Arguing over whether a name should be added to a list.

[joshcryer]

This is why we lose.

Any questions?

[Horse with no Name]

1. I don't agree with you much

but 100% here.

[bravenak]

2. Yep

[boston bean]

3. I wonder why so many disgaree she should be on the list.

Why we lose is because people do shit like that and then blame others for taking an offense. Listen right is right. Right is honoring hillary along with all of he other women.

[chillfactor]

5. no one DISAGREES about who or who should not be on the list....

Many of us are just getting sick and tired of the same thing being posted thread after thread after thread.

[Skittles]

10. terribly sorry about your ADD

please learn how to TRASH A THREAD

[chillfactor]

4. no questions..

just to say I agree with you..this whole damn argument about who should be on the list is DAMN stupid. I wish all of those posts would be erased....

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

6. Not if we argue about the list. Only if we let it keep us

from marching.

[TheFrenchRazor]

7. might be nice if there wasn't any argument about it; people could just say yes, she should be on the

list. it takes two to argue.

[SticksnStones]

12. Yes. That. Exactly.

[joshcryer]

18. That is the point. It should not be a "thing."

[Skittles]

8. simplistic bullshit like this assessment is pathetic

seriously demented

[joshcryer]

16. You're calling me demented...

... for suggesting a thing that has garnered 7k signatures and thousands of FB and Twitter and other forum posts, should not be a thing.

Resolved by less than 20 fucking characters added to a page.

Trivial beyond belief.

[redgreenandblue]

9. Yeah. And I see one side starting OP after OP about it.

Tell me again who started that argument?

[SticksnStones]

13. Who are "the sides" in your assessment?

[joshcryer]

17. It started on FB and Twitter and took two days to be noticed on DU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. No questions, but you're wrong. A few threads on a forum that has had millions of them

is not going to affect how people vote in elections (ie the actual winning or losing). It does draw attention to how the organisers (of the Women's March(es), and who they list as honorees, for those who are wondering what these threads are about) are thinking, which may be a particular form of activism. I can't see the list on DU, so here it is (26 - other people have been saying 27):

Bella Abzug • Corazon Aquino • Ella Baker • Grace Lee Boggs Berta Cáceres • Rachel Carson • Shirley Chisholm • Angela Davis • Miss Major Griffin Gracy • LaDonna Harris • Dorothy I. Height • bell hooks • Dolores Huerta • Marsha P. Johnson • Barbara Jordan • Yuri Kochiyama • Winona LaDuke • Audre Lorde • Wilma Mankiller • Diane Nash • Sylvia Rivera • Barbara Smith • Gloria Steinem • Hannah G. Solomon • Harriet Tubman • Edith Windsor • Malala Yousafzai

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/01/womens-march-washington-guiding-vision-definition-principles/

DU has never been a forum where decisions about marches, mvoements, or campaigns are made. We're the peanut gallery, commenting, and frequently heckling, at what happens elsewhere.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Hey Muriel

Soliciting an opinion here
Isn't it possible they asked HRC and she begged off to avoid looking like the affair was about her?

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. This all seems to be about who was put on a list of "those we honor"

which has a few historical figures, like Harriet Tubman, a few non-Americans like Corazon Aquino, but is mainly 20th century female American activists. They can't have asked the dead ones if they wanted to be on this list, and I doubt they've asked the living ones either.

[joshcryer]

15. This is just the beginning.

You will see. This is the calm before the storm. A thing easily resolved, turned into an event.

BTW, these discussions did not start on DU, they are on Twitter and FB and the same ridiculous divisions are occurring.

It's just a damn name on a list. But I got a bit of empathy, and it's not for the fools arguing against adding an honorary name. There's no rationality to the arguments, it's pure hatred.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Your OP does read as if you don't want anyone to talk about it on either side

if it's any consolation to you, the BBC is talking about the marches, but has said nothing whatsoever about anyone arguing on Twitter or Facebook about the list. Because it's Twitter and Facebook. Social media like them don't have millions of other topics; Twitter and Facebook have billions.