General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNYC_SKP has been banned
I thought DUers would like to know. Is there any chance we can keep this thread from getting nasty? Pretty please?
Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not.
http://www.democraticunderground.com?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
Real name: N/A
DU Member for: 7 years, 6 days
Posts: 68,644
Recommendations: 13,489
Star member: Yes
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Thanks
old guy
(3,299 posts)If there is a reinstatement, he'll go right back on.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Today is sure a fine day, isn't it.
2banon
(7,321 posts)
Cha
(316,455 posts)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)98. Here's the exchange.
Troll's post:
Feel the Bern.
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
Skip's reply:
Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
IMO skip is being blatantly ironical, letting the troll know that he is on to her and it seems very clear to me that skip's comment is a reference to what the troll is doing.
(as originally posted by snagglepuss at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6784393)
Cha
(316,455 posts)"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Posted it in his journal too..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
SKP needs to apologize to the Admins and ask to be re-instated.. not try to wiggle out of it like others are trying to do for him.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It was applied to an action, not a person...obviously. Now one might argue that there was some sort of implied attribution of the term to Hillary...and in the case of the original troll post, I'd agree. But the actual construction of the sentences does no such thing. Perhaps this is splitting linguistic hairs, but those stating that Skip "called Hillary a c*nt" are simply wrong.
Should the spoonerism be used at all here? I say no. It's vulgar and misogynist. Was Skip's post tone-deaf and entirely hide-worthy. Abso-fuckin'-lutely. Did he deserve a 90-day time out for it? Perhaps so. But tombstoning a long-time, valuable liberal poster is a bullshit, knee-jerk overreaction.
Cha
(316,455 posts)either.
SKP needs to own it and apologize if he ever hopes to get re-instated. He can't be acting like those on here who are spinning their tops off trying to cover for him.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Did you even bother to read what I wrote? The actual construction of Skip's text (and, for that matter, what the troll wrote) clearly ascribes the spoonerism to an action, not a person. Any ascription to a person would have to be a matter of implication (a subjective - if often valid - evaluation). Perhaps that's what he meant (only Skip can answer that), but it's not what he wrote.
Basic. Fucking. Linguistics.
I sincerely doubt Skip gives a shit about being reinstated at this point. I may be wrong - Skip put a lot of time and effort into this site for years. But I bet I'm not...
Cha
(316,455 posts)"at Hillary".. showing the bias of the Admin. Or some such shite like that.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Oh, wait...
Believe what you want. It's illiterate and wrong...but at this point I give not a single fuck.
Cha
(316,455 posts)insult their intelligence.. if he really wants back in. He'll own up to it. Not like the ones who are trying to weasel out of it with all kinds bullshit excuses.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't actually say what some folk are claiming it does. I don't know how I can make that any clearer (without resorting to crayons and pantomime...).
uppityperson
(115,993 posts)It is really a shame that it has become so and I hope it changes back soon.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)it is unfortunate, however seems to be the case. 
TBF
(35,458 posts)I really do think DU was better overall as a modded site. I know the admins wanted to try new things, but it was more of an "underground" where you really could connect with other like-minded folks. And I only joined in '08, it was probably even better in the very early years. If it's going to be a place for dems then it makes sense to moderate & keep it that way. Otherwise it might as well be any other site out there ...
calimary
(88,863 posts)The early days spawned from the early days of bush/cheney. Those of us who knew the American people just got rolled, BIG-TIME, were online somewhere, maybe emailing a friend about how we felt, and had no idea there might be a support system out there, just waiting for us. OVER AND OVER I've heard "I thought I was the only one who felt this way" - in all its forms, and sometimes it's been said by ME, too. And we all could unite around our loathing of bush/cheney. Well, now we're squabbling and quibbling, with one from our side comfortably presiding in the White House. Now we're fighting amongst ourselves.
Hey guys - WE NEED TO UNITE (OR AT LEAST START AIMING THAT WAY) AND HERE'S WHY:
Another post here recently recalled the Democratic debacle in 1968, which I'm old enough to remember. We were in the middle of Vietnam, which was Topic A all over the Evening/Nightly News every evening. And the country was a roiling mess - what with the marches and protests, those were all over TV too, and violence at the Dem Convention in Chicago that year. Kent State was two years away. That was the year of two body-blow assassinations that were body-blows to the American heart - of Martin Luther King Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. The - if you will - "progressive alternative" of the day became Senator Eugene McCarthy, who opposed the Vietnam War. With RFK taken away from us, there arose an enthusiastic swell for McCarthy especially among younger voters. I'd be voting in the next Presidential election, but by 1968 I was becoming aware of stuff, however vaguely. The mainstream Dem candidate was Vice President Hubert Humphrey. He was saddled with LBJ's Vietnam and kinda felt like he couldn't actively denounce it, since he WAS LBJ's Vice President. Sticky situation for him, caught between loyalty for the guy whose second-in-command he still was and what approach to take to the war. He showed himself to be a loyal man. But the country was too torn up by the war to go for a guy still so tied to the war it had come to hate. It was as though he had - well, let's call it "LBJ-stench" all over him.
Not overtly making direct comparisons to leading players of today, although you can certainly interpret it that way. And I've already declared myself a Hillary supporter, although extremely impressed with, and loving, everything Bernie Sanders is saying. I've already declared I will be an enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporter if he's the one who carries the day! I won't pout and go home and refuse to keep playing just because I want very badly to see command turned over to a woman for a change. There's a BOATLOAD of stuff Bernie Sanders is doing that I like. I know how ardently his supporters stand by him and I admire that tremendously. THAT fire in the belly is what propels campaigns to serious success - maybe even to going all the way. I still think Hillary's gonna be the one, though.
I am fearful for what I see of history maybe setting up to repeat itself. And I desperately do NOT WANT THAT!!!! We got set up for such hideous awfulness from this that we are STILL suffocating under it TODAY. In the NEXT CENTURY.
Cuz you know who we got when the Democratic Party was that divided over Presidential candidates, that year, and we divided our vote? NIXON.
We were so damaged as a political side that it took til 1976 to get the White House back, and then we only held it for one term. And who we got after THAT? reagan.
PLEASE NOTE: It's NOT that I'm insisting overtly on all Bernie Sanders people giving it up and coming over to the Hillary camp. I am absolutely not doing that. What I WOULD like to suggest is that both of our camps here address each other about the different candidate support/defense with less acrimony. PLEASE let's try to go a little easier on each other. To keep the White House, WE ALL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO TEAM UP TOGETHER IN A UNITED FRONT!!!!
We still have to be able to get along and team up toward the end. We can't afford to let history repeat itself. We can't afford another 1968.
TBF
(35,458 posts)I was born in the mid-60s so pretty much only know what I was told at home and have studied since. I know about Vietnam from my dad & uncles serving - but we didn't study it in school because it was too recent. Instead we read Hiroshima and Diary of Anne Frank. It is interesting to hear the historical perspective from folks who remember that time. I knew vaguely that Nixon had resigned but the first president I remember with any clarity is Jimmy Carter (and the gas lines).
Agree that we don't need that kind of hostility and I do think some of the people that drum that up are really not democrats but rather here stirring the pot instead. I trust the admins here and their judgment calls. I have a good memory but there are plenty of posts I don't see, while they can easily pull up a poster's entire history and look through it for guidance. I think sometimes people forget that.
calimary
(88,863 posts)the intangibles. We went from a Grandpa and Grandpa situation in the White House to a younger family that I could relate to MUCH more closely because the Kennedy kids were just a little younger than I was. First time I was aware of someone in the Presidency who was so much more relatable to me personally. Their mom looked like the moms I saw picking their kids up at school. Their dads looked like many of the dads who went to Father-Daughter night. And I liked how Mrs. Kennedy dressed. How pretty she was. Elegant, stylish, classy. I still remember when the nun disappeared from the classroom for awhile, not saying anything, and then coming back with an ashen look on her face, telling us not to scream, but that "President Kennedy is dead."
Then, the little kids moved out of the White House and an older couple took over, with two daughters who were older than I was (LBJ, Lady Bird, and Lynda Bird and Lucy. I do remember one distinct thing about that family just on a personal, visceral level. I noticed that they ALL had LBJ as their initials. Dad - Lyndon Baines Johnson. Mom - Lady Bird Johnson (she actually had a name in her own right, Claudia Alta Taylor "Lady Bird" Johnson, but she went along with the family theme). Big sis - Lynda Bird Johnson. Little sis - Lucy Baines Johnson. Liked Lady Bird because of her whimsical name, and because her pet cause as First Lady was "The Beautification of America." She was concerned by everything from gardens to the great out doors. Wanted to make every city, every highway, every public area prettier, lovelier, cleaner, more wisely managed. Even back then, I seem to have been drawn to that issue and that idea of wise and responsible custodianship of our planet. I liked that they had daughters - I could relate to them somewhat, like older sisters. Didn't start waking up about him for awhile. He unleashed all kinds of uproar, not only via Vietnam but also civil rights. I love the following historical nugget. I bet it's true. Hell, I've heard taped talk from him, emitting from his seat on the toilet!
"
According to historian Robert) Caro, it was ultimately Johnson's ability to convince Republican leader Everett Dirksen to support the bill that amassed the necessary Republican votes to overcome the filibuster in March 1964; after 75 hours of debate, the bill passed the senate by a vote of 71–29.[89][90] Johnson signed the fortified Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2.[90] Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[91]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
I find it really interesting, TBF, that so much of this recent American history is being brought back. The whole movement surrounding the Civil Rights Act, the anti-war movement (which dominated the 60s and early 70s). It's all being revisited, or at least glanced off like a stone skipping across the surface of the pond. And it grates on me when I hear (mainly) CONS and GOPers and their many apologists insist that revisiting the past is terrible, waste of time, makes no sense, wrong and wrongheaded, distracting, fill-in-the-blank-here. We HAVE TO know what led up to this. We HAVE TO know what caused or provoked or led to this. Whatever the "this" is. We HAVE to retrace our steps to try to get a handle on where it all started, how it all started, when it all started and what the timbre of the times was then. WE NEED TO KNOW THAT STUFF - if we're EVER to avoid making the same mistakes again. Man, I'm just really grokking what "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" thing is all about. You've GOT to look back, forage through the past, peel back the layers on the onion, do some digging (something lazy, shallow, and vain-as-hell journalism just doesn't want to bother its collective pretty head about doing anymore) to figure out HOW WE GOT HERE. And WHERE and WHY. Seems to me that's the only way to figure out how to address whatever problem it is.
stage left
(3,187 posts)You reflect my thoughts as well. We still have a common enemy; Or, rather enemies. What is it now? Ten of them filling up the clown car?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)gang. And the Oligarchy isn't limited to just Republicons. They are way smarter than that.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)
at DU. They are vile people, hateful, spiteful and divisive. There is not one cell in their body which is not bursting with the uber-competitive-win-at-any-cost game. Their ways in the world are truly a spreading deadly virus with the end-game of death for all but them. They know not ways of real community, they have almost killed off the worlds indigenous tribes. They know not ways of compassion, for they worship the death of care. They have no shame of their hateful thieving ways, for they must hate in order to steal from their brothers.
This is what we must join together to overcome. We must rise above the low vibration of the oligarchs, in order to win. We must work together and care for each other, for the oligarchs have already lost at that game.
just hope that the collateral damage doesn't take us out, here. I just hope the best candidate is fielded, by us, for the GE. Otherwise goodbye seniors, goodbye wounded vets, good bye to all who have to depend on our government to survive because of dire circumstance not always their fault. When Nixon got thrown out, this country's repugthugs got mean, culminating in that disaster called reagan and further destroying our tenuous cultural relationships among our diverse racial segments in the shrub, darth years. This country is a mean vicious place to live now, especially for POC and the poor. Although I must say a lot of those poor continue to vote against their own self interests so they get what they vote for.
Sometimes I believe we're our own worst enemy.
7962
(11,841 posts)I get told time and again why its perfectly fine to use awful terms and language as long as the "right" people are being insulted.
I.E., calling Ben carson an Oreo, Clarence Thomas Uncle Tom, Sarah Palin a slut, etc etc. Alan Grayson is a hero because he "tells it like it is", but when a republican does the exact same thing he's the most vile person alive.
I dont understand the hypocrisy
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Themselves as rapists so I get no pleasure at this news.
7962
(11,841 posts)
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)fact that I got ZERO response to my message.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(132,386 posts)This was a safe haven from lunacy ten years ago.
krawhitham
(5,052 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Yeah, this is NOTHING...nothing compared to 07/08. That was a complete shit show, I take a lot of blame for that, but yeah....pillow fight is a great description.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)A word like that has no place on DU.
Also, many of his anti-Hillary screeds were way over the top.
He seemed like a good DUer, but he definitely took a turn for the worst over the last few months.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)I wish they had been able to keep things constructive, but if they did that, then they deserved the ban. I did enjoy many of NYC SKP's posts in the past.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Hopefully that'll serve as a wake-up call.
Hate to see a long-timer go-but I more than understand admins taking a zero tolerance policy towards that toxic garbage.
Warpy
(114,363 posts)and I'd already put him on the "warning! do not engage!" list. I don't know what happened to him, he used to be a favorite. I hope it's temporary and that he's back as himself some day.
Number23
(24,544 posts)cheered by certain non surprising quarters here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026706999#post79
The GD:Effect claims another victim. Fragile people that take the non-stop foolishness of this forum as gospel. It's really sad and happens way too often around here.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Or am I wrong about that? If so, please clarify. Were people not alerting on his "off the rails" posts or, what exactly?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are virtually immune to getting posts hidden.
Also, shrill, deranged nonsense is never enough to get a post hidden. Typically it's for bigotry, personal attacks, or rightwing talking points.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)posts when the post was not hidden but, I don't recall ever seeing these posts to this NYC_SKP. So, my question is this:
were his other offensive posts being alerted and if so, why weren't the results posted to him, in an effort to give him feedback that he was perilously close to violating community standards.
Maybe, I am wrong but, looks to me like a person can get banned without fair warning just for an implication.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If juries don't hide, people wind up wandering into bannable subject matter
But the TOS are pretty clear. Doesn't take much insight to realize dropping the c-bomb on Clinton is a big-time no no here.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)the post being replied, I truly think NYC_SKP's post was misunderstood.
However, after reading through most of today's threads regarding this subject rest assured, I will never use the word cunning when describing a stunt pulled on DU.
Don't want to push my luck.
And, while the TOS are relatively clear, it would appear that community standards are the luck of the draw.
I understand that this poster has some questionable history although no one has supplied a link for evidence.
Main thing made very clear to me today is that the Admin own this site and can do as they see fit and one takes their chances with every post made.
trueblue2007
(19,059 posts)i feel that no one who uses that type of language is DECENT.
thank you for removing that person.
Long live Democrats, folks, listen to President Obama's eulogy of Beau Biden and stop all the bickering. We are better that a bunch of killing hyenas going after a deer ..... Treat each other as we would like to be treated. Please.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)I am sorry he was banned. We shouldn't be judged by our worst moments.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)a long-timer getting the axe over one post can arguably seem severe. On the other hand, there really, really, really is zero place for that--it's way, way, way beyond what's acceptable, to the point where anyone who's willing to go there has probably lost the plot and needs a break from this place.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)And I am sure all kinds of nasty pejoratives come into our heads when thinking about individuals we don't like but usually our better angels or just plain old horse sense prevent us from saying them or writing them down.
The larger point is you can criticize or dislike a person without hanging on them an epithet that demeans an entire group.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Just, head-shaking material.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But some can't help dog whistling to others who share their anger and resentment toward women or POC here.
That a host would actually respond approvingly to that slur is deeply disturbing. If they actually care about that candidate, he should be removed from hosting that group before doing any more damage.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)He mentioned she may be devious, using the appropriate word for it, but it appears one must replace the one word with "cleverly devious" as the shorter form, not even a swear word, is now verboten and a bannable offense.
It was and remains a witch hunt run by petty nasty people.
he was banned for using this word
marym625
(17,997 posts)But calling a woman a tool is okay, evidently.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)I have also said I have empathy for SKP and that a timeout was appropriate and not a ban but what he wrote was offensive.
yuiyoshida
(44,914 posts)He was always nice to me.. but using that phrase is unbelievable. 
ProfessorGAC
(75,697 posts). . .i also have great disdain for zero tolerance policies.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He has engaged in some pretty nasty put downs of members here, simply because they favor a different candidate than he preferred. Rather intolerant for a Dem.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)posts. If 3 people are appalled and explain why, while 4 people either high five or don't explain their vote, over time, those who explain why a post bothers them will, eventually, resonate.
I don't care for any kind of code word or dog whistle snark that has as its goal the denigration of any Democrat. Race, religion, gender or orientation 'jokes' directed at our primary field should set off alarm bells.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)He must have been on their radar. He wasn't selected for the current MIRT, despite signing up before others who were chosen.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to call Hillary Clinton that." When it's extremely easy to believe he'd call her that kind of name, that indicates a "straw that broke the back" type of dynamic.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)And it's a shame he turned to misogyny to oppose her. In general, I'd found him supportive of feminist issues. Even soon after she announced he said people shouldn't use sexism to oppose her, but then he really seemed to become increasingly hostile toward her. As you said, he seemed to go off the rails. There is probably more than we know about that led to the administrators' decision. Regardless, I wish him well.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who peddle what he called hate speech had to expect consequences.
oh the irony.
Until today, I had forgotten that it was him who posted gun porn (a glowing review of a military shotgun) in GD 48 hours after Sandy Hook because he didn't like seeing people argue for gun control.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)I agree completely.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Obviously we were supporting different candidates. I tried to reach a truce with him where at least he wouldn't comment on my posts and i wouldn't comment on his, call it a detente...It didn't work...Sometimes I don't respond to a post I disagree with because the relationship is more important than the post.
SKP has had several brain surgeries. I am not a neurologist but I wonder if it affected the part of the brain that governs emotions...
...
While I don't agree with the banning I do see a trend by some to dismiss the abject awfulness of the word or that really wasn't what he was saying. I strongly take exception from that.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)given his surgeries. I really think DU is important to him and he benefited from the support he got from us following his most recent health issues. I hate to see him lose that support system, especially after being a DUer for years. Too bad after tens of thousands of posts, one got him banned.
blm
(114,412 posts)I hope it spurs some consideration.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026778418
lark
(25,856 posts)What do you think the punishment for using that awful women targeting C word should be? I too hate banning unless there's been a pattern of abuse, but that word is so hateful and derogatory to women, how can using that be tolerated on this board?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Or maybe he would decide to live without it.
lark
(25,856 posts)
Just hope this doesn't encourage the haters, but afraid that's exactly what'll happen.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)But it doesn't look that way.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
It saddens me.
City Lights
(25,578 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And if that doesn't stop them a full ban?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)BainsBane
(57,314 posts)Anyone can see that is exactly what he was calling her. You can disagree with the banning denying reality or pretending misogyny doesn't matter.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I never use that word, it is low class as well as stupid, but he did not call anybody that, I can fucking read you know and don't need people to translate English for me, especially in such an obviously "creative" attempt to put words in someones mouth in order to ban them.
I find such behavior deplorable and transparent as hell in this case!
My god, I can't wait to see what you translate my words into, maybe I just called you a pumpkin or something.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....across the board without context. I think it smacks of authoritarian censorship, which is not a progressive value.
However, he knew what he was doing, it's silly to act like he was "tricked". It was an OP.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:12 AM - Edit history (1)
You are the one who refuses to see it. The "goal," as you call it, was to make a vulgar, misogynistic comment about Clinton. You take the beginning of the first word and combine it with the last of the second word. It's not terribly complicated, and it has no meaning other than to insult her. The problem is that people around here think name calling amounts to calling out a politician. It does not. It simply reveals who they are and that they have nothing of substance to say.
The reality is Clinton has a good chance of getting the Democratic nomination, whether you like it or not. I wouldn't discuss any Democrat in the way people do regularly about Clinton. I probably wouldn't discuss any human being with the frequency and level of vitriol directed against Clinton. So what happens if she wins the primary? Are you all going to pretend you didn't call her every name in the book, present her as vile, use every piece of nonsense put out by the right-wing media? Or will people refuse to vote for a Democrat and turn the presidency over to Scott Walker, or some similar Republican. The effect of all of this is to suppress the Democratic vote. The GOP knows that very well, and they know they can take advantage of the widespread acceptance of misogyny in American culture to win the White House.
People do not turn to misogyny to attack a politician, whether Democrat or Republican, unless that contempt for women is inside them. I think it unfortunate, particularly since I liked NYCSkp and would have never thought him capable of such a thing.
Spare me your little victim pretense. The meaning is clear. I did not ban Skp, and I twisted nothing. You choose not to see it, and then go on to say it is for "a goal.' as though any name-calling, misogynistic or not, constitutes a goal.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,362 posts)I no longer speak to an acquaintance over the lashing I gave him when he sent this to me.
I was initially pro Hillary in 2008. He was pro Obama. I parted with the comment to just WAIT and see how Mrs. Obama is treated by the right (and other misogynists).
Calling Hillary those names goes back to the nineties.
I won't post the pic but it is at the link.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/today_in_hillary_bashing_and_defending
Or this guy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/msnbc-hosts-founder-of-an_n_87356.html
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The post was underneath an OP whose main thrust was contained in these words: "There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
SKP was replying to a poster (currently feasting on pizza) who decried Hillary Clinton's refusal to talk to the press. In his response to that post he used these words: "And yes, it's (not she's, but it's) a Cunning Stunt!" What I heard in my head when I read the post was "Her refusal to talk to the press is a cunning stunt!" and not a direct insult to Hillary Clinton.
I totally missed the dog whistle. It seems as though I'm not alone; madfloridian, whom I consider to be a 1%er when it comes to intelligence, missed it too as did a ton of other people. I've heard "cunning runt" but never "cunning stunt". I must confess though; I'm not always on the lookout for dog whistles as are some.
Bottom line for me? Banning a poster who's been here that long, has that many posts, and at the time had ZERO hidden and is also a financial supporter of this site? Bad Bad Bad.
So that's my take. I'd like to know how you feel about it as I've always valued your opinions on any number of things whether they meshed with my thinking or not.
Peace.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)followed by
"I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!"
I think the words I bolded are what triggered the alarm. I think he meant to say it. I also think a 30 day time out would have been more in order. I don't agree with the ban.
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)I think the words I bolded are what triggered the alarm. I think he meant to say it.
If he was against Hillary, it would come off as a round about way of calling her the c word. That was totally my take on it.
I don't know what happened to NYC_SKP, but I'd noticed some odd postings, and I'm not here that much. Brain surgeries would explain a lot, for me.
But I think possibly a short time out might have been a better first step, if he would admit he'd done wrong, and could be able to come back and tone it down (that is, not be insulting to any woman or other minority).
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but "cunning stunt" is "popular" enough to warrant an Urban Dictionary entry. I had never heard it, but then I have never done a search for euphemisms for that word. The thought of using it makes me want to slap myself.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Jayzus. 
That's a bit of wordplay that has been around forever. I even saw it as an album title once - a british prog band in the Seventies called Caravan used the plural of that particular phrase.
Horse with no Name
(34,202 posts)it's vs. she's.
Just what I thought.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)that a misstep like this leads to a ban of a long time DUer. Sometimes anyone's emotions can go over the top.
samsingh
(18,234 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And a long-timer should not be axed over one post. That is neither fair nor just.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)30 day time out period would be more in line, but then I don't run the place.
Coventina
(29,078 posts)It's a shame.
NYC_SKP won't be the only one who forgets the SOP in the heat of the moment.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)he's had to deal with and death in his family and relocation.
The post I could find that caused the banning didn't say the C-Word that I could understand. But, maybe the last post on his Profile wasn't the post in question. In that post he said a "Cunning Stunt" that Hillary wouldn't answer questions in her Campaign kick off. His banning message said there was a cleverly worded use of the C-Word.
Very sad since I've seen worse posted here on DU that didn't get a banning of a long time DU'er who has been a Moderator and Forum Host for many years on many Forums. 
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Words have become fatally dangerous.
Wow...I think it is time to find a new home.
merrily
(45,251 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And have sense it began.
But there a lot of egg shells on the floor and you have to watch where you walk...not something I enjoy much.
And many really good posters have left because of it...and it is a shame.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I object!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And there are a great many of them here...but if they go so will I.
But I have not created an OP in a long time because if it is not in praise of the orthodoxy of DU it will be pounced on and I just do not have the energy to deal with it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You can always create OP's in the Populist Group. There, any host can block pouncers who are not "like minded" and I am currently a host. Just alert on a pouncing reply as Off Topic. The decent ones will even self delete on request.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Would you tolerate such a refence to the word n@gger?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They are just words, what is intolerable is actions.
And I think the banning of words like the "N" word just gives cover to racism, because as long as they don't use it you cannot accuse them of racism.
MLK never insisted that he not be called the N word...that is not what he was fighting against...he was fighting for equal treatment not the use of a word.
And this word policing has been extended to all forms of justice, and it will produce nothing but contentiousness...and we see it here.
But that is not to say words do not have power because they do, but the irony is that forbidden words have more power than when not forbidden, because you can accuse people for using them and in this case even the implication of the word can be used to accuse...so more power is given to those words when banned.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I feel that it's reasonable for a private site to say such words, especially when used in an attack, are not acceptable.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But that don't necessarily mean it is right or even prudent to do so.
And my opinion can easily be classified as a thought crime if this is taken to the extreme, which some seem willing to do in the name of social justice.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And a part of me agrees. But the other part of me wins the argument for now.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)he'd actually call anyone the "c word."
Or was it just an excuse because he was a critic of those that were head hunting him?
What exactly did he say?
On edit, after looking for the c word post - it appears that one may not utter the phrase it is a clever stunt. I left off the now, apparently new word added to the list made famous by George Carlin.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cunning+definition&oq=cunning+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.7401j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
ˈkəniNG/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing skill in achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion.
"a cunning look came into his eyes"
synonyms: crafty, wily, artful, guileful, devious, sly, scheming, designing, calculating, Machiavellian; More
Hopefully the definition of the word is not a bannable offense.
That people would use a word that is not even a swear word to organize and execute a witch burning shows how low this place has sunk in the last decade.
The OP is misleading, he called no one the "c-word"
You people really suck, this is not even excusable to to the heat of the moment, it is outright banning for criticizing a politician, a long time DUer was banned simply because some can not abide the idea that some of us feel that Hillary Clinton is capable of devious political maneuverings and dared to admit it.
This is totally unbelievable.
I better not call her clever either, that sounds like all it would take if one refuses to swear fealty to what is in truth (contrary to the beliefs of the faithful) only ONE of the primary contenders and not a deity that must not be criticized for fear of stoning.
Is this now HillaryClinton.com?
Paka
(2,760 posts)I used to lurk more than I posted, but enthusiasm over the primaries has caused me to post more often. I can honestly say the nastiness goes both directions; a statement to that effect did get me banned from the Hillary group.
I have always enjoyed NYC_SKP's posts and I am saddened to see he is banned for the mis-perception of using a word that was not actually what he did use. If you misread it, that's unfortunate, but to continue slamming him for the mistake is sad. I have never felt the need to use ignore. I can do that on my own without pushing a button.
I've enjoyed DU and hope to continue that enjoyment, but in the toxic environment of the moment I am starting to be fearful of posting. We aren't all professional journalists and sometimes don't express ourselves perfectly. We all don't read perfectly either, and need to take a step back occasionally.
Thank you Dragonfli for your clarification in this matter.
billymayshere
(94 posts)I logged in just to note my displeasure of this banning, it sounds very petty and you captured my feelings exactly. As a daily visitor of this site I've noticed that some here have become really hyper-sensitive. It's sad really.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)(referencing "cunning stunt"
that did it.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)His choice of words and reference to a tongue twister.
polly7
(20,582 posts)He screwed up. I would hope a sincere apology might get him back, his post hidden. He's one of the posters I log in to read, very sad to see him gone just like that.
marym625
(17,997 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)any where I have ever seen. Oh well that is kind of what we risk when we do not support the inevitable one.
I will consider that the admins are pro Hillary in that decision.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the fact that she does not answer questions from anyone is a part of her campaign strategy. Calling her out on it is legit.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)But hey, whatever floats your boat.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That bullshit. It's hateful to half the Dem base. Fuck that casual misogyny.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Marginalize them.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Response to marym625 (Reply #168)
Post removed
blackspade
(10,056 posts)A useful tool? Really?
Shameful.
Raine1967
(11,667 posts)I agree with you about women being a big part of the base. Calling another woman a useful tool for having an opinion that differs from yours is not cool. jwirr is a woman. She is not a tool and not an object.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)at least in the explosive atmosphere that prevails currently in these parts.
NYC SKP was wrong. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
However, particularly given his history here and his situation, I hardly see it as a capital offense. I think he was the subject (I do not use the word "victim" deliberately) of an overreaction here. I don't care to speculate on any implicit motives behind that reaction.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)base. What is your point? I don't feel marginalized because I am a woman, I feel marginalized because I do not support Corporate control of our politicians and our government. However in the Real World, I know I am in the majority, so I'm not particularly worried about the Dem leadership's opinion of THIS woman.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)That he was banned for supporting Sanders.
And that criticism is to you, not to others who support Sanders but didn't say anything as wrong as you did.
Response to jwirr (Reply #138)
tblue37 This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...unless you are in Australia.
There, you have to use it every 5 minutes or get deported.
whathehell
(30,331 posts)No, it's not. It's an ugly gender slur, which, like racial slurs, amounts to shitting on someone for
a circumstance of birth -- It's fascistic, cruel and wrong.
He doesn't like her?..Frankly, I don't like her much either, but calling a woman the C-word
for that reason is no more legit than calling an African American the N-word for the same reason.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Dishonesty is not a desirable trait no matter what the "cool kids" may have told you.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Read the post again. The dude says "cunning stunt" and then jokes that its a tongue twister.... How fucking obvious do you have to be?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cunning%20stunt
demwing
(16,916 posts)You know he didn't, but you keep spreading the same fuckload of bullshit anyway.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)If someone called Bernie the K-word in a Hillary group, that person would also be banned. Why wouldn't they be? That kind of language has no place here.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Say what you mean. This code shit is infuriating. Are we children? What the hell is the "K-word?"
Damn it!
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)hike.
It is infuriating, and I'm pretty sure this post will be alerted on.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
bluedigger
(17,384 posts)Live up to your name already.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)I'm not in the habit of using bigoted slurs. I'm sure you can figure it out.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)for whatever reason the recently had been so extremist as to cross lines of decency several times.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
cool story though.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I got better.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)he was in trying to post a slur and get away with it.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)get hidden, but they don't get banned for it. Pretty sure that's why a few of us are scratching out heads.
***Disclaimer: I am not tight with NYC SKP for those who have notebooks and such.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)yup.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
boston bean
(36,850 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)I am asking for examples of long time DUers being banned for using the offensive slur one time. You said you've seen it.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)Why worry about past usages, when this one is staring you right in the face.
Maybe discuss how unacceptable it is to do that, rather than trying to find others that have used it and gotten away with it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is zero policy or it isn't. Is this the ONLY example? If so, I am curious why others were not banned for using it and why he was banned for using it only once.
My question is a serious one. In this thread, there is already one example of a poster who used the word, towards Ann Romney, but is still an active poster. They got a hide, but not a ban.
Is this a new policy? Or it it because NYC SKP was anti-HIllary plus he used the word? Or is it because he used it in regards to HIllary?
boston bean
(36,850 posts)Or you can't find proof of it.... Ok, I got you now, again...
morningfog
(18,115 posts)If it is zero tolerance ban, so be it. I have no problem with that and think it makes sense. It is an offensive word and shouldn't be welcome here.
The question is: Is it zero-tolerance? And if it is, when did it become so? Because it hasn't been in the past, agreed?
There is proof that a poster had a post hidden, but still posts here for using the word.
So, it is new? Or is there something more? Like, NYC SKP was already on the wire, and this did him in? I think that is closer to what happened rather than just the word.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)It concerns me not at all that possibly others have used it and not been shown the door.
That's not a barometer I choose to use in this circumstance.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)but I am curious about the post SKP was responding to, that was "auto removed". What did it say and is that why he responded the way he did?
Context is important. I am in no way validating the use of that word, as I hate it with a passion, but what triggered it?
Kali
(56,593 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Try the 'site search' and see just how many times the word has been used here without repercussions. This was a clear message sent by the admins imo.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Talk about being biased as fuck against someone who doesn't support Hillary. The message sent is very clear.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Nailed it.
marym625
(17,997 posts)There is little question.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)intended to trip up someone who says it. As noted on this thread I have seen it used as the title of a prog album in its plural form. This strikes me as bad. Very bad.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)I could see if it was referring to a member of DU, but a Presidential candidate?
deurbano
(2,980 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)i'm outta here though, fake democrats and bad dreams don't go together. Tried and done.
deurbano
(2,980 posts)<<I could see if it was referring to a member of DU, but a Presidential candidate?>>
My point was it would have been unacceptable to call Pres. Obama (when he was a candidate) the n-word, just as it is unacceptable to call any female candidate the c-word. (Just as a general principle, and not a comment on the banning.)
CherokeeDem
(3,732 posts)Now we are to disrespect anyone on this board who doesn't agree with the candidate we support? I believe an apology is due the admins.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #88)
840high This message was self-deleted by its author.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)
They have made their positions known. Numerous posters in this thread have used the c- word - in referencing, of course, but used it nonetheless, yet none of them has been banned. If the word is offensive, it must be deemed offensive in all contexts. This is targeting a long time poster for his allusion to an offensive term (although not directly using it) and for enthusiastically supporting a candidate not supported by the DU hierarchy. There. I said it. Now ban me. I'll be in good company.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)its an old joke and the troll he was responding to, used it.
he was agreeing and made it even more clear what the troll was saying.
good ban.
bluedigger
(17,384 posts)Makes the ban clearer for those of us who missed the complete exchange. 
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)If someone called my mom or girlfriend the c word, me or we are going to the hospital, even if he thought he was being clever about it...
If that makes me illiberal then so be it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)I would hate to be judged by my worst moment.
But we can not minimize the damage done by using that word. It's an easy top three pejorative. I have it at two behind the n-word.
He had several brain surgeries. I'm not a neurosurgeon or neurologist but I wonder if it affected the part of the brain that controls emotions. There's a huge distance in thinking something and actually saying it or writing it down.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)That is beyond ridiculous!
If someone expresses a thought
with sound or gesture you would be
incited to violence!?!
Violence over words, pfft.
seems like personal insecurity to me
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)If I hop on the bus and drop the N word, the F word, or the S word on somebody, what should I expect?
If you believe that my refusal to allow someone to call my mother a c--t in my presence makes me "personally insecure" there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Oh, Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali = my idol.
uppityperson
(115,993 posts)It's been around a while, is a known way to call someone a stunning c*. It is rude, uneccessary, and over the top to call someone that.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)You're just not running in the same circles.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Likewise, urban dictionary can be a cultural reference on current slang. The link was an entry that is more than ten years old which points to it floating about in our culture for at least that long.
Others have linked to references from the 1970s. Still others have linked to earlier usage on DU.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)or look it up on Urban Dictionary.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
Ms. Toad
(38,096 posts)Neither "Nucking" nor "futs" are actual words, whereas but both "cunning" and "stunt" are actual words. Because you aren't using them in context, I can't make a direct comparison to the second difference - but as non-words a second distinction is inherent: in the context of the sentence the words actually describe a legitimate perception of Clinton's tactics in with regard to press communications. (Cunning - as in clever, and stunt - as in a way to make it appear something is real that isn't (she is putting on a show of speaking with the press without actually doing so in a meaningful way.))
Could it have been a way to come close to using the "C" word, without actually saying it - definintely. I have absolutely no problem with him losing the game of chance with the jury because they believed that was his intent.
Banning a long time poster for a single instance of using the "C" word - when he didn't actually use any "C" word other than cunning - is ridiculous and, given his vocal opposition to Clinton and the announced support for Clinton by the board administration, feels politically expedient, at a minimum.
Heck, i've been on juries (or alerted on) any number of posts recently where people were using gay or transgender (and even the old "mAnn Coulter) without even a hide - and I find insulting someone we hate by calling them gay or transgender is at least as offensive as actually using the "C" word.
ETA: Wow. I had not even been to ATA when I added that last paragraph. The discrepancy between how actually using gay/transgender as an insult and using a phrase that doesn't actually say - but could fairly be read as - implying the "C" word is pretty start: The former - it's bad. Alert on it. Vote to hide it - despite repeated pleas from members of the LGBT community to do more; the latter - out the door. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598005
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Get real. Or go fishing, don't care which.
Paka
(2,760 posts)I would never use the word nor would I make that covert connection. 
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)that last week it was implied that Bernie is a racist. And yes, everyone is right. No one called Bernie a racist. Just like, this time, no one called Hillary a c***.
Precise language.
The truth remains that no one called anyone anything offensive and this is why I am getting the feel of a double standard being applied on this site.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)You are wrong, it is code, has been code for quite a long time.
Just because it's never dawned on you that it is code, doesn't mean it isn't.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Like nucking futs or bass ackwards.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)We all know what nucking futs means as well as cunning stunts.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"nucking futs" is easier to recognize because neither of those words, when spelled that way, has any meaning.
I don't know that I would have understood the other term if, for example, the first poster, now known as name removed, had said so and so has pulled a lot of c*nning st**ts. I was not familiar with the expression before this thread and would have taken the comment at face value.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Also didn't know SKIP was going through a lot of health issues at this time.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't think what I read was even posted by him I think some other DUer was filling us in, but I am not sure.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)And, we didn't have to use Urban Dictionary to validate our suspicion.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's akin to the "unique New York" phrase, which, if repeated enough, starts coming out as "unique you-nork." Try a little transposition and make the first word of SKP's little phrase "stunning" and you'll eventually figure it out.
He should be ashamed. He was looking to insult,put down and deride with that phrase. Now he has to learn a new one--"Too clever by half."
Paka
(2,760 posts)and obviously out of touch. I would not make the connection.
MADem
(135,425 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)And thats exactly what it refers to
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Cunning Stunts is a concert video by heavy metal band Metallica released in 1998. It was released in DVD and VHS formats. The title is a spoonerism of the words stunning c*nts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunning_Stunts_(video)
I'm a Bernie supporter but this is over the line. Maybe when he cools off they'll let him come back.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Which makes it a fairly calculated attempt at slurring women here- and not nearly the first time. Earl G looks at the history and it's been fairly ugly.
It is.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)A new low IMO, I guess to criticize Hillary Clinton for pulling devious political stunts is now reason to be banned.
If she would stop pulling devious political stunts then there would be no need to criticize her for it, but banishing critics is one way to win a primary I guess in the minds of some.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Keep digging.
Response to zappaman (Reply #813)
Post removed
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Nice try.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)zappaman
(20,627 posts)Thanks!
Keep trying!
7962
(11,841 posts)I've seen it many times
peacebird
(14,195 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Had I seen it, I would have taken it at face value, without knowing its second meaning and without even knowing to google the term.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)As long as it gets the intended to the stake, they will stretch anything to absurd levels.
I find the whole thing disgraceful, unless there is another post that was edited or something, this is bull. I may have missed the actual post, but what was shown is not what was claimed to have been said.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)better toughen up....repubs could say, if they haven't all ready, the same that has banned NYC SKP. It's a shame.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)But the word play in that post was over the top. It was a good hide.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I will consider that the admins are pro Hillary in that decision.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)And that person used the actual word.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Autumn
(48,717 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I saw this discussion over at kos some years ago. It was a long thread over there. The c word remained forbidden but the p word was allowed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I find the word "outrage" condescending and it does not accurately describe my reaction. However, I don't use words for any genitalia, male or female, as a slur because I think doing so is wrong. I do see the argument for a distinction, but I don't make any distinction. I don't use any of the words and just posted I think no one should use them. Must I say I am "outraged" by their use to get my point across?
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I'm not offended by it and use the term myself. It is almost always derogative, often follows the effin' word and often directed at Republicans.
and I enjoy long threads like this where many participate in the discussion.
7962
(11,841 posts)I get called both if I'm winning a lot of hands of cards with my friends. No big deal.
lark
(25,856 posts)Fair comes to town once a year, otherwise it's absent.
Rex
(65,616 posts)This was a clear message sent by the admins, no doubt about it imo.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)In my book marks when you click on them they are missing. But no matter, yes you are right this is a clear message.
Rex
(65,616 posts)then some good came from the ban. It just tells me the admins are as sick of the endless bullshit war over ponies as most of us are.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Not looking a gift pony in the mouth. Is that metaphor too mixed?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Maybe they have finally decide on zero tolerance over misogyny...which is great imo, long time coming.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Too many overlooked the sexist shit- still do- when it is directed toward Coulter, Palin, etc.
guess what people- it's still sexist shit that degrades all women. It's not hard.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I can call Coulter and crew 'dumbass, moronic clowns' all day long and any other of the thousands of ways to describe horrible people. No need to be a sexist pig and one would think it would go against peoples nature. At least here.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)So it's clear they are not doing it to protect all women. But if it's against Hillary, bam, the door.
He could have been given a time out. I mean really, look at how nasty posts are by people who get repeated hides and they get to come back and spew their shit over and over again.
What he said was wrong and uncalled for and OTT, but so was the ban.
I can't get the search to work. It happens a lot. The search is pretty bad on this site. How many were there?
Rex
(65,616 posts)That is the part that bugs me, we both remember correctly the way women were treated when DU3 first started up. The stalking, the name calling etc..
OTTH I have to say I hope this causes some to stop fighting so dam much over their pony! The nastiness is unneeded and unwarranted.
I think we can all talk about our candidates without having to smear the ones we don't like...so maybe something good will come from the ban, but I doubt it.
Some just cannot keep from being nasty.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and I cannot get advanced search to work AT ALL. It times out every single time, even if I am looking for something I posted a week ago.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)TBF
(35,458 posts)when I was on MIRT I felt like EarlG was an admin who actually had a good eye for misogyny and acted on it. I always appreciated that and will not question his judgment on this ban because he can easily pull up a user's entire history.
BUT, I am certainly concerned about some of the other anti-Bernie language I've seen in this particular thread. The outright nastiness towards supporters of Bernie is noted and makes me feel unwelcome at DU. I hope the campaign makes a forum for Bernie so we can support him elsewhere if it's going to continue like this on DU.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)pro-Hillary people for a very long time. Not sure I agree with the ban but it's not my board.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In the Progressive Reform Group, two hosts were alerted on, one for making a post that allegedly did not belong in the group--something that, as you know, is up to the hosts to decide. The second host then got alerted on for including a brief mention of the alert--without naming the alerter--in a post. The first alert went to the hosts. The second alert went to a DU jury, who decided in favor of the group host.
By the standard used by the alerter to send the post to a DU jury, this post would be alerted on tenfold.
I guess someone should have given the hosts of the Bernie Sanders Group a heads up. I apologize for myself and my fellow hosts about that. Please tell the other BSG hosts.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)
However many seems to believe that women and POC in GD are paid trolls because they ask questions and want the campaign to be more inclusive. So, they have made a conscious decision to be hostile and dismissive to us in GD... And this is the result.
Edited to remove a comment regarding hosts there and a question- was Skip hosting a group? I think that is what ledw astray, thanks!
TBF
(35,458 posts)but most of my interest is in the Socialist Progressives and Bernie groups. I try to keep up with all posts in both although that can be hard some days.
I agree that it is time we are all more involved in politics - the capitalists are killing our planet and will continue in that vein unless we stop them. Being inclusive is very important in that effort. We need to hear everyone's voices - not just the male land-owner types.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It seems to be overlooked in the blind hatred of Hillary. If her run serves as flypaper for idiots to think tongue twisters of bigotry and hate are acceptable here, fuck em. They're as hateful - and as stupid- as any republican were supposed to be fighting.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Somehow people often trick juries into thinking it is a hidable offense. Been baited daily by people just "asking questions", lol.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)I have looked through that thread and I don't see it. I would remove a host who cheered that on.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I went to check and damned if its impossible to follow on a phone. If so I will apologize and correct my posts.
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)The host of the Bernie group are a cabal?
Good to know because it's news to me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Interested in social issues, they're just trolls who want to turn Bernie away from his economic populism. It's beyond paranoia- it's fucking unhinged. There's nothing to do but point and laugh at them.
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)How about linking to what you describe? I haven't seen it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Not hard to find. Funny thing is- one was started by someone who - in GD only- denies its a worthy issue, lol. But in the privacy of the group (oops!) it's a worthy issue. Apparently they think they have a secret hiding place there with no trolls- and that many long time posters in GD are unworthy, paid operatives, etc. In flexible stuff! Like I said- paranoia abounds.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I have noticed that in the Hillary Group they seem to think it's the War Room as they were literally plotting against Sanders' supporters in a thread appealing to Hillary supporters to email Bernie's campaign with some posts they deemed as nasty and mean. It got a lot of recs and no one asked to take it down.
In the Bernie group, an OP was made calling Hillary supporters a name and several people, myself included, asked that that not happen and asked for a self-delete. I also pm'd a host asking them to lock and request the OP to self-delete. The OP was self-deleted.
I also had a Hillary supporter edit a post I had replied to, after they had already replied to my reply. About 20 min, iirc, after their second reply to me they decided to go back and edit their first post to make it look like my reply was wrong and theirs was right. That was calculated and completely dishonest and nefarious. He sort of apologized but since he didn't acknowledge what he actually did, just apologized for 'being' wrong not 'doing' wrong I think he only did it because he got caught and it was documented for all to see.
So, there are bad apples in every group. It's better to not generalize about a group as a whole and just take each individual as they come along.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Like it or not, this is just the start of people asking questions. There are always going to be people talking out of both sides of their mouths and playing games, but this is a time for people to ask questions. Everyone should welcome it as an opportunity to speak well for their candidate.
If you have the war room mentality 24/7 you may as well not be here, you know what I mean? Go knock on doors and make phone apps for your candidate- see how many questions people in real life have, maybe you'll get better at coping with them!
I generally stay out of the supporter groups, and the war room mentality is exactly why.
uppityperson
(115,993 posts)reasons. I've served on MIRT and found these 2 admins banning for very different reasons.
EarlG typically bans for bigotry, misgynism, the like. Skinner bans more for repeat disruptors, trolling, stuff like that.
I have not seen EarlG ban someone lightly, and have appreciated that and what he does.
TBF
(35,458 posts)That's what I have noticed as well.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)here's one Skinner banned because "misogynist" --AND HOW!
Pab S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=126308&sub=trans
and Cid_B, thank the gods...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=223445&sub=trans
merrily
(45,251 posts)on Facebook and on youtube. He has many fans on reddit, too.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)but not the ban
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I don't think he called anyone the "C" word, based on the conversation.
Implied? Yeah, probably wink and snicker. How many times have I called Dick Cheney a DICK?
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Remember this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026398318#post122
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)I swear I had you on ignore....here...let me fix that right now...
pintobean
(18,101 posts)when I wasn't. Now, here you are gravedancing.
Putting me on ignore can't fix that.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...you were just being an obnoxious bully....
pintobean
(18,101 posts)about as well as that 1-6 alert fail did.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)
It is now...buddy.....
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)trending now on Twitter
Iggo
(49,587 posts)By EarlG.
Iggo
(49,587 posts) jwirr
(39,215 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Sad to see this, but I'm sure he'll either move on, or come back with a new name.
It's a discussion board, nothing more - and fun for the most part for those of us who are liberal and progressive. I've gotten a lot more liberal with my usage of ignore lately, lol, and voila, my experience here is much better.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)The vast majority of supporters know calling someone c*** will get you banned.
I will never be banned from this site for using that work. I can guarantee it, because I don't use that word ever.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)But suffice it to say that any DU member CAN have their posting privileges revoked.
And with that, I'll let you have the last bit of snark. Thanks!
demwing
(16,916 posts)Neither did NYC_SKP.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)you can get banned for calling a male candidate a dickhead.
DU is becoming less relevant by the hour.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Banning someone for that word actually is not a decline but represents status quo.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)but I don't have to agree with it on my own time.
Near as I can tell, a lot more people complain about feminine insults than masculine ones so there's a ban on female insults. While I don't agree, I can live with it on a site I don't own. But, banning a long-term member such as this for this seems a little much.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Calling anyone by a certain list of female-specific words will get you canned because women are fighting against greater inertia.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)wait for that to happen just about never.
Meanwhile, trashing Democratic constituencies which are popularly associated with our adversaries, Republicans, though we call ourselves a big tent? I am Charlie Hebdo! Free Speech! No to censorship!
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)
There are pejoratives and there are pejoratives and it's disingenuous to argue the c word and dickhead carry the same sting. The former is going to get most men to throw their hands up if it's aimed at a woman close to them, the latter will get a shrug if it's aimed at them.
The C word is right up there with the N word, the F word, the S word, and the K word. It's actually worse than the B word that some women actually embrace though I can't understand why.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)You actually used the 'c' word but not the others. I have always thought the 'c' word to be one of the worst, along with 'c' sucker, which is a different c word entirely. If the 's' word is shit, well, it's crude, but not particularly shocking to hear someone say it outloud.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Hey, a person can call anybody anything he or she wants as long as he or she is willing to live with the consequences.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)some tbought would be a good idea to see if they 'should'.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I am like "D-word? What the hell is the D-word?"
Then it dawns on me that it's something we called Mr. Milhaus Nixon.
As I think he said "They won't have (expletive deleted) D-word Nixon to kick around any more."
The S-word I believe has something to do with hispanics, but that word is pretty much non-existent (seems like it was more common in the 1970s, or it could be a teen thing). Now, of course, we have the I-word.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)There is no epithet describing male anatomy that is the equivalent in current or historical usage.
lark
(25,856 posts)Dickhead is used humorously all the time, Jimmy Buffet even wrote a song called "Dickhead" that's very funny. I have never seen the "C" word as humorous, don't think anyone at all does. It's mean and hateful and meant to be that way. It's not in songs, except the gangster rap variety and then it's meant as a bad slur.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Did you not grow up in the United States?
The taboo against "cunt" is simply more powerful. In other words women are... in THIS case..... being afforded linguistic preference; in other words, they are enjoying an .... ahem... *privilege* based on gender.
If one hears "cunt" less frequently it could be for any number of reasons. Leading the pack: less hostility harbored and expressed toward women.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)The word has been used many times and sometimes not even hidden. This wasn't about misogyny generally but because it was directed at a Democratic candidate.
DU is becoming less relevant, but it isn't because there isn't enough freedom of misogyny.
A while ago (a year maybe?, I think soon after disucssionist started) EarlG wrote a very condescending post to women at the time that there were some who were being threatened and stalked. He didn't care about the misogyny then at all, he was dismissive of it.
But now that it is directed at his preferred candidate he stepped right up in to action, so it's not about women's rights, it's about politics. That's pretty sad.
I see he lessened the punishment, so I agree with the time out as that was a definite transgression by SKP.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)I was one of the women threatened.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Or suggesting that a kick in the balls is an appropriate response to taking up too much space on the train.
Hillary the inevitable, love it or leave it I guess is the message here.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Most women I know will be very offended if you call them the C-word, however.
Response to cyberswede (Original post)
Post removed
Iggo
(49,587 posts)Clever.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)TBF
(35,458 posts)Well that's good.
TBF
(35,458 posts)No one is.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... please put it right here, and I will apologize profusely.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)maybe now threads mocking "some Sanders supporters" will have no threads to link to.
I've often thought when reading those, "You mean Sanders supporter."
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...but I will take your word that they exist.
As for the ban, I understand why it happened, but I do believe it was a tad harsh.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)It's a bad moment for all of us when someone who has been here so long is banned.
Labeling us all "angry supporter" is really over the line.
Response to madfloridian (Reply #290)
Buzz Clik This message was self-deleted by its author.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I don't care how long he/she has been here.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But so have a lot of folks.
Don't know why so many people have to be so twitchy.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Just a jig will do.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
demmiblue
(39,164 posts)I am not a Hillary supporter (but will ultimately vote against republicans).
I am sure that some here will link him to the DUers that support liberals/progressives. :sigh:
Edit: Didn't read the previous responses... the accusations have already started. Just stop.
City Lights
(25,578 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Dumb to make such nasty comments about anyone especially our likely nominee.
I hope more like him get the same fate.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
Raine1967
(11,667 posts)
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,024 posts)But we're friends offline, and also on Facebook.
So there's that.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Avalux
(35,015 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)After 7 yrs of just talking and nothing really changing, he had enough of everything and just made a move that he knew would get him banned. Maybe he can now do something more constructive with his life.
God knows that all this back and forth on this forum can get very exhausting and even though it's probably not going to change a thing in the real world. So here's to you NYC SKP, enjoy your family, life outside politics and non politics hobby. The stress relief would probably improve your health and add more years to your life.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Most people work, participate in charity events, fund-raisers, have families and do all of the things involved with that. You have no idea what his life is like.
You've only been here two years, how would you know anything about his 7 years here?
I do think what he said was way over the top and honestly don't know what he was thinking, but I hope maybe after a sincere apology he's allowed to come back. Everyone screws up once in a while.
more constructive not that he wasn't doing anything constructive with his life. Also the 7yrs on DU I got from reading the OP and I think it shows when you look at the profile.
But what I said is all speculation and maybe he didn't want to leave yet but that just the way I like to spin it. NYC is someone I have noticed in my brief stay here, he was very active and his heart seemed to be in the right place. I just hope he makes the better of his life out of this ban.
As the saying goes, every disappointment can be a blessing.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Hopefully, the admins may consider letting him back, I'm crossing my fingers. I don't believe he should be banned, what he said was awful and he should apologize for it, but there's been much, much worse done here by people not only on this thread but also those rec'ing it.
Quit being so condescending towards him re 'his life'. I noticed you didn't mention his recent brain surgeries or what he's been going through. Your 'concern' doesn't seem all that genuine. Just a sly little way to appear caring while you dance.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)I don't care if this banned poster ever comes back.
That is not a reflection on Hillary as much as a reflection on the poster narrow vile mind.
Its ugly.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It is ugly. So are many things here - ugly, inhumane, damaging - yet allowed.
The poster made a mistake. I hope he can apologize, be penalized for it in some way and come back.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Ban deserved.
polly7
(20,582 posts)of stupidity responding to a troll, he did.
I've called men dicks and other demeaning names before - yet I love men, respect them, and think every person on earth deserves to be treated equally with the same rights. We all screw up., I'm not a misandrist, yet I used words that some could accuse me of being one with, and I feel horrible that I did that.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)
Bye.
Enough said.
polly7
(20,582 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)I didn't know about his health scare, didn't even know he was anti Hillary poster. All I knew about him that he wasn't someone I disliked or someone that really special. Also, I am been very much depressed about politics and went ahead and channeled my feeling towards him and made speculations that is at best less than 50% true.
But one thing is for sure, my post is not in anyway trying to denigrate. God knows I have said worse things in anger
polly7
(20,582 posts)He made a mistake, I hate seeing people crucified for some stupid thing he could rectify by apologizing, as I'm sure he would if he had the chance. He was always a big part of this place, for me ... and it seems, many others. Doesn't seem fair in comparison to other things that have happened - truly awful things.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Your message is simple to understand.
And it is true.
Thanks
polly7
(20,582 posts)It's almost embarrassing to see someone post such a personal (obviously disingenuous) 'wish' for a poster's life that he/she has no idea about.
Phony crap.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)I n all the personal vile nasty insults the banned one said to pro-Hillary or other subjects he didn't like, posters, did he ever consider what those posters dealt with in their personal life before throwing insults out?
Not at all. Nor did he care.
This battle is O V E R.
Makes my day to hear the good news that DU draws the line on posters who try so cleverly to use this stupid ugly word against anyone on it's site.
Thank You Earl G.
polly7
(20,582 posts)And yes, I will defend a long time contributor here who's brought so much information and added so much to this site. One mistake and people are so happy to crucify him without considering what he's been through, going through or anything else. So much hate on this site it makes my stomach churn sometimes.
There has been so much worse, and yet ......... nothing, it was fine.
I hope he's given a second chance. So do many others. It's sad, he was appreciated by many. I looked forward to seeing his posts when I logged in, he was someone I learned from - those posters are getting rarer and rarer all the time here.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Who's next on your hit list?
polly7
(20,582 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,574 posts)Hopefully, he's big enough to make that apology.
And hopefully, we're big enough to accept it.
Well written, Polly7
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)Misogyny should have no place on DU.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)TBF
(35,458 posts)through the years at noticing such comments and acting on them.
I'm not thrilled however with the nastiness in this thread aimed at Sanders' supporters. Not unexpected but sad to see nonetheless.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)of Sanders or Sanders supporters. He hated public education, for one. I think he was long past his expiration date, frankly.
demmiblue
(39,164 posts)It was so venomous and nasty (he ended up deleting his comments). I have always felt that he harbored a slight resentment toward women.
He had a huge chip on his shoulders then... when he lost his control, his perma-mod status. I also remember looking at his ignore list and was stunned by how many people had him on ignore.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)He also used belittling language on people who didn't support education reform or charter schools.
As a long-time teacher and socialist, I found his new embrace of socialism a little puzzling. To say the least.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)who voiced issue with things that he held dear. He called us disturbed, traumatized, emotionally stunted, unable to come to grips with our anger. He compared us to mentally disturbed youth that had histories of severe and ongoing physical and sexual trauma. He called us pathologically broken. He suggested we needed therapy to get over our irrational anger with God.
Oh, and according to him, HE was an atheist. Sure. Yeah. whatever.
He was a nasty piece of work and I'm glad his posting days here are over. He was toxic to anyone who dared disagree with St.Skip and his band of buddies.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)I just had to deal with him in the Education forum. I hold him partially responsible for chasing away several teachers who used to post here. He savaged me one day for asking him politely to use "sexual orientation" instead of "sexual preference" in a post in there, since I am one of the hosts. And anyone who didn't agree with him about charter schools, he also called passive-aggressive names.
I'm sorry to see many good people here that I like upset with those of us who had problems with him. I wish the Admins had noticed a lot sooner that he was a toxic poster, it might have alleviated some of the suspicion that this is just a partisan banning.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)for his steadfast supporters who truly believed then and believe now that the sun rose and set upon his happy ass. I modded with him, and I can't say anything about what it was like to be a mod because of the billion-year confidentiality thing we signed adn are held to under threat of legal action by Skinner if we mention anything about modding. But I will tell you that he was even more unpleasant in the hidden mod forum than anyone EVER saw in the public forums. I was kicked out of modding because I publically aired some of the bigotry I and others saw back then.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x173419
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1303902
The other "mending fences" type thread from june 2011 is strangely archived...and unsearchable. what I posted in that thread was what caused me to get removed permanently from moderating.
Just, you know, to maybe shed some light.....
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)I have mad respect for you bringing that all to light, did then, did now. You rock!
I remarked this morning on FB to a (former, now banned) LGBT DUer friend of mine that it was remarkable how this is all coming to bear now, even though it had been obvious for years to anyone with eyes and a keen sense of pattern recognition that certain groups were being treated with a heavy hand by a few mods on DU2.
I have good friends who disagree with me, and lord knows the jury system is funky, but I just can't see going back to the mod system. Sadly it was only because of a few, but I'd never trust it under the same process, ever again.
I guess I shouldn't be shocked it was even worse in private. He took on my Education co-host in public quite nastily in 2012. I honestly am dismayed that this behavior was tolerated for so many years when he was a mod.
I hope after you've slept on it you'll see the error of your ways and apologize and undo the harm that you've done to the DU education group.
You're out of line, and this kind of behavior from anyone, and from the host of a progressive discussion board in particular, is a gross embarrassment and the kind of thing that can only hurt educational progress.
Unbelievable.
Actually, you should probably step down as host and offer up a vote for somebody less inclined to abuse their power.
You were never a DU moderator, I'll bet.
Fix it.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)but let's be frank--he was nasty to people who dared to disagree with St Skip lonnng before he had brain surgery. Years before.
People need to take off their blinders and realize that he was probably a really good ally when he agreed with you, and was a steaming pile of jerk when you were on the opposite side of his issue of choice. God, education, guns, gays....he was always right, and it wasn't enough for him to be right, but he had to be nasty about it with those he disagreed with. It was like total war. In his mind, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEVIATE FROM HIS THOUGHTS, ever. If you do, you're not only wrong, you're psychologically damaged beyond repair and need extensive restorative therapy and thorough re-education.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)It was the loss of the authority and prestige of being a mod. He talked about the "glory days" quite often. Hell, he was still modding DU2 long after it was abandoned by all but a few dozen people. He didn't stop until admin was getting complaints in meta about mods still having access to users' info. Admin finally shut those powers down on DU2. I got the impression that he felt he was no longer important. He became somewhat of a Jeckel and Hyde after that.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)because they never removed themselves from moderating term after term after term, and actually saw themselves as a league apart from "regular posters." The idea of term limits made their stomachs TURN. They fought against it tooth and nail. You'll notice many of the perma-mods were the first to sign up to be hosts in DU3, and have continued to host at least one main forum, and one smaller forum, pretty much continuously. For many people, it's absolutely a power thing.
FOr the record, I modded many terms, often back to back, but after a few I'd sit it out and do other things. Actually interact with people on DU (Mods weren't forbidden from posting on DU, but you had to stay away from hot-topic issues and not cause any nonsense. It was pretty bad if a mod got a post hidden or a thread locked).
Others...modded for YEARS non-stop. And still continue to have a moderator-mentality when it comes to hosting. I saw this myself when I had hosted briefly GD and still am host of LGBT (back when that group had access to the host forum). Lots of lamenting that hosts couldn't ban people like mods did, that hosts didn't have access to poster history like mods did. It's bizarre.
My only interest in modding is keeping the place cleaned up. When I modded, it was LBN until they took away mods being assigned to individual forums and it was all mods for all forums. LBN had easy to understand rules, and I liked keeping clutter off the page.
There are definitely people who see modding/hosting as some kind of badge, like it's a job or something that demonstrates skill or knowledge or something. There was no test for modding. No licensing exam. Submit an application and be approved. Even less "skill" for hosting. Get on a wait list and bide time.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)That's always been a peeve of mine in real life and on this board...IMHO, empathy is the hallmark of liberalism and how you react to folks in distress...It's not about if you're pro TPP or anti TPP, if you think the 1%/99% divide is the biggest issue of our time, if you think all our problems can be solved for repealing corporate personhood, but how you treat your fellow citizen, of your nation and of the world. If you don't have empathy you're not a liberal.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(132,386 posts)
joshcryer
(62,534 posts)I must be living under a rock because I've only even encountered NYC_SKP a few times over the years. He knows grantcart, told me that grantcart was still around. He defended me in the Sanders group when I got into an argument there.
But those posts in the education group were downright nasty, I'm surprised they weren't all hidden, way over the top. I've not been that bad in my worst stupor (OK maybe a bit).
The Newton thing was also fucked up.
I'll have to reconsider my statements about reversing the decision. I think DU3 enables a lot of ugliness, unfortunately, and I feel like I've seen a lot worse stuff survive a jury. That is not in any way meant to diminish what was said. SKP knew what he was saying and EarlG interpreted correctly. It was really low and banworthy.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)Most def!
I don't want to flog this, I know people who liked him are hurting. But there was some stuff going on in groups and forums that didn't get the kind of attention that a GD post might get. I was shocked at how outright nasty he was to my co-host, and mocking that she'd never been a mod and should be removed as a host. It was an opportunity to be helpful to someone trying to learn how DU3 works--not an opportunity to make her a figure of ridicule, using his experience as a cudgel, instead.
I feel a little weird even bringing this stuff into the conversation, but I feel like as a woman, that "just" being upset about the thing he got banned for isn't credible enough. Which is itself kind of awful. But I hope that people who thought he shared their values will also look at the record and reflect a bit.
Cha
(316,455 posts)don't want to be a part of it.. I thank them, too!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782293
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782326
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And that's all I'm gonna say about that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)Sorry to see this.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
glinda
(14,807 posts)Am very troubled by some comments also that are rude about people who may support another candidate. All discussion should be on table here. This is sad.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)The choice of words were his own.
And he is gone.
Good.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Reading also about what he has been through recently if we as a group cannot be compassionate then what. I saw two different words. Not a blended word. I am female.
What I was referring to was some aggressive behavior from both groups. I see there is an issue with it and see no good coming from it. There are many comments and perhaps others on similar note that should have been banned. He contributed a lot imho but then again I have not read everyone's posts nor everything.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Sure what he said/alluded to was wrong, but he should have been warned and given a time out.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)samsingh
(18,234 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)..because of candidate support.
He is banned from DU because of a vile nasty word he chose to post.
His own words got the ban. Not his choice of candidate.
samsingh
(18,234 posts)we are trying to build a large tent and this does not help. I think hiding the post would have been sufficient. it was the only post he's had hidden for the past 3 months.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But it's doubtful he was clueless. And it's also doubtful he didn't know he was responding to a well known troll.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I agree with you that NYC_SKP certainly had the consonant-switched meaning in mind, but right in this thread you'll see that there are several of us who wouldn't have gotten that reference without being tipped off.
Yes, I know, people have posted links to where it's explained on the Internet. Guess what, the Internet is a big place. It's possible to spend considerable (in my case, excessive) time online and never encounter any of those explanations.
As to NYC_SKP, my personal opinion is that a longtime poster should not be banned for a single mistake. Better to use an escalating ladder of warning, temporary suspension, longer temporary suspension, ban. For a particularly egregious offense, maybe skip the warning, but not to go directly to a permanent ban.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)up to the people who own the sight.
There's been a larger pattern of problematic behavior with this poster, such that it's perfectly believable he meant to call Clinton that word. As unpopular as Clinton is on DU, there are very, very few people about whom that could be said.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)And other DUers can denounce those who denounce the ban.
I was responding to EarlG's stated rationale, the reasonable interpretation of which is that one post of this sort would trigger a ban, regardless of other conduct. Quite a few posters in this thread would support such a rule.
If NYC_SKP or any other member exhibits "a larger pattern of problematic behavior", then that should be addressed through a warning and escalating punishments, culminating (if necessary) in a ban. If the admins agreed with you about the pattern, they shouldn't have been silently seething about it until their anger reached the banning point.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)What about the posters who call people "ratf*ckers"? Shouldn't they be banned? That is a reference to ---oh, I don't know--- bestiality. And the "b" word. Sometimes posters who call someone a "bit@h" get a pass, and sometimes their posts are hidden. There is a selectivity in who gets hidden or banned and who gets a pass. It's wrong, undemocratic, and it is unacceptable.
Cha
(316,455 posts)insult.
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
Posted it in his journal too.. with a big wave at the end..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
There are some actual Bernie Supporters who aren't excusing his post.. I've seen others, too..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782293
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782326
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Response to marym625 (Reply #36)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)uppityperson
(115,993 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)markpkessinger
(8,875 posts). . .especially in light of what he has been through of late.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)The profile page says NYC_SKP has an 80% chance of serving on a jury. Does this mean this is a temporary ban from DU?
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Which doesn't seem likely since we all know the word he used is forbidden on DU.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Yes, he did. Arguing format over content and cowering behind implication is simply puerile.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I was shocked.
I wish him the best.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
Not my forum.
Peace.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You are a great person, hrmjustin! I know we don't support the same primary candidate but you have always been a respectable person. I have a feeling someone like me won't be around much longer with my views, so I just wanted to thank you for representing yourself and your beliefs so well. You are a credit to the Democratic Party.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You always are respectable.
This primary will pass.
Thank you for your kind words and go nowhere.
phil89
(1,043 posts)a misogynist??
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)was the first reply in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018767679
Hmm. Member since '08. Seems longer, like he's always been here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)
In the last week I've seen claims that women and POC who are here for many years are paid trolls.
The paranoia and deep disrespect is untenable. I do believe many would rather destroy this place than allow it to coalesce around a Dem candidate they do not favor. Seriously stupid shit.
Edited to remove reference to a host here-
I believe I misconstrued a post regarding who was actually the host referred to. Apologies.
BeyondGeography
(40,793 posts)I liked him. Seemed determined to see where the edge was on Mount Hillary. Found it, obviously. Pretty early, too. I mean, shit, hold serious fire until the first debate at least, dude...
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)About time
RL
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Does he get a chance to explain himself?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)uppityperson
(115,993 posts)How would you explain using that phrase?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)uppityperson
(115,993 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I'll miss him just for his environment posts. He has a head on his shoulders like not many.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)NYC_SKP added to the community. That's why all DUers should be sad the place cannot be the same without him.
Compared to what other DUers have done and said over the years, that's up there. The thing is, they're still here.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)To get to the point of using that ugly word against a candidate you don't like, geez then it is time to leave.
A little early in the election process for such ugly speak.
blm
(114,412 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)Sad to see him flame out like that.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I wonder what caused the meltdown.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)decided to post a picture of a real vile anti-personnel weapon and proceeded to explain that the shooter had not gone about things the right way.
That was it for me and him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)side and down the other.
So he's apparently getting some kind of karma for his belief that hate speech doesn't deserve protection.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)that he disagreed with as being emotionally stunted, unable to come to grips with their anger at god and their parents, unloved, needing therapy, and compared us to children who had been sexually and physically abused. He called us broken. He called us damaged and suggested that nothing short of long-term in-patient therapy could get us straight in the head.
He was a noxious, toxic jerk and I"m gad he's gone.
His "would you kiss you mossberg with that mouth" post after Newtown shooting was possibly the lowest, though. When he was asked to step down as a host because of it, he initially denied making the post. Then he said it was in jest. Then he said it was sarcasm. Then he said it was a joke. Then he just denied the whole thing.
Only a real classless asshole can make a joke about the gun used in a mass shooting DAYS AFTER SAID MASS SHOOTING as not being a good enough choice for a weapon to use in a mass shooting.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Who knows the impact this had. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Went to that thread... and he was responding to an auto-removed post. MIRT I guess ???
And he didn't LITERALLY use the C-Word... although I got the jist...
But without the post that was removed... the one he was responding to, it's impossible to judge it in context.
A hide, sure. But a banning???
Wow.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)thus had the whole context. As for banning vs. a hide, the admins have always made it clear that when one of them thinks a poster should be banned, the poster is gone.
eta: he isn't the first person I've seen use this Spoonerism to disguise the use of C***. Hell, it's even been listed in the Urban Dictionary for over a decade.
NRaleighLiberal
(61,541 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(61,541 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)consideration and maybe the two who voted not to hide did just that. Still no excuse, but banning seems over the top here. A hidden post, maybe a time out with an apology - I think he deserves it after so many years of contributing here. Sad.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)So...there isn't a record of him being out of line before. Given the stress of his repeated surgeries... his clean record plus his years serving as a Moderator on DU-2 and Hosting many Forums in DU-3....it just seems very harsh.
I hope he can apologize and be reinstated.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I wasn't aware of all that ....... he may be emotionally troubled d/t medical issues, I'd noticed some days he seemed pretty excitable, the next - he was calm as could be. But always very, very intelligent and informative. He was a GOOD DU'er, many have done MUCH worse and not been completely banned, including some on this very thread.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Gee, thanks a fuck load for standing with misogynistic bullshit.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)This was tame compared to back then.
Hell... the jury vote was 5-2 to hide.
Meaning 2 DUers voted to let it stay.
As I said... Hide... not Ban.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)
One, that one or two jurors didn't understand the insult or
Two, that one or two jurors did understand it and let it stand.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You agreed to the TOS here, not sure why you did- given this anything goes attitude?
Do you really not give a fuck about sexism or racism here and think it's just fine?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)And I wish Skip had used better...
Second... And I don't remember if it's in the TOS... but there is the "Develop A Thick Skin Theory" somewhere around here.
Hide... Not Ban...
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Calling a woman the c word is odious behavior no matter how clever the person is in doing so and those that defend that odious behavior because they too don't like the target are desperately in need of some sober and intense self reflection. They might be a lot of things but they aren't small l liberals whose northstar are empathy.
That doesn't mean the punishment shouldn't be revisited. There are mitigating circumstances because the poster has gone through a lot.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
edit - found on urban dictionary. Ya, he probably knew what he was saying.
I had never heard of that phrase before now.Dr. Strange
(26,056 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)As mentioned, the admins can see the post that was removed in context and they are the ones who get to judge what violates the terms of service of their website.
MANative
(4,185 posts)and put him on Ignore. The vitriol had become intolerable.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Sancho
(9,173 posts)Honestly, there was a plan to skirt the rules, flame bait, and repost disproven information.
It was a legalist way to get get around the TOS. He just finally went too far.
edhopper
(37,018 posts)which didn't actually use that word.
I would have given him a time out, but not a complete ban.
Unless there were several warnings given already.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He wasn't.
Anyone who can read knew what he was doing there.
There's no need for a warning on that kind of hate speech.
edhopper
(37,018 posts)a limited ban would have been more appropriate for a long time member.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it should be considered.
not my call of course.
edhopper
(37,018 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)not surprised that someone finally called her the c word .I'm sure he had some cheering him on. This placed has jumped the shark and become the left's version of Free Repubic.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)
Autumn
(48,717 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)President was called names in the most hateful manner I have seen. It was an extremely disgusting display, but the poster was not banned, and the thread was not even locked, though in the past, I do not believe that would have been tolerated.
What was even was more bothersome to me was the number of responses in that thread that supported the use of the hate filled language.
Even in this thread I see some complaining that people can complain about descriptions of men with vulgar characterizations, and no one thinks twice, as though that is a justification for the vulgar insult hurled at Hillary. It isn't, and in my view it isn't the same thing either. Gender wise, women are the victims of discrimination far more than men, and referring to women in condesending sexual terms is not only inappropriate, but blatant sexism
Number23
(24,544 posts)
unblock
(55,860 posts)she just loves using the c-word. the british have a rather different view of the word, and it's a particular favorite, at least for some british woman and some british tv programs....
that said, i get it, and i'm not about to use the word myself, and while i enjoy watching her british shows with her, and frankly i enjoy watching shows with the free use of vulgarisms, i still have a tough time seeing the use of this particular term (and other sexist terms) as simply unenlightened as to the full ramifications....
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Not understanding this inconsistent standard.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 11:40 AM - Edit history (1)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)SKP got in trouble because he got upset at a candidate and hurled an epithet that didn't just demean her but demeaned a whole group...
I reserve the right to call Ben Carson a right wing charlatan but I surrender the right to call him the N word.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I forget which woman he used it in reference to; might have been Ann Coulter.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)there was a rude pundit piece posted here once that was did have the 'c' word in it repeatedly as well as other misogynistic language. It was alerted, I was on the jury, it was left 2-5. Jurors were angry that it was alerted. How dare he be questioned on his language etc...
Had a DU'er wrote that piece I'm sure it would have been hidden and the DU'er possibly banned.
The language didn't bother me, I curse like a drunken sailor, but I thought for sure, rude pundit or not, it would get hidden. I was surprised when it was left.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 01:49 PM - Edit history (1)
along with actions that represented blatant discrimination, so extrapolating that the British have a rather different view of the word, I would say that doesn't make that view right, and if that is the only way they can express themselves, then they are intellectually deficient
unblock
(55,860 posts)at least i hope that's what you meant....
and i'll stick to "unenlightened". there are certain hazards using a term like "intellectually deficient"....
still_one
(98,883 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)What's your point?
unblock
(55,860 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There is no way to be 'clever' and use that word. Ever. To reverse the Nike slogan, Just don't do it. Ever.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)survive a jury.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)That's remarkable.
My opinion is the jury system is totally broken, and that affirms it.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Response to hughee99 (Reply #140)
Buzz Clik This message was self-deleted by its author.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)
That's not how one "calls bullshit".
Response to hughee99 (Reply #150)
Buzz Clik This message was self-deleted by its author.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)who doesn't find your antics so amusing.
I cannot wait for your next ridiculous posting. Please don't disappoint.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You seem to be ready to pour yourself a glass of champagne in celebration.
H2O Man
(78,519 posts)NYC SKP is one of my favorite people on DU. I do not approve of what he apparently did. But I hope that he is allowed back soon.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)
ms liberty
(10,933 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)I think a hide, or timeout and warning was justified but no need to frigging ban him.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts) CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and I have a lot more respect for people who support Sanders and have always been staunch progressives and social democracy proponents all along.
I have not much respect who only seemed to latch onto Sanders because they didn't like Hillary and her position on gun regulation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)On the France/CH thing. At least, that Cahrlie Hebdo was responsible for the bystanders.
He was good at blaming the victim.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)one appallingly so.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)One or two hide so, but that's all.
melman
(7,681 posts)Some of the worst stuff I've ever seen here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)less than 48 hours after Newtown.
probably worse was that he was in the gungeon planning the post to disrupt the discussions of gun control in the wake of the Newtown shootings. he self deleted that one, but the thread is still there.
Spazito
(55,238 posts)and 6 adults.
Kingofalldems
(40,019 posts)as pretty conservative. I found it odd he was supporting Sanders.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I think I had him on my jury blacklist, and normally it is only gun nuts and people I see with pretty extreme right wing posting patterns that make it to my blacklist.
Kingofalldems
(40,019 posts)The sudden Bernie Sanders support was probably fraudulent.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And often posted meta craziness- sometimes pretending others used his account as cover.
Kali
(56,593 posts)I recall some meta antics by a poster who claimed somebody else posting to their account while they were drunk. It was not NYC_SKP.
there is now a bit of a DU meme out of it. I like cjeekdog.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I often got the impression that he was pretending to support him to rile up the crowd against HRC.
Kingofalldems
(40,019 posts)But another DUer told me he met him and he was genuine.
MADem
(135,425 posts)was a bit of a tip off!
NutmegYankee
(16,454 posts)No more than being pro-free speech makes one a conservative or liberal. People on both sides either support or don't constitutional civil liberties. Look at freedom of religion as a classic example. Just because the opposition is in support of a constitutional civil liberty doesn't mean we should oppose it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,454 posts)Trust me, I can't stand the RWNJ's that constantly threaten and hate on the Fed Gov, Gadsden flag and guns in hand. But I don't associate the 2nd Amendment with them anymore than the 1st or 4th, which they also proclaim and hold sacred. For example Pamela Geller proudly proclaims the 1st's right to free speech while insulting the motives and faith of 1 billion people. I don't start hating the 1st or thinking only assholes believe in free speech. I just recognize that sometimes assholes will use a constitutional civil liberty.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I have a relation who feeds his family hunting. I can understand why some people would want personal protection. What I can't get behind is is the comments he made after Hebdo or the school shooting. Those aren't Dem platform stances.
I am no fan of that deranged Gellar, but I wouldn't endorse anyone calling her that spoonerism, either. I can't see any 'gain' in deeply insulting over half the population of the world, even if some say they aren't bothered by it.
There have been many discussions about this here, and the view re: that and the bee word have morphed over the years. There was a lot more ribald talk in the old days, but community standards DO rule here and I'm fine with that. I respect the feelings of the majority in this regard, and won't even use the word here in the context of a quote, because I KNOW there are DUers who will be very offended by the term, and I don't see any need to hurt them.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)There are more on the 'Not Hillary' bandwagon.
Noting to do with Senator Sanders.
Response to CreekDog (Reply #95)
freshwest This message was self-deleted by its author.
LexVegas
(6,949 posts)What the fuck?
boston bean
(36,850 posts)He was a gun nut, a sometime sexist, and troll like.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)He fucked up. No excusing it.
rock
(13,218 posts)But he did appear to be obsessing and losing his cool here lately. Sorry to see him go but I can't argue with the judges.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)(Too lazy to find "angry mob with torches" picture).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I suspect that, for some members, DU's main value is the opportunity for self-righteousness.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)goodness.
pintobean
(18,101 posts) 
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)If this happened, folks would opt out of jury service in droves, which is the last thing Skinner wants to happen.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)I like the guy, but he was starting to skirt lines. When I saw the cunning remark, I figured that was about it for him. I really don't like Clinton for the nomination, but no one should use gendered language to have a go at her. Not okay.
NRaleighLiberal
(61,541 posts)
DU recently is pushing me to spend even more time in the garden, writing, listening to music, watching movies - even watching the wretched Red Sox mach 2015. Not a bad thing.
But I suspect those activities will see more of me, this place will see far less - until....
appalachiablue
(43,800 posts)is all good, and better late than never. I can see how recent matters would put you in the garden more, it's been a very active time. Some of the interests you note I share. Peace.
NRaleighLiberal
(61,541 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)DU is off the rails.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And not allowed here. Glad to see its not tolerated.
This is supposed to be a progressive and liberal space- those who deliberately make it hostile to women should be ejected.
valerief
(53,235 posts)was the hidden one. I guess it was the removed one.
There are soooooo many other things to get worked up over other than name-calling. It's been going on for centuries and will continue. I know how trigger words are used for brainwashing, but I also know how the connotation of words mutate, like a commercial jingle you hear over and over that loses its effect and meaning. IMHO, that "magic" word has mutated to neutrality.
I guess I'm less rigid than some others here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)were taking the magic and power out of it until the RW PCers resurrected it.
Individual words should not have power. Only context should. The more power we give individual words, the more brainwashing bullshit flourishes. But I've said this before. Not again, though. Goodbye forever.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Which means you joined the wrong fucking place- and much of the Internet- especially rude anonymous comment sections filed with bigotry is a more welcome environment for you.
You should not have agreed to the terms of service here, but since you did you'll have to live with them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)please.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Individual words should not have power. Only context should..."
And his context was both clear and obvious to even the dullest halfwit, regardless of the rationalizations being made to more efficiently cower behind implication.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Remember the "I had NO IDEA!" that chicken and watermelon had a horrible racial history. Amazing how some people are all about history except how it pertains to these things. Interesting lapse in their education, IF that's actually the case. I think some get a kick out trying to marginalize people here. Not a progressive impulse, not fooling us.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Don't expect to see any kind of reasonable reply.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)that if a serious allegation is made, proof should be provided. It protects the accuser and anyone who would be falsely accused.
I won't comment on that member, other than to say I'm not surprised.
Thanks again.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Makes no sense.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)to ban him.
It can be debated whether using that word should result in an automatic ban, but it hasn't thus far.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)His recent posting history couldnt have been TOO bad.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Loudly, incessantly critical of Hillary. Nothing hide-worthy. Which is my point. He was out spoken in his dislike of HIllary and I am sure many wanted him gone. I think the admins were looking for a reason and got it.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Shit. Am I allowed to say that? 
Cha
(316,455 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782326
Tell EarlG you think they were just "looking for a reason and got it", too.. I'm sure he'll be interested in your assessment.
"Dislike for Hillary"?
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
Posted it in his journal too.. with a big wave at the end..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
I think EarlG was exactly right.. "Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Capital punishment for using a "bad word." May not be the first time here, but this time it really looks like a political purge. That's a very bad thing for DU.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)previous post.
Ah, the humorless thrive.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
Texasgal
(17,235 posts)here either.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)for quite awhile now, just could not seem to be able to tone it down recently.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It implies native Americans 'off the reservation' are unable to control themselves once let out of their cages - reservations.
Many of the news articles that used the term in a literal sense in the past were also expressing undisguised contempt and hatred, or, at best, condescension for Native Americans — "shiftless, untameable...a rampant and intractable enemy to civilization" (New York Times, Oct. 27, 1886).
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I hate seeing people use that one.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Bigotry against native Americans is okie-dokie.
Sick.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Someone else already alerted on this post before you alerted on it, and only the first alert was sent to a Jury. A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of the post on Thu Jun 4, 2015, 10:03 AM, and voted 2-5 to keep IT. Please note that even though your alert was not sent to a Jury, it has been forwarded to the Administrators who review all alerts.
Admin may delete though.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But if the C word should not be used, well neither should this. But the term is approved.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I agree he went too far, but he is a good person and doesn't deserve the grave-dancing.
William769
(59,147 posts)
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts) MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)My post was directed at everybody on this thread who is defending NYC SKP and his repulsive comment.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Thanks for the clarification.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts) Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But I will notice that it's exceptionally rare that the admin give a flying fuck about misogyny on DU. Or any other bigotry that doesn't target a group they identify with.
So it's deserved... but I can't but wonder why the punishment isn't also doled out to many other deserving people.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)I agree that misogyny and bigotry shouldn't be tolerated on a liberal message board.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)My suggestion: don't bother creating alt accounts or asking to come back. Move on. This place is doomed if Hillary gets nominated anyway because DU appears to be roughly 4-1 against her. It's going to lose a lot of its members soon.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/
No juries or weird groups
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I doubt that anyone who drops the "c" word at reddit.com/r/politics will be there for long.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Believe me, that has been an issue for me for a long time. I saw a Bernie supporter who was actually banned from that group
Like I said, move on to a forum where the posters are normal and almost anything goes.
mopinko
(73,251 posts)we have had repeated incarnations of a "pro-sanders" troll.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not even just a Sanders group host, but a DU jury. However, as to a long time poster, I would have expected a hide, not a ban.
And, prior to this thread, I would have been clueless about the rude meaning of the term.
If someone in the Sanders group wants to say Bernie is better than Hillary, cool. But a term like that, no, not for Hillary, not for me, not for any woman or any man. No one. Not on this board.
glinda
(14,807 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)On a site where the owner endorses Hillary. The biggest anti-Hillary threads get roughly 4-7 times more recs than the most popular pro-Hillary threads.
She isn't very well-liked here. And in roughly a year it will be against the rules to do anything but cheerleader for her. Even the ones who say they will support any nominee won't necessarily post enthusiastically any longer.
DU is screwed. It will limp on but its traffic is going to take a big hit
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)or post more when the hatred... yes hatred.. is controlled.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And go full Hillary all the way, all the time...they no longer need us...or want us around.
But things seem to mature this way...Democrats mature into Repugs and repugs mature into the crazy...and America is fucked...and underground becomes convention.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The left gets moved economically to the right until everyone joins the corporate neoliberal. Economic fascism, in other words.
No surprise we were bombarded with Hillary ads shortly after her announcement
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)No more than when Clinton lost the primary in 2012. Some people will leave and in short order realize there are few places like DU in terms of size and overall shared attitude.
Primary season is silly season; it all changes when the nomination is secured.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)
That is the difference. Members of a minority holdout were purged, and most joined the bandwagon after learning more about a formerly unknown candidate.
Nobody's opinion of Hillary is changing. She's too well known to change the opinons of political junkies. Nobody at the time viewed Obama as DLC/Third Way.
merrily
(45,251 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)offending people and bringing disharmony and good debate to DU. "WHEN BERNIE LOSES..."
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)It's all in my sig line.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)If a candidate can't stand scrutiny or name-calling during the primary on DU, what chance does that candidate have in the general election when Karl and the Kochs apply full volume to their Media Machine?
Furthermore, the fewer good DUers there are, the less relevant the community becomes. Losing NYC_SKP means the difference between light and emoticons.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)have you lost it?
you can do all kinds of things during primary season on DU.
don't even dare try to say that Skip getting banned for calling Hillary the C-word is a weakness that is Hillary's.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Hillary had zero to do with this banning. This comment goes against the reality of the situation. "If a candidate can't stand scrutiny or name-calling during the primary on DU, what chance does that candidate have in the general election when Karl and the Kochs apply full volume to their Media Machine?"
merrily
(45,251 posts)He's gone through so much in the past year and had yet another surgery ahead of him. See also Reply 45 for some of his other problems.
I don't know if that caused him to go over the top, but can say from experience that things like that affect people profoundly.
I cannot condone what got him banned. Having been a co-host with him, though, I can say without question that he would have someone a second chance a lot quicker than I would. Perhaps the admins will see their way clear to doing for him what he did for others.
If you read this, NYC, best wishes on your next surgery and your recovery from all of it.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts) SoapBox
(18,791 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)silly season, now with more spleen (tm)
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I hope he gets his posting privileges returned.
He's passionate about his beliefs and that was his only hidden post.
Yes, he can be frustrating at times, but overall I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
El Supremo
(20,419 posts)Good.
olddots
(10,237 posts)we all burn out here for so many reasons and loose our cool , over react and piss people off .This is the nature of the net where you can't really know each other .I miss him and had him on ignore ...thats the net .
herding cats
(19,967 posts)There's no excuse for that on a Democratic site. I've just been hiding all the threads that look like their purpose is to bait and antagonize the other candidates supporters, so I don't know how bad things may have gotten recently.
There's always a chance once everyone reflects on things he can return and we can all move on and behave like adults.
ann---
(1,933 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Do I like NYC Skip? Not particularly... I'm not even sure if he's a he or a she, and we've both been here a long time. Have other posters used the actual c-word around here? Yep. Have they been banned for it? Not the times I can recall from back when I was a mod even though I always fought for it. People are banned for behaviors over a period of time typically when they are a long timer. I'd respect the admin decision for referencing that. To ban for an attempt to call a candidate admins have made no secret of supporting (with silly fonts and whatnot) a bad word, smacks of bias. It's why DU can really piss me off sometimes.
Don't bother responding. You won't change my mind, this is just a discussion board and I'm not in to arguing. And again, NYC pissed me off more times than not, but this is ridiculous.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)I will say I am heading to the gym soon... There are some huge guys there , Brock Lesnar sized. Many of them are there with their girlfriends who are usually big too... If I deigned to call one the C word I would expect to have my face punched in.
So in a way he got off easy...
I don't agree with the ban. I would hate to be judged by my worst moment but it's a hateful word and a fighting word. It's the twin sister to the N word.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)The ban was biased. And you got me to respond to you.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)I have to believe he temporarily lost control of his senses.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Meanwhile posts like this are a-ok, in fact not even alert worthy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6758127
I don't give a crap if this gets hidden. It was an odious post but hey according to DU standards just swell.
As you said, NYC Skip. Not my favorite poster but man there are so much worse out there. And horrifying crap survives our esteemed juries daily.
polly7
(20,582 posts)then "hope you get yours soon', or some stupid thing. THAT isn't cause for a permanent banning but repeating a troll's words back is - I think having the post hidden, an apology and time-out would be more fair, but that's just me.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)If not in name, in spirit. 
randys1
(16,286 posts)Yes, I know this is a private site and it is not censorship.
I also am SICK and tired of the attacks of Hillary
and yet
NO liberal should EVER ban or silence another liberal because they use an politically incorrect word.
I hate that word, NEVER use it. I capitalize the W in Women for a reason, in case anyone has noticed.
But banning is wrong, it would be different if he was a righty, then I say ban them regardless.
BTW, admins and mods and owners of DU, I knew I was maturing when I could admit I made a mistake and corrected it.
your turn
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)comments every single time they can.
I wonder what we can do about that.
The more liberal you are the more likely said trolls will fuck with you, BTW
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
Yeah, liberals don't call women that word.
randys1
(16,286 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is not a very good standard on avoiding hate speech towards women.
randys1
(16,286 posts)even if he did occasionally use an incorrect word.
I will take his record of being a genius and his tremendous value to the human race over a couple comments in a comedy skit.
Or should we BAN all CARLIN recordings because he used that one word, one time?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the awfulness of his take on eating disorders.
The entire point is that his use of the word was fully consistent with the snarling misogyny that he was explicitly communicating.
That's why he chose that word, to emphasize his contempt and hatred for the women in question, hating them as women.
"politically correct" is how people pretend to disapprove of bigotry they really approve of. If you do not want to give the impression you condone misogyny, you really ought to stop using that rightwing phrase to describe hate speech.
randys1
(16,286 posts)and now I am a rightwinger
wow, stay away from me, please
and i sincerely mean that
dont call me a rightwinger ever again and just dont post to me
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)You are free to call anybody anything you want long as you are willing to live with the consequences.
I use to go to the L A Fitness in Hollywood, the one near the Dolby Theatre...There were a lot of gay guys working out there and some were fricking huge. My favorite t shirt I saw there said "If you don't like gay marriage don't marry one."
If I dropped the F word on of those guys I would likely get punched in the face, George Carlin notwithstanding.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)He's not silenced, and he may continue to use that particular word indiscriminately should he so choose. He simply chose to break the terms of service with an llc, and was then presented with a set of consequences spelled out plainly enough for any half-wit to both recognize and understand.
There seems to be an inaccurate justification that tolerance, by its definition, allows for intolerance-- a well too many otherwise-intelligent people are drinking from.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The real problem at DU isn't "bad words" expressed by individual members, it's the tolerance of Big Lies spread by political machines.
This place only diminishes itself when it tries to protect some members from being offended by angry expressions of difference.
Response to cyberswede (Original post)
brentspeak This message was self-deleted by its author.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)I happen to like the Rude P. because sometimes language needs to be outrageous to adequately describe the situation. I'm not saying Skip didn't cross the line in this case but I think a permanent 'ban' is a bit too much.
bluedigger
(17,384 posts)Juries are free to censor TRP's material, I suppose.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)I guess I thought the issue here is language that is 'forbidden'. I didn't realize it only applied to members.
merrily
(45,251 posts)do for the N word. I've blanked that out of direct quotes from POS Lee Atwater.
merrily
(45,251 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)To those who are rejoicing, shame on you.
Sancho
(9,173 posts)and heaven knows I've had my battles with NYC_SKP.
This primary has brought out the worst in some DUer's. I've said I will vote for the Democratic candidate, and I've been willing to argue when threads were "over the top", "bashing", and clearly RW material rehashed on DU.
I would have to say that NYC_SKP has been one of those who was overly difficult to deal with on occasion, so I can see that this one post was really the straw that finally went too far.
No matter what the argument, hopefully people can get to the point and keep it civil.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)I'm a Bernie man myself, but... nope.
question everything
(51,624 posts)Would a suspension with a warning be better?
This is what has been happening here during election years - except in 2012 - people get carried away by their strong opinions.
Throd
(7,208 posts)moondust
(21,179 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 12:06 PM - Edit history (2)
SMH.
On edit he was replying to a PPRed troll so impossible to say what the hell he meant.
Those old letter inversion jokes are as old as the hills. And on it's face the post was inappropriate.
However it is far more inappropriate to ban a long term member in light of the crap that stands here. While the sock puppet trolls that disrupt contantly and have time out after time out after hidden post after hidden post STILL have posting privileges.
What a fucking joke.
The double standard stench is strong in this place.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)in light of everything he has gone through.
MADem
(135,425 posts)A poster child for relentless trolling.
George II
(67,782 posts)....he did NOT use that word, and don't think if given the chance he would use the actual word.
FYI, back in the 70s or 80s, there was a thoroughbred race horse in New York named "Cunning Stunt", it tongue-tied the track announcers, but the authorities never made the owner change the name.
Nothing worse than the movie in which someone asked a woman to make an announcement about "Mike Hunt"!
Where's the sense of humor around here - there are a lot nastier things said, with venom, that slide right through.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I have seen some very awful stuff go down here, but he is one of the good guys.
He's had a rough time healthwise, and I am sick he was banned.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)but trying to be clever about it.
Go ahead and google that phrase. He was giggling about it being a tongue-twister and how what Clinton was doing that was in fact a "Cunning Stunt."
You're free to play dumb on what he was trying to do there, but don't expect everyone else to join the game.
Note also that he was expressing agreement with a troll who got zapped by MIRT.
KG
(28,792 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)on a word play was not right.
This is a discussion board. As a Bernie supporter, I do not always feel very welcome, but I keep posting because I think Bernie is the right candidate for our country at this time.
I can understand how frustrating it must be to be, as some of the moderators have admitted they are, a Hillary supporter. She is now and was in 2008 a very touchy candidate, overly sensitive to criticism, without much sense of humor no matter how hard she tried to laugh and she has made some serious mistakes of judgment.
That said, when asked to judge posts, I try to be as tolerant as possible. I do not consider whether I agree or disagree with the sentiment or the jabs in the post. I just try to consider whether it is seriously over the top, etc.
I don't think NYC_SKP's post was all that over the top. Borderline maybe, but really. I'm a woman. NYC_SKP did not call Hillary a name. He simply did not. The naughty, wash-your-mouths-out-with-soap transgression was a word play, a funny one. If Lenny Bruce had said it, we'd all laugh.
I think somebody on DU was overly sensitive.
But I kind of understand it. After all, it must be frustrating to support a candidate who has been giving $200,000 a pop speeches to Wall Street bankers for the past few years but refuses thus far to talk regularly to the press. Very frustrating. I don't know what you call a candidate like that, but I'll leave it to your imaginations.
I assume that on June 14 when Hillary finally announces the inevitable and deigns to speak to the press, her supporters will return to normal. I just hope that once they get their senses of humor back, we can get NYC_Skip back here on the Bernie side of DU.
I wish that Hillary could have just a bit of Bernie's humility and ability to laugh at herself. It would make things so much happier on DU on both the Hillary and Bernie sides. We shall see. Miracles do happen.
Sign me, Call Me Anything. I've Probably Been Called It Before.
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)and he got caught , well thats the risk. This time it wasn't a jury decision that brought it on. He brought that down upon himself.
Thats just the way it is.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Bring NYC_SKP back!!!!11!1!!
Apparently Democrats have turned
from robust working-class fighters
to delicate hot house flowers?!?
BooHoo.
I was VERY HURT TODAY...
by his words pfft
...AND my shoes fell off!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It can be tough when the realization hits a person for the first time that we often bear the consequences of what we publicly express.
No doubt, that initial realization can even cause otherwise intelligent people to minimize and trivialize the targets of intolerance and misogyny as little more than "delicate hot-house flowers." As long as we eventually realize that the minimization is simply a self-validating and biased mechanism for rationalizing the irrational.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It's not like he came up with that on his own, there was a context, the PPR'd poster he was repying to used either that or similar language, correct?
If so, that to me is quite different than him coming up with it on his own. I guess I need to see the post he was repying to but a hide would have taught him not to use that language even in reply, and he was a good member of this community.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)You can call a guy a dick and it won't even get an alert, never mind a ban. Curious. Sexism?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of insult, just like misandry is a joke of a 'problem' compared to misogyny.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)It's fully equivalent. In both cases, you're talking about characterizing a person as genitalia. But go on supporting the double standard. That seems to be becoming a major theme here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Any more than the n-word and "cracker" are the same.
They are not perceived, or used in the same manner. They do not have the same histories, and they do not draw the same reactions. They do not share the same association with bigotry.
deurbano
(2,980 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and it's been explained here on DU a thousand times.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It's a body part when used in an insulting way to describe a man (as in, always) is in exactly the same category.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)For the longest time I thought they were fairly conservative. They love everyone's right to shoot shit and this isn't their first display of sexist behavior. The only thing that made me ever think he was even close to progressive was his discussions about the environment. Few one percenters give a shit about the environment so I always liked that from him. From their history here, I was shocked to see them as a Sanders supporter. Although I don't think they were in honest. Over the last couple of months their posting patter changed dramatically.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That's the only reason they've latched on.
That reflects in no way on Bernie, but rather in the dynamics here.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sanders is kicking ass. I have never said a bad word about him and won't. He is one of the best.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I know that NYC_Skip has been a pillar of this community for a while.
It is a shame to see him go, especially given the circumstances he has had to deal with.
So, I will miss the guy, but can understand that he has gone too far in his campaign against a candidate.
quickesst
(6,309 posts)...have been cruising very close to the Randi "HILLARY'S A FUCKING WHORE" Rhodes line. Looks like he crossed it. If any of her fans are offended by the reference.....I don't care.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)It's possible to curse here on DU in ways that would make a Marine blush, and not be misogynistic about it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)solely due to this post. Was he really banned because of the "zero-tolerance" for this word, even when "coded?" Or, was it because of this post on top of his quite vehement disdain for Hillary?
Would he had been banned had he made the same offensive comment about Sarah Palin, for example?
I tend to think it was the insult plus the posting anti-Hillary posting history.
To be clear, I have no problem for a zero tolerance policy on that word as an insult, if that is what it is. I would never use it, not in a code or a joke or any manner.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) polly7
(20,582 posts)had had brain surgery, among others, and was going through some very difficult things.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)him right now. All the best to SKP. I honestly think he was a decent guy.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I have no idea if health issues had anything to do with what he wrote responding to the troll, but it might possibly explain the difference you noticed in him.
Also, when people are going through issues, message boards may be very therapeutic and beneficial for them - sometimes support and comradery in real life aren't there when you need it - as in anyone recovering from serious medical issues, or anything else.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Sometime last week I posted on the Bernie Group that, as long as we are the face on DU of a candidate who is proud of never having run a negative ad in his political career, we should represent him by not going negative and discussing issues rather than personalities.
That was negative.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Admin has been EXCEEDINGLY gracious in allowing the vicious garbage hurled at our Democratic candidates as of late.
I've always liked SKP, but his obsession got the best of him here.
EarlG did the right thing in this case. I hope others with similar "dispositions" will take notice.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Because that sounds a little threatening.
For what it's worth, there are blooming idiots supporting all candidates, and I believe a strong admin bias toward one played a major role here.
I haven't thrown my weight or my money behind any candidate, besides knowing that all I will give Hillary is a vote, and I can see that.
But don't use posts as threats. As an editor, your use of scare quotes is incorrect unless you mean something else entirely.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)How do you read that as a threat?
Admin has allowed all manner of vicious attacks, but there has to be a line somewhere. SKP crossed it. There are plenty of posters who have straddled the line in my opinion.
I don't have any authority to make threats here, but I have an opinion - and I just shared it.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)The good thing is, I don't take notes on people so I'll probably forget about it. Again, there is good reason why I've kept the names of the major candidates in my trash bin. Their supporters are ruining it for them, and your scare quotes are improperly used.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)This thread is full of opinions.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)The admins are going to be less tolerant. I didn't take it as a threat. She's not the one who PPRs people. My understanding is that a number of people were PPR'd in 2008 as well.
Takket
(23,433 posts)Posting this FYI. I was juror #6. Had never heard the term before so initially I said leave it but after reading the alerter's comment, I looked up the term and saw that the alerter was right and switched my vote to hide.
On Wed Jun 3, 2015, 07:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is a variation on the "See You Next Tuesday" game people play when they want to call a woman the c-word without spelling it out. Here he's repeating the post of a misogynist troll who got zapped by MIRT. NYC_SKP has taken his vitriol towards Hillary Clinton WAY too far. No woman should be called that.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 3, 2015, 07:32 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not sure who NYC_SKP is referring to since MIRT took out the trash, but it appears to be Hillary. Not cute and not nearly subtle enough.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Maybe we should SKP? I'm kidding of course, but yes this post is OTT.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: never heard of this but googled it and alterter is right. vote to hide.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Did it use this language? Knowing this would help us understand the context, not that it would make it ok but context is a component of everything.
Takket
(23,433 posts)so the context was lost
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)That seems messed up.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Interestingly, the post he was replying to was not actually using that phrase, cunning stunt, to call her such, he (or she) was actually referring to something he considered a clever stunt, though other words could have been chosen. Skip (if that is his name) was chortling about the use of the phrase. Inappropriate but the punishment in no way fits the crime, IMHO, YMMV and obviously does.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)way before Nov. 16
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1107
WOW. Up to 71 members now...
Just saying.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If so, no wonder they're on that list.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)So I really do not think you need to worry about it. But then again, I don't keep with that crap at all.
MADem
(135,425 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that makes more sense
As I said, I don't keep up with the cliques anymore... I really don't
William769
(59,147 posts)and they have already blocked 25 people. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1280
The Hillary Clinton Group has been here since DU3's inception.
You should really do your homework before making accusations.
Just saying.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)William769
(59,147 posts)I was searching for the post. Thanks for saving me the time.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Thu Jun 4, 2015, 01:13 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
It would not surprise me if many of us "Block Members" on this list to be banned
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6778480
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Callout of the Hillary Clinton group, also insinuating that the site admin has an axe to grind and will ban people based on that. Please vote to hide this OTT, callout post. It's unfair and uncalled for.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 4, 2015, 01:20 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster has a valid concern that they are sharing.
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: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I understand that people are shocked about NYC SKP, but I doubt that any widespread banning is about to occur.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bad alert. If you disagree, say so .. no need to censor.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The horror of a callout post in a callout thread.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
William769
(59,147 posts) polly7
(20,582 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Good job.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Nothing to do with my mention of 'ironic' - which was not addressed to you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That was my original question to you.
polly7
(20,582 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)What I see, is that I said it's none of your business and wasn't addressed to you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)William769
(59,147 posts)The satisfaction is enough.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)No kidding.
William769
(59,147 posts)Typical.
polly7
(20,582 posts)LMAO.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
William769
(59,147 posts) polly7
(20,582 posts)
You're killing me!
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
William769
(59,147 posts) haikugal
(6,476 posts)Now I have to go check out groups...the more I learn the more I think
WTF?
MuseRider
(35,093 posts)this is only the beginning. The other side will take it to her and to women in general, we do not need sexist crap from our own side.
If I had seen this I would have instantly put him on ignore, actually I am amazed I had not done it before but....
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)He was trying to be clever and was caught.
petronius
(26,695 posts)It's a shame to lose long-time DUers, for any reason.
Happy trails, SKP, wherever your e-journey takes you next... 
SunSeeker
(57,445 posts)His pro-gun trolling after Newtown and sexist nastiness stunk up this place.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)He thought that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were not victims.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Feel the Bern.
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
His reply
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
as a member of mirt i have the admin look up function.
I loved NYC SKP but what he did here was inexcusable.
I am not arguing for or against the ban.
I wish him the best.
Kali
(56,593 posts)so he was actually repeating that term. that kind of slides it a just a bit in my mind. no doubt at all he knew what it all meant, but the fact that he was repeating from another post and that post was actually referring to what could truly be called a stunt (a speach with no questions being called an "interview" gives a bit of mitigation.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)I sure as hell didnt!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Thanks for posting this.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts) Come on, people…
Thanks for explaining.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Restraint should be the order of the day.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this is the first of many bans to come...
mmonk
(52,589 posts)
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I've met him in person when he came to AK for a conference. Nice guy.
But then many nice people have been banned over the years. I guess rules are rules, although sometimes arbitrarily applied.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)so perhaps this was inevitable. But it is awfully sad to see someone who has posted twenty times as much as I have in half the time on DU, summarily discarded on such flimsy grounds in the wake of a very serious health crisis.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)NYC SKP is a good guy who deserved a more thoughtful resolution than this. Surely a less severe penalty such as a suspension would have been a fair and satisfactory penalty for this isolated incident. I hope he petitions to come back because DU is a better place with his participation.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I'm in tears. It's too much.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)I've thought about it all day. He's a long time DU poster who has endured a lot lately. He made one ill advised round about reference to a term and they dropped the hammer on him. It's unconscionable and uncalled for. I do think this is politically motivated because he's been very vocal in his support of Bernie, and not the anointed one. Give me a damn break.
polly7
(20,582 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)petronius
(26,695 posts)don't think this ban makes DU a better place. Hopefully--if SKP chooses to appeal--the Admins will reconsider...
Renew Deal
(84,650 posts)Skinner saying something like the c word was an auto-ban.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Total banning seems harsh given some of the other things I've seen on DU over the years. I know of a few that I can't believe are still here given their almost-to-be-expected nastiness. I don't put people on ignore, but I regularly have to bite my tongue (or tie my typing fingers behind my back). But the owners of the site are pro-Hillary apparently and can do as they please. It's just that sometimes these bannings seem so capricious.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)DU is smelling like a pound of high flesh, this being a prime example of it. NYC SKP posts are among the few OP's I consistently read.
I sure hope this wasn't about guns.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)I enjoyed his posts a lot.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So one of the most prominent mods on DU2 is banned and one of the best troll busters this site has ever had is in timeout...crazy place, however the GOLDEN RULE: you take your chances when you post. I think the admins just let everyone know what a bad idea it is to disrespect our candidates.
I hate that they banned a longtime member, but some of us are really really really getting tired of the war between supporters here...
It is beyond old by now and we have a long way to go...
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Neither has done much but stir up trouble even though I am against an outright ban.
Rex
(65,616 posts)However, both work/ed very hard to keep the trolls at bay for years and years...I am a little shocked, but hey calling HRC the c-word is going to have repercussions. SKIP should have known that and probably did.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)It's about language in general that's unacceptable. If someone called or cleverly called the Duggar woman or any woman the same I'd expect them to be banned too.
Rex
(65,616 posts)go to the 'site search' and try it, there are many that have actually used the word and are still posting here. I think this was a message sent by the admins to the rest of us.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)And I hope others 'get it' too.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Guess the guys with the keys get to make the rules but what a joke.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)There is NO reason for us to be posting like that on a progressive forum; I am not trying to make an excuse for SKIP...he obviously had a meltdown and got what he deserved.
Response to Rex (Reply #366)
closeupready This message was self-deleted by its author.
Renew Deal
(84,650 posts)I was on the jury that put her over.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I skipped the 2008 season for this reason; I did not want to see good people I like a lot get PPRd and in timeout. Maybe this will cause some here that like to stir the most, to step back and hesitate before hitting the reply button.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)about two and a half months.
Renew Deal
(84,650 posts)She picked up the hides in 2 weeks or so. 
mvd
(65,826 posts)I trust admin's judgment though. It is a word I would never use and was on our potential nominee. I noticed his posts had changed from a couple years ago, but maybe that is due to what he went though - he got a new political outlook.
shenmue
(38,576 posts)
randome
(34,845 posts)That's where the real DU effort shines. (I'm as guilty as anyone.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Purveyor
(29,876 posts) randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
neverforget
(9,512 posts) 840high
(17,196 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)So much for the idea of a 'big tent'.
It gets smaller and smaller here at Du all the time. Hide a post, time out, etc, but this just seems a bit much IMHO.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)But I can see some here feel differently.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)People who like to try and remove anyone who doesn't agree with them all the time - and doing so by labeling them something or other and hounding them.
I don't see that as progressive.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)I guess that is where we differ.
I don't find that to be acceptable or just another old opinion.
It is a degrading slur used against women. It is explicitly misogynistic.
Focus on that being un-progressive, would be the best advice I could provide to you.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)as an indicator of who someone is in total.
Got it. Like a witch hunt. Ignore everything, ever, by someone and find the one thing you can use to beat them down.
Yeah...that is soooo progressive.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)I'm not going to take the time and try to convince you.
And who are you calling a witch? Me?? EarlG, Skinner?? others who understand it is in no way progressive to call a woman a c*unt?
Anyone who uses that word in a derogatory fashion toward women, is not progressive. Although, it seems lots of people, including yourself disagree.
Have fun with it..
Response to boston bean (Reply #505)
Name removed Message auto-removed
boston bean
(36,850 posts)I'm not going to take the time and try to convince you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)It's pathetic when it's clear that an alert was written by a poster who was too insecure to reply in public, even more pathetic when he has to point out the poster's sig line in hopes that a jury will believe him.
(and yes, such pettiness and abuse of the alert system does occur.)
MADem
(135,425 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"I don't like someone's position on guns, so I will brand them with scarlet 'NRA' letters because I can't win in a debate."
We get it. You don't like people with views different than yours and don't want them around.
The big tent is now a pup tent and some will do anything they can to keep out 'the enemy'. Almost sounds like a religion.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I can tell you where the tent flap is too.
So can the DNC platform.
Nice defense of the indefensible...
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Everyone has a bad day, not everyone is perfect, and when all you look for is a reason to kick people to the curb who don't cow tow to your views on issues....well, all you will see is what you want.
Witch hunts are where people only look for the negative and use that remove people who didn't kiss their butt elsewhere.
It's dishonest, it's regressive, and it is something one would think they would see from the right.
And yet, here we are on DU, trying to judge a human's entire existence and belief system on one post because you didn't like other things they posted.
MADem
(135,425 posts)with each and every mitigating post you make.
It's not 'one' post. It is a pattern of hate-filled rants that culminated in c-word disparagement.
When people don't ACT like Democrats, it's reasonable to assume they're playing for the other team.
Double down all you want--make it clear where you stand. I'll stay over here on the team that favors equality in all its forms and believes it's possible to differ without resorting to sexist hate speech.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Accusing me of doing something I am not.
Really?
You can do better.
When people don't ACT like Democrats, it's reasonable to assume they're playing for the other team.
And when people are on witch hunts it is reasonable to believe they don't care about a discussion but about labeling people because they have no real argument.
MADem
(135,425 posts)for someone who supports, excuses or minimizes that conduct, then just stop doing it.
As for that 'dire' quote you referenced, you might want to go have another peek at the TOS here--that's where that thought you're hating on came from.
Democrats don't use misogynistic language, chuckle about it, mitigate it, or defend it.
It's really quite simple. Don't even try complicating what should be a no-brainer to any regular poster here.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Starting to sound a like freeperville.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Demise seems a little heavy.
I'm sure he'll be fine in real life.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)I will miss you and remember you as a teacher. We live in a society that is still learning how we oppress others, that sometimes we do so without realizing it. As i read the many posts in this thread, i see more than a few that instruct us how the use of the 'c' word is an example of how we can oppress a group within our society without realizing it. Let this be a teachable moment for us all.
JustAnotherGen
(37,476 posts)Since I've been supporting one of the other runners - I put the Sanders, Clinton groups in the Trash - and started trashing a lot of the tit for tat candidate threads. I missed a lot - as a result.
I understand why the Admin did what they did - but it doesn't mean I won't miss you.
G_j
(40,557 posts)seems too harsh to me..
Orsino
(37,428 posts)But message received.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Republican party doesn't even have to roll out the expensive media guns like Mr. slut-slut to degrade woman, the D party, presidential contenders anymore.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)I changed my DU name (voluntarily). What I discovered starting over is that DUers are very nasty to posters with fewer than 1,000 posts. The assumption is that you are a troll.
However, I agreee that the remark, however "cleverly disguised" has no place in a discussion at DU.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)call it "2 weeks in the DU troll stocks"
Zorra
(27,670 posts)This would be a terrific time to find and highlight the common ground rather than divide the party of hope, not to help the party of nope.
High profile progressives like Dennis could join NY Rep. Anthony Weiner in laying out the facts and the best of what the POTUS has embraced.
Because when our side, with all our quirks and subsets, go out and are over the place with "the message" we look like fucking fools who can't get along.
In the meantime, conservatives are united in their rage against what we know in our hearts is the right thing.
And most Americans would agree that the Public Option is the right thing.
But we have to express it cohesively and in a united way.
This will never happen if we can't find a way to come together.
(Posted by NYC_SKP in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Aug 18th 2009, 09:33 PM)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8597741
It's very sad to see longtime DUers, solid Democrats like NYC_SKP, get tombstoned for a dumbass faux pas like this. I've always liked NYC_SKP, he's still part of our team, whether he can post here or not.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)People who should know better say and write stupid, regrettable things. I would hope that, after a period of time (a couple of weeks to a couple of months), a return would be allowed conditioned on: a) a promise of good behavior and b) the posting of a public apology.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)and certainly shocked. I liked NYCSkp. I had noticed his antipathy for Clinton was leading him to post things that didn't seem in keeping with his usual character. He has always been pretty good on gender issues, so it saddens me to see him resort to this sort of thing and then lose his posting privileges as a result.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I don't feel comfortable here anymore. Afraid to post almost.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Permanent ban for a bannable first offense seems harsh to me.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)off the site and what I post, mostly OFF GD where the.....
mopinko
(73,251 posts)it was a repeat troll who used that phrase and he replied to it.
i hope that the guys will let him back in if he asks. i hope he asks.
that said, i cant blame earlg for the ban. the anti-hillary nonsense here has gone pretty damn far. he is certainly not the only one. it is pretty sad to see.
glad i am not a mod any more, tho. what a tough and unappreciated job that was. dont think there was any way to make that thing work any better than it did. the toll it took on those of us doing it is something i dont think anyone here appreciates.
ileus
(15,396 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)That would be exactly what I meant, a particularly clever stunt. Good grief, it's like a jury I served on earlier this week where someone alerted on someone for replying "two words, one syllable each"
The alerter said that meant 'eff you', me, I took it as 'bye bye!'
Silly season is here in force. Imho NYC SKP did not deserve a ban for this.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and capitalized it--
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
He obviously knew what he was doing. He was not referring to clever actions on Clinton's part.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)A damn shame.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)One of his last OPs accused her of trying to get her own supporters injured at a rally.
If it hadn't been this, it would have been something else.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Where I was puzzled at a store owner for saying this to me. She had been very verbslly abusive to her ownemployees and I remarked how unpleasant being there was. That was her response, and I could not figure out WTF it was supposed to mean! Everyone else I told the story to knew. Must have been in a popular movie once or something.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)English has many wonderful words. I wish people would use them and say what they mean....
I see you got it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)She was an odd woman in a foul mood. I'd put down a cup of coffee on a huge stack of brown cardboard boxes (not on a product box) and she ripped her staff an asshole over it. I responded with an apology and said it was me, and I had no place to put it a moment (the store was a crowded mess) while I pulled out my credit card. It was a cardboard box and my cup didn't mark it one bit.
The she sneeringly offered me help?!? I explained that -as she could see - I'd just signed the slip, got my coffee and was already leaving. I felt so bad for the people working there. What a weirdo!
If it had not been such an odd phrase I don't know of I would have repeated the story and found out. Lol. What a nut job.
Her stores motto- "the happiest store in NYC" bwaaaah!!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Misogynists think they're terribly clever some times.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I was unfamiliar with both phrases..lol
I think it was too harsh and hope some resolution will be reached that NYSKP can return to us. There is a huge hole now. I hate this kind of thing, it makes DU suck.
Hekate
(100,131 posts)DU is badly in need of a housecleaning, and if it takes place there will be some oldtimers who can't be minimally civil who will be swept out along with the hordes of newbies showing off.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)He seems to have changed since his surgery. I wonder if that had an effect?
Hekate
(100,131 posts)Knowing about medical conditions can be a mitigating factor -- but we are having such a bad time here that if someone is completely unable to rein themselves in, it becomes a matter of not letting DU become even more toxic than it has already become.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)Or his head anyway.
Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)
that is pretty shocking. I mostly just know him from the Lounge and he was a long time staple in there. He seemed to be a classic liberal in the sense of always talking to underdogs or people that were getting piled on. I didn't always agree with him on all of those he tried to "protect" but he was pretty consistent in that behavior. He had humor and has been having a horrific health situation with brain surgeries and fighting for his life during post surg infection. He cared for and lost both parents in the last few years.
I know he sometimes posted some pretty unfiltered things occasionally but that is what the jury system is for. I can not believe he used the concept of calling any woman a cunt and that shocks and saddens me as much as the banning of a long time member. I do not envy admins in this decision one bit. I am not sure what I would do. On the one hand I believe in second chance. On the other, using that word on any woman especially here on DU is just plain unacceptable.
This makes me sad for all of us.
I want to add this as an edit: after seeing the actual post that he had replied to, I am not quite so certain a permanent ban is the appropriate punishment. It is a tough situation. On the one hand the message that there will be no tolerance of misogyny on DU absolutely NEEDS reinforcing around here, but on the other hand, there are human, grey-area mitigating factors in this case.
Not to mention the aggravating (to me, at least) fact that there are so many much worse disruptors just blatantly going on with their trollery every damn day.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)really.
I don't know what's warranted or not. I haven't been
personally offended ever, that I can recall, by NYC_SKP. But
he/she has been someone whose posts I've consistently
appreciated. So I hope for an un-ban and a return, before
too long.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Epic Rap Battles of HISTORY!
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)
murielm99
(32,643 posts)He has gone completely crazy.
And, reading through this thread, so have a few others. Such unswerving loyalty to Bernie, such rabid hatred of Hillary is not political discussion. It has no place here.
peecoolyour
(336 posts)Might've been a little rough around the edges, but I think that gives people a certain charm.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)No matter how much you support one of our candidates, don't let that become horrible, vituperative hatred for another candidate. Every last one of our candidates is a hundred times better than any of the Republicans.
Renew Deal
(84,650 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Not because anyone is protected, but he is a major contributor to this site. Just shows that no one is safe.
Hopefully he gets a time out and is let back in at some point. People have been allowed back after worse indiscretions.
hlthe2b
(112,629 posts)how much I really hate it when we lose a very long term member who hadn't been a continuous problem...
Ahh, primary season. I guess we'll see more of this. sigh...
Renew Deal
(84,650 posts)Hopefully we make it to the end of 2016.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)It's cruel and it's heartless....and he did NOT use the c word. Unless one is into slang terms, and I am not...the words he used meant nothing.
The fact that someone coined the phrase Angry Supporters of Bernie to explain it tells me so much.
Good Lord what will you guys say as we are also banned?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Aren't I considered an "Angry Supporter of Bernie Sanders"? No one is immune during primary season.
I am fearful to post anything much right now.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Don't be afraid unless you were planning on posting something so obviously out of line. I don't feel your fear of posting is a rational fear, you'll get over it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)manner that Matt Drudge called Cindy Sheehan the c-word back in 2005.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050926210119/http://www.drudgereport.com/
Unless you're willing to throw misogynist hate speech at Clinton, you are not in any danger.
Note, by the way, that the "Angry Supporter of Sanders" comment got hidden.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)uppityperson
(115,993 posts)Support who you support, disagree but do it with some class, being civil. Walk away from nasty posts rather than responding in kind, the "they did it first" excuse isn't a good one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)But I honestly don't think it matters.
uppityperson
(115,993 posts)
Andy823
(11,555 posts)I have been to the site, and many are doing a fine job of posting about "Bernie" not going after Hillary Clinton on a daily basis. He crossed the line, and the owners of this site banned him. He went to far. As I said many of Bernie's supporters are doing what should be done, promoting their candidate, and I applaud them. I like the hell out of Bernie, and would vote for him in a heartbeat if he wins the nomination, and I would vote for Hillary if she wins, or O'Malley if he wins. That's the way it should be. Trashing people isn't helping matters at all, and I think we all need to remember that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,612 posts)Given the fact that Hillary Clinton evokes such strong emotions it is a near certainty that some prominent Republican will make an ugly misogynistic remark about her that other Republicans will have to spend weeks to defend or deflect.
Response to cyberswede (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)always found weird about NYC_SKP was how he claimed to be a huge Obama supporter, yet disliked Clinton (so much that he threatened to not vote if she were to be the nominee). Both Obama and Clinton are moderate-leaning in terms of where they stand on the spectrum, supporting much of the same things (including more accessible health care). They turned out to be really good friends, and Obama made Clinton SOS for a while.
I don't get it...NYC's allegiances there never made much sense to me.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)robotic to me. I had NYC_SKP on ignore for years as a centrist who heaped relentless scorn on progressives, and was somewhat startled lately seeing him in the anti-Clinton, pro-Sanders camp. But when I learned of the Religion wars in three different forums, which spilled over into GD in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo and Chapel Hill massacres, I kept seeing him on the sympathetic side of the equation. Not that I'm a believer, but for the first time in a long life I found myself being insulted and abused, instead of supported, by unbelievers, and supported by believers, in my perceptions of the situation. At the time you and I shared horror at the Islamophobic frenzy that seemed to unite all kinds of formerly sane-appearing DUers in that brouhaha.
So now, NYC-SKP is a Sanders-supporting believer who has both Sanders-supporting anti-theists and Clinton-supporting believers dancing on his grave. Makes me feel all the more appreciative of my real-world friends, and all the more disgusted at what passes for "friendship" online.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And cunning stunt is not the same thing as cunning runt.
Sad that a little double-entendre causes so much wailing and gnashing of teeth followed by all this grave dancing.
Bullshit ban and this place WILL be less interesting without him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it's a way for chickenshit trolls to call a woman the c-word and snigger thinking they got away with something.
"cunning linguist" is a little double-entendre. This was hate speech from a person whose unhinged, hateful rants about Hillary Clinton were only getting worse by the day.
His voice will not be missed during primary season.
It is apparent you think a little misogynist hate speech against Clinton is perfectly cool. Well, start your own website then, since your tolerance of that kind of hate speech is outside the TOS for this place.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Because I disagree.
It's is not she's.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You're free to play dumb all you want about what that phrase means, especially when the poster capitalizes it ("Cunning Stunt" and sniggers about how that phrase is a tongue-twister, while referring to a woman that poster hates with the passion of a thousand Orly Taitz's.
But don't expect the rest of us to play dumb along with you.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050926210119/http://www.drudgereport.com/
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cunning+stunt
That is what you're defending.
lpbk2713
(43,243 posts)and the other in the grave.
Too bad it should happen to a veteran DUer like SKP.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)In spite of his recently contracting Hillary Derangement Syndrome, I liked him and hope he is well.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)
And I must say that there seems to be a double standard here when it comes to genitalia references. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to former VP Cheney, former President Bush, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, etc. etc. as a "dick" or a "prick". Everybody titters and giggles when the House Speaker is referred to as John "Boner".
And yet.. Hell, the guy didn't even use that horrible word and he's banished to coventry. And there are all sorts of patronizing pleas to let him return if he agrees to never sin again.
I don't like that word either, and I don't just whine about it on a message board. I once punched my daughter's boyfriend when I heard him call her that in the heat of an argument. But we're going to hear a lot worse if we nominate you know who.
I wouldn't blame NYC_SKP for telling DU to go pound sand if they offer him a "second chance". I hope he doesn't but I wouldn't blame him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)acceptable to call Hillary Clinton that?
No, it doesn't get worse than that.
And, hell no, calling a man a 'dick' is not even in the same zip code as dropping the c-bomb on a woman.
Would you ever punch a guy for calling a male relation a 'dick?'
No, of course you wouldn't, because you know it's not the same thing.
It's very clear where you're coming from--you HATE Hillary Clinton so much that you think it's perfectly okay to call her all kinds of degrading, misogynist names on a progressive discussion board.
If you want that, go to Discussionist. But you are also on notice that such virulent hatred is not acceptable here and you won't be allowed to pollute this place with that toxic filth.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Yes, calling a man a dick is every bit as bad as what NYC Skip did. Why wouldn't it be? Body parts used in a demeaning way are equally insulting. It's a shame that you're using your version of 'equality' to blast other posters, call them haters of someone and tell them to leave this board. It says a lot more about you than those you're trying to chase off.
Either you believe in equal rights for everyone, which includes the way they're referred to, or you don't.
BainsBane
(57,314 posts)I must oppose civil rights, yet if I say it is no worse than a lot of words in common use in the English language, that upholds equal rights? Hardly. The words come out of a language of oppression. It isn't just about body parts. Saying it's the same as using dick is no different from saying whitey or honkey is the same as the N word. That is what the right says to legitimate oppression.
As GeekTragedy says, anyone who speaks English knows there is a huge difference. One can disagree with the banning without engaging in absurd claims.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Either support full equality for all, including not using the words that insult by which they're referred to, or don't pretend you support any.
I can't make it any simpler than that, sorry.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)that calling someone a dick and calling a woman a c---- are very different things. It is not at all about body parts. But you know that.
They are not "equally insulting." You know that.
This has been explained time and again. Continuing to claim this makes sensible people tune you out-as it should.
I am reminded of climate-change deniers, or evolution-deniers. When someone says that evolution is only a theory-smart people immediately assume that the person is ignorant and is to be ignored. When someone says that climate-change doesn't sound right to them-they are shunned by smart people--as they should be.
When someone equates calling someone a dick with calling a woman a c---, it causes the same type of reaction.
In my head, I think, "This person is not familiar with the English language and its usage."
Or, I think, "This is the type of person who says Bill Cosby's accusers are in it for the money."
It's like this. Statements like that are like the people who put the confederate flag on their trucks. It is the rare time when complete fucking idiots advertise to the world that they are complete fucking idiots. Now we don't have to guess!
polly7
(20,582 posts)You know what you know, and I know what I know.
But, don't try to tell me what I know. K? That's pretty presumptuous and assuming, is usually wrong.
Yes, they are equally insulting. Using a part of one's body in a denigrating way is just as hurtful for one as the other - and why shouldn't it be???
Either give a shit about what everyone is called, or don't claim you're for equality, period.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)and you are plainly wrong.
I assume you live in the US and speak English as a first language. If that is incorrect, I can see your confusion. I will proceed upon my assumptions--
You seem to be pretending to say that when a person refers to another person as a body part that they happen to possess, that they are actually comparing that person to that body part. If that was the case, being called a d--- would be a compliment, as the penis plays a major role in procreation.
The same goes for c---, which is another vital necessity in reproduction.
Clearly-this is NOT what is meant.
Here is what you and I BOTH KNOW--D--- equates roughly to "asshole" or "jerk" and c--- equates to "bossy woman", "woman I don't like right now", "just a woman, so who cares?", or just "woman."
You might not like it-but you know it is true.
Calling a guy a d--- does not reduce him to a penis, but the same is not true for women.
I would ask you this--Do you think-in your heart of hearts--that when guys are calling women c----s, that they simply mean they are assholes?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Sorry, I've been alive a long time and been around thousands of people, just like you. I know what some have found very hurtful - like I said, don't bother even pretending you care about equality if you don't apply it equally to all. That would be just hypocritical. I don't play victim because I'm a woman, and words don't hurt me, personally. Yes, they're damaging for others and in creating a climate of intolerance and ugliness - but that applies to all.
Get over it, you don't get to tell me what I know, or whether I'm right or wrong. What you know is what you know - don't speak for anyone but yourself.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)this is true.
I don't equate acknowledging the meanings of words as accepting being a victim.
I am glad that words do not hurt you-they shouldn't. But the fact remains that the way words are used absolutely hurts people.
Your idea that equality needs to apply equally to all is 100% true. I agree.
Words might mean something to you that does not translate to the population at large. Great--
You can say that d-- and c-- mean the same thing--if that is the case for you-then so be it. They have VERY different meanings as applied to different people.
This simply IS the case. It is true.
Your implication that I "pretend" to care about equality because I do not equate terms that are used in completely different ways is wrong-headed.
I am a man. I have been around for a long time. At no time-not once, not ever, have I heard d--- be used to mean anything other than jerk or asshole. I dare say that you have heard c--- used to refer to a "type" of female or just a female.
It is not about equality--if it was-I would agree with you. It is about the intent behind the use of terms.
I would like it if both terms were not used. But to pretend that they just reduce the other to the body part does not in any way represent the way they are used.
Frankly-claiming they are equivalent is a big dog-whistle for me. It's like when I hear people say that more whites are killed by police than African-Americans. There is almost always a reason why people bring it up-and it is never a good one.
By the way-I am not saying you are a racist!!!!
polly7
(20,582 posts)digonswine
(1,487 posts)Yes -your experiences are yours---unfortunately, it would appear that you judge ALL things through only your own experiences. That is a very limited way to go through life. Good luck
polly7
(20,582 posts)Mine have shown me that people suffer equally. I truly believe that equality should be applied to all, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else, and that goes for language that demeans, laws, wages, opportunity, etc. etc. etc.
I can't make it any simpler for you and I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that.
I also don't see that as limited at all, in fact, it makes me much more aware of how I treat people personally and the actions of everyone around me. People are people, they all hurt - that you don't think some shouldn't hurt or feel disrespected as much doesn't make sense to me, but you carry on.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)#2 You are welcome to view every one of my posts here to see if I have ever used that "toxic filth", but I'll tell you right now you'd be wasting your time. Take another look and try to find where I said it was "perfectly acceptable" to call that woman that.
#3 I don't "HATE" anybody. Hating consumes a lot of psychic energy that I no longer possess at my advanced age.
#4 You probably need to chill. Your response seems a bit emotional.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it's especially unacceptable to call the most prominent woman in the Democratic party that name, on a progressive, Democratic website.
#2 You launched into the deflective, false equivalency game of "what about calling men 'dicks?'" when any native speaker of American English can tell you that there is no comparison.
#3 you attributed the objections to people who support "She who must be obeyed" when in fact the condemnation of that slur was pretty much universal across Sanders, Clinton, and O'Malley supporters.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)You seem to have me confused with somebody else. I did not call anybody a name. Furthermore, unlike people who just sit at their computers and pontificate about it, I acted when a female relative was demeaned by somebody using a slur.
I want to hear from a native speaker of American English that there is no comparison between derisive terms for male and female genitalia. Because I've never heard that.
And finally you need to read closer or clean your glasses, because I did not attribute objections to the term solely to supporters of "She Who Must Be Obeyed". I accused them of shedding "crocodile tears" over the departure of NYC_SKP. The term "Crocodile tears" refers to a false or insincere expression of concern, and that's precisely what all the bogus boo hooing over NYC_SKP looks like to me. Don't lie, you're glad he got booted.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)where he was incapable of functioning at a higher level than a MIRT-bait troll whenever she became the subject.
I wish he hadn't gone so far over the edge. But once he was over, he was over.
Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson a "dick" to his face.
Can you imagine him calling a woman a "c@nt" to her face?
Answer: no. He would never do that.
The c-word is a word that's been used by men to degrade women as women, and to degrade men by comparing them to women.
"Dick" is a word that is usually used by men towards other men, to indicate they're being annoying or obnoxious. It's considered so anodyne that Stewart's use of it wasn't even bleeped out on television.
The c-word is up there with the f-word, and the n-word. "Dick" doesn't even reach the level of "asshole"
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And equally demeaning. Yeah one is used for shorthand of prostitute. Whay do you think the other two are though off as fighting words?
What is actually going on is the 2015 purge. So there are some eggshells. And if she loses the primary I expect even more spleen.
But this place is highly entertaining anymore.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as anything more than synonyms for "asshole" and "jerk"
just like "breeder" does not carry the same weight as "f@gg@t"
polly7
(20,582 posts)I have five brothers, and if someone called them a p* or d* they'd probably beat the living hell out of them, unfortunately - but it is what it is. So no, not every man thinks like you. What did you think of the subway guys with their legs open being told they should be kicked in the nuts? Is that not as bad as saying you'd like to kick a woman in the c*?
You either believe in equality, which includes how people are referred to, for all ......... or don't even pretend you believe in it for any.
kcr
(15,522 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is somebody uses the C word. Most of the women I know think there are far more serious things than fighting words and getting baited by them.
So by our mutual standards this is really a non issue.
Now silly season sees the arbitrary enforcement of certain rules to get rid of troublesome posters. I expect that to happen to me sooner or later. Why I do most of my substantive posting away from here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You seem to have no trouble avoiding hate speech, so you are not in danger.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I have seen pretty antisemitic posts here. They are hate speech. Off the reservation above is also hate speech. But you get riled off over that?
Silly season will see it's measure of scalps before it's over. It is DU after all.
But either we enforce language rules equally, or we don't.
Have a good day (I no longer bother with alerts on this site. I get attacked regularly. I don't bother with them and see quite a bit of hate speech used). It is what it is.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)Plain and simple. There is nothing else to be said. No need to lose sight of that with all the other excuses.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Equally and other hate speech is fine. Why do you think some of us laugh at this point?
boston bean
(36,850 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am not sure for the same reason. But I assure you, it is rip roaring hilarious. Another one of those moments of clarity.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)many of my alerts have fallen on deaf ears.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Was the black lives matter. But I left because of open, rank, allowed antisemitism that was extremely in the open. Given the present bad dog whistles already I might as well take my leave again. That is the only thing that works with hate speech here, leaving. Except apparently for one word.
And with that, I think we have beaten this horse enough because I suspect we will not see eye to eye. Partly, I have been the victim of actual rules violations more often than not. And nothing is done. I have appealed it all the way to the owners
These days I just smile... what so far has happened is nothing. And it is quite self inflicted.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)Those that claim that d--- and c--- are equally offensive are being intentionally obtuse.
Words mean things and THEY know it.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)how they dance around it though
Here you go
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cunt
I really do not want to be banned for giving you the actual definition, but given the state of this site I would not be too shocked to be banned just for giving the link. Suffice it to say the etymology of the word is rather a matter of debate as well. I prefer the middle english origin, but the northern countries is kind of interesting too.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)The "Grope__lane" reference is the closest.
What is stated over and over is variants of this: it is now and has been for centuries one of the strongest taboo words for a woman in the language. No matter how you slice it, that can not be said of the other two words you tried to make equivalent.
BTW, the best scholarly discussion of the word, its history and usage is by linguist Ruth Wajnryb
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)here is from Oxford
a. A woman as a source of sexual gratification; a promiscuous woman; a slut. Also as a general term of abuse for a woman.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/45874?redirectedFrom=cunt#eid
And I can find this at other places.
The other definition, which is the one you are thinking is, not to dance around it like dictionary. com did. vagina.
I learned of this definition of a slut actually from the unlikeliest of places. (or perhaps likeliest) the streets. And then I looked it up.
zappaman
(20,627 posts) nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)At least in English. Perhaps not in American
This was one hilarious autocorrect. Where did IOS come with slur (that ok) and prototype I do not know.
Gotta love it though.
zappaman
(20,627 posts) nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)I know SKP (aka skippy) in meatspace (the real world for those who don't remember fidonet) (no double entendre here, just move along), and if the old fucker was trying to flame out or just bail it would have been EPIC. This is way beneath that. This is kid's stuff.
This is obviously Grantcart getting even for the kerfuffle at the Thai restaurant over his double entendre concerning monkey brains, right after NYC_ reported having a headache and making a pass at the hostess.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)SHAME ON GRANTCART!
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)AFIAK, Grantcart has been M.I.A. around DU for months.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)A joke among old friends. Sorry I have to explain it.
rug
(82,333 posts)
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)riversedge
(79,204 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
kentuck
(115,047 posts)Is that a legitimate excuse?
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)About him... He has always been a bit caustic, but lately some of the things he's been saying have had me considering putting him on my ignore list. That latest quip of his was clearly over the line. Now that I've read the rest of this thread and heard about his brain surgeries, I think perhaps a suspension would have been more appropriate - maybe the Admin is using him as an example due to primary season starting up.
Response to cyberswede (Original post)
Capt. Obvious This message was self-deleted by its author.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)nearly 700 responses - wonder if it'll break a grand.
Bryant
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
MineralMan
(150,526 posts)kentuck
(115,047 posts)Dolly Parton returns to Ryman Auditorium:
captainarizona
(363 posts)I do not like censorship or censors and it does not matter from the left or right. History has shown with rare exception censors are wrong and the people being censored or right. If people say bad words they can be told to do it again with out the bad words. I don't think I am better then others so I don't believe in censorship I support freedom of speech it has worked pretty well since america was founded.
boston bean
(36,850 posts)the GD forum is note from the ADMIN, titled "What can and cannot be posted in the General Discussion forum" and when you click on it, there's a bunch of stuff you might consider censorship, which you do NOT like.
uppityperson
(115,993 posts)"By registering a Democratic Underground account, you agree to abide by these terms. A single violation of any of these terms could result in your posting privileges being revoked without warning.....(more)"
Link is at the bottom of each and every page.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Giving perpetrators of provocative free expression a pass in the name of free expression, absent some return on investment, doesn't seem to be helpful.
"-NYC_SKP, talking about people other than himself.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6062962
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with pens than the ones holding their beloved guns.
he also got bent out of shape because people posted gun control stuff in GD after Newtown.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)And he thinks more and clearer, cared more about the future of our country, and writes better than most of the people he annoyed.
Looks like we need a couple of fainting couches.
applegrove
(129,957 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Lithos
(26,599 posts)“Actions become very effective when they meet the habit of consistency.”
― Edmond Mbiaka
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)But prior to the incessant Hilary bashing a lot of his stuff I agreed with.
marble falls
(70,487 posts)that was going to cost him. He should have known that comment was over the top. I would like him to be allowed to return after an apology.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)of a politician.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)don't understand how ANYONE can defend him
KMOD
(7,906 posts)
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)Also, I don't know if this has been brought up in this huge thread, but if the poster is British (or even just hangs out w/lots of Brits), the dreaded 'c-word' is bandied about WAAAAAY more loosely by the English.
It's much more synonymous with 'a-hole' and generally has no gender connotation in the British parlance, men as well as women receive this (actually fairly light-hearted) insult in the UK.
Just something(s) to consider.
uponit7771
(93,469 posts)... of them.
The poster knew they were using a UD for the word c*nt
Number23
(24,544 posts)the endless foolishness that flows out of this forum as gospel. This place has an almost cultlike effect on certain people. I've seen it happen so many times.
I've always questioned some of his policies -- his staunch defence of gun rights for one -- but he started to really get nutty with his anti-Hillary bullshit that was cheered endlessly by certain and very non-surprising quarters here. I even called him out on the increasing weirdness of his posts just a few weeks ago.
The admins did the right thing and I seriously doubt it will be the last time they have to do it.
HornBuckler
(1,015 posts)This seems like a quick reaction rather than a thoughtful process. NYC SKP is a great poster and I really enjoyed reading what he had to say. I read through the comments above and a lot of people seem to be pretty pleased with themselves over this banning. Some even going so far as to claim he is a troll - wtf is that bullshit?
This is why I am mostly quiet as a poster here - I'd probably end up like NYC SKP.
I'll donate $50 to Bernie for NYC SKP today.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Remember to use the DU Act Blue link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12809963
HornBuckler
(1,015 posts)Thanks for the reminder on using the DU link - but banning NYC SKP and stuff made me hesitate using it for a second. I still used it though.
I got another 50 for Bernie if they ever get rid of you!
merrily
(45,251 posts)He's my union hero and he's going through a boatload of grief. You probably made him a bit happier than he'd otherwise be.
HornBuckler
(1,015 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)NYC_SKP was.
This poster was on the extreme limits of DU after the Sandy Hook tragedy. Essentially what many hear call a "gun-humper".
NYC_SKP was "name removed"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023890311
And more weirdness
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6081518
progressoid
(52,502 posts) we can do it
(12,980 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)If you want to burn a witch, at least make a better effort to find an actual birthmark or something to call "a witch mark left by Satan" or whatever.
This is pretty low. I can read, I can see your deception regarding what was said.
You owe him an apology, but witch hunters are not known for apologizing for doing what is necessary to get one to a stake by alleging non-existent magic.
On Thu Jun 4, 2015, 06:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
You are mistaken, he called no one any such thing, very dishonest of you, unbelievably so in fact.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6780281
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Over the top.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 4, 2015, 06:21 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough with the blasted name calling and nastiness. I lived through the party divisions of 1968, 1972
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: A lot of fuss over a term that is contemptible, but not in this case. It's a play on words, and the sooner NYC SKP is permitted to apologize for his/her unintended insult, the better. I've seen transposed words here before, and never such a fuss....
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alert is over the top.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages
mike_c
(36,889 posts)In!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Well, at least that's what the administrator that did it said was the reason.
Apparently, The Purge has begun.
The certainly seems to be a different set of rules for those that don't happen to agree politically with TPTB on this site.
HornBuckler
(1,015 posts)If NYC SKP's toe crossed over the line of acceptable speech here the admins nuking of NYC SKP had their entire body over the line, built a house on it and raised a family of four.
A ridiculous over reaction in my opinion.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Bad call, IMHO. I hope he is reinstated soon.
We love you, NYC_SKP. 
steve2470
(37,481 posts)Of course I didn't agree with him on a few things (guns, Hillary), but he was a good guy and a good guy to me. He stuck up for me once (not that I ever need it) and I always remembered that.
Since he was here for so long and made good contributions, I'd like to see him be able to make a sincere apology in GD and be reinstated.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)people who don't support Hillary is spooky .
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We are treated with hostility.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Every.
Fucking.
Day.
I respect that you rarely are rude to those people; many of whom get banned just to come back and attack you under a different name.
Do you wonder if we would see his defenders defending his words if the target was Senator Warren?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Bullshit .
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Don't care.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)zappaman
(20,627 posts)Instead of Clinton?
Kali
(56,593 posts)and I am not sure I am a defender exactly, but to me what he posted was completely wrong and rightfully hidden. I don't care who it was aimed at.
I think he even deserves some kind of time-out over it. I am not 100% positive in his case it is worth a total ban, but admins know more than me and I have seen some other troubling things in this thread.
So as a kinda-sorta defender, no it does not matter who it was aimed at.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If someone's been here a long time and made many posts, and has zero hides within the last 90 days, and makes one post that's unacceptable -- be it about Clinton or Warren or another DUer or a progressive NGO or any other person, place, or thing -- then I think a permaban is too harsh. Everyone makes mistakes.
In a situation like this, I would give the member another chance, in fact more than one. More appropriate than an immediate ban would be a ladder along the lines of hide-plus-warning, then timeout, then longer timeout, then ban.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Why should this thread be allowed, and all the others locked??
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it was an excuse to ban a troublesome poster. The great purge of 2016 has begun.
The enforcement of rules is not equal, never has been, never will. He got banned for using a term that some consider hate speech. I left this site originally due to the open rank and allowed antisemitism. We are already getting whistles. So if it gets bad, I won't bother alerting, I will just leave.
I also get personally attacked regularly, I no longer bother with alerting those folks either. The juries will let that stand. And I don't play juries either.
The site owners are getting exactly what they were warned they were going to get when they decided to allow some cyberstalking on some choice members. Some of us tried to tell them.
These days I just smile. Pass the popcorn 
In the right frame of mind this place can really be hysterical.
Kali
(56,593 posts)that isn't the way the real world works.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But when you attack me personally with spell flames. Question my trainng, which happens often. Last night one of your pals compared a straight newspaper with orly taitz. Those my friend are attacks.
Some here took the show on the road. ( Whch is cyberstalking, legal definition and all) and continued the shit at my paper. I allow a lot of weird shit in. Not personal attacks. IP bans are peachy.
And I did that also with somebody posting a personal attack on one of my posters. It is, the site, a bully free zone. DU...not so much.
Kali
(56,593 posts)comparing a paper to some trash lawyer is NOT a personal attack on anybody (and for the record I have NO idea what paper you are talking about nor what thread)
I agree criticizing someone's spelling is generally a low form of attack. on the other hand, when one arrogantly positions themselves above everyone else and claims to be some sort of academic or journalist they kind of invite criticism of bad grammar or spelling. people like to take snobs down a notch. they don't enjoy being talked down to. respect is a two-way street.
I have no idea what you are talking about in your second and third paragraphs other than possibly the blog you were flogging pretty regularly when you returned to DU after leaving last time. is that your "paper"?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you tend to come in groups...
And people here, who are aware of this shit, have told you, and your friends.
As to flogging, it is not against anybody's tos, or perhaps we should now ban Will Pitt. The Rude Pundit, for god sakes the NYT. let's get this place actually produce it's own material. And we do cover news that is quite exclusive, like the peaceful occupation of a United States Congressman's office. or the stand off yesterday at the Mexican consulate.
We source everything by the way. And I do not post a lot of the policy material here, becuase DU'ers do not care about policy. I posted about the breach today, because we took the route of telling people what the government is doing to protect their identity, is that ok with you, or should I not bother telling people that they will GET AN EMAIL if they are affected, pius a USPS letter.
That seems to be a problem with many of you. I don't bother with a lot of it here, and quite brutally honest, if we have (when we have) a major fire in my county, DU is not my priority either. Trust me, you can catch it on CNN.
I know the local folks who are actually working on policy read our material, and that includes members of the local government. I know because I have been told that. In fact, some of our reports have had the effect of getting action from city hall.
For the record, so you know, what you call a blog, is a registered newspaper with the state of California.
We all just happen to use WordPress, because the two platforms used by most media these days ARE either WordPress or Drupal. Some are even running on Facebook now. By the way, the Hillary mojo site, and discusionists ARE WordPress.
But this is the kind of shit that you do. Your blog... grammar attacks, spell flames, those are attadks,. Why bullies do it, I know now why they do it. It is in YOUR DNA, not mine.
As I told you, I care not about you, I really do not care what happens to you, how you live your live, whether you are a democrat, republican or martian. It does not affect my life. But after understanding what makes bullies tick... I feel sorry for you guys, Really, really, really sorry. My empathic side is coming out. I would love to give you a tight hug, but I expect a bite.
And with that, have an excellent day. I think we are beyond done.
Kali
(56,593 posts)good job!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)have the last word, please.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know some of you hate me. I don't know you from shinola. I don't care to know you, I have not one bad feeling against you. At this point, all this, after reading a lot into cyber bullies and stalkers, this is about the person doing it. not the victim. But, this has allowed this site to be rather comedic at this point. George Orwell and all that.
Kali
(56,593 posts)is your own hubris
thanks for several more replies after you claimed to be done.
I am not sure how I will survive your not caring to know me.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this is a textbook example of blaming the victim and the victim deserves this.
Why bullies need to do this... is no longer a mystery to me, Ignoring them only encourages them, as we all saw over the years. Putting them on ignore just encourages them. This is about their needs and they vary from person to person.
But this is textbook.
Now Kali, on this subthread, do have the last word. Thanks for the example though.
uppityperson
(115,993 posts)"Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted."
The OP of the locked threads are complaining about his banning, the OP here is not. Hosts judge only the OP, not the rest of the responses, in deciding if they meet a forum's Statement of Purpose.
Kali
(56,593 posts)the OP is not complaining or disruptive, it is simply an announcement and even asks people to be cool. I know the difference might be hard to grasp, but there is one.
Letting the DU community know that a long time member has been banned is way different than blasting into GD to whine and complain that somebody is full of shit.
In addition one or two grave-dancing threads have often been allowed when a particularly disruptive asshole has been banned.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I disagreed about him about a lot, guns, Hillary...
And I'm not excusing the post. It should have been hidden, without any doubt.
But NYC was a solid DUer and an asset to the board, despite how much I thought he was wrong about things. He got carried away, thought he was being clever, and he wasn't, but he's not malicious or misogynist. I don't agree with his banning.
Of course, it's not my decision, and I'm glad I don't have to make decisions like this.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...but wouldn't 30 days be more appropriate? Banning seems way too harsh, it's not like he had a whole bunch of hidden posts.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Reading comprehension helps a bit here...
Where is the 'JUST KIDDING' avatar anyway?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Let's all message and demand NYC_SKP back!
There is no way an awesome person like him should be banned forever!
Let's speak our thoughts! Its a community, first and foremost!!!!
William769
(59,147 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
One post, out of the tens of THOUSANDS!!
840high
(17,196 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)I read the post in question, and for the life of me, I just don't get what goes on inside the heads of those that make these kinds of decisions. seriously, that post was not at the level for banishment.
In fact, it says more about the alerter than the alertee.
sad, sad, sad.
There are posters here whose years of snide, passive-aggressive bullshit continues to be allowed in mass quantities.
The alerter should be ashamed of him/her self.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)But sadly, he won't be the last in this primary season...
Owl
(3,763 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts) madfloridian
(88,117 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Mine and others locked. Message received.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Endless grave dancing has morphed into grave stomping. Either he presented a totally different face to me than he did to everyone else, or this is well beyond all reason, or both.
Captain Stern
(2,248 posts)I enjoyed reading the guy's posts even when I disagreed with his opinion.
I almost feel like there's an effort to make this place even less interesting. A person can get banned for kinda, sorta, alluding to a bad word? Pathetic (in my humble opinion)
merrily
(45,251 posts)For one thing, I did not know that NYC-SKP is/was into guns or an environmentalist. I guess I need to get out GD, Populist Group, and Bernie Group more often.
I am also very surprised to hear that NYC was persistently rude to people. He and I did not agree about much, even about how best to perform our hosting duties. However, he never once made a negative personal remark to me that I can recall and I certainly hope I did not address him disrespectfully.
It's also revealing how very ugly grave-dancing can get.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)With barely 3000 posts in 13 years, I still feel that DU has been and is a huge time sink. Of course, it has also been hugely educational, and in the early years uplifting as well. But I've made few friends in all that time, and fewer enemies I hope-- have never had a hide on DU3 or even an alert AFAIK. So if the axe fell, I'd be bummed out for a few days and then be distracted by real life friends and activities. I worry that this could be vastly more distressing to NYC_SKP. He had 20 times my post count in half as long-- hence on a daily basis 40 times the investment of time, energy, and passion, all in a place where you can be banished in an instant and then find dozens if not hundreds dancing on your grave. It's a very sobering example to all of us, and an encouragement to cut back on the amount of time and energy we invest in this or any such forum.
ileus
(15,396 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Won't miss the gunnery either
Marr
(20,317 posts).
polly7
(20,582 posts)Donating was never easy for me, financially - but I loved supporting, mostly because of such intelligent people like NYC SKP who I learned from, I felt I owed for the experience and satisfaction of it - now more and more good posters are either leaving, being banned or being bullied off the site completely. It's frustrating seeing good people who've given so much to this site gotten rid of for a stupid mistake while others get away with the most egregious shit ever.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Not re-upping next February, with this as the main reason. What a huge, steaming load of shit.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I wish they'd decouple from PayPal, but I suppose I could go the cheque route...
It takes a post about someone's disappointment to make you want to donate? That's just weird.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am pleased that the admins are responding to those who make crude remarks of a sexist, racist, orientation-related, etc. nature in an unambiguous way. I've seen way too much 'disagreement while being disagreeable' in the last few months to last two lifetimes, and way too many sleazy posts attacking personal characteristics.
I was starting to think that no one cared about the TOS anymore and I am glad I was proven wrong.
Marr
(20,317 posts)
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)I hope he is reinstated.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)He's allowed himself to be consumed by total blind hatred for someone, who while not my favorite politician in the world, is a hell of a lot better than the dregs we could potentially be saddled with come November of 2016, and I and most other people here will vote for without hesitation if she is indeed the nominee. The ones who say they won't are either Republican trolls, or totally fucking stupid and can STFU and GTFO when conservative justices over run the SCOTUS and strip us of any last liberty we have.
I thought his refusal to delete the wrong date on Hillary's New York rally was cheap shit too.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)The statement was offensive but the penalty seems heavy-handed and excessive in this instance. Do longtime members really deserve this?
Renew Deal
(84,650 posts)I remember a post from Skinner saying that using the c-word was pretty much an auto-ban. I found some posts from the old days that may provide context:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x5237
I thought I would waste my time with a rhetorical question.
How come American soldiers can be called "terrorists", "murderers", "trained killers", "human wreckage", and a buttload of other shit; but I can't call Ann Coulter a "c***", and calling Chris Christie "fat" is the cause of great angst?
If veterans aren't welcome here, just fucking say so, but the selective outrage over what is, and is not acceptable speech, makes me want to puke.
Reply from Skinner: I think that the comments you refer to about American soldiers would depend on context.
But if it makes you feel any better, if someone were to call a female soldier the c-word, or if they called a black solder the n-word, that would always be removed, regardless of context.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4680
And of course the old DU Rules from 2010 (1.5 years before DU3)
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/363
Omaha Steve
(108,316 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(165,184 posts)Beacool
(30,500 posts)but I totally abhor that word, even if it was in Urban Dictionary format. The "C" word is as offensive as the "N" word. Women deserve more respect than being called that term by men who can't handle women who either disagree with them or say No to them.
There's certainly no place for it at a Democratic site. I would hope that the men here would be more enlightened than to think that it's acceptable to call any woman a cu..
Renew Deal
(84,650 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)when you go ahead and BAN someone, not probation, not ask them to fix things, but ban, it lumps them right in with people who we know should have been banned. It puts them right there with the people who were sock puppets, get consistency getting voted to the greatest page. It puts them right there with the people that used the bad words directly, instead of trying to be clever. It also means that we look like we either cannot nor will not try to tell the difference. Do we really need the equivalent of "hands up, don't shoot?"
If this is allowed to stand, you will enable the crazies, especially as there are many who will gladly use trickery.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)
GP6971
(37,561 posts)962 replies in less than 12 hours. Is this a record?
Renew Deal
(84,650 posts)Here is an oldie: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8358611
DIAL UP WARNING
neverforget
(9,512 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)NYC-SKP, I hope you get the chance to return.
Good hide; Bad ban.
Response to cyberswede (Original post)
Post removed
polly7
(20,582 posts)I'm with you.
NYC_SKP added much to this site. It saddens me to see that his years of participation and contribution mean zilch in the face of one stupid mistake that I know he'd apologize for, given the chance. Makes me wonder if anyone here means a damn thing.
Hekate
(100,131 posts)People, people, people. NYC_SKP jumped the shark. He went around the bend. Jumped the couch. Leaped off a cliff. Foamed at the mouth.
It wasn't just the one post, it was a whole pattern of posting about a legitimate Democratic presidential candidate. SKP became consumed with hatred. There was no discussion to be had: the hatred was that bad.
I'm not rejoicing -- I'm kinda sad, because I used to have pleasant interactions with him from time to time. And then he changed.
The Admins have to do what they have to do, and they've waited a very long time, imo. DU, especially GD, has become toxic. I support any efforts at not allowing DU to become Discussionist or FR/Left.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Because EarlG says it was "just one post."
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)When we all absolutely agree with each other.
I mean who wouldn't want to actually have a discussion on a discussion board where everyone agreed with each other 100%?
GP6971
(37,561 posts)MelungeonWoman
(502 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,827 posts)I hope he gets back sooner than later. If DU keeps banning important members, have no idea where this site is going.
That is so sad that NYC has been banned.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Cha
(316,455 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Here's a Meta classic.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)It'd be nice to compare both lists.
Thanks for keeping that screenshot, by the way. It's not creepy or stalkerish in the least.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You can call it what you want, but it's funnier than shit.
I sure as shit don't stalk you, and you know it.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Yes, yes, we're all very traumatized and whatnot.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)1000th post in the thread.
As your prize you win a copy of the home version of Democratic Underground.
It's an entertaining game in which you misinterpret what other players say, berate them for what you think they said, throw the game out claiming the rules suck, then blame it all on someone other than yourself!
Prism
(5,815 posts)I would just like to thank my family and innate love of ridiculous drama for making all of this possible.
For all the kids out there, I just want to let you know - if you slack off hard enough, you too can spend your life making a difference to absolutely no one at all by participating megathreads of your own that will be referenced long after you are gone from this cyber-earth.
While this is no Clue Home VHS boxed set, I will take it!
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Your acceptance speech will go viral. It's truly something. Truly.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)If I've learned anything here it's that a lot of people really enjoy arguing on the internet!
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,574 posts)But I'm not going to argue the point.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)My bad.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)But the ban was beyond what was needed. I hope he can come back.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Sanity Claws
(22,323 posts)but wanted to increase the response count.
This thread could end up beating the kudzu thread.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)re-enter DU under a new user name?
steve2470
(37,481 posts)lpbk2713
(43,243 posts)I have nothing to add. There probably is not much that hasn't neen said at this point.
I just wanted to be part of a soon to be legendary GD post.
LostOne4Ever
(9,732 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6066386
Be specific.
Some of the victims of these murders had done nothing to offend anyone, others were engaged in a campaign of satirical attacks against extremism, and others were just doing their jobs.
In some ways, all were innocent.
Indeed, all were innocent of any acts deserving of murder.
All twelve were innocent of acts deserving murder and mayhem.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6066163
Wow Sid.
I'm sorry that you want to jump on the ugly thought police bandwagon that insists that I call the cartoonists "innocent".
I don't mind so much, but to try to belittle anyone who might speak in defense of such comments is pretty disappointing and unnecessary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6067368
And what possesses you to make such remarks?
I'm not ashamed at all, in fact I left many of my remarks open because I want others to feel free to express themselves about things and not feel bullied and stalked.
If you would bother to check, you'd see that I left my first reply open in every case because the rest in the subthread were just petty bickering with no substance.
I want people to feel able to express themselves without thinking they are the only ones who felt that maybe Hedbo cartoons were RUDE and MEAN.
And sometimes rude and mean cartoons backfire on the publishers..
I'm still sad for the three innocent victims who were doing nothing whatsover to provoke a terrorist attack yet lost their lives.
I hope this day is a terrific day for you, bettyellen.
Me, I'm hoping for another great sunset tonight out my living room window like I had last night.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018710005
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6068900
Contextually, the statement was fair, it was something like:
"I am particularly saddened by the deaths of the three innocent victims who had no involvement"
And then a bunch of people swarmed me with "what about the other nine", challenging me to include them among the innocent.
It didn't matter that I qualified my statement and said that "all 12 were innocent of any acts deserving of death", but that wasn't enough.
I'm supposed to change my mind and say that people who chose to publish insulting vulgar cartoons were every bit as innocent as a person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, ha.
No, that's never going to happen because it would be a LIE.
The nine CHOSE to engage in that battle of words, that use of satire and rhetoric toward those targets, and there was a certain amount of assumed risk.
Not so with the three very innocent victims.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6068986
Don't try to reason your way around it, and seriously don't put words in my mouth.
They knew there was risk, they chose to take that risk, they died martyrs to their beliefs, they were victims.
Their life choices contributed to their increased risk and they suffered for those choices.
You want to make it a binary black white question, that's safe for you, it doesn't require thinking or describing nuance or making a particularly well described defense.
It's intellectually lazy.
The three bystanders were by far more innocent of acts that led to the killings than the publishers, the targets of the attacks.
It's OK, we can disagree, but one of us (me) is not going to stoop to using insults like "depraved".
You can have that questionable honor.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6069890
Do you really think I'm going to change my mind.
The others are innocent, too, but they have to own some of the responsibility.
How can they not?
The nine and the three, they are not equally innocent no matter how you try to spin it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=178108
Everyone has been so busy changing their avatars and jumping on the "Look at me, Je suis Charlie" bandwagon, that the group of political artists is somehow given a pass.
You know what? They can be both heroes and arrogant and careless, those three attributes often come together.
Were the three bystanders less deserving of death? No, I never suggested that. But they were innocent, and they had not a thing to do with what allegedly provoked the attack.
I'll give you this, if it was a false flag attack, and had nothing to do with the cartoons, then Hebdo can be said to be more like the bystanders.
They should have known that something might happen, and maybe something did or maybe something different did, but they even admitted that they lived and worked in danger.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)That was beyond just insensitive. It was horrible.
LostOne4Ever
(9,732 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Not to mention the simple hypocrisy of calling for extensions of free speech mercy for a person who posted this about people murdered for their speech:
"I'm supposed to change my mind and say that people who chose to publish insulting vulgar cartoons were every bit as innocent as a person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, ha.
No, that's never going to happen because it would be a LIE.
The nine CHOSE to engage in that battle of words, that use of satire and rhetoric toward those targets, and there was a certain amount of assumed risk."
Vile. And his post was insulting and vulgar toward women, he chose to engage in a battle of words and there was a certain amount of well known risk in the TOS.
But none of his defenders will address any of this. They won't even admit they know all of this. They are cowards.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Not as thing wrong with those posts. You have to intentionally try to twist his intent to get anything even remotely malicious out of those posts.
And not a single one of them violates the TOS. They may make you uncomfortable but gladly your opinion of what is ok and what is not has no bearing whatsoever on what actually is.
-none
(1,884 posts)I failed to see anything wrong, that you referenced, in what NYC_SKP posted.