Mods, thanks I did what I had to do, and you did what you had to do. . .

[wndycty]

. . .and thanks to those who spoke up along with me. We are losing our minds. I'm really disappointed in the DU lately. We need to quash all the racist and sexist posts, that USED TO BE what separated us from the other side.

While we should never assume that anyone that criticizes or doesn't support Obama and/or Clinton is racist and/or sexist, we need to have ZERO tolerance for BLATANTLY RACIST AND SEXIST comments (I actually started a thread on Sunday calling out Chicago Tribune John Kass for a sexist column he wrote about Hillary on Sunday).

At this point we should be able to debate the candidates and even discuss controversial issues of race and gender without offending one another. AND I WOULD THINK DUers are intelligent enough to know the difference between intelligent discourse on race/gender and racist/sexist actions.

Folks lets battle it out but leave the sexist and racist shit to the Republicans.

[Bonobo]

1. Frankly, the "Sour Grapes" argument belongs on FR too at this point.

A recount has been requested by one of those involved in the election AND there is sufficient reason (at least in his mind).

So shouldn't the "Sour grapes" argument be left in FR wrt the 2000 and 2004 elections?

I mean...it is EXACTLY what they said at the time. It is. And though we claimed interest in the larger issue of fair elections, they weren't buying. It is the same this time, except it is our own Dems that are sounding like freepers.

[wndycty]

3. Let's not move the bar here. . .insulting comments based on difference of opinion. . .

. . .is one thing, but bigotry is another. Comments about race, gender, sexual orientation and religion should fall into a separate category.

We should be respectful, but I don't think we want thought police.

[Bonobo]

4. Yeah...okay.

[ihavenobias]

7. Wait a minute: Why is religion in that category?

Comments about race, gender and sexual oritentation (all things you can't change, including the last one IMO) being off limits I totally understand and 100% agree with.

But why in the world would religion (a particular set of beliefs people choose to believe in, or not) be in this category?

For example, if someone is seriously considering Mike Huckabee I shouldn't be labed as "intolerant" if I bring up his (religiously based) beliefs on creationism, homosexuality (at one point he put it in the same category as pedophelia and necrophelia) and quarantining people with AIDS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/17/huckabee-equated-homosexu_n_77178.html

The fact is, religion can (and often does) greatly inform someone's worldview, judgement and decision making (if they *choose* to let it) and IMO, that makes it subject to scrutiny just like any other belief.

PS---Where was the uproar when Mitt Romney said "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They're wrong."?

Answer: There WAS no uproar. The mainstream media largely thought the speech was BRILLIANT, or at the very least, ok. Even liberal commentator/columnist Eleanor Clift said (on The McLaughlin Group) there was nothing in the speech that would bother secularists. Keep in mind the conservative estimate is 20 million atheists/agnostics/secularists in the US, which is the single largest bloc of people after Catholics if I remember correctly.

Cenk Uygur made an excellent point when he wrote, --what if I were running for president and I said this-- "It is as if Romney is intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of Mormonism. He is wrong."

Just imagine the ENORMOUS uproar that would result. Seriously, think about for a minute. Those two sentences would be EVERYWHERE, along with charges of hatefulness, intolerance, etc. The moral outrage would boil over. But when Romney says what he says? Crickets chirp. And so it goes on this issue.

[The Magistrate]

2. Hopefully, Sir, You Have Noted The Whole Resolution Of The Matter

The best course remains to alert, so we will know where a problem is seen, and to refrain from personal attacks of one's own in reply. It may take time, but we will get to it, and see what is required.

The matter is complicated somewhat because both racism and sexism wll be features of the political landscape, thrown into bright focus by two of our leading candidates. It will do no good to turn from this, and pretend it is not a factor. But these things can certainly be discussed without displaying them in dong so.

[Hekate]

5. Thank You, Sir, for the Clarity

I've only done a few alerts (and generally after getting in my shot :-) ) because I don't relish the tattle-tale role. I have noticed, however, that each time I've alerted the thread has been locked or the writer deleted, so apparently the mods agreed with my estimation. And lately, DUers just don't seem to be self-regulating very well, and this has become one toxic swamp in places. :-(

Hekate

[KennedyGuy]

6. well if we could squash some of the anti-gay stuff posted recently as well..

that would also be quite helpful.
I have seen too many posts about "the gays'
I have always..and will always condemm racism and any kind of discrimination..be it directed at a candidate I support or one I do not.

[shireen]

8. anonymity dulls the sense of responsibility and accountability in some people

it gives them the cover to say things that they'd never attach to their real names. as long as we communicate in a forum where people use nicknames, we will either have to tolerate inane posts from immature insensitive idiots, or we could ignore them, or we could leave. i don't think mods should be wasting their time censoring every stupid post; they are unpaid volunteers who use their valuable and limited time to help keep DU functional.

perhaps there is one way to keep the racists and sexists accountable: every time we encounter a sexist or racist remark, we should challenge the poster to repeat those words with his/her real name attached to it.