how to not let insults offend them rather than others learning how to not use offensive language. DU is a big tent and unfortunately there are those here who will "FREE SPEECH! ... FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION! ... the 1st AMENDMENT! ." out of belief, or not wanting to have any rules, or because they like the ability to be rude and nasty, or whatever the hell else. And they are outspoken.

I appreciate those DUers who are thoughtful people and find those ones are not as outspoken but very much appreciated.

Head banging inducing indeed. Next week there will be another bright shiny object to capture their attention. big sigh

as, more and more populated by folks more concerned with abstract principles, than the real life hurt those principles cause when expressed ... I do not find that particularly liberal, progressive, or moored to everyday life.

seeing published cartoons that depicted people of color in vile, disgusting, and degrading manner. I remember when advertising, book illustrations, toys, etc. were rife with grotesque caricatures of poc. I have absolutely no patience with these folks who screech "freedom of speech" trumps all. I think you are being kind to say that it is not liberal, progressive, or moored to everyday life. I think it is ignorant, self-serving, and totally devoid of rational thought. I do not know how you stand it.

Remember the one that only William769 was able to shut down for using the n-word?

It made it through the Jury. He had to dig back into DU2 archives to find Skinner's post to convince the Hosts to lock it.

I'm going to send you a link that was posted by someone at DU. It would never fly here at AA. I think it will give you an insight to what we are dealing with.

I find I am reading more than posting, am trying to learn more, how who I am, what I do, affects others. How what people do affects others. Thank you for continuing to post, you are appreciated.

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

but I don't actually think that is what the poster (one of them) you had the conversation with in that thread said. Many have said exactly what your OP states, as though any criticism is tantamount to censorship, which clearly it is not. I think Natural High (whom I have never previously agreed with on a single thing), is saying you can't officially ban that speech, though you can express disapproval and contempt for it. So yeah, being a verbal asshole is protected by law, but that doesn't make it right. It's up to us to speak out against assholishness, particularly when it's bigoted. Does that make sense?

... not because I fear not being welcome, but because I am not AA and do not wish to be seen as commenting on things that I might - by virtue of being white - have no real understanding of.

However, in this case, I feel that what is going on at DU (as pointed out by the author of this OP) is a matter of concern to all, regardless of colour or ethnicity.

I find it appalling that people whose religious beliefs are being openly ridiculed are being told that their faith is "fair game" when it comes to the worst forms of mockery, and that it is THEY who have a responsibility to ignore/accept/look the other way while others exercise their "freedom of speech".

"The 'right' of free speech has been completely de-coupled from any responsibility to self-censor."

That's it, plain and simple. There are people here who want to hide their bigotry behind the free-speech banner, in order to shield themselves from accepting any responsibility for their words. And words spoken without responsibility are, IMHO, meaningless. It is an obvious dodge; a blatant attempt to "excuse" one's self for being narrow-minded and oblivious to the feelings of others, in order to say the most vile and divisive things that can possibly be said.

When it comes to religion, I have no dog in the fight. I do not practice any religion - and yet I feel no compulsion to ridicule those who do. The personal beliefs of others - whether I agree with them or not - are none of my business. Nor is it any of my business to tell them that their personal beliefs are worthy of mockery simply because I do not share them.

Given the direction that DU has taken of late, I am not surprised by the comments I've seen. The "rights" of those who insist on belittling the religious beliefs of others have been praised as the perfection of exercising free speech, while the rights of those who are offended by such "free speech" have been marginalized to the point of STFU - in no uncertain terms.

"I have the right to ridicule" is one thing. "I have the right to ridicule even though its only purpose is to offend" is another.

There was a time when DU vociferously denied the "right" of those seeking only to be offensive and hurtful to post here - whether that "right" included the right to ridicule gays/lesbians, the "right" to marginalize the concerns of AAs, the "right" to promote the ideals of Republicans over Democrats. All of that has gone by the wayside. The "right" of anyone to feel offended has now been superseded by the rights of those who have no other other agenda than to BE offensive.

As I said to 1StrongBlackMan in a recent PM exchange, there is a responsibility attached to one's words and actions, and it is sad to see that the Admins here take no responsibility for what they allow to be posted on a website they fully own and operate. "Let the jury decide" is equivalent to saying "we absolve ourselves of any responsibility for what gets posted on our own website." And yet we all know that the ultimate responsibility lies with those who have the wherewithal to delete offensive posts, and to ban those who post them.

"Soon some poster will come to DU ... and post the most vile racist (anti-Semitic/anti-Christian/anti-{insert Group Name Here}) "speech" ... and cut and paste the very words of DU's finest and/or post links to the threads pronouncing that freedom of speech/expression trumps all."

You're damned real that will happen. And the Admins will look the other way, and the posters who agree with "the most vile racist, anti-Semitic/anti-Christian, anti-{insert Group Name Here}) speech" will
congratulate themselves for having been vindicated.

I was hoping you would.

Yep ... though I suspect I can name one Group that the admins would not tolerate this crap.

Very well said.

You and I have disagreed on many, many topics.

But the thing is that when you say you've got my back on a particular issue, I have no doubt that you really, really DO have my back.

Yet I have been welcome here and yes, I am white. It is your words that matter in my opinion. And Nance, your words do matter.

My support of our President helped me here. Our first black President. Yes! As with AA our President was stuck in a small room, a group. Our groups were ridiculed relentlessly. BOG was called every name under the sun. We were/ are considered bog scum for supporting our first AA President on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. They have done their best to drive us away and have succeeded. Yet I am not leaving.

They can preach their vile hate. I will not leave and I will not sit down and shut up!

Their rights to speak? How about our rights. THEY MOCK AND THEY SURE AS HELL FLOCK TOGETHER IN THEIR HATE.

EF them.

And I gave you a rec in GD - though I did not respond to your post.

You are 'seeing' it.

And I woke up this morning to a disturbing PM from behindtheAegis - something he saw . . . and another something I just saw about the 'jewish lobby' in hollywood.

We have to be careful - all of us. The first step to the other is the language and propaganda. Anyone who thinks words don't hurt and cannot cause a group think that leads to inhumane actions . . . probably believes we were right to NOT jam the airwaves in Rwanda. . .

You really hit it out of the park with that thread, and with this post here, too. I'm like you--people should live and let live when it comes to their spirituality. Those who ridicule one's spirituality are no better than the fundamentalists.

But it was way too big to post in. So glad that you got the love you did in that thread.

I actually looked at the list of those who rec'd that thread - I didn't think there were that many people left here who would rec anything I said, so I was curious as to who they were.

The list included many posters here who I know truly - shall we say "dislike me very strongly"? - along with posters who I have had some serious run-ins with on all manner of issues. But when it came to an OP calling for a bit of civility here on DU, they put all other disagreements aside and rec'd it. It was surprising - and I appreciated it immensely.

Thanks to you and everyone here who made me feel so welcome in this group!

but only because I haven't taken the time to figure out how to "rec" something ... but I'm pretty good at "wrecking" B.S. arguments.

I noticed that he only pops up every now and again though what he lacks in quantity he CERTAINLY makes up for in impact.

I know I don't have to tell you this but I wouldn't give two shits about the people here you "don't like you" even if they do have the common decency to rec something as universal as a call for civility. 1SBM and I chat quite a bit via PM just trying to keep each other sane and I swear I end every PM to him with "I don't know why I come here". I've lost track of the number of times I've read the posts on this board and simply have NO IDEA why I keep coming back here and dealing with the stupidity and the ignorance.

For years, I've felt that the AA forum was this site's last gasp of sanity. So for that reason along, you are more than welcome to contribute your own bit of sanity to ours!

Now, I am the first to have said that people that would machine gun people (including a Muslim cop) for drawign a Cartoon were stupid. I felt the same thing back when riots and killing occurred over the Danish cartoon. I am also VERY wary of allowing relgious groups to get a back-door way into power by having their more radical elements threaten crimes, then pointing to us and saying "see, if you just behaved, you would not have had this happen." Are Christians capable of this, hell yes, that is exactly what the Ku Klux Kaln is, as well as all these "lone wolf gunmen" that always seem to read the same damn books.

Now, that being said:
There are a LOT of people, from Politicians to Internet Pundits, who have EXPLOITED this to safely roll out their BIGOTRY. No, we do not want Religious types abusing us, but that does not mean we get to roll out the same Islamophobia that has gotten the entire world into deep shit. I truly loathe how some crusading types have gone into the whole "Well if you ain't an atheist like me, you are part of the problem" rants, or the "All Muslims are evil, the quran says so" Rants. Throw in the "France has no bigotry" rants which attempt to pour a Creamy white sauce over the fact that the French are NOT the saintly people the Francophiles are used to worshipping. Of course, let's gloss over the way this will be explited, because we have a fine example of the "why Did'nt Obama go ta France" rants.

The latter deserves it's own paragraph. It is amazing to see how many people that treated W. or Clinton as some king feel NO shame at treating Obama like some butler that forgot to sweep the porch. I for one was GLAD he did not parade himself with the other poltical leaders that put on a Halo, while they have been ratcheting up poltical oppression in their own countries. Yes, he could have sent Biden, but the point being that people felt he needed to go to Paris, as if it was a pilgrimage to a secular Mecca.

Sorry, a much better way to honor the slain journalists might have been to pardon Ed Snowden, but THAT is it's own OP. The point of this OP is, even with a lot of stuff that Obama can be criticized for, the stuff that makes people ANGRY is that they think he is either obliged to be whatever suits their vanity, or to simply get out of the way of his "betters" like a certain former Senator/Queen in waiting who,funny enough, did not go to Paris, even though it was a perfect chance for her and her Husband to look important and mug the camera.

If I was Obama, I might have sent her, because heaven knows she and her hubby would soak up the camera for that OOOH/AAH effect that would make great photo shoots for that campaign in 2016 that seems to have won without the candidate even sayign she would run. But that is priviledge my friend. Many are still angry Obama derailed the first attempt to crown Imperatrix Hillary de Nova Pax Americana, especially when they make Ops that say they are "disappointed" with him and say "I knew he was not ready" in the same damned op! Priviledge means you can be the presumed candidate to win without admitting you are running, so you can keep your powder dry long enough to keep lurching to the right, and that you will be allowed to do so because the coveted suburban white voter thinks "those people" have gotten too many benefits already, and that they need to quit rioting, complaning, and messing up our nice white forums on DU. Hell, one more forum where a Black or Brown person points out that racism is alive and well, many of those people might consider going to Discussionist (sarcasm.)

In order to make that claim, one would have to ignore all that he HAS done, in broad areas, instead of focusing on one's narrow agenda.

and it is funny how so many will demonize whatever is not their favorite cause. Hey, I want legal weed and full marriage rights too, but if we let the wages rot, it will only serve the rich, who could buy rights anyway.

And I want you to have legal weed and full marriage rights, and wage equity, too! You will NEVER hear me demonizing/denigrating these as issues; but, what good are any of them, if at the end of the day, all of them are subject to my status as a second class citizen because of my race/gender/sexuality?

because the GOP is insistent on clutching certain issues, like being anti-lgbt, and MJ, because it would be very, very easy for a GOP members to poach off a lot of these coveted, worshipped, pampered "Reagan Democrats" that have been the favorite children since 1980. Rand Paul would have a hard time because he also is HONEST about wanting to get rid of Social Security, even though the amount of so-called liberals that have been fawning over him is sickening. Yet, Code Pink, those supposed feminists, made literal valentines to his father, a major foe of anti-abortion rights. Oh, and let's not forget, he stated Dixie was in the right, and his hate of abortions was linked to the fear that many whites have that we are reducing the white population.

Yet, on this very site, you will get people who love Ron and Rand. In other words, there are plenty of "Democrats" that, if they got either Legal Weed or marriage rights, would simply join up with the GOP and say "screw you poor and brown people, we never liked you anyway!" The day someone like, oh, Liz Cheney, or Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie, manages to cast the spell of "Yeah, I am a compassionate conservative" we are in deep shit, because those 3rd way types will gladly vote for fake centrists GOP rather than even a hard right Democrat.

This of course makes the left vulnerable, because those of us who actually give a fuck about the ECONOMIC issues as well have to worry about getting backstabbed, especially by the people whose whole rise to power was achieved by demonizing the old left and focusing on the "socially liberal" issues.

Yeah, Hillary, if you think we will forget how you let Bill blow the racist dog whistles, or let him demonize Black Mothers on "welfare" under the guise of "welfare reform", you have another thing coming. If nothing else, even if you do manage to win, your followers have taught us that a vocal, active minority can backstab and kneecap a president even when they are in office. Your failure to defend and support the president that could have and should have kicked you to the curb, and instead, let you go ahead and start those mid east wars you wanted so much, has been noted, and if you win the presidency, we will collect the bill. Oh, "doncha wanna strong presidency?", your followers will say: to which we will reply, "funny, you reagan democrats sure had no problem punching Obama when he was in office, half of you still think Michael Brown deserved to get shot. That's ok, Obama accomplished a LOT without any help from you, and I am sure Hillary will make a decent attempt to do the same."

What do Islam, communism, Judaism, and Zionism have in common? Decided by birth? Nope. Choice? Not for all of them. They all have one thing in common: they are all philosophies; thoughts; ideas! Sure, Judaism can be both a religion or an ethnicity, but I am addressing the religious aspect. Eleanor Roosevelt said great minds discuss ideas, small minds discuss people (paraphrased). "Disrespecting", "ridiculing", "satirizing" religions falls under "discussing ideas." We don't have to like how it is done, or the way it is done, but it is still discussing ideas. The issue, as I see it, is it can slip into 'discussing people.' Sometimes, even discussing the issue can be used for nefarious reasons. I am sure you have seen the posts about "whites killed by cops" popping up soon after an AA was killed by a cop. It is using one issue to distract from another in order to minimize, dismiss, or distract from the original idea, and then it usually devolves into "oh don't white people matter?!" The most obvious example of an idea becoming about people....#BlackLivesMatter and some people jumped in with #AllLivesMatter. Sure, "all lives matter," but it was not about discussing the idea of racism, it was distracting from it in order to move the conversations away from the people most affected, African-Americans affected by racism. From my perspective, I have to see "NEVER AGAIN should be NEVER AGAIN for everyone!" This is a signature line of a poster who routinely posts about Israel. It is a dismissive way to distract from (ridicule) Jews.

Not to distract for the issue of racism, but as an example from my community, give the recent events in France, which, among others, 4 Jews were murdered for daring to "shop while Jewish," some have decided to post anything which remotely paints "Judaism" in a negative light. Other than a few Jews, most people are slurping it up! Some may not be aware of the situation, but others are using it to their advantage. A Jewish poster was told:

I am really tired of you playing the "Jewish" card as being oppressed. When you stop Bibi from allowing illegal settlements then I'll listen to your diatribe.

The above was said to a JEWISH poster! Was it about Israel? NOPE! It was about, as the above commenter asked: "how the murders in Paris became a Jewish Issue". After getting a post hidden, then it became whining about how s/he was "silenced" for speaking out against Bibi. Right now, there are other posts about concerns of Jews in Britain and France which are being undermined by people trying to make excuses or even blame the Jews for being paranoid or being "racist" against the host country.

I would go into examples of issues regarding Zionism and Zionists and how that line gets blurred here ALL THE TIME, but...

To bring this back around, we can criticize people, but when that criticism devolves into something based on a person's being, including their believes or philosophies, then we start trapping into some bad places. Not too long ago, there was a "protest" of Obama in Russia where his image was shone on the side of a building. The image? He had a backwards cap and was eating a banana. According to one 'progressive', it was nothing more than showing him as "unsophisticated" (after all Bush has been drawn with a backwards cap: that was actually written!) and no racism was involved at all. IMO, the racism may not have been intentional (given this was a foreign country, I don't know what is and isn't familiar to them in regards to racist imagery of black people), but the racism was real! It wasn't about "criticism" of Obama, it was about denigrating him because he is a black man and pretending it was a "political statement."

In conclusion, ripping apart ideas, even if it is one we adhere to, is OK. Sure, there will always be outliers which cross the boundaries. It is really bad when it devolves into attacking adherents (most of the time). What is to be done is the minorities have to stand up, as well as our allies, and confront others when those boundaries are crossed.

There is a huge difference between Charlie Hebdo and Democraticunderground.com. We're talking about a nationally well known, satirical magazine and a message board with rules and people, some of whom we consider friends.

The reason for this site was for Democrats to be able to post, discuss, learn, teach, etc, without fear of being called traitor. Something that was impossible back in the early 2000s anywhere else on the Internet.

Since the conception of this safe haven, things have changed drastically. And very many of the old time, best posters are gone because of the diversity in beliefs that has happened within the democratic party since 2001. That and the lack of ability for some people to remain respectful of others.

I totally, 100% agree with the right of publications to put things out like Charlie Hebdo did. I hate the hate. I disagree with their caricature of the Muslim in the cartoon that seems to be the biggest excuse for the attack. But it's the only part of the cartoon I think is horrid. Especially since the magazine does this to every religion.

But that's not the same as DU. Here, we don't have a first amendment right. And we all agreed to that when we signed up. Nor should we.

When we discuss things here, we should be civilized, respectful and question rather than attack, single out and constantly alert on anything and everything. It's ridiculous, counterproductive and gets us nowhere.

So, while I agree that the first amendment is the absolute most important right and responsibility we have, on a personal level, respect is.

that continues to bother me. The person proclaimed that Western culture was unequivocally superior to others, that we need not concern ourselves with the cultural sensibilities of others because our government, media, and culture make us a superior people. I was sickened by the comment. To think people like that pass themselves off as liberals is disturbing. I would never associate with such a person in real life because there is nothing I despise more than bigotry, but here I have them accosting me and calling me "disgusting" for asking that we consider the cultural sensibilities of the diverse groups that make up our communities. I come away from such conversations feeling the need for a very long shower.

I would like to see the responses ... if any.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new under the sun. Look up what John Locke or John Stuart Mill had to say about non-Western (or non "Anglo-Saxon", even) cultures. Hell, just recall Thomas Jefferson's life: a slave-owner and white supremacist who articulated incredible intellectual defenses of liberty, freedom, and yes, equality.

The whole history of liberalism-in the broadest sense-is rife with these contradictions. Sometimes, I wonder if that's not a bug, but a feature.

The more they scream "freedom of speech" the more hypocritical they appear to be.
They use freedom of speech as a means to say whatever they want to say.
That is, until someone disagrees with their opinion, and then all of a sudden they are the ones screaming "shut up".

It isn't just the overt racism that has become a problem for the DU community.
Trying to equate politics with religion was one of the dumbest things I read recently in another thread.
Democrats don't use religious litmus tests for their membership, and neither do Republicans.
But, evidently there were a few at DU who thought they did.

When people no longer feel the need to restrain themselves from saying whatever comes to mind, the level of discussion goes downhill pretty quick.
So, the only recourse one has at their disposal is to use the ignore function, or to trash threads.
Some DU members only look for differences as opportunities to disagree with others rather than looking for similarities as opportunities to agree with other DU members.

it is the nature of the internets ... disagreement for the sake of disagreement, lest one be seen as a "cheer leader", or a lock-stepping preacher to the choir." Besides,if I can't disagree with you, I can't parsing and dissecting your opinion (often into something you haven't said) ... just to show how clever I am!

Some DU members only look for differences as opportunities to disagree with others rather than looking for similarities as opportunities to agree with other DU members.


I'm going to add -

And to disrupt.

And - to be smug and gloat. The same people that were smug Gloaters after the Trayvon Martin murderering thug got off scot free are the same ones who were privately snickering when Michael Beown's murdering thug got off the same way.

I notice they crawled away when Jordan's murdering thug got his just desserts.

It took two trials for him to get what he deserved.

At DU when the second jury shut a lot of filthy mouths in America.

Those posts were painful



I love you guys here in AA GD not so much

about Boehner, GOP and Netanyahu

Dont defend Obama from rightwing racist assholes around here, not safe to do