General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat exactly constitutes an acceptable human being around here?
Last edited Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:42 PM - Edit history (2)
No one who is religious or pretends to be religious.
No one who thinks racism is a social problem or believes whites are not more oppressed that people of color.
No person of color who doesn't stay in their place and make sure never to upset white people by mentioning racism, unless it is to point fingers at the GOP or Florida
No feminists (defined essentially as not staying in their place, as for PoC).
No one under a certain age--not sure if that is 60, 65, or 70
No one who doesn't think the 1960s was the pinnacle of human civilization
No one who doesn't believe that Jan 2009 marked the beginning of the downfall of America
No one who cares about anything other than Snowden, Glen Greenwald, legalizing marijuana, or defeating the evil shrew that is Hillary Clinton
No one who doesn't think the Democratic Party is just as bad as the GOP
What else am I missing?
Oh yeah, no one who doesn't think liberalism and porn are coterminous.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Guns
Religion
Funny how Obama touched on this a few years ago, people clinging to stuff...
Remember the trouble he got into? Seems these feelings arent solely the property of the right.
Misogyny is big around here too...Women are often abused here. (that last comment seems over the top, i was gonna delete it, but i wont, it is true...it is an undertone in many comments, not always overt)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Some people are just too self-centered (or too obstinate) to avoid derailing discussion of anything that doesn't directly impact them.
dawg
(10,610 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Got to get myself a new head strainer.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)people are for certain things or actions, and others have different views.
There are certain community standards that pretty much have consensus such as racism is not tolerated in any form, however, most other views are given a wide latitude
dawg
(10,610 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)But the dog whistles being handed down by the right since they first really got away with it (Mississippi 1976) were in this post:
The black community has the same issues as the LDC of the world in that that birth control education is lacking and that having a lot of kids reduces your spending power simply put. This cycle is difficult to break but it starts at the school level or more specifically public education levels.
We've also been watching what some of our Asian members have been putting up with. Eh? Everyone is entitled their own opinions and beliefs and preconceived notions about each other.
But that means EVERYONE is.
Every single one of us.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Surprised it didn't get alerted
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The jury thought it was just fine and dandy.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)On Wed May 14, 2014, 02:31 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
To be blunt prvilege has nothing to do with the fact
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4953402
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
I'm sorry but this is some racist stuff, claiming black men are the cause of the lack of racial income inequality because they 'walk away' from their families. Never mentions that they are disproportionately incarcerated and arrested.
Also blames black women for having 'lots' of kids. This is a right wing argument that i heard from Paul Ryan and Newt Gengrich. Please hide this. We have few black poster left and they are being driven off by stuff like this.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed May 14, 2014, 02:45 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seems racist but we have to allow people to express themselves... they are exposing who they are.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Actually, it seems any mention of race is racist these days. Point out in the thread, what is wrong with the poster's opinion. Why run to the alert button? And he did mention incarceration despite you saying he didn't.
As for: "We have few black poster left and they are being driven off by stuff like this" , anyone who is so easy to drive off due to one person's opinion, mistaken or not, probably doesn't want to be here anyway.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagree, this is not a racist reply. If it's really as bad as you think, you should be able to defeat the argument in a fair discussion. After all, this is a political discussion board.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sounds like a litany of 'us versus them'. Maybe if it was worded differently but...no.
Thank you.
I am posting this because the post under discussion was alerted by me and i think everyone should see the jury responses.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Go back to where there were standards
Thanks for enlightening me
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I must have missed that one.
Amazed that garbage was allowed to stand, and the poster actually had the guts to post in this very thread.
"progressive" my ass.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That may be one of the worse examples, but certainly isn't the only example, of the thinly veiled racism that frequently survives jury votes around here.
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)The jury let it stand. Juror #6 was kind of shocking.
Sometimes a lot of little pin pricks add up to a machete. . BainsBane sees all of these little needles.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)which is often what happens.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Seriously.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)and you obviously haven't read the threads in the African American group, the Muslim group, or any of the other ethnic groups. Why do you suppose there are so very few people of color on this site in comparison to their proportion in the Democratic Party or society at large?
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)that my county party is 95% white.
The activists who show up to the meetings, that is.
Of course, the county is about 84% white and only 38% Democratic.
Because the white activists don't welcome black participation? Hell, if they wanted to get involved thirty black people could take the organization over. They have the numbers, and if they get elected as a precinct person, they have the absolute right to participate.
Consider the 2008 caucus in the 5th Senate district (comprising perhaps 80% of the county). We had about 400 black people show up to caucus for Obama. Although there may have been twenty white people in the room too. Kinda hard to tell in that packed room. I think all five of us Edwards supporters were white males (and in the second round, all five of us switched to Obama).
There were about 200 Hillary supporters, with perhaps five black people in that room (I know of at least one).
With numbers like that, black people could dominate the party organization if they wanted to. In fact, I pulled a list of caucus goers to use to recruit precinct people, which we are desperately short of.
In a similar way, they could dominate DU.
Although, the somewhat surprising truth is
Obama voters in 2008
whites - 64%
blacks - 24%
hispanic - 12%
asians - 2%
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)singling out the handful of AA members that remain on the site and insisting they make DU suck.
Claiming talking about racism is racist to white people.
Saying natural black hair is ugly
Repeating endless stereotypes about black families, absentee fathers, etc... as typical of the AA experience
Telling a black member she is out of her element when she tries to enter a discussion about racism
Insisting AAs should be honored by stereotypical meals of fried chicken and watermelon
arguing that blacks are by nature more prone to criminality than whites
That's for starters. If you want to know how African Americans and other members of color experience this site, read some of the threads in those groups.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)"Read some of the threads in those groups" is probably the best advice you could give here.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Some people might remember.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=660610
Read down a little bit through that thread and you'll see that "darkie" is also okey-dokie.
Wonderful jury system!
cali
(114,904 posts)people here have a wide array of points of view.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)I think you are missing a lot. Du is a large group of diverse posters with different values, life experiences and priorities. Nothing wrong with that.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Seriously, there are those points of views here, but there are many others as well.
I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.
-- Will Rogers (1879-1935)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Everything on your list is a perfect example of why it's hard to take this place seriously.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)You will like it.
genwah
(574 posts)Autumn
(44,762 posts)I bet you don't even need me to give you the link. bucket-o-crabs, cess pool you will fit right in there.
savalez
(3,517 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)It's less about the exchange of ideas. Instead it falls squarely in the realm of entertainment. With varying degrees of quality.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Your list seems to have a lot of ideas that aren't necessarily 'coterminous' as you put it. I think you'll find that most people on site probably agree with parts of your list, but maybe not other parts.
And certainly you seem to have defined what you consider to be stances of 'unacceptable human beings'.
I'm vaguely assuming you think those are common, or even majority views around the site, but feel free to correct me if that's not what you're suggesting.
My list of 'what constitutes and acceptable human being'?
1. Is a human being.
No matter what stupid or repugnant ideas you might hold, you're still a human being, and cannot be 'unaccepted' (?) as being a human being.
Now if you want to claim that people who hold those beliefs are worthy of going on your ignore list, it sounds like you'd probably have a lot fewer fights with people you consider 'unacceptable'.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)No-one who isn't convinced that JFK was assassinated by a sinister conspiracy of Cubans, Mafiosi, Klansmen, the CIA, the FBI...and probably the Illuminati and Jesuits as well.
No foreigners, people don't like being reminded of the existence of other countries. Unless they're arguing about why the US shouldn't get militarily involved in them.
No-one who doesn't watch television, because how will you be able to engage on the subject of this thing I just saw on CNN if you don't watch TV?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)only the culprit is the BFEE.
Yes, about TV, only it's MSNBC.
treestar
(82,383 posts)unblock
(51,974 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)is one who lives peacefully along with others, justice for all, and order. Disagreements are bound to happen and people are varied and different in many ways. We as progressive don't like conformity which is what separates us from the lock-step, rigid thinkers of the right.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)the following folks are not acceptable here:
Religious people
People of color and non-racist white folks
"Uppity" POC
Feminists (except the sexy fun kind)
People under 65
People who are not enthralled with the 60s
Fans of Obama
People who are interested in more things (or other things) than Snowden, Greenwald, legal weed, or Hillary
Fans of the Democratic party
People uncomfortable with porn for a variety of reasons
I think that's where you're coming from, although it's Monday and I'm still pretty fuzzy. Anyway, I agree that this place is not a liberal discussion board, not in the least. I guess you get what you pay for though, which in my case is $0.00.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)since they stray from DU orthodoxy.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The discussions of The Family here have shown me that DU Straights have not really progressed, they still demand that LGBT people silently accept hate speech and associations with international anti gay activists.
And of course, you don't even mention LGBT people. Straight Privilege flying.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It is like 2008 all over again.
NutmegYankee
(16,178 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)People of color and feminists would not include LGBT, when clearly that is not the case? Feel free to post your own OP.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)some posters seem downright hostile to any view or experience of the world that isn't their own.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)When you use fancy words like coterminous, you should make sure the sentence it's used in is coherent.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)If you have an issue with an OP, address the content.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)femmocrat
(28,394 posts)If only I could. Are we still fighting about different generations? I thought that was last week.
btrflykng9
(287 posts)femmocrat
(28,394 posts)"Great" minds think alike, I guess!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)however, sometimes religious people expect that we should pretend that somethings that their religion does should not be talked about.
catholic church including the pope is bigoted about gays and gay rights.
that does not mean people are not free to be catholic on du, it means that people cannot pretend this is not true and expect others to just acquiesce to this pretense.
I do think that we are only comfortable talking about the bigotry of the GOP, not of ourselves. so in other ways i do agree with you
hunter
(38,264 posts)It's difficult to get any political traction, to be a force for positive change, as an outsider.
I'm probably more critical of both the U.S.A. and the Catholic Church than most.
Sadly I have to support U.S. imperialism with taxes, but I feel no such compulsion to fund or support the harmful and pernicious activities of the Church.
Neither institution, the U.S.A. or the Church, has kicked me out yet. (I seem to lack my mom's talent as a trouble-maker. She's been kicked out of churches and our family once had to leave Franco's Spain in the middle of the night.)
deurbano
(2,891 posts)<<I seem to lack my mom's talent as a trouble-maker. She's been kicked out of churches and our family once had to leave Franco's Spain in the middle of the night.>>
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)As does this jury result and subsequent posts insisting being religious is a mental handicap. We are talking about some 80% of the world's population that people have decided they are superior to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5105440
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)most important book is the constitution and not the bible , is a perfectly acceptable position to take.
yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)This is a discussion forum. People say stuff. Deal with it.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Iggo
(47,489 posts)Oh wait...
FUCK!!!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Though I agree that we should all actively critique the images we consume.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)I have very much enjoyed my short time here, and I LOVE feedback/debate etc.
One thing I have noticed however, is that not everybody here appreciates a different
view or slant on many issues that are the core of Liberal thinking. Even an innocuous question
such as "Should there be term limits on Supreme Court Justices" is met with anger and vitriol.
If I were Queen....i would allow for more latitude in expressing various views.
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)Unfortunately that position has already been filled. Your application will be kept on file in the event the position becomes open again in the future.
Please be aware that your attempt at usurping this position will also be noted and may be linked to at a later date to indicate some nefarious intention on your part. We hope you understand.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Never was it my intention to depose an existing monarchy *bows in a curtsy*
However if he/she is ever unable to fulfill the function as Queen, please consider me
available. Especially for the Royal Concerts.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)That happens to be one of my names. I guess we could alternate days.
clarice
(5,504 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)some Sex Pistols:
I saw John Lydon with Public Image Limited in the mid-eighties and shook his hand.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)ANARCHY!
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Everyone would qualify as an acceptable human being. I wouldn't want most of them as president though.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Can you do one without the negatives?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Until such time that Blizabeth Bwarren runs for president and wins, at which time, Blizabeth Bwarren will be quickly criticized by those same people for "selling out" and being a "corporate loving DINO".
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)setting up Simpson Bowles, championing the TPP, etc.
To us Purity Democrats, even a tiny compromise is the same as championing evil. Right?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)For that matter, I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, either.
My main problem is with the "Purity Democrats" (as you call it) is that they'll build up a liberal "hero", and once he or she actually takes the desired office, they'll quickly grow disenchanted and upset with him or her and accuse him or her of "selling out" or being another slave to the corporate master.
Back in 2008, people heavily championed Barack Obama as the liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton, who they saw as far too centrist. When he won the nomination and ultimately the presidency, he was hailed as being a true liberal. But soon after he took office, those same people championing him quickly turned on him and called him another "third way" Democrat, just as they did with Hillary and Bill Clinton.
And then you have the situation in reverse with Al Gore. When Gore ran in 2000, people on the hard left found him too moderate and corporate to support. So they voted Nader, and we all know the complications that caused in the election. But after four years of Bush, in 2004 those same people saw Gore as their liberal savior, the champion of a clean environment and sanity on foreign policy, and begged for him to run, to no avail.
The real fact of the matter is that Barack Obama, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are all moderately left on the spectrum, with a strong sense of pragmatism. I suspect Elizabeth Warren is the same way, and if she were ever elected president she'd have plenty of compromise that would disappoint those on the hard left. But right now, the "Purity Democrats" are too busy deifying Warren to comprehend the realities of the situation, realities that no doubt would disappoint them if they ever come to fruition.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)In my own case, I backed Obama once it became clear that either he, Clinton, or Edwards would get the nomination. I believe the record here on DU will verify that while Clinton was known to be unfriendly to the middle class, and Edwards was a astonishing (but not-very-skilled) liar, I thought Obama might be good - at least he was making the right noises, but he didn't have a track record to examine.
While Obama ran as a left-leaning centrist, he sprinted hard right upon his election. For example, even before his inauguration Obama began to talk about the need to reform Social Security. That was my big "Oh @#$%" moment, although prior to that I had a hard time seeing how appointing Rahm or Larry "Toonces" Summers could be ever helpful to most Americans.
And then, the deluge. What we got was not what we were promised. This is from less than a year and a half after he took office:
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/e16rf6/respect-my-authoritah
Of course we now know it's far, far worse.
This is all pretty clear even to Obama: he's called himself a 1980s Republican (although I think late 1990s is more accurate).
So I don't see this as being about purists who can't understand compromise; I think it's about a president who is utterly unable or unwilling to fight for the core of his campaign assurances, and who, in fact, has moved us to the right in many ways.
savalez
(3,517 posts)I can't figure out to whom you are referring too.
treestar
(82,383 posts)She will have to have her feet held to the fire, too!
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I don't believe there are any black or white positions that "constitute an acceptable human being around here", unless of course you are a Republican.
If there was though the list might start with something like "Being tolerant of, and civil to, people whose views don't precisely mirror your own".
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)That people who don't adhere to the views stated above are regularly called trolls? How exactly is it civil to call someone who disagrees with you (you in the general sense) a troll?
Autumn
(44,762 posts)others trolls. You do your fair share of that.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)because I'm quite sure if I had called anyone a troll it would have been hidden.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)You started doing that right after they banned you from there.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)as evidence.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Response to BainsBane (Reply #42)
Boom Sound 416 This message was self-deleted by its author.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)As you well know. Most of time it gets hidden. Occasionally it doesn't if you get a bad dice roll with the jury selection. It's really not the end of the world either way.
BTW I LOVED your explanation for the exclusion of LGBT in your OP upthread. Perfect opportunity to just do a standard mea culpa but you chose a different path. It was a beautiful thing.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)I'm particularly disturbed by how many times an African American friend of mine has been called a troll in jury results. Too many have insisted posting about racism equates to trolling. I've had the same charges flung at me for posting about violence against women since soon after I started. I'm used to it. But I find it discouraging that some--not all but too many--adopt the same approach toward some of the few posters of color on this site. Then I saw an insult comparing religious folks to the mentally handicapped and it set me off. I am neither religious nor a person of color, but the attitudes toward those members bother me.
Thanks for your complement about the other post.
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)And anyone who asks for links - do your own work. I'm not doing it for you.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)the specifics in your list give this away.
IronLionZion
(45,261 posts)Silly rabbit. There are no acceptable human beings around here. DU's universally accepted overlords are cats!
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Thank you!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Warpy
(110,913 posts)and posts in bland, boring language without any descriptors at all.
FSogol
(45,360 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)bigtree
(85,919 posts). . . nice word.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)My standard reply to complaints like this is no one is forcing you to participate at DU.
If I didn't like a discussion forum, instead of whining about it, I would move on... In the meantime,
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Or expressing an opinion on DUs blindspots?
Bryant
quinnox
(20,600 posts)boring, and a ghost town in no time at all.
A forum is only interesting when there are different points of view and it is not a cheer-leading corner, where everyone shouts, "Halleluiah!" to the day's scripted and acceptable political talking points.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)expressed by the kinds of people I list above. Hence your telling me to leave.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Or what sort of people should make up the community of DU? And once you start discussing that aren't there going to be disagreements?
Bryant
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If so, then a lot of posters are breaking the rules.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Yet it is only sporadically enforced, given the inherent bias of jurors.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which jurors are you referring to? All jurors have biases.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Obviously I can't name the jurors since they are anonymous. The make-up of the site determines community standards, and they judge bigotry differently from how might another group of people--one more representative of the demographics of the population at large.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Who should determine what the "community standards" on DU? Who should determine who serves on a jury? Another jury?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)By DU juries as they are now. That is how it is.
By other population I mean the greater population of the United States of America. The fact is DU is older, whiter, and more affluent than the population at large and therefore sees issues differently. You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you, when in fact I am not.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I may be mistaken, but you seem to infer that in your OP.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)I have issues with the jury system for a variety of reasons. In regard to the points raised in the OP, I think it highly unlikely that a jury of all white people are going to have an understanding of what racism means to a person of color. Some try. Others do not care, while some have expressed outright hostility to the very idea that racism is discussed at all.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)On Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
What exactly constitutes an acceptable human being around here?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025105526
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rude, nasty, disruptive over-the-top flamebait/whining about DU.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:41 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerting on this? Seriously? At worst, the OP is guilty of petty snark, but the underlying point IMO is sound, and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a Hide. I've read more seriously inflammatory posts in my local paper's classified section.
Leave it.
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: Nice try...
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disruptive nitwitery
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have a pretty high bar for hiding a post so I'm leaving it.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)I was prepared to go down for it, but I felt compelled to get some things off my chest.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Some verdicts are trickier than others, and this one was a pretty unambiguous "leave it" IMO.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)I was juror 1, by the way.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)I was gonna write something more, but I decided it wasn't worth an explanation
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Brevity, etc!
Amaril
(1,267 posts)I usually write an explanation for the way I vote -- I really didn't see the need on this one.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)On Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
What exactly constitutes an acceptable human being around here?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025105526
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rude, nasty, disruptive over-the-top flamebait/whining about DU.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:41 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerting on this? Seriously? At worst, the OP is guilty of petty snark, but the underlying point IMO is sound, and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a Hide. I've read more seriously inflammatory posts in my local paper's classified section.
Leave it.
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: Nice try...
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disruptive nitwitery
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have a pretty high bar for hiding a post so I'm leaving it.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They make DU suck.
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)and instead, a hobnailed boot?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)-No moderates/centrists.
-No BOG regulars.
-No one who posts about GOTV for midterm elections.
-No rap fans.
-No one who posts links showing Obama's accomplishments.
-No one who posts threads about prominent liberals who support one or more of his policies.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)I wish.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)When you have a non-representative sample, that's what happens.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I can't wrap my head around that.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)2014: perhaps the most important election of our lifetimes, so lets argue about the bible,
undeclared presidential candidates, and who on an internet forum is a good democrat..
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)IIRC, there was a lively post a week or so ago suggesting that Democrats would be better off without them.
Fortunately, that post was neither racist nor ageist.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)That makes you a member of the 1 percent and you must be drawn and quartered and your remains fed to the dogs...or something like that.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)but it doesn't suprise me.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its not like you ever treated pro-gun posters like "acceptable human beings".
Physician heal thy self?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)who has endured centuries of enslavement, Jim Crow and lychings. There is absolutely no difference between the subaltern and those aligned with the power of a multi-billion dollar gun lobby. In fact, the indignity you suffer at someone like me daring to support gun control is so much worse than being discriminated against and even killed simply for the color of one's skin.
Carry a grudge much? I haven't entered a gun discussion on this site in many months, and you're still ticked off that I had the audacity to exercise my First Amendment rights by supporting gun control rather than laying myself on the alter of Murder Inc.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Do you ever get tired of ascribing to others, things they did not say, and messages they did not convey?
You brought all that up, I didn't. Furthermore, the context of this discussion was "around here", as in here at DU. Don't open the closet complaining about the skeletons of others, and expect anyone to ignore yours.
I'm not ticked off at all.
I'm just a bit surprised that you'd be complaining about "What exactly constitutes an acceptable human being around here", after having made it quite clear that you yourself see others as less than "an acceptable human being around here". And I'm even more surprised that you'd double down on that, with your reply to my post.
It isn't about guns, gun rights or gun control.
Its about hypocrisy, and you are engaging in it.