wrong with calling a woman an offensive word or that using a spoonerism to call a woman an offensive word is okay.

Those who are arguing either of those are wrong.

Don't lump the other issues raised with that.

Here we go again.

You played a part in this.

So, put me on ignore. Or find some other place.

All I've seen is DU turning into Ouroboros.

This little site isn't homogeneous enough for you already? You need to make even more detached from the demograpic of the American population? How sad for you.

and accepting insults? How dare I? Imagine the little people thinking they count.

It should not have waited until 2015 to get the respect due, telling us to sit back and enjoy does not work anymore.

so here, for ya to enjoy. Will give you this in full

Naturally you don't pay attention. You didn't write the posts. How could they matter?

are just dreaming. Nice going there.

But par for the course.

I gotta say, never fail to disappoint.

You are blaming the OP for conversations not had.

I got a real broken irony meter at the moment.

Anyhow, I said my piece, will now trash the whole to become train wreck.

I just found the irony well.... deep.

On Mon Jun 8, 2015, 03:49 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So I guess the rest of us who are saying they are not had
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6797378

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

this is a silly personal attack. and she is just wrong to boot!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 8, 2015, 03:57 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

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 LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We need some sort of penalty for abusive alerts. This qualifies.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is an opinion and opinion should not be hidden...I see no personal attack
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: lame but milquetoast
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

So I guess the rest of us who are saying they are not had
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6797378

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

this is a silly personal attack. and she is just wrong to boot!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 8, 2015, 03:57 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

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 LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We need some sort of penalty for abusive alerts. This qualifies.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is an opinion and opinion should not be hidden...I see no personal attack
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: lame but milquetoast
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Not that I am surprised an alert was even sent.

but they "look" important

When questioned ..the poster deflects or decries bullied or tells someone to ignore or use trash function.


Crying about no policy discussion is one thing, when getting those retorts when trying to have an actual policy discussion is quite another.

suffice it to say, I guess I'm not worthy enough

What's up with that?

As you well know. These conversations usually drop like a stone on DU!

Every damn OP about women drop. Every damn one. No one gives a shit about us. Stop taking it out on the OP.

Please, just stop it.

A thousand thanks.

A San Diego task force is the sum total of what needs to be done on human trafficking? Is that your point? I can't even follow a train of logic here.

about Harriet Tubman - the wiki on her gives a really interesting look into who she was, what she did, her life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Tubman

In her later years, Tubman worked to promote the cause of women's suffrage. A white woman once asked Tubman whether she believed women ought to have the vote, and received the reply: "I suffered enough to believe it."[139] Tubman began attending meetings of suffragist organizations, and was soon working alongside women such as Susan B. Anthony and Emily Howland.[140][141]

Tubman traveled to New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C. to speak out in favor of women's voting rights. She described her actions during and after the Civil War, and used the sacrifices of countless women throughout modern history as evidence of women's equality to men.[142] When the National Federation of Afro-American Women was founded in 1896, Tubman was the keynote speaker at its first meeting.[143]

This wave of activism kindled a new wave of admiration for Tubman among the press in the United States. A publication called The Woman's Era launched a series of articles on "Eminent Women" with a profile of Tubman.[143] An 1897 suffragist newspaper reported a series of receptions in Boston honoring Tubman and her lifetime of service to the nation. However, her endless contributions to others had left her in poverty, and she had to sell a cow to buy a train ticket to these celebrations.[144]

that i have tried to have twice in this past week alone, before this thread. People don't want to talk about it, perhaps because they know little about it or it makes them uncomfortable, or perhaps its just difficult. I don't know.

The point you miss is I dispute that these folks are left-wing, though I do believe they are liberals. I see a reactionary politics at work here, such as in the thread where people lined up to tell a woman of color who talked about her own experience of racism that she was "ignorant and uninformed."

I don't identify with the white upper-middle class. I grew up poor, in diverse communities. I find their continual dismissal, not only of race and gender but also discussions related to poverty, alienating. It would be one thing if they said here are my concerns, and I'd like to talk about yours. They do not. They say our concerns should cover you and what you care about doesn't matter.

Except perhaps your drawing a distinction between left-wing/right-wing and liberal/conservative. In theory, I'll concede it's possible.

But in practice, what does that look like, or what kinds of people would you consider liberal but NOT left-wing? I don't think I get that distinction.

Classical liberalism emerged in the late Enlightenment, in the writings of people like Adam Smith and John Locke. It championed the individual as the true repository of rights and promoted free markets. It is the political corollary of capitalism. Liberalism has long been associated with opening up markets and embracing values of individualism over the common good. It's meaning has changed somewhat in the US to refer to the left of a very narrow political spectrum. The left in this country was imprisoned, deported, purged, and blacklisted from the 1910s through the 1950s. It was destroyed. Leftism has traditionally been oriented toward Marxism, toward a critique of capitalism. Liberalism does not challenge capitalism; it seeks to maintain and perpetuate it by--now in US context--taming its excesses. FDR is lauded here as a great liberal president, and indeed he was. His greatest accomplishment lay in shoring up capitalism by co-opting the frustration of people's movements (led by the Communist Party, among others). The focus on FDR as a benevolent benefactor is particularly pernicious because it creates a false expectation that government works for the benefit of the people. The New Deal was made by people's movements; FDR's noblesse oblige enabled him to co=opt their goals and assuage the ravages of capitalism.

We live in a capitalist state. The nature of our government is to serve the interests of capital. No president--even if he wanted to, and none have wanted to--can undo that because the constitution places the values of individualism, which are central to justifications of capital, at its core. The endless fixation on political saviors like FDR, Obama, or Bernie Sanders works against understanding the problem and collective action. It rests hope in a single individual to transform society. The counterpoint to that is projecting all frustrations with that society onto other individuals, like Hillary Clinton or again Barack Obama. Such a focus on particular politicians blinds people to the overall structures that work against their interests and in support of capital.

The problem with liberals imagining they represent the left is that they ignore a whole world of leftist movements throughout the world and in their own nation's history. I have even had people here tell me Che Guevarra was a populist, when in fact he was a revolutionary socialist. Such comments reveal an inability to distinguish movements that challenge capitalism from ones that accommodate it. Populists rev up the population in pursuit of personal power and the ongoing stability of the capitalist state. Socialists seek to overturn capitalism and replace it with collectivism, as in Cuba. Liberals accommodate capitalism, accept structural inequality, and simply seek to lessen it or regain their own position atop the capitalist world order.

it sure as hell doesn't explain voting for Hillary Clinton who, it's pretty clear, doesn't have much will to curtail the excesses of growing corporate influence.

At least Bernie is a little socialist-y.

with language leave me feeling like a grammar school brat, and not meaning that tongue-in-cheek. Even if I'd like to present an opposing view, I can't dismiss your counterpoints because my knowledge is not as deep as your own, and I'm not as good with words.

Suffice it to say that I consider myself a 'liberal capitalist', and I support capitalism, but with a very strong FDR-style of national government, strict checks on corporate behavior, protections for workers ... as I think about it, I'd like our government and society to more resemble some of the European states like France or Norway.

On a personal note, I apologize for anything I've posted recently that comes off as snarky. Not sure what's up with me - I liked skip and maybe the board drama here about his PPR has thrown everyone for a loop? Who knows.

Cheers.

and I liked him too. This really isn't about him but was prompted more by the ensuing justifications of misogynistic language that emerged following his banning. Though in reality its a culmination of long-term frustrations.

Understand, I have absolute respect for your being an FDR liberal capitalist. After all, here I am declaring my support for Hillary Clinton, who is nothing close to a Marxist. I approach voting entirely pragmatically.

I assume you've never said or written anything you later regret, right?

I like him. I know he isn't a misogynist. I've found him quite supportive on gender issues. The point is not his mistake but how many have in response insisted their right to insult my gender trumps my right to be treated with respect. NYCSkp's banning is merely a pretext for a performance of power and privilege. No woman here banned NYCSkp, yet we are scapegoats. His banning was merely pretext for the resentment toward women's ascendancy, and Clinton is the ultimate manifestation of that, which is why she is cast as the enemy. I see a deeply conservative ethos at work, reactionary and restorationist, much like the opposition to Obama from the right.

The vast majority of the posts "defending" NYC_SKP said the punishment was too severe.

There were a small number of "I don't get it" who needed the spoonerism explained, or explained that the spoonerism was common enough to not be any sort of "cover".

And then there was an even smaller number of people saying it was OK.

Your post describes the majority as the third group. After all "considerable numbers of people find it impossible to relinquish what they see as their right to verbally abuse women like me".

ETA: As an added bonus, you attribute every single one of those posts to Sanders supporters, and thus to Sanders. Turning your post into "Vote for Clinton or you hate women".

Last edited Mon Jun 8, 2015, 07:08 AM - Edit history (1)

I didn't say anything about how others should vote. I explained my own reasons for my decision.

I have seen far too much hostility toward what should not even be an issue. The idea that liberals/leftists should not use bigoted slurs even has to be discussed boggles my mind. For years now, I have encountered continual hostility toward my articulation of my own rights. They have purposefully worked to exclude as many people as possible form the body politic. Their continual insults that the rights of women and people of color amount to "Third Way" politics shows an aggressive hostility toward principles of equality. Without a commitment to equality, there is no common ground. I am done doing other people's dirty laundry. They are not on my team, so I will not be on theirs.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I need links.

What I gather from your OP are some pretty serious misogyny allegations (which you have somehow tied to Sander's supporters) here on DU that are simply not my reality.

Honestly, if you can't substantiate your claims with links, then this is exactly the kind of post that gives feminists a bad name. It's just a wild rant.

If you can provide me with some links to support your claims...then I'll be happy to say I get it. As it stands now...I'm thinking, "Wha?"

Links...please.

Thank you.

I could never figure out why the most aggrieved and outraged get to be the "true" face of feminism on DU.

I would say most of the posters here are feminists, in that they see inequality between genders in our society and want to eliminate it.

Who for instance here on this website saw Obama signing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and attacked it because of "misogyny" or their "loss of white male privilege"?

Uhhh . . . that would be NO ONE.

Thank you, Dr. Phil.

Sheeeesh.

Thank you in advance.

Your Fristian-like diagnosis will be given all due pretense...

then we are considered not women enough or we are assumed to like it- by those who have made it their life's mission to scan every post for offensive words and screech like barn owls all day- every day about it.

For me just reading their scribes are exhausting. In fact I find them to be so tiring that I hid all the Feminism threads so I would not have to see or be drawn into their hateful vitriol, then it bleeds out here into GD. What is it? Day 5 or 6 now that this small group of females have taken over GD?

all work; you should try them.

And what if not hateful vitriol was your post?

Obviously it was to no avail. And if I were to block key words that one of the females might find offensive on any certain day, then I would no longer be able to read or respond to anything written. Or is that the goal of this little group-to eliminate anyone who does not agree or live with the level of anger you all choose to live with?

how some on DU treat women but thankfully DU is not my life and the men and women I associate with would never agree that it is acceptable to call a woman a c*nt. They might even get angry about it. So I'm good.

I didn't like the way it made me feel. It is especially the tension in the back of my neck that I don't like about anger. It makes my brain feel like it wants to explode. It hurts me. And you want to know the worst thing about it? It doesn't hurt or change anything or anyone else.

GD is full of threads loaded with rage. How many threads have fuck as the title and repeatedly several times in the OP, and they gets many hundreds of recs. They are entirely emotional, entirely about anger. They just happen to be about politicians, how Obama is a sell out or some similar thing. There is no shortage of anger and rage. You just don't like the issues I care about, which is your right, but don't pretend I have any market cornered on anger. I don't even rate on that score.

"A small group of females have taken over GD." You mean they let us speak on public? The horror. Truly horrible.
HOF has been decimated. Most of the posters are gone, and feminist issues are rarely discussed in GD anymore. Yet a few threads over a couple of days is too much for you to handle. These little wimenz don't stay in their place and obey the men folk. Absolutely unreal.

It's amazing how you all can't help just coming in and confirming everything I said in my OP, yet with absolutely no sense of awareness.

I don't know what you're so angry about. Obviously you don't want us to have anything to do with your inner circle of True Believers. So we are out. What's the problem? Or did you think you could insult and belittle, and they get us to do your bidding anyway?

"There you go again." So patronizing.

Also "panty buncher-upper"? Really? Sounds dog whistle like to me.

You made it patronizing. I suppose I could have said, "There, I proved my point" but I feel certain that those words too would be interpreted to mean want you want them to, so stealth accusations implying that I am a right wing troll is kinda amusing.

Yes really, I said "panty buncher-upper". What sort of dog whistle do you interpret to be?

"Panty buncher-upper of the day" while you 're dismissing the concerns of the poster to whom you're responding?

what is the problem with it?

You were making fun of/minimizing the poster's concerns.

I wouldn't have chosen that phrase.

I should have known.

Nope, wasn't minimizing the poster's concern. In fact I actually acknowledged their calling to scan internet forums (here specifically) for words and phrases that can be construed as offensive and offered up my post for their twisting pleasure.

I post my views, and clearly you find that unacceptable so seek to delegitimte them.

One can't legitimatize or de-legitimatize somebody else's feelings.

I'm just asking for links to some pretty serious accusations. (defenders of misogyny?)

I don't toss around words like misogyny lightly, and I certainly don't find some way to contort that word so that it's tied to a whole group of people here on DU who support Sanders (or any other DEMOCRAT candidate).

All I asked for is links. Otherwise, you're blowing hot air.

querulously and nearly paranoid posters here any criticism of or questioning of any woman with whom they happen to disagree is "misogyny" and I am assuredly NOT referring to SKP's unjustified banning but something far more systemic and pernicious. That nothing has ever been done to minimize or put a stop to this bullying crap - the alert-stalking, gang-up attacks and a the rest, is profoundly disappointing.

This is about my own decision. I don't need to prove anything to you, and I'm not providing links to get hides. You are free to see or not see anything you want. Your views and political choices are your own.

and your thoughtful contributions to DU. In honesty, I think I disagree with you a lot, but I recognize that you are here in good faith, a liberal and a progressive, like me.

But I think this OP was not a good idea, and I hope you delete after you've reflected. Cheers.

"Their continual insults that the rights of women and people of color amount to "Third Way" politics shows an aggressive hostility toward principles of equality."

What does that even mean?

of a group presenting themselves as the "real Democrats" and insulting everyone who as much as cares about other issues or approaches an issue from a different angle, even while agreeing, is exclusionary. People have worked to exclude other DUers and indeed the majority of Americans from their notion of real Democrats. Their attitude is imperious and comes from a clear class-, race-, and gender-based perspective, yet they refuse to acknowledge that other experiences matter. They have condemned even other Sanders supporters as not good enough. One regularly insults people far less fortunate than himself as being allied with Goldman Sachs and the 1 percent. Another insisted corporations had planted women and people of color in the Democratic Party to subvert it from its true mission. And we spent the last few days hearing how women who don't like to be insulted with bigoted slurs are unreasonable, weak, and sisters of perpetual outrage. They hold themselves and a select few above the rest of the humanity. That is also reflected in the reverence for a handful of great men--always men--who they elevate above everyone else, whether voters voicing heir concerns, rape victims, or anyone else. They have made clear they do not want me on their side, so I will not be there. This entire approach to politics is designed to exclude, and for that reason it can only result in smaller and smaller numbers, which is in fact their goal. Now some are here saying they knew it all along. Good for them. They worked hard to exclude me and others from their notion of acceptable Democrats and they succeeded.

You might ask yourself why no one in the African American group wants to join in the Sanders fan club. Some of their experiences here are similar to my own.

But do you even know what Third-Way means?

But it's clear that many who throw around the term do not.

I don't have a problem with Sanders, but I certainly have issues with some of his supporters. I have seen at least half a dozen Sanders supporters comment on how the behavior of many his other supporters on DU is alienating. I am far from alone in observing the phenomenon. That seems to be how they want it, however. The goal appears to be to create an exclusive club rather than a broad-based movement.

"Their continual insults that the rights of women and people of color amount to "Third Way" politics shows an aggressive hostility toward principles of equality."

What does that mean? It reads like a pastiche of terminology thrown out in a rage, intended to slander all Bernie Sanders' supporters and Bernie Sanders himself.

NO BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTER HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR AMOUNT TO "Third Way" POLITICS.
NONE.

I'm letting this discussion go. I think you're indulging in nonsensical slander and for that reason it's hopeless.

Anybody who argues against the position then becomes another example of "misogyny on DU!"

Don't know why I stepped into this steaming pile . . . probably because it represents what I like least about "liberalism": people talking about "feelings" instead of working to organize for power, people turning on each other for an emotional kick instead of working together to effect real social change.

EARLG banned SKP and he provided his reasons for doing so. No women's group banned SKP. It's like if the admins banned someone for using the 'n' word and African American DUers were blamed despite the fact that the admins are all white (IIRC)

Just like you noted in your OP, I also find the worst thing about Sanders is the ugly and divisive behavior of his supporters, some of which has been aimed at me, and I am composing an OP on that to further set the record straight on that.

As I have noted before, I have serious questions about Sanders' ability to lead, and observing how a persons followers behave provides a good insight into the persons leadership or lack thereof. So far, his supporters have rejected his wish to make the campaign about his positions on the issues and not about attacking Clinton. His leadership has been completely ineffective on that score. If he can't convince those who seem to want to support him the most of that simple thing, he has no hope of having the ability to lead the country on solving our most complex and wedge-producing issues.