Stinking elephant carcass in the room. 50% of that jury was apparently comprised of homophobic,

[Zorra]

ignorant misogynists.

Not only was the post glaringly, unquestionably homophobic, it was also a fabricated scenario designed to promote both homophobia and misogyny, and was almost certainly a freeper/disruptor post. ("Trust me, I have experience in this" he posted at the beginning of his post.)

Yet one half of the DU members serving on this jury allowed it to stand without any reasonable explanation?!? Two of them with no explanation (cowards), one with a cluelessly homophobic explanation - "Well, those are a couple of interesting observations. I fail to see where they are homophobic and judgmental though." Really?

Unbelievable. WTF is this all about?

Rampant, pervasive homophobia in this culture.

What are we supposed to think as a result of this?

How can we, the LGBT community, and all of the awesome straight members of DU as well, now not possibly wonder about what percentage of DU, supposedly a progressive message board, is in reality comprised of bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic conservatives?

I am sad, angry, and thoroughly disgusted.

Here's a message for any and all of you homophobic bigots that read this: You are weak, ignorant, hateful, psychologically disturbed pathetic excuses for human beings.

Fuck all of you, you god damned filthy murdering cowards. You commit murder in your heart every time an LGBT person takes their own life in despair, every time some ignorant fascist bigot murders an LGBT person out of blind hatred. By continuing in your hateful, ignorant, bigoted beliefs, you, YOU, are personally responsible for the death of every LGBT child that takes their life because they can no longer cope with all the pathetic mean cowardly little bullies like yourselves who mercilessly taunt them because you are weak and are scared to death of anything that is different from you.

Now go, go crawl back into your hole, little monster, you disgust me and make me sick beyond my present ability to tolerate.




Here's a re-post of the scenario:

From DURHAM D's post, subject line: Its not good over there in the big forums re: jury of my non-peers.

SharksBreath - Post #19.

"I would say it's a couple of things why this may be happening.

1. The women who feel like they are men are a lot more aggressive these days.

Trust me I have experience in this. In my neighborhood in Philly we used to run a girls and boys basketball league.

I don't know how to say this properly but the manly lesbians were just so aggressive we had to shut the league down. They were like a gang. We actually had a few borderline sexual assaults in the stands along with a huge fight between the straight girls who were just tired of being bullied.

2. The gay lifestyle has been celebrated and I would even say pushed to them through TV. Especially MTV. It's cool to be gay and when your dealing with teenagers. Well. They will experiment. "


Although the thread was locked I was able to alert. By a vote of 4 to 2 the post was allowed to remain. Here is the automated message I received -

YOUR COMMENTS:

Judgmental and homophobic post.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Dec 24, 2011, 01:41 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Well, those are a couple of interesting observations. I fail to see where they are homophobic and judgmental though.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I can't even begin to comment ... homophobic: to say the least ... misogyny: assertiveness in women is not "manly" ... could go on and on
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Homophobic.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This person needs thoughtful responses and a decent education and, barring that, ruthless mocking. What ever happened to toying with and laughing at posts like this?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[enlightenment]

1. This is a TOS violation - did you report it as such?

I don't know where it is (I'll try and find it) or I'd be reporting it now.

On edit - didn't see where you said it was locked. Perhaps emailing the Admins and asking them to look into it - it is a pretty clear TOS violation and that's supposed to elict some kind of punitive response.

[William769]

2. This was sent in as a TOS violation and the poster was banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=246526&sub=trans

[Zorra]

3. It's been tossed. But I posted this because it needs to be said.

I'm really upset by this, maybe I'm not thinking clearly and am out of line, I don't know.

I guess I should be used to the hatred by now, it's just seeing the acceptance of this by a jury here on a progressive board that has me freaked.

[HillWilliam]

10. If we can't feel safe to discuss these issues here

there ain't any other place. This is our safe haven.

We can do forensics on our own by digging back through history. Darnit, I wish we had like a subfolder to file these threads in.

[Ms. Toad]

31. Try a pinned thread in this forum -

With each message a link to the threads we want to have close at hand.

[Ian David]

24. The good news is, juries aside, our other systems worked to deal with it.

Skinner nuked the dude, who has been a poster here since 2009.

When all else fails, email the mods.

There are always going to be a certain number of people who just aren't it-getters.

And there will always be people who are so adamantly against what they think is "censorship," that they will never vote to hide ANYTHING, yet will always volunteer to be on a Jury.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

25. "it-getters" !

Love it.

[Ian David]

41. Credit to Stephen Colbert for coining that phrase. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

29. It illustrates the importance

of assuming the jury knows absolutely nothing - and spelling out clearly, in simple language, as briefly as possible, exactly why the post is "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate." or otherwise not conducive to "promot[ing] a positive atmosphere and encourag[ing]es good discussions"

Link to other posts by that individual.

Link to explanations that are particularly good (maybe we could develop good, succinct, explanations and put them in an ever improving thread (and pin it) as we refine what works - why "Mann" Coulter jokes are a violation of community standards, why implying republicans are gay is a violation of community standards, why suggesting we wait our turn is a violation of community standards, etc.). One of the challenges I see is that people rush to be the first alert (or are angry and just hit alert) and either don't explain - or try to explain very quickly to get the alert in first. If there was a source of really good explanations to link to (or copy from) they could be grabbed and used by all of us. (And if a juror says the magic words "I never looked at it that way before" we know we've got a keeper. If the juror is still scratching his/her head we know we need to tweak it.)

AND - remember to make a TOS alert, so if the jury still blows it, either MIRT or admins will get it.

They have been making very quick work of not only new intruders, but long time borderline posters.

[enlightenment]

32. I do understand.

I was confused because I failed to track back to the original and didn't realize what had happened.

There is an awful lot of thoughtlessness in the world - sometimes it is simply the product of willful ignorance and sometimes it is utterly malicious in its intent. Regardless of the root from which it springs, it is terrible to see it on a board that prides itself on being a progressive, liberal voice.

That said, DU is a microcosm of the larger world and proves the point that 'liberals' come in all varieties. I don't understand how someone can call themselves a liberal and not accept others; I don't understand Log Cabin Republicans, either. I do accept that we humans have the ability to compartmentalize our lives in ways that allow us to hold multiple, often completely disparate views.

For example: I have a good friend who is a wonderful lady; generous, loving, open-minded and accepting. She defends all groups and supports liberal, progressive policies. One of her very best friends - and they've been friends for almost 40 years - is gay. They are closer than siblings and devoted to one another.

At the same time, this lovely lady can say - without a hint of irony - that she is devastated that her friend is going to go to hell because he is gay. He just shakes his head (and smiles, because he is 70+ years old and doesn't let it bother him) . . . it makes my head explode . . . and makes me want to smack her upside hers.

How can she carry both ideas in her mind? She honestly and unreservedly love this man - but she believes (because her religion tells her) that he is going to go to hell when he dies.

I follow his lead on it. He was friends with her long before she joined this church and that friendship is what is important to him; he takes her as a whole, not just that part. Makes me crazy, though, and I wonder what sort of mental gymnastics she has to perform every day to keep things balanced in her head - and why.

I accept it is possible. I do not understand it.

You should never get used to hatred, Zorra - but you shouldn't let it get under you skin too much, either. DU is a very large community and for every nasty, close-minded, ignorant sod out there, there are two who are not that way at all. I know it doesn't seem that way - ugly things always seem larger and more evil - but I've been around this place for a long time and I really do think it's true.

I realize now that you just needed to rant - and this is the place to safely do it. I'm sorry I was confused about it. *hugs*

[Zorra]

33. Thanks.

Safe places are good places, especially so in our world.

[Neoma]

4. I have to admit...

The first time I was on jury duty, I voted Leave it alone when I wanted to vote Hide it. (Though it wasn't a horribly hateful comment and it wasn't about LGBT's either...)

[racaulk]

5. Thank you for saying this. All of it.

And although the poster in question was an obvious disruptor who has since been banned, that is really irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the jury's decision to leave this post alone and the justifications of those four jurors for making that decision. And that elicits a continued conversation about the issue even after the banishment of that user.

This was a complete and utter failure of the jury system, IMHO, and it will happen again. The question is, what can we do about it? The fact that there is no process to appeal a jury's decision is an incredible and glaring weakness in this new system of self-moderation. If homophobic jurors are adjudicating homophobic posts, then that's a big fucking problem!

This absolutely stinks, and it stinks all the way to the top.

K&R!

[Zorra]

22. Yes. A DU jury letting a post like that stand speaks volumes.

I'm doing a whole lot of speculating and reassessing this evening.

[DURHAM D]

6. In some ways I respect the booted poster more than the "Leave It Alone" jury members.

They are cowards.

I doubt there is any chance the system will be changed to show the identity of the jury members. Unless that happens DU can not root out the haters posting among us.

[HillWilliam]

9. If I understand the new process correctly

and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the admins can go back and see the identities of jurors.

Perhaps a pattern of homophobic decisions can be developed from there.

Well, in a perfect world and "oh, if only I were the king"

If I understand the new database correctly (given the descriptions I read during preview), those homophobic jurors will eventually out themselves. Whether this can and will actually happen, I can only hope.

[DURHAM D]

16. I'll hope with you.

Glad to see you. How are things with HillBillyBob? If you have posted an update I missed it.

You two are in my thoughts...

[tammywammy]

35. I would tend to think admins could see recs

They could see who rec or unreced on DU2.

[Ms. Toad]

36. Everyone can see recs here.

Just click on the rec balloon and scroll down to the bottom of the page.

[tammywammy]

37. Edited - I see what you're saying.

Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2011, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

I can be such a dummy late at night.

[yardwork]

7. I was angry about the jury response to that post too, so I alerted again and checked the TOS box.

Skinner banned the poster. I appreciate that.

Yes, it's disappointing that four idiots on DU didn't recognize the post as hateful, homophobic, and anti-woman. It's good that you posted this thread. We need to keep talking about this. Eventually more DUers may get it.

[William769]

8. This happened this evening.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=81599

The jury hid it. TOS was also checked but because of the length of time the member had been here on DU, the Mir team could not take action. Since we could not take action, this is what EalrG did. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=113494&sub=trans

I believe the system is working, it may not be 100% but I believe it's a lot better than what we had.

[HillWilliam]

12. I'll say this

the disruptors get pizza a helluvalot faster than they used to.

The jury system needs honing, but I think over a period of time, those DUers who continue to allow anti-LGBT posts to stand will reveal themselves to the admins. If they can't adjudicate in line with the TOS then they need a heave-ho, star or none.

[William769]

14. Whenever a person is banned since I am on the MIR team I get a notice

Of the ban and the reason. I'll say this the Admins are not messing around with bigoted TOS violations of any kind.

[DURHAM D]

18. I noticed you were on top of those that are banned.

Now I understand.

Thanks for keeping us updated.

I feel like I know someone the inside.

It gets better.

[William769]

19. The MIR Team rotates every 90 days.

My term is up March 10th. I would suggest you apply the next time around. You can learn a lot.

[yardwork]

15. That is what I am observing, too. The homophobes are getting noticed by admins for the first time.

A lot of these types of posts were allowed to stand by moderators in the past. And the admins never even saw them. The long-time disruptors got away with their homophobic crap for years and half the time nobody even bothered to delete their posts. We were the problem because we complained.

I'm seeing a turnaround.

[DURHAM D]

13. Thumbs up to the "keep talking".

To be honest I gave my OP a lot of thought before I posted the jury decision on Sharksbreath post. I was not certain of the procotol and was concerned it might be considered a "call out" and against the rules. Also in my head was the fact that our group sometimes has different rules applied to us or on (or not on) our behalf. I even thought about PMing you for an opinion but finally decided to just go for it.

The responses to my post made me aware of the TOS box and I used it yesterday (as did others I assume) and it resulted in the removal of two other stupid bigoted haters.

The result was good and is an example of what we can accomplish when our group works together. So everyone - keep talking, keep sharing.

BTW - when I alerted on the hateful post you might of noticed that I didn't even comment on the anti-woman part. I decided to keep it simple and reasoned that more DUers are unable to see misogny than homophobia. Given the failure to hide the post perhaps I was mistaken in that assumption.

Keep talking.

[yardwork]

17. Because of your post the other day, I saw the offending post and alerted on it.

I knew that the jury had already voted, but I alerted anyway and wrote a message with the TOS alert, in which I cited the offending phrases and noted that they were homophobic and bigoted against women. I think that some others clicked the TOS alert as well, probably also as a result of your post that alerted us to this.

As a result, the bigot was banned. A good day's work. And I am grateful to Skinner.

[stevenleser]

21. I think the Host/SOP setup works and MIRT/TOS alerts work

The jury system, however, is a mess. I understand the theory behind it, let the community decide what is ok and what isn't ok. But too often, it doesn't work in practice.

You have to give juries firm guidelines and then ban people who don't adhere to those guidelines from jury duty. If you don't vote to hide a bigoted post, one so bigoted that it gets the poster tombstoned, you don't belong on a jury (and probably don't belong on any Democratic leaning site). If you vote to allow a personal attack to stand because that poster is on your side of pro/anti Obama or pro-atheism or pro-religion, etc., you don't belong on a jury. If you cannot be impartial because you and the poster of the item in question had issues in the past, and you use the jury adjudication as a way to get even with that poster, you shouldn't be serving on a jury.

For some reason, all of the opinions I just wrote are at odds with the admins and preponderance of DU. What we see here is the result. Today, I alerted on a post that was a strong attack on a particular religion and those who observe it (not one that I observe). It was hidden by a 4-2 margin, but even there, it barely made it. One more vote and it would have not been hidden. Two people out of six voted to allow a bigoted post to stand. If you add that to this anti gay alert result discussed.in the OP, 50% of.the two juries voted to allow bigoted statements to stand. That shows.that at the very least the jury system needs serious adjustment.

[yardwork]

23. I'm not sure that a preponderance of DU disagrees with you.

The jury system is a radical change from the way that DU has been run. I agree with the concerns that you and others have raised, but I also had serious problems with the old system. Without going into a lot of detail and rehashing extremely long threads, etc. I'll just say that the moderators on old DU were a mixed bag when it came to recognizing and handling bigoted posts. Many of the recent posts that we think that DU3 jurors should have hidden would have been allowed to stay under the old DU system. AND I doubt that many of the disruptors who have been banned for those posts in recent days would have been banned under old DU. In fact, I was banned for two years for pointing out that a moderator was repeatedly taunting the LGBTQ community on DU (I guess I am going to rehash old grievances - sorry!). Dozens of other GLBTQ posters and allies were banned during the same time period and very few of us have been allowed to return (although I understand that banned posters can sign up for DU3 now and won't be automatically bounced - I don't know if anybody has tried to return, though. There are a lot of bad feelings about DU among LGBTQ posters in the blogosphere.)

The old system was so bad at rooting out low-level bigots, and so infamous for turning on people who complained about this, I'm feeling pleasantly surprised at how well DU3 is working.

I agree that the jury system needs some tweaks.

[stevenleser]

27. You wouldnt believe the abuse I get when I raise these issues in Meta

Anyone who raises issues with the jury system is labeled a whiner and has to endure all kinds of other snide comments and insults.

Edited to add: I also would never try to talk up the Mod system to folks in the LGBT community after all that went on in DU2. I also dont think the jury system is beyond repair. It CAN be repaired, but I dont see a willingness on the part of the admins or most of the folks discussing this in META to even consider it.

[Ms. Toad]

28. Not much willingness in this forum, either. I tried, because I could see it coming.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1137224

The thread was locked - after "more than one" member of this forum alerted on it it for being off topic. I appealed the lock, and the appeal was denied even though neither the locking host, or another host who had been consulted, could explain to me why the implications of the jury system on our community was not of interest to this group (which, given our SoP is what being off topic in this group means...and in addition it was the most active thread, at the time of the lock)

I moved the discussion to the META, with a specific proposal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12402411

But - I still believe that a proposal coming from this group would have more weight than a proposal from an individual which garners individual voices of support (and thus be harder to identify as arising out of a community need).

[Zorra]

26. +1

The main problem that I see with a universal random jury system is that there is no process to weed out individuals who do not have the awareness, ability, and/or desire to be reasonably objective.

Using a logical mental process that employs reasonable objective analysis and subsequently exercising reasonably objective judgment is simply not possible for some people.

[HillWilliam]

20. Looks like we've all arrived at the same place

that is, a reasonable interpretation of the rules. If nothing else, by the precedent of this thread standing with a number of hosts in it, I think so long as we don't name names it isn't exaaaaaaaaaactly a callout. Not to mention, it's cathartic to see the jury system in action. I wouldn't call this thread a callout, just MHO; I've maintained all along that by participating in juries and analysing the results we can improve the system.

It's gratifying to see overt homophobic posters sanctioned with great prejudice nearly immediately. From my La-Z-Boy vantage point, I think the real work is weeding out the phobes by dint of analysis. To paraphrase my mama, "We're takin' notes."

Oh yeah, and I went back a read that thread. I need a shower.

[mitchtv]

11. I saw that too

pretty gross indeed, not suprising,however

[Behind the Aegis]

30. I thought "WOW! Zorra was quick!" Here's why:

At Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Found on Craig's list

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

The link leads to photographs of Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman eating corn dogs, with the headline "Who gives better head."

While the photographs themselves are ridiculous, the focus of ridicule on candidates with phallic symbols in their mouths are always borderline misogynistic/homophobic at best. In this case, the headline makes explicit that these politicians are being ridiculed for sucking "cock." It's clearly sexist and homophobic and our community should hold itself to higher standards.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 29, 2011, 12:42 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Homophobic and sexist. Old news. And just plain lame.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree with the alert and not appropriate for GD.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: homophobic
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: that picture has appeared here many times and never been removed. Maybe should be in the multimedia forum, but as I understand it that's for hosts, not juries, to decide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Now oral sex is misogynistic/homophobic?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: 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.

This has happened with two anti-Semitic posts as well. But, like yardwork stated, the MIR team and the admins aren't fucking around, and a few assholes are getting shown the door! I have to say I was surprised at the above results. If this had been in "Teh Lounge," I could see those results (not a slam on the Lounge, just that the picture is more in the realm of what-have-you), but it is not a GD post, and CERTAINLY not a thread starter!

[dickthegrouch]

34. Perhaps some tweaks to the Jury system

If Jurors were only allowed from the pool of posters in the room, it might help.
On the other hand, I have 30+ years of Gay Rights activism under my belt and I'm still bemused by some of the things that others find homophobic. We don't all have the same standards and we are not all from the big city where discussion groups and consciousness raising are so very available.
I would have voted for hiding this one, but several others were apparently too subtle in their homophobia for me.

[Fearless]

38. In regards to the whole issue here...

Should the jury be changed? Perhaps, but I see that as more of a quick fix to a bigger issue. IMHO, we need to engage people in a dialogue regarding sexism, regarding homophobic remarks, etc. Explain why they are offensive and why they hurt us and demean DU as a whole. Rehabilitate DUer's who say these things instead if they are willing to listen, instead of TS'ing them at the drop of a hat. If they are unreceptive, I think a heavier hand is necessary, but at least we should try to give them the benefit of the doubt, that ignorance (i.e. unknowing) may not be a self-imbued quality, that people may be willing to change if reached in an nonthreatening way. If they learn, we all move on with one more ally, and if they don't TS them and move on without them. No sense in arguing with bigots.

[Ms. Toad]

39. I have mixed feelings.

As a general rule, I agree with you. I have dedicated my life, in large part, to doing just that - in small and large ways. I am out wherever I go in real life - that, in and of itself, is an education. We were the first same gender couple to be married in our church (it took 8 years of engaged dialog and 6 years later, we have just published a book about the process). We were also the first appellate second parent same gender adoption case in our state. Just a sampling.

But here, I'm pretty discouraged about solving the problem by dialog alone. Population turnover(constantly bringing in new people to educate), and entrenched habits among those here of being able to get away with a lot of pretty nasty stuff, go a long ways to convincing me that we need a combination to get the ball rolling. Bouncing a few who have been here over the years and still insist on spouting bigoted nonsense and claiming innocence (or complaining about the crybabies), a jury system that provides a better than even chance of hiding offensive stuff, combined with educating around the ones that don't get hidden - at least until we have established a kinder, gentler, DU - seems to me a better mix.

[Fearless]

40. I absolutely agree about bouncing repeat offenders...

And I couldn't agree with you more that offensive posts need to be reliably dealt with. And, it is definitely true that we have a constantly changing population of posters. New people come in and old people depart, etc. It seems maddening to have to stay on top of all of that!

At the same time, I can't help but feel that we have a rare chance, with DU, to reach people that we generally agree with who may not have experience with the LGBTQ community and our issues. I think we are 100% agreed that disruptors should be removed from DU. At the same time, I think that even just confronting a well-meaning DUer who said something offensive is an opportunity we can't pass up. Saying: "hey there, what you said really offends me because..." and providing some insight into why it is offensive--I think that has value too.

Can we ever "win"? As in completely eradicate bigoted comments? Not a chance. But "win" as in gain an ally or two... sure every day of the week! A year or two ago, a lot of bigoted speech was acceptable on DU. Thinking back, it's truly remarkable, especially LGBTQ-related comments. If we speak up, and yes ban serial offenders, I think we can continue to make DU a better place for all of our groups!

[Ms. Toad]

42. I'll bet if you do a search on my name

that you see I do a lot of that . . . (in fact, I've been dedicating most of my time on DU3 to doing structure building - which includes that kind of conversation). And I still haven't decided how much I'll hang around past this initial phase. (After I got tired of (felt too beat up by) DU2 and took a break, I got pretty heavily involved in a local civic involvement group that takes a lot of my online time.)

But back to here - I'm not likely to stop trying to do the education that, I agree, is necessary - I just want a little back up so that a couple dozen more pests don't pop up while I'm having a nice conversation with the first. The volume of conversations in which education is necessary overwhelming, so right now I'm for over-bouncing, rather than underbouncing, until the point gets across that DU3 is different and our concerns are being taken seriously.

Once that point has clearly been made, I might be a little more tolerant.