It's true that Skinner supports her candidacy, but that is his own view........NOT DU's.

Banning for a post that should have just been hidden, or at most a time out, is grossly excessive. The double standard has been established.

I don't see this ban as part of a purge.

I think the Admins truly felt that he didn't belong here due to his post. I don't agree with that viewpoint, but I don't see it as a purge.

Of course, you're entitled to your point of view.

very well stated.

Every now and then the wheels click into place and good stuff emerges. Not always.....just now and then.

I am always grateful.

The thing about bias is that its hard to see. Something that is OK when directed at another suddenly becomes way over the top when directed at something we care about. Its only natural. Admins are human.

I'm a Bernie supporter, and I loathe Hillary's opportunistic use of feminism. It also irks me when her supporters play the victim card when she's the "inevitable" front runner. It comes off as passive aggressive.

EarlG's comment about "being clever" made it seem like he interpreted the comment, and Skinner is a Hillary supporter, so I was originally suspicious of political motives as well.

But after reading the comment myself, I had to agree that was crude and demeaning to women. Not just the headline, but the whole comment. Ew.

I think friends of NYC_SKP are better off asking for some mercy based on his prior years of service rather than trying to make this about a political purge. It wasn't.

largely without consequence, until the target was an ingenious tactic used by a political favorite to avoid an actual interview, yet pretend she wasn't avoiding it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6789299

I'm not saying NYC_SKP didn't take advantage of a political opportunity that was handed to him on a platter in order to engage in a bit of misogyny - but it is exactly the same scenario as a few of the prior uses I have linked to: commentary on the clever political activities of a female politician. By and large, those members are still here, and at least one DU member who chuckled at the phrase in a thread I linked to is actively disapproving of NYC_SKP at the moment.

I would love to see admins take a more active role in addressing misogyny, and bigotry against LGBT individuals. That kind of behavior is increasingly tolerated here recently. I have been on several juries, and have made a couple of alerts in the last few weeks, that would have been no-brainer hides not so long ago but which were left 5-2 or 6-1. (veiled mAnn Coulter jokes, or using gay as an insult). The admins are well aware it is happening - and have consistently done little more than agree it is inappropriate behavior. The most recent complaint to admins.

So, while I would really applaud a clean-up directed at such behavior generally, I am not so fond of it when the ban hammer only comes out in a manner that appears politically expedient, at best.

I don't see why one person should be banned for it and others not. That would be blatant hypocrisy (or rank political favoritism) if people guilty of similar misogynistic joking around weren't banned - especially after the eternal high horse threads that have been going on.

Boston Bean seems to be a bit baffled upon being asked to apply the same rigorous standards to Hillary supporters.

I guess the case is made. I'm not going post any more "it's not political" comments. Now that Hillary supporters had to go and post so many "we must crack down on the misogyny(!)" posts, it's up to them to put their money where their mouth is.

Not saying you can't or shouldn't go back and fix mistakes. But some heads-up should, in a rational world, be given.

I made the assumption that it WASN'T political and have been posting around my agreement that NYC_SKP should have been banned on behalf of feminism (though I did propose to Hillary supporters that they shouldn't reduce her feminism down to word mincing.)

Well I officially take that back on behalf of not being a hypocrite. They can lecture to Nye Bevan if they want to show they really mean it.

Seems like some here use the "we are going to be purged" meme a lot. Just like I have heard that the same bunch of posters are the only "real" democrats, liberals, progressives, or populists" on the board, the rest of the board are "third wayers", Obama bots, party loyalists, etc. They love to ply the victim card I guess.

How many, when, what was said?

Or was it just one dude who had been rattling a lot of cages and finally poked the tiger int the eye? I hardly consider that a purge.

It has happened here. Perhaps not in this case, but it has.

And then go call any Democratic woman the C word. Pick one. Pelosi, Gillibrand, Boxer, Baldwin. Pick any one of them and let me know how it goes for you.

on your part. That he was "purged" for one teeny-weeny post.

Several of us have noted quite a few times he was a gun-humping troll who posted inflammatory crap after both Sandy Hook and Newtown, for instance.

Although I can see why the fiction of NYC_SKP's "innocent martyr" would be attractive to so many Bernie Sanders' supporters. Playing the victim while being intolerant of others is a neat little game.

But I don't think any of this -- the banning or the subsequent freak out -- is about Sanders or Clinton.

Darn straight about the "gun humping troll" who posted inflammatory bullshit at inappropriate times.

degree of sincerity would approve of sly, 'joke,' spoonerism-slurs. I am pretty certain Sanders wouldn't use or endorse that kind of talk at all.

We may have --or had-- a few people here who like to incite the masses,and they cause the true believers to say and do things they don't really mean. When you have a few "leaders" gaming the emotions of followers, telling them that they are victims and put-upon and worse, that some people might lash out without thinking. And some people, when they take a stand, can't back down from a POV even if they stray into insulting or bigoted territory. Instead, they double down and make a bad situation worse.

I think many Clinton supporters see Sanders not as the enemy, but as the 2nd choice. I don't think some of the people here who say they support Sanders reciprocate the view. In fact, I think some of them have no intention of voting for Sanders, either. Such is the nature of DU, I guess.

Links please, thanks.

Dig up that 1000+ post thread, and sort it out for yourself. It's quite obvious who endorsed the comment, and who didn't.

for me Bernie is first choice, any other dem second. I can totally understand how Hillary or Martin supporters would feel the same. They would want their candidate, but then support whomever the party picks in the end. That is the way this process works. Not saying it's the greatest process by any stretch. Don't even get me started on the capitalism ... but we have to deal with reality here & I do not believe for a second that the admins would start banning Bernie supporters. Why would they - we actually are the majority if the greatest posts are any indication.

What a load of horseshit.

"icing on the cake", and "cherry on top" come to mind. NYC_SKP had established himself as a consistently nasty, rude, and insulting poster who went wildly overboard at the end.

one poster does not a purge make. this is democratic underground. take a pot shot at a prominent dem using disgusting language, and you get what you get.
you signed a tos agreement, and so did skippy. this isnt the public square. there are rules.

that said, i am on mirt, i see the bans. admin bans are very rare. especially admin bans of long time posters.
there is no purge. let go of the pearls.
sheesh.

Please list the names of those who have been purged. As they have been banned, it will not be against the rules for you to do so. I have seen zero purge. Yet a very small group of people keep making this claim. Not one has been able to back it up. It seems to be a study in mental gymnastics.

I support Hillary. I will also support the Democratic Nominee if for some fluke Hillary is not our President Candidate.

I don't think the owners of this board mind who anyone endorses.

We are free to speak our minds here.

Just try to keep it civil.

Admin highlighted O'Malley's official announcement.

IMO.

Not IMO nor EMO or any Joe Mo: It's just a fact, Jack.

generally annoy people , get ignored and be the old peace & freedom goober I've always been .

Last edited Sun Jun 7, 2015, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Is this something you'd like to see?

I'm sure the question was asked in all sincerity.

But I'm sure this site won't endorse any specific Democratic primary candidate, and when the primaries are over, it will endorse whoever gets the nomination.

Let's dial down the hysteria a bit.

Donations from the banking industry and then saying that taking the money had no impact on their decision.

Skinner made a website for Hillary supporters, promoted it on DU: but I'm not suppose to believe that there are no endorsements going on?

Skinner is politically active. That's why he made this site int he first place... to support activism FOR Democrats and AGAINST Republicans. Why on earth would you expect him to hold a a personally neutral position?

But damn, it's not like he hasn't allowed all kinds of way over the top Clinton bashing.

Frankly the fact that so many Sanders supporters are trying to portray this banning as a matter of political bias says a lot more about them than Skinner.

favorite candidate, you can promote it on DU, too!!

Get busy, now!

Much different in terms of ethics versus Skinner doing it.

guidance for this place? This is a PRIVATE website. The guys running it are Democrats, and they offer it up as a meeting place FOR Democrats. The owners are very quick to open groups for any Dem primary candidate.

They expect us to not behave like miserable jerks, and people who do act that way, repeatedly, CAN get the boot. That's all in the Community Standards and TOS. I can give you links if you can't find those documents.

As Democrats and members here, the admins have as much right as you do to share their primary preferences. It's not like they've furtive about their preferences, but at the end of the day, they will do what most Democrats will do--vote for the nominee.

If you want to fire up a Rah Rah site for ANY Democrat on the lines of Mojo, I am pretty sure they'd have no problem with you advertising it here. So go on, get rocking!

of . they can do as they want.

it's weird how some view this as some ethics issue.

Critical thought.

If it had, there would be no need to create a new site.

Does that mean he supports a right wing nut case for president?

Curiosity is my muse.

e.o.m.

One can hold a personal opinion and still apply the rules evenhandedly.

Maybe YOU can't, but others can.

It's ridiculous to expect the founder of a political activism site to not hold a political opinion. RIDICULOUS.

Completely another.

Do you trust Republicans who take money from corporations and then depend on them to regulate those corporations?

And to say that a website that supports Sanders at 90% is endorsing Clinton is foolish.

(assuming your number is correct, which I have no reason to doubt), not owners.

I've seen what I regard as disingenuousness at best and hiding the evidence at worst. The owners are the owners, I never forget.

I'm speaking from quite a while back. Maybe you are right. Still, I don't think this place is anywhere near what it was at one time. I wish I knew a better place with this format, but it doesn't seem to exist.

Other than NYC being banned, what specifically have they done to Bernie supporters?

I should just shut up and go.

I really wish there were an alternative place with the same format.

but we also aren't going to let people just make stuff up.

This website is essentially user run on a day-day basis, thats a huge plus for me personally. Sure sometimes I don't feel like it's fair but that's what happens when it's user generated content.

I'd encourage you to stick around, and to *not* walk on eggshells since you really don't have too.

but I know some history. This format is just so ideal - I have a lot of trouble dealing with anything else.

DU does not endorse until the nomination. Why would you think that? There are tons of Bernie supporters here and they are very vocal.

David Allen (owner here at DU) is being paid to promote her.

FYI Sid is in charge.

Tell Sid we're going to unionize if he doesn't come through with the money.

You can try, but we can just fire you. Since you work "at your will"

... see what we did there?

Since 2008, man! Have a heart!

you would not have to ask that question.

What exactly are you trying to say?

Skinner may very well support HRC but so what? He seems to support the constitution, nominees even if not his and certainly the fact that we have choices and the right to make them. So, what are you really asking here or trying to say?

This place has gone nuts!

DU is only here to help provide the Illusion of Choice.
VOTE H and Like It.

It's too early to declare the winner of the primary.

And a majority of folks around here seem to be backing Bernie.

there appears to be an organized effort by HRC supporters to flag off some who don't support her by abusing the jury system

shocked at some of the stuff I've seen alerted on, no reason at all to do it in many cases other than to censor an opposing opinion

.. so like the frivolous person that alerted on this thread?

I agree, alerting on an obvious and relevant question, is indeed, frivolous.

The jury system is pretty hard to "game"...

We have trouble getting some pretty trollish stuff hidden on MIRT sometimes. Unless they were hidden the system isn't "rigged" or "gamed" and even then it's an open board so you take your chances with everything you post.

Even this could be alerted on, but I wouldn't consider it gaming the system.

I have served on more juries lately than I have in the last year. I look at the comments. Most of the time, the majority of the jury sides with the Bernie supporters, even when they say very questionable things about Clinton, even when they try to mimic the post that got NYC Skip banned. Some of the posts left alone are against the TOS. I hope the owners of this site are looking at some of those decisions.

It is childish to allow one's partisan feelings to affect their jury decisions. As long as that continues, the jury system is broken.

On Sun Jun 7, 2015, 12:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Is DU Endorsing Officially Hillary Clinton ? ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026794644

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Purposefully disruptive. The addition of 'Just asking....' is a not so sly giveaway.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 7, 2015, 01:00 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: alerter is not so sly either.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DU's always favored the party purges--since they're never from the left
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

As I said elsewhere GD should have the name changed to Ouroboros.

And it was hidden.

Well the recent member banning raises that kind of wonders. Especially when we see hardcore Pro Clinton member posting far more disruptive posts such as personnal attacks, but who never got banned.

There really aren't any facts which support either side making that point.

Of course if he wasn't banned, they would be moaning about that and trying to promote division.

I think you misunderstood my post - and Skinner's post.

It is a direct response to your OP.

Wait... What was the question?

Hillary Clinton is the only viable candidate. I know people like to pretend that Bernie Sanders has a chance in hell, but those people are living in a bubble. That doesn't mean Bernie is wrong on the issues, but there is no way he can win the general election. The truth is that the presidential race is, has been, and always will be a popularity contest. The general population at large couldn't give two shits about the issues.

there is this that says something

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890

But, I don't think it has any bearing at all on who gets a hide or who ends up getting their posting privileges revoked.

And it makes absolutely no difference in who I am going to support up until primary season is over.

to an uncontrollable urge to call Hillary a "c--t" or the President a "n-----", you're likely safe.

as is often pointed out.

Can't have it both ways. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890

It appears mostly the members.

The only reason I hang out here is that I don't know of anything better, especially format-wise. Any guidance appreciated.