So using hidden misogynic sexual vulgarities to express disagreements, according to some, should be

[NanceGreggs]

101. I have to respectfully disagree ...

... and I do mean "respectfully", because I have no doubt that you are speaking from the heart.

"If this happened to someone less popular would the feelings be the same?"

Probably not. But DU can't claim to be a "community" on one hand, and then refuse to acknowledge that a long-time member of that community doesn't deserve to have their words assessed in light of their many years of behaviour as a member thereof.

Personally, I did not find SKP's play-on-words to be particularly offensive. And I say particularly in light of the other things that have been allowed to be posted here over the past few years. I have seen a Democratic president, along with other well-respected Dems, accused of things that even FR would shy away from.

"A lot of latitude is allowed on many things, but when it comes to derogatory sexual innuendos or racial innuendos, implicit or explicit there has to be a standard."

Well, therein lies the problem. Under the jury system, there is NO standard. The posts that are hidden or allowed to stand are being determined by juries that all too often base their decisions on who they like, who they agree with, who they don't agree with, and who they deem to be a member of their particular clique.

I have to wonder what "standard" is being applied when a long-time poster is banned for saying something considered "unacceptable", when so many truly abhorrent things are said here on a regular basis and are not only left standing, but are kicked 'n rec'd, and displayed on the Home Page for all to see.