Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)
1. agreed
Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:11 PM
Dec 2012

i think explicitly addressing misogyny would be super helpful

agreed La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #1
Agreed -- and I also agree with LLP's suggestion downthread obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #2
Thank you and yes. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #3
I agree. I now know that it is absolutely needed. Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #4
Agreed hedgehog Dec 2012 #5
thank you. i too support the proposal of adding more clarity to this issue in TOS. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #6
Agreed. IMHO the folks who are posting sexist kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #7
Yeppp n/t HonEur12 Dec 2012 #163
I'd like to see the language before I endorse it. nt rrneck Dec 2012 #8
As would I. Because even as a rape survivor I think a lot of the complaints here have been over the peacebird Dec 2012 #10
Nah, you won't be PPR'd. rrneck Dec 2012 #13
Do you think sexism and misogyny should be in the TOS? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #19
I don't know. It depends on how you put it in there. rrneck Dec 2012 #21
So, you are ambivalent that sexism and misogyny should be TOS offenses obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #22
Strawman arguments should have some sort of repercussions too... n/t DRoseDARs Dec 2012 #27
Im ambivalent about endorsing a change in the TOS sight unseen. rrneck Dec 2012 #32
it really would have nothing to do with us. skinner would decide and word it. i trust him seabeyond Dec 2012 #43
I can understand that. rrneck Dec 2012 #59
he has it on du2. he can transfer it over. go find that. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #66
Cool. Why dont you copy and paste it here. nt rrneck Dec 2012 #75
no. go find it. dont. i dont care. i am so fuckin tired of these fuckin games. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #85
Well, if it's not worth a right click on your mouse rrneck Dec 2012 #95
What language from DU2 would you like transferred? Here are links to the rules: Make7 Dec 2012 #147
IMHO, a subset of that second link. Gormy Cuss Dec 2012 #161
how would YOU word it ?? Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #31
I'd like to see what I'm endorsing first. rrneck Dec 2012 #63
Pretend you have been given the chance to word it. Write it into the Tos just like you are Skinner - Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #72
I don't have an opinion yet. rrneck Dec 2012 #74
? you want I should word it for your approval ? Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #79
Yes. That is why the OP was posted. rrneck Dec 2012 #94
refresh my memory - when did we get to vote on the ToS first go round? -- Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #103
I don't know that it needs to be reworded rrneck Dec 2012 #110
ok. understood and agreed the discussion should take place in Meta. There is a thread over there. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #121
Thanks. rrneck Dec 2012 #133
I agree with you. It really never was about the words HH used. It was his attitude - Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #136
+1000 countryjake Dec 2012 #151
I agree I'd like to see how it's worded and it's not too much to ask.. one_voice Dec 2012 #33
skinner would decide on the phrasin and doubt he would be asking us, if he chose to adjust TOS. seabeyond Dec 2012 #39
Oh, I misunderstood... one_voice Dec 2012 #51
oh gosh, well, i do not know. i think we all have an idea that we would have influence in the seabeyond Dec 2012 #54
That would be the language obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #62
Then that's easy. Chan790 Dec 2012 #106
works for me.... nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #111
The admins will be the ones deciding how to word their own TOS... Little Star Dec 2012 #164
This is good. We need to have those two words "sexism and misogyny" in the text. CTyankee Dec 2012 #167
My expectation would be the inverse actually... Chan790 Dec 2012 #88
I see the use of the word gender as the basic problem. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #56
If someone were to say... one_voice Dec 2012 #83
So you are against clarifying language? DURHAM D Dec 2012 #86
No, I said I wasn't against it in my last comment.... one_voice Dec 2012 #93
okay. got it. thanks DURHAM D Dec 2012 #96
No member will decide the language. If the admins agree with proposal they will decide the language. Little Star Dec 2012 #36
How would you like for it to read? nt rrneck Dec 2012 #70
Personally, just adding the two words would be fine by me. Then like with all TOS.. Little Star Dec 2012 #135
I'd have to go the other way. rrneck Dec 2012 #139
But we already DO ban words. We don't allow "n****r" or "f*g". CTyankee Dec 2012 #168
Actually, for some reason I thought Little Star rrneck Dec 2012 #169
But I am wondering if we set such a high standards when it comes to race? Isn't the use of CTyankee Dec 2012 #170
About the best answer i can give you is little more than a policy statement rrneck Dec 2012 #171
but why is it so difficult to do this for sexist speech when it isn't for racist speech? CTyankee Dec 2012 #172
I see no difference. rrneck Dec 2012 #173
Two things: I am not familiar with what transpired with SalmonEnchantedEvening, so I don't CTyankee Dec 2012 #176
Well, like i said in #158 rrneck Dec 2012 #179
Is this any different from the evaluation process we already do here, with regard to racist and CTyankee Dec 2012 #180
I don't necessarily agree with the inclusion of those terms. rrneck Dec 2012 #181
Well, as to your first point: is it any harder to discern sexism than it is racism or homophobia? CTyankee Dec 2012 #182
I've only been a member for four years rrneck Dec 2012 #183
As we speak (type?) the discussion is on about Salmon's decision to leave and about HH's wife's CTyankee Dec 2012 #184
I agree. rrneck Dec 2012 #185
I love that you are an artist, but we do disagree about whether there will be a change to the TOS. CTyankee Dec 2012 #186
So glad to see everyone working together on this. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #24
I agree obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #26
yes... I see this as a very positive opportunity.... hlthe2b Dec 2012 #53
Glad to see you. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #58
Back at ya.... hlthe2b Dec 2012 #61
Skinner makes the decision on TOS violations. boston bean Dec 2012 #35
How would you like for it to read? rrneck Dec 2012 #73
Why yes I have. boston bean Dec 2012 #77
Thank you. rrneck Dec 2012 #78
why the sarcastic remark. boston bean Dec 2012 #82
Hmmmmm. More resistance. rrneck Dec 2012 #104
this seabeyond Dec 2012 #108
OMG, leave me alone please. this is becoming harassment. boston bean Dec 2012 #115
I agree. graham4anything Dec 2012 #9
"It should go without saying, but it needs to be said." redqueen Dec 2012 #12
Agreed. nt redqueen Dec 2012 #11
Honestly I've been avoiding these threads d_r Dec 2012 #14
Thanks for speaking out d_r. Little Star Dec 2012 #17
Beautifully said. redqueen Dec 2012 #18
Thanks, d_r. Well said. freshwest Dec 2012 #23
Wonderful post.Thank you. nt sufrommich Dec 2012 #25
Thank you so much for posting. boston bean Dec 2012 #37
can i record please, lol. i guess what i see is that for so many of us it is progression seabeyond Dec 2012 #38
you are too cool, d_r Skittles Dec 2012 #45
Awesome post gollygee Dec 2012 #64
IMO, your post is right-on-the-spot. salin Dec 2012 #65
No argument here Tsiyu Dec 2012 #107
d_r, thank you for laying it out so clearly. Gormy Cuss Dec 2012 #124
Thanks friend. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #145
This should be an OP for EVERYONE to read. Well said d_r. Thank you. n/t auntAgonist Dec 2012 #156
+1. Well said. n/t FSogol Dec 2012 #165
Thank you! myrna minx Dec 2012 #166
Agree. Would love to see the women of DU make this so.nt sufrommich Dec 2012 #15
The last few days make it pretty obvious that DU needs... Little Star Dec 2012 #16
I also support this effort and believe it is needed. n/t MadrasT Dec 2012 #20
K&R. thanks. Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #28
I agree Ohio Joe Dec 2012 #29
Yes Kaleva Dec 2012 #30
I agree that misogyny and sexism need to be added to the TOS... Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #34
I am in 100% total support of this. boston bean Dec 2012 #40
yes obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #57
thanks for opening this topic, we need input from Admin on this. Whisp Dec 2012 #41
yes irisblue Dec 2012 #42
No, it's not the best place; Meta would be better. muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #44
But it is about helping people. Hatchling Dec 2012 #188
sad that it is needed Skittles Dec 2012 #46
I support the idea, but I'm not sure it will help Scootaloo Dec 2012 #47
It will help with those who don't see it spelled out clearly, understand boston bean Dec 2012 #50
The problem is language is not static jeff47 Dec 2012 #130
Yes. It needs to be clarified. greatauntoftriplets Dec 2012 #48
Agreed LiberalLoner Dec 2012 #49
Absolutely. It must be in the TOS since the absence DevonRex Dec 2012 #52
I've already posted my thoughts on the subject Major Nikon Dec 2012 #55
some clarifications could be things like La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #60
+1 this -- great ideas obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #68
those are very good ideas boston bean Dec 2012 #81
Sounds pretty complicated Major Nikon Dec 2012 #90
Agreed n/t gollygee Dec 2012 #67
So a subjective judgement will deem a violation of TOS? Gman Dec 2012 #69
being against marriage equality may seem subjective to some La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #76
Well, unfortunately a lot of people here see some kind of slight in just about anything Gman Dec 2012 #89
yet some do. as should this one La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #119
Isn't that the same with all the mentioned bigotries? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #80
just look at the hh wife thread, how many defended boston bean Dec 2012 #84
adminstration decide the tos. that simple. regardless of how they clarify the tos, they are the seabeyond Dec 2012 #92
Point well taken Gman Dec 2012 #99
absolutely. and they do not rush. they take the time. and a person gets plenty of rope seabeyond Dec 2012 #102
There should be ismnotwasm Dec 2012 #71
Somebody got a primer on the reason for this? michigandem58 Dec 2012 #87
Sexism has no place on DU. nt s-cubed Dec 2012 #91
All for it. Here's the language from DU 2 that is pretty damn clear: NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #97
this. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #105
I find it disgusting that many people apparently need to have this spelled out for them. NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #109
yup. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #114
Thank you. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #113
Same here re: ageism. I noticed a good amount of it in 2008. NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #132
Me too. Little Star Dec 2012 #154
I like the first two paragraphs. I dont like banning specific words. rrneck Dec 2012 #118
I assume you are aware that the admin wrote it. DURHAM D Dec 2012 #122
That's what this thread is about. rrneck Dec 2012 #129
Yes, this. MadrasT Dec 2012 #125
I support a change in the TOS maddezmom Dec 2012 #98
I am in favor of addressing these issues with specificity in the TOS. Juries will fine tune WheelWalker Dec 2012 #100
No bigoted hate speech. Behind the Aegis Dec 2012 #101
Your suggested changes look to me to be just what is needed... Spazito Dec 2012 #120
This one looks good. nt rrneck Dec 2012 #126
that works also. nt seabeyond Dec 2012 #131
yeah, this works. one_voice Dec 2012 #140
K&R! hrmjustin Dec 2012 #112
I think Meta is the place you want to be Tsiyu Dec 2012 #116
Thanks, Tsiyu. Gormy Cuss Dec 2012 #141
it is depressing that, on what is supposed to be a progressive, democratic board, we actually have niyad Dec 2012 #117
I agree, clarity is needed in the TOS beyond using "gender"... Spazito Dec 2012 #123
An explicit statement will help everyone caraher Dec 2012 #127
I support an amendment to the TOS to make a prohibition against misogyny clear. yardwork Dec 2012 #128
Absolutely not. Words, alone, devoid of meaning should not be banned. Messages of hatred may be. leveymg Dec 2012 #134
not following ... DURHAM D Dec 2012 #138
So, a;; s;urs shuld eb allowed then? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #146
It all depends upon the context, what is the meaning and message. leveymg Dec 2012 #152
You know, I hate the word wars, and am often on the side of those who post silly and juvenile msanthrope Dec 2012 #137
Agreed. JoeyT Dec 2012 #142
Aye. JustJoe Dec 2012 #143
Agreed, LadyHawkAZ Dec 2012 #144
great idea! bettyellen Dec 2012 #148
Cross posting from Starry Messenger's thread.. Permanut Dec 2012 #149
I understand the functionality of preventing people from using the absence of that specific language patrice Dec 2012 #150
Don't know where it's best to propose it... countryjake Dec 2012 #153
I support this! n/t wildflower Dec 2012 #155
What constitutes 'sexism' here? The Doctor. Dec 2012 #157
Having thought about this TOS thing rrneck Dec 2012 #158
Unfortunatly it appears to be needed One_Life_To_Give Dec 2012 #159
I support this! nt stevenleser Dec 2012 #160
It is a fine place, but not the only place Tumbulu Dec 2012 #162
One could argue this is already covered by the TOS in several places justiceischeap Dec 2012 #174
I can't speak to the instance you reference about this poster who is leaving since I have not CTyankee Dec 2012 #177
Looks like it is, GC. Nice idea, thanks. nt Zorra Dec 2012 #175
I think it already very much does... ellisonz Dec 2012 #178
I think clarifying that sexism and misogny are unacceptable can only benefit discussion. misschicken Dec 2012 #187
Great idea. Hatchling Dec 2012 #189
has Skinner said Anything about this to anyone? Whisp Dec 2012 #190
No comment AFAIK Gormy Cuss Mar 2013 #194
I hope he realizes how insulting that is. Whisp Mar 2013 #195
No it's fine as it is. Waiting For Everyman Dec 2012 #191
Agreed wryter2000 Feb 2013 #192
Yes. I think it's time our terms of service included a prohibition on denigrating 51% of the Squinch Mar 2013 #193
I support this 100%. MineralMan Mar 2013 #196
Kick'n Reck'n Vanje Mar 2013 #197
if nothing else, i would like to hear if this has been the administrations expectation and they seabeyond Mar 2013 #198
Its worse than it was 10 years ago here olddots Mar 2013 #199
Are you talking about DU.2 or DU.1? Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #200
This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Mar 2013 #201
Yes, unfortunately we have the answer. Gormy Cuss Mar 2013 #202
Latest Discussions»Help & Search»DU Community Help»This message was self-del...»Reply #1