Post removed

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[TheBlackAdder]

160. Poli-sci classes show AA community being co-opted by white bourgeoisie establishment 130 yrs.

.


In the pre-WWI days, it was the White Women's Clubs doing most of the co-opting.


The broken deals made during the labor and suffrage movements were the most striking.


.

[NCTraveler]

2. K&R

[PeaceNikki]

3. Bye, Felicia!

[NurseJackie]

78. Ha!! :-D

[hootinholler]

4. What's the proper sig line gravedance in this situation?

Strange times around this place.

[artislife]

106. I bet it will be classy...because that is how they roll.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. The administrators can ban any of us.

That being said I will miss him. He was an unintentional source of levity. I can see how others felt differently. As a white guy I wasn't the target of his ire.

But it comes down to one thing...When you consistently argue you know better for others than they they know for themselves you are bound to piss those others off, and rightfully so.

[JonLeibowitz]

10. We all think we know better than others.

It's called voting in an election rather than letting the result stand unaffected by our vote. Did you just espouse a 0 - 0 = 0 argument there?

Not to excuse WillyT's post of course...

[jcgoldie]

17. voting in an election is not even remotely the same as...

Claiming that an entire demographic of people only vote the way they do because they have been somehow brainwashed to screw themselves

[JonLeibowitz]

25. And I didn't excuse his behavior.

I actually condemned it prior to his banning. You don't need to lecture me on the differences.

Be that as it may, what DSB posted is incorrect and I stand by my comment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. He wasn't banned for voting.

He was banned for suggesting black folk lacked the perspicacity to think for themselves.

[JonLeibowitz]

26. I know. I called him out on it. And I am calling out what I see as a fallacy in your post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Where is the fallacy ?

By exercising my franchise I am not suggesting that somebody who exercises his or her franchise lacks the perspicacity to think for themselves.

[JonLeibowitz]

45. You said

When you consistently argue you know better for others than they they know for themselves you are bound to piss those others off, and rightfully so.

This is an exceptionally common political sentiment and we express when we vote. Implicit in voting is possibly tilting the vote against what it would be without our vote. And I have no problem with that of course. I was just pointing out the inevitable logical conclusion of your post.

(I should note it is one we use about Republicans voting against their economic interest very often)

[jcgoldie]

27. perspicacity!

I'm guessing I'm not the only one heading to dictionary.com. Thanks for helping me learn something today!

[Loudestlib]

34. That same sentiment is expressed here daily about poor republicans.

[JonLeibowitz]

46. Exactly. But some do not want to see.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Poor Republicans aren't an integral and indispensable part of our base.

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

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

Like I said I thought he was funny but it wasn't my proverbial "oxe being gored."

[jcgoldie]

35. that wasnt a lecture

Maybe this is... There's a difference between thinking you know better than others and therefore exercising your right to vote and knowing better than others what is best for THEM and so demeaning the choices they make. It is clear that the latter was what is being discussed in the post you responded to with your snark.

[JonLeibowitz]

40. We mock the entire country for picking wrong in 2000 and 2004 and not seeing through

Bush's lies. This is typical behavior.

I wasn't posting any snark either.

[jcgoldie]

51. I agree its a fine line

I think race charges it in a way that demands more respect given our history. I interpreted the equation of this issue to voting as snark... guess not if you say so.

[JonLeibowitz]

65. Oh sorry, the equation is one which people use when explaining that voting

3rd party rather than choosing not to vote for the presidential ticket has no effect. In other words, voting 3rd party isn't a vote for Trump. It's not snark, it's more like an idiom.

[kath]

90. And we wonder all the time why the poor and lower middle class vote against their self-interest by

voting Republican, and how crazy it seems for women to vote Repub. Been doing it for decades - 20-30 years ago my mom was telling the Rush Limbaugh-listening guys on the shop floor in the small factory where she worked that the Repubs were NOT on their side.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

108. So you do think you know better than a group who votes in a different way than you do?

I know I do when I see lower middle class folks voting for republicans who will not help them, but hurt them.

But that is obvious, clear, undeniable.

[JonLeibowitz]

134. I mean, don't we all to some extent?

Of course we expect 1%ers to vote GOP, or at least neolib. But most of the country is worse off economically with the GOP and I'd say everybody but the top 5-10% are better off with a progressive rather than a neolib.

The question gets more dicey when you start talking about racial groups voting differently (of course, economic privilege is a thing -- maybe even in the case of economics discussed above lower income people want a more "fair" but unequal system where they can understand that they are the "losers&quot . I wonder if there is anyone on this board who would respond with an unequivocal "No" across the board to your question. Would their answer differ in November were Trump to win the general?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

138. Here is the difference.

If you are a white middle class person, or lower middle class, you can easily judge another person like that for instance the guy in Kansas who votes republican even though doing so causes him or her great harm.

If you are that same white person but decide you are going to judge any minority, whether that be non white, gay, Muslim, etc., you are using one set of life experiences to apply to another that you know nothing about.

[JonLeibowitz]

144. I think you are exactly right.

I was trying to speak to something resembling that divide with the economic privilege aside, but one is a small difference and the other a chasm. The racial privilege difference is rather more like a billionaire's kid making judgements based on privilege. And even then it is weak because race is so unique.

I try to keep my privilege in mind, but when you do a lot of reading on neoliberalism and the policies of the Clintons, you must understand it is hard not to come away with a feeling of how others are voting incorrectly. I try not to speak of it, because who am I, but I still think it. Does that make me a bad person? I don't know, but I still think I am right.

[NWCorona]

11. Agreed

[bravenak]

39. I agree

He and I had our fun times and our bad moments too. Nobody is all bad. I wish he had just logged off instead of posting that same stuff again. It was hurtful.

[SusanCalvin]

63. As you say, it was the repetition.

I had been consciously not clicking on his OPs for some time, until this latest came up.

[bravenak]

73. I have too but that one was especially for me

He came and got a hide right before posting that. I think it set him off to see me use the term in my op. I wish he had listened. I asked him to just delete and apologize. Move on.

[Codeine]

6. Long time coming.

He chose to die storming Dogwhistle Beach; may he long be remembered!

[JoePhilly]

154. Storming dog whistle beach!!!!!

[SidDithers]

7. Huge K&R!!...

Sid

[BeyondGeography]

8. So who will pimp Trump's chances in the fall now

and keep us apprised of the latest Hillary attacks? Pretty much all he did was trash Democrats.

Good riddance.

[sufrommich]

12. I'm sure there's a replacement waiting in the wings. nt

[jazzwinders]

79. right! n/t

[PeaceNikki]

81. You will be able to recognize him by the coy little shruggies at the end of every damn post

[DURHAM D]

13. There are plenty left. nt

[Fla Dem]

67. Unfortunately, as in society as a whole, people of this ilk are among us.

Willy T managed to hide his bigotry in veiled comments and innuendos. It's amazing he survived here for 14 years.

[morningfog]

9. I generally liked him, but he exercised poor judgment and I didn't agree with many of his positions.

[Agschmid]

74. Yup.

[DCBob]

14. Yeah.. that guy was a shit stirrer.

RIP

[kath]

92. Now if only some others who seem to live just to stir the shit here, taking great glee in it, would

get the Boot...

But will never happen.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. Good.

Another racist, sexist poster gone.

[quickesst]

16. The exact words......

.... I was going to use.

[NurseJackie]

19. GOOD RIDDANCE! (How did he survive so long anyway?)

[pdsimdars]

44. Cute picture -- brilliant - - made me laugh

[Gregorian]

20. It's getting clearer and clearer that this division will not heal

Gloating over a ban. Shameful. He was a valuable member, which you folks obviously didn't appreciate.

[sufrommich]

24. You should probably lying read Earl's explanation for the ban.

He was a flame baiting racist.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

109. Value seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

As in the person saying Willy was a valuable member.

If reminding us white privilege is alive and well, then I suppose so.

[Codeine]

28. He was a blatantly racist shitstirrer

and this place is much the better for his banning. One hopes his inevitable sock will not last as long.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Was he a racist or racialist , or perhaps that's a difference without a distinction?

I know his paternalism drove our black brothers and sisters on this site to distraction.

[Codeine]

64. I think he got a thrill trolling AA posters.

There are probably all sorts of hidden psychological depths to plumb with that sort of fellow, but easier to kick them to the curb than worry about the finer points.

[leftofcool]

30. Valuable? I don't think so.

[NCTraveler]

56. He was a very vocal bigot and racist for his whole tenure here. nt.

[cwydro]

88. WillyT caused much divisiveness on this board.

Your post is just too funny.

His banning was long overdue and well-deserved.

[Codeine]

131. What the fuck is valuable about a blatant racist?

The urge to defend that piece of shit is utterly fucking mystifying. He delighted in antagonizing AA posters.

[Sheepshank]

149. There are plenty of decent Bernie supporters.

Many of whom also condemned WillyT's blatant racism. He was not a valuable member of this community. He was a shit stirrer, a racist, repeatedly hurtful to especially AA members and harmful to the progressive label. I'm exceptionally glad he is gone.

Watch for the inevitable sock puppets

[Surya Gayatri]

21. YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS! All hail the admins' axe!

About WillyT
Statistics and Information
Account status:Posting privileges revoked
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 72,631
Number of posts, last 90 days: 3311
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 2787 posts in the last 90 days (84% of total posts)
Favorite group: Bernie Sanders, 314 posts in the last 90 days (9% of total posts)
Last post: Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:03 PM

In honor of this much desired day, and in remembrance, I say...













Posting Privileges Revoked
Revoked on Reason Revoked by
Mar 18, 2016 Doubled down on his infamous suggestion that black Democrats have Stockholm Syndrome, by posting an article which included the same suggestion (along with comments calling black Democrats "battered wives&quot . The title of his OP was "Thank God I'm Not The Only One" and he bolded the Stockholm Syndrome comments to make sure everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. The first time he did this it was repeatedly explained to him by many members of this community that his comments were at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist. Rather than learning from that experience he chose to double down.

[Lucinda]

22. I'm not big on grave dancing...but that was deserved.

[hrmjustin]

23. I know I am on thin ice because of my hides but this was his own fault.

[Luminous Animal]

31. I agree. And I gave up on asking him to stop posting racist stuff.

[KittyWampus]

55. Yes, to your infinite credit you did. I appreciate all the DU'ers with integrity

who didn't roll with that noise.

[msanthrope]

137. To your credit, and although we agree on nothing..good

fucking riddance to a racist piece of shit.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

114. I worry about all this attention to just this one poster. Willy has many like him here

who are just not as bold when it comes to saying stuff.

I fear, sincerely, MANY Bernie supporters who will seek to punish POC and vote for Trump or not at all, to get back at them for not voting for Bernie.

[hrmjustin]

117. Remember that most Sanders supporters will back the nominee.

DU is not representative of Sanders supporters in real life. I know plenty of Sanders supporter and they have no hatred of HRC.

Remember we have a lot of green party voters here who post here and they were never going to vote for Hillary.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

130. I know all that, but I will tell you that I am hearing elsewhere a great deal of

anger by the Bernie people about the likelihood he wont be the nominee, but I hope you are right.

I will be interested to see exit polling done on Bernie supporters in the GE to see what they did.

I keep saying "they", I am a Bernie supporter, but very turned off by many of them.

One quick story, a close friend who is very liberal says he will vote Trump over Clinton, but was a Bernie supporter.

He says he read the book Trump's lawyer wrote and now believes Trump is a great guy. My friend is an educated and very liberal person, I screamed at him but he isnt hearing it.

[hrmjustin]

132. God help us.

That is scary.

[Tarc]

29. It is a shame that that energy could not have been focused on Trump, the real enemy of all of us

But, some have just gotten far, far too carried away this primary season

[iandhr]

48. The real enemy isn't the Romans.

Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (2)

It's Judean People's Front. And the Popular Front, and the Campaign for a Free Galilee. Not the Romans. Fighting the SPLITTERS is more important. #peoplesfrontofjudea

[Jackie Wilson Said]

116. First one is the funniest scene in movie history

[Bonobo]

32. He asked for it and he deserved it.

There is such a thing as too much shit-stirring.

The mere fact that he hurt feelings and did not stop doing so was enough to show him the door.

[iandhr]

33. Good to see.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Oh noes!

[salinsky]

37. Is he one of those Bernie supporters who will switch to Trump ...

... should Hillary get the nomination?

Oh, well.

There's always a place for him at Stormfront.

[yardwork]

49. He had just posted implying that this morning.

[MoonRiver]

50. Who knows.

They certainly can't say so on DU.

[Amimnoch]

41. I won't grave dance.

I wouldn't like it if the ban hammer came down on you or one of my other fellow long time Hillary Supporters.

You are your own person. You are entitled to your own opinion.

I for one will take Skinner's message of reconciliation to heart and not join you in this dance.

I've been part of the opposition posts in a number of Willy's posts, I can't argue with EarlG's reasons. For the obnoxious things that some of Willy's posts had in them, I don't question that Willy is, at heart a Liberal and progressive.. and justified or not I just can't find joy in the silencing of a liberal or progressive voice (even if some of the things that voice said made me occasionally want to punch my computer screen LOL).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. I do

I don't question that Willy is, at heart a Liberal and progressive

Celebrating diversity is a liberal/progressive value and, at least here, he exhibited a paucity of it.

[MineralMan]

42. You can only test the limits for so long.

Eventually, you discover what those limits actually are.

Apparently that DUer now knows the limits. Too bad. It's so easy to participate on DU without pushing any limits at all and still make your points clearly and effectively.

[bigtree]

59. +100

[kdmorris]

115. You want everyone who ever recced a post of his banned?

That's sickening

[yardwork]

147. That's not what I said, but enabling racism IS sickening.

Since few of the people who recced the thread that got him banned bothered to post in the thread, I have no idea why they RECOMMENDED a piece of vile racism, but asking what they meant is a fair question, I think.

[kdmorris]

148. You didn't say ask them

You responded to someone getting banned with "what about the others"...implication being that they should be banned, also.

[MaggieD]

125. Yep. And I will remember them

That stuff made this place stink like a cesspool.

[morningfog]

155. You'll remember them? Did you copy the rec list?

[ibegurpard]

52. Too bad he couldn't see

His distasteful and counter-productive racial paternalism. He was dogged in presenting viewpoints about the direction of the Democratic Party that many need to see and yet refuse to acknowkedge.

[workinclasszero]

53. The infamous Stockholm Syndrome post

was blatant racism.

It was sad that a person could post insulting hate speech like that and get away with it on a liberal democratic board for so long.

[joshcryer]

54. Props to all the users who kept that original thread kicked.

And who stood fast against this bullshit.

[Orsino]

57. Gloating ill becomes us. n/t

[Codeine]

66. Being one of the 67 people who recced his last

Stockholm Syndrome missive reflects far more poorly upon DU than a little well-earned Schadenfreude at the banhammering of a filthy shitfucker like WillyT.

[Orsino]

69. Yeah. Like that. n/t

[Codeine]

72. Concern noted. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. Word

I can't believe the recs on that. Jay-sus.

[Lucinda]

75. I don't think it's gloating to say that we stand by the AA men and women of this board and will not

accept posters who willfully, repeatedly, insult them.

[NCTraveler]

61. Love for the LGBQT community.

While WillyT was a blatant racist, we must recognize his bigotry was just as bad. He had a history of bigoted comments. Not just one here and one there. It's who he is.

[MaggieD]

129. Thank you!

[Bobbie Jo]

62. K and R

Thank you, EarlG.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. The recs for that thread!

What a disgrace.

[Cali_Democrat]

71. Good. Racists don't belong on DU. nt

[JaneyVee]

76. HUGE K&R!

[Bluenorthwest]

77. past greats, past baits:

Apparently, If One Voted For Reagan, They Were Anti-Gay...
Really ???

REALLY ???

So it had nothing to do with money/taxes/RW Philosophy ???

I got some info for ya... They we're called Reagan Democrats...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026231263

I told him off and got attacked for it by him, then attacked by Hillary supporters because of him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128093910#post2

[NCTraveler]

150. I never saw that second link. Banned from the group. Righteous words on your part. As usual.

I did see the first one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026231263#post92

[aikoaiko]

80. A necessary ban to help make DU look HRC supportive during the primaries.

Let's see the purge list so far:

NYC-SKP
MannyGoldstein
Loonix
WillyT

[PeaceNikki]

83. Or at least a little less racist and homophobic.

Protip: don't be a racist homophobic asshole then double down on that and you probably won't be PPR'd

[aikoaiko]

84. or be inconvenient.

[PeaceNikki]

86. WillyT's banning was earned. He wasn't banned for supporting Sanders.

Doubled down on his infamous suggestion that black Democrats have Stockholm Syndrome, by posting an article which included the same suggestion (along with comments calling black Democrats "battered wives&quot . The title of his OP was "Thank God I'm Not The Only One" and he bolded the Stockholm Syndrome comments to make sure everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. The first time he did this it was repeatedly explained to him by many members of this community that his comments were at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist. Rather than learning from that experience he chose to double down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=109627&sub=trans

[aikoaiko]

93. What is interesting is that Earl doesn't say WillyT is racist or even insensitive.

Only that others thought so. Maybe Earl will be direct and say that he banned WillyT because he assessed him to racist.

The list of the recently purged long-term members may have transgressed in some way, but those transgressions aren't sufficient for banning unless coupled with an anti-HRC position, apparently.

[PeaceNikki]

94. Awww, you need a hug?

[aikoaiko]

96. No, I only need to speak out.

[PeaceNikki]

98. I know, it seems very important to you to defend racist and homophobic posts.

Thankfully EarlG has shown that there's a line which cannot be crossed without repercussions.

[aikoaiko]

104. I didn't defend the post. And the line appears to be transgression plus anti-HRC opinion.

eta:
Earl says that the members of DU have complained about Willy's posts for being inappropriate and therefore are banned.

On the other hand, the 5-hide rule has been suspended because too many randomly sampled DU members found HRC or Bernie-haters' posts inappropriate, rude, disruptive or over-the-top and they needed to bolster the pro-HRC, anti-Bernie views.

[randome]

97. It's their site. They can ban anyone they want to.

They're guided by what the community thinks. And the broad consensus was that WillyT's posts were racist. You may as well accept the fact that enough people thought that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[aikoaiko]

100. Yes, they can ban for any reason -- even not liking someone

[BainsBane]

99. They explained very specifically why he was banned.

[aikoaiko]

101. Yes, Earl did explain why. Because of others opinions of WillyTs posts.

[hrmjustin]

107. You can post in ATA to ask them to clarrify decision.

I think it was clear.

[aikoaiko]

110. Yes, I can and could, but Earl doesn't usually respond.

I think the implication is clear, too, but I bet we disagree on what that is.

We've seen this type of purging before when it begins to get emotional.

[hrmjustin]

113. I think it was clear that he was told not to post that kind of stuff and he chose to do it again.

Earlg said no more.

[aikoaiko]

118. Earl said, and I quote,

"The first time he did this it was repeatedly explained to him by many members of this community that his comments were at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist."

Is that all it takes to be banned -- to be told by DU members to not post something again?

I have no doubt that what Early wrote is true, but the post was juried by a randomly selected set of DU members and survived.

[PeaceNikki]

123. If they didn't agree with that assessment, he'd still be here.

Do you think it's an accurate portrayal of the "Stockhom posts"?

I sure do.

[hrmjustin]

124. Finish the quote.

"The first time he did this it was repeatedly explained to him by many members of this community that his comments were at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist. Rather than learning from that experience he chose to double down."


Yes willy was told by members how bigoted his Stockholm syndrome thread was and he doubled down last night. Earlg felt it rose to the level of banning because he did the same thing and learned no lessons. I have no idea why this is not clear to you.

[JTFrog]

156. And that's why the jury system has been challenged and it looks like changes are coming.

Or hadn't you noticed the admins comments on that? A bunch of trolls in a Lord of the Flies environment will not hide shit like that. One of the best things about the Democratic party is how they work to give minorities a voice. For the last few years, minority voices have been drowned out, beaten down and outrighted silenced here.

Fuck that noise.

[aikoaiko]

159. Yes I did notice.

And I think their recent changes had more to do with politics and support for politicians than support for minority membership.

Yes minorities whether they be based on membership associated with politician, race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc have always been at a disadvantage with the jury system.

[PeaceNikki]

120. "At best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist..."

Do you agree with that assesment of the "stockholm posts"? Admins clearly do. If they didn't agree, he'd still be here.

[Sheepshank]

161. There were plenty of Bernie supporters that spoke out repeatedly against WillyT's racist tactics

Some Bernie supporters even acknowledging it was well deserved that the ban hammer finally came down. Just look up thread. It's there for all to see.

Apparently you are not one of them that felt this was deserved, and instead have much love for Willy and his abuse of the system that allowed him to speak so cruelly and with such disdain regarding the AA community.

But I must say, your inaccurate portrayal that this banning had everything to do with the candidate he supported is patently false. WillyT was a nasty piece of work and earned the banning he so consistently played coy with.

[cwydro]

136. He says WillyT "doubled down" on his silly Stockholm Syndrome theory.

Earl G didn't have to spell it out; it's clearly a racist meme.

[aikoaiko]

146. True, but a randomly sampled set of DUers voted to leave it.

A system they have said, until recently, was producing mostly correct results.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

145. Oh, come off it.

"Doubled down on his infamous suggestion that black Democrats have Stockholm Syndrome, by posting an article which included the same suggestion (along with comments calling black Democrats "battered wives&quot . The title of his OP was "Thank God I'm Not The Only One" and he bolded the Stockholm Syndrome comments to make sure everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. The first time he did this it was repeatedly explained to him by many members of this community that his comments were at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist. Rather than learning from that experience he chose to double down."

Are you seriously suggesting that this leaves any doubt whatsoever that, in the view of the admin who banned him, WillyT's comments were "at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist."?

I don't think anyone who wasn't being actively intellectually dishonest could possibly claim that the intent was to convey that those were just the opinions of other people, and not of the author too.

[JTFrog]

152. Wait what?

Doubled down on his infamous suggestion that black Democrats have Stockholm Syndrome, by posting an article which included the same suggestion (along with comments calling black Democrats "battered wives&quot . The title of his OP was "Thank God I'm Not The Only One" and he bolded the Stockholm Syndrome comments to make sure everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. The first time he did this it was repeatedly explained to him by many members of this community that his comments were at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist. Rather than learning from that experience he chose to double down.

I think it's quite clear why he was banned.

[trumad]

139. So are you denying what Earl said about Willy?

[aikoaiko]

143. No, there were indeed some DUers who said he was insensitive and racist.

And he subsequently posted an article where someone agreed with him.

[cwydro]

121. He was banned for his racist posts.

Long overdue.

[PeaceNikki]

126. This poster is trying to claim that was not the reason, but that others (wrongfully?) make the claim

and that EarlG banned him because Willy hates Hillary.

[cwydro]

128. I know, and that poster is wrong.

There are plenty of Bernie supporters here still.

There's no purge beginning, as we all know.

I like most of the Bernie supporters on this board; there's just a small percentage that try to push things too far.

Willy T was a complete shit-stirrer.

[PeaceNikki]

133. Amen. It's paranoid a conspiracy theory

The denial is fomenting mistrust of harassment victims in a sick attempt to absolve the left from any responsibility for its failings and pretends that ideologies inoculate them from engaging in harm.

The victim-blaming is off the charts. Why is it so hard for Sanders supporters to accept that there are problematic people among them?

[whatchamacallit]

82. Hmm... I've had an epiphany

about the admins' confusing decision to remove the moderate, nonpermanent, remedy to bad behavior (time outs) at the height of forum discord...

Let the purge commence!

Just an observation. Please don't misconstrue this as a defense of Willy T's posts or a protest of his banning.

[UglyGreed]

102. Funny how that works

[MaggieD]

135. He should have been banned long ago

He helped make racism and bigotry acceptable here. I look forward to the rehabilitation of DU.

[JTFrog]

85. You Better Believe It!!! n/t

[Gothmog]

89. K&R

[tammywammy]

91. It's about time.

[DrDan]

95. last Tuesday's post should have done it . . .

beyond the pale

[nolabels]

103. See you after the elections

[joshcryer]

105. I'm finding it incredible that people are leaving after THIS ban.

Manny, I could understand, he was sometimes funny, sometimes even correct, but what the hell.

[yardwork]

112. Good riddance to anybody who enables racism.

This white woman has had enough.

[joshcryer]

122. Just hope they leave the doors open and the keys on the counter...

...to the Sanders group. In recent polls here at least half of DU's 80-90% Sanders supporters will support Clinton.

[Hortensis]

158. Guessing only people whose extreme left-wing partisanship

causes them to resent and villify everyone who doesn't support Bernie would leave. And, of course, some with...problematic social conservative attitudes. IMO, it'll be a helpful and unifying sifting out if it happened.

[MaggieD]

111. About time

thank you, admins.

[whatchamacallit]

127. Lol

[onehandle]

140. Who? nt

[edbermac]

141. Jury results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:25 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Every single racist mofo who rec'd that thread should be banned. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1524020

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Publicly calling for the banning of other DUers has always been treated as a personal attack, and rightly so.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:34 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh. The thread was an intentional attack on our black community. People are upset, and rightly so.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It doesn't seem any worse than a lot of other posts on this thread. If this one should be hidden then so should a lot of others.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree. It's pretty fascist in spirit IMHO
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The thread is gone. The person who posted it has been banned. Let it go. Stop calling other DUers "racist mofo"s.

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

[NCTraveler]

142. Seems he found a safe haven for his rhetoric. Not going to link the site welcome ing to his hate.nt.

[Bobbie Jo]

153. They can have him.

[Renew Deal]

151. I'm sad it came to that, but he earned it in the end.

[wyldwolf]

157. ...and to those DU jurors who always voted to let his posts stand?