Yep, apparently misogyny is in a class of protected hate speech around here.

The owners of this website willfully IGNORE the problem. They ignored the LGBT community for years. It took them a long time to realize how hurtful they had been, but they came out publicly and wrote a big long apology to that community. I think false complaints of misandry would get their attention more than the nasty crap that goes on here every single day. I mean seriously? There are people still posting here that have PM'd rape threats and worse to women on DU.

[mopinko]

70. boy howdy.

[seabeyond]

52. it is right there with saying.... fox, let men be men. thank you. nt

[mopinko]

75. keep speaking.

but remember that arguing is click bait. admin doesnt like to ban click bait.

way past time, tho. many argued for a long time that "pro-life dems" dont really belong here. like me. and other mods.
it would be a good place to start.

the guys know who the problem posters are. they need a boot up the ass to get rid of them.
in the meantime, people need to step up their jury standards. this isnt a public square, it is a privately held site where we all signed a tos agreement. that is how posts should be judged. too many would be libertarians on a site that is supposed to be dems and progressives.

ban some of these fuckers.
now.
please.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Conversations like this go nowhere because no one ever defines anything.

Bains Bane, to her credit at least gave a definition of what she considers misogynist. The controversy with which it was met is the reason that no one else has followed suit.

"Stop DU misogyny!" post are noteworthy for two things;
1) frequency
2) lack of any tangible demands

Internet owners are squelching the free speech of large swaths of women by allowing sexist/misogynist comments.

Think about it.

Okay, I thought about it.

First thought; I've rarely read so much illogic in one sentence.
a) the internet lacks owners. Everyone, including the most maladapted dysfunctional and bigoted can, if they want their own domain, have their own discussion board for about $15. Less if they don't.
b) censorship is free speech? You might not like the quality, style, tone and content of the speech you read, but scrubbing the internet of it isn't free speech; it's approved speech... which sounds cool to one who feels entitled to demand the approval authority.

And before anyone yaps "there's no free speech on a private website" that may be true, but that's not the issue here, the issue here is what speech is allowed on someone else's private website.

The belief that DU is comparatively hostile to women and feminism compared to men and their issues does not pass a giggle test.

[JTFrog]

91. "Does not pass a giggle test".

Neither does your or the Men's Group perspectives. Why should we defer to you on anything regarding misogyny? Answer is easy. We. Should. Not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. Yes... like that!

For someone who has nothing to say to me, you sure do it a lot.

[JTFrog]

121. Expect me to do it more.

Since you keep interjecting yourself into these discussions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. Everyone needs a hobby. Apparently I'm yours.

Fortunately, a spot in my jury blacklist just opened up.

[JTFrog]

129. Look dude, it's like this....

I would have the same amount of respect for members here who pushed for a White Group, a Prop 8 Group or any other group that caters to the oppressors as opposed to the oppressed.



I guess I should find it flattering that you are concerned enough to add me to your list. Thanks.

[Laelth]

135. It would be difficult to get Democrats elected ...

... if one of our party platform planks said that "men" are a group of oppressors.



-Laelth

[JTFrog]

136. And here comes another one.

[Iron Man]

96. From posts in another thread, a few people make it sound like

this website is a cesspool of MRA posts and everyone is sexist.

[seabeyond]

105. was that dismissive. all are mra, all are sexist? is that really what someone said? really?

[JTFrog]

122. You seem overly concerned about the calling out of MRA talking points.

Why is that?

[mcar]

89. Well written and completely true

Thanks boston bean.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

93. !!!!!!!^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!

[davidn3600]

147. The issue is any opinion that a feminist here doesn't like is automatically considered misogynistic

Here's the thing..
If you asked the question, "Should all genders, races, and sexual orientations be equal?" 100% of DUers will say yes. Everyone here agrees with that philosophy. But when you get down to the details, we have some disagreements. And that is normal. No two people on this planet think exactly alike. Two Democrats can have very different opinions on things yet still be in the same party and still follow the same philosophies. We have a lot of disagreements on here from feminism, to guns, to Snowden, to Israel, to capital punishment, etc... Yet we still vote for the same party.

Feminists themselves don't even fully agree on every issue. There are feminists out there right now fighting to make prostitution legal. There are also feminists out there fighting to stop it completely. There are feminists out there right now who say women doing pornography is female empowerment and vital to women's liberation. And there are feminists who are trying to get pornography censored/banned because they think its degrading.
Some here thought the picture of Spider-Woman was degrading, others saw no big deal with it.

According to the dictionary, feminism is "the political, social, and economic equality of the sexes." That is it. Plain and simple. If you think men and women should be equal, then according to the dictionary, you are a feminist. That's a VERY broad definition. It doesnt say you have to have a certain opinion on abortion or rape culture, or porn or birth control or whatever else.

What it seems like some feminists here are doing is trying to nail down the term "feminism" to a very narrow definition, and then trying to expand the definition of misogyny to encompass everything outside of it in order to corral everyone to that narrow definition. So if you do not completely agree with that narrow definition of feminism, you become a misogynist and should be banned.

[RiffRandell]

157. Nicely put.

[AverageJoe90]

273. I think I can see your point. And I agree.

I am all for setting some basic standards in place; and I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But it honestly does nobody any real good to have too narrow of a set of guidelines for being part of a group; in fact, it has always done the opposite.

Honestly, I think consensus building really works, if done right. For example, most liberals probably agree that, for example, people from any ethnic group can be racist arseholes(on a personal level, at least, regardless of where they come from), or, on the exact subject of gender relations, that not every man is an actual sexist or potential misogynist, but that sexism does remain embedded in society at large, or that feeling attracted to women's bodies, or certain body types, is not sexist in and of itself, but that assigning more worth to certain body types IS sexist. Et cetera.

I hope this makes sense.

[steve2470]

150. Aren't 99.9999% of DU'ers against misogyny ?

We just disagree on the precise definition of it ? I admit to not knowing the complete thorough definition of it. That being said, men who post that BS need to be banned from websites and games.

[boston bean]

152. No the amount of insults to feminist and feminism on this board

and misogynistic ideas leaves me to believe that the number is much higher than .0001%.

[steve2470]

154. maybe it's 90% of DU'ers ?

I'm not being snarky or nasty in the least. What's your best estimate ?

[boston bean]

156. read through discussions and determine.

There are a hell of a lot of them. I don't know how many people post here, so I can't really give a percentage.

[steve2470]

158. one last sincere question

Can you give me a link or a paragraph on the precise definition of misogyny ? Again, I am not being snarky or combative, trying to educate my 56 year old male brain. Thanks.

Steve

[boston bean]

160. read this OP and I think you will be satisfied

and also, you will recognize how much of this is here.

[steve2470]

161. ok thanks ! nt

[Laelth]

162. This may help.

At least one dictionary is updating its entry for the term misogyny due to changes in its usage.

-Laelth

[steve2470]

222. thanks ! nt

[CreekDog]

278. Yes, misogyny here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023825052

[steve2470]

295. thanks for that ! nt

[AverageJoe90]

215. Most are, yes.

However, though, it does seem that we've had a few problems with trolling in that regard.

IMHO, I don't think it would at all hurt to add misogyny to the TOS. Just my opinion, though.

[Aerows]

217. FOR SHIT'S SAKE

I love just about every single poster in this thread, and all of you are acting like buttholes.

All of you need to be sent to bed without supper.

My God.

How can such compassionate people get on such a tear as is exhibited in this thread!?

I love all of you, but you have gone around the bend here.

[NYC_SKP]

219. I hope I can't get a reply hidden for agreeing with you.

I just served on a jury for one of the replies in this mess, voted to leave, but I agree with you.

Sometimes we just have to accept that we aren't going to win an online argument and go out for a walk, or turn off the computer and grab a book or something.

[Aerows]

221. Indeed

some times we have to walk away.



I love DU, but sometimes we focus so much on our private issues that we forget to love one another.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

234. Aerows ...

you and NYCSkp are right. It has gone round the bend here. too far.

I can not believe what I have read in this thread and I plead my case due to sheer insanity from what all has transpired on the board today.

I just got a bad case of the sillies.

it is all

just. too. much.

sensory overload.

[Gormy Cuss]

245. Hide the thread if you have nothing constructive to add.

You called everyone buttholes and then claim we're the ones who have gone 'round the bend? Please.

[Aerows]

260. I'm part of the DU community, that is why

and I have as much right as anyone else here to offer my commentary on what I think is some shitty discourse going on.

By the way, I said "acting like" because, hell, I've been known to act like a butthole before, too.

It doesn't mean I'm a butthole in totality.

Some might differ LOL.

[Gormy Cuss]

263. Your post was a call out of everyone else on the thread.

Saying "acting like a butthole" is calling someone a butthole in that moment. It's just a slightly less direct way of doing it that would be jury-proof on DU (not implying that['s why you phrased it that way, just stating my observation of what seems to constitutes a personal attack these days.)

Moreover, you didn't offer any opinion on topic. That's derailing.

[Aerows]

265. Calling for sanity

when insanity is underway rarely is an opportunity to offer cogent ideas on a topic.

[Gormy Cuss]

266. Now you're calling the other posters insane.

Since I have a number of posts in this thread, please point out the insanity in each. You can do it in a DU mail where no one can call a jury on it.

[Aerows]

267. LOL

[Manifestor_of_Light]

226. In real life, law enforcement does not take sexual assault seriously.

There are chickenshit DAs that refuse to file charges "because she acted like a typical victim". So that means they will not do a damned thing. They have to protect white men at any cost.

We've seen lots of stories about women urged to drop rape charges and so forth. Women blamed for their own rapes, constantly.

[WestCoastLib]

236. Unfortunately the internet is not really the real world

The same laws of nature do not apply.

In "real life" the best way to deal with offensive speech or opinions would be to speak up, hopefully with support.

In the world of the internet, the ONLY way to shut down a troll is to ignore it.

This isn't a matter of fairness or who is the victim, it's just the best way to combat it.

The internet is a fucked up place, where people often say highly offensive things just to be offensive. Some people have a hard time understanding this, but MANY times these people don't even really believe what they say and are only doing it for the reaction. A lot of internet hate speech comes from the same mental place as prank phone calls.

[seabeyond]

243. wrong. people stay quiet, it feeds and grows. that is absolutely the incorrect choice, imo. nt

[Aerows]

280. People stay quiet because they are taught

to shut up via oppression, bigotry, and subtle attempts to silence.

You and I both know it has happened here, even on DU.

[cemaphonic]

264. Yeah, I hang out in some less civilized parts of the internet,

and posts that here result in a 4-day, +100-post flamefest would get a "3/10. Try again later." response.

Although, I suspect the problem here is less hobbyist trolls of that variety, and more that DU regulars are engaging in trollish behavior for a variety of reasons.

[Heidi]

259. Kick, kick, kick!

[SidDithers]

281. From the good people at Cracked (language warning)...

Noel Wells from SNL is in there. As is one of my favourite comedians Rachel Bloom.



Sid