Bias

[darkstar3]

At Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:41 AM, an alert was sent on the following post:

And you have a habit of lying. You've been told more times than I care to count that

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

really uncalled for personal attack

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:49 AM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: This is a debate between a dumbass (humblebum) and an asshole (darkstar3). I'm inclined to let these two imbeciles verbally duke it out, as is their clear desire. They get off on each other; it's a pathetic spectacle. But, the board does have rules, and darkstar3 was goaded into breaking them. So, I vote to hide. If humblebum has one talent, it seems to be baiting other idiots of the same cloth into rule-breaking. It's a sad little talent, but there it is. Hide.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Although the post being replied to should also be hidden for spam, apparently, this was a direct attack.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with the alert. This conversation has descended into personal attacks.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 10:49 AM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=244390&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

I called a liar a liar, and not only did my post get hidden and none of his did, apparently I'm an "asshole" and an "imbecile".

But there's no such thing as privilege, if the same people are to be believed...

[rrneck]

1. Link? nt

[darkstar3]

2. here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=20648

[SamG]

3. Join the group of us !!! We seem to fall into this...

land of incredulity, even when we call out the incredulous.

Religion assumes such a major influence over the lives of so many Americans, so many Democrats everywhere here.

The blindness to their bias is hard to imagine, but it is just so apparent in cases like this.

[mr blur]

4. Well, I called humblebum an arsehole/asshole and it got hidden.

Guess I had the wrong jury.

[darkstar3]

5. I think you had a similar jury to mine. "Asshole" can only be applied to us, it seems.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

12. And, I got called a "fucking asshole" by a staunch religionist

And the post wasn't hidden.

These discussions are trending away from progressivism.

[darkstar3]

13. I guess, judging by the alerter comment above, that the attack on you must have been "called for".

[EvolveOrConvolve]

16. What's funny is that I wasn't being all that much of a fucking asshole

The religionist I was debating used personal attacks and smears in nearly every post (and none were hidden), and I really don't bother alerting much any more.

The jury comments weren't all that bad, even if the post wasn't hidden: (although #4 irks me a little)

Calls the person they are repsonding to a "fucking asshole".

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Mar 12, 2012, 08:56 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm usually inclined to leave rude arguments alone unless there's a direct insult, but implying that someone is a "fucking asshole" definitely crosses the line.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Yah, OK, it's a tiff. Next.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Technically the poster weasels out of calling the other poster an f'ing ahole ("If you aren't... you have nothing to feel guilty about", but the post on average seems like the very definition of disruptive-rude-inappropriate-etc; even the condescension a la "Try reading what I wrote--you can, if you try real hard, figure it out" really has no place in civil discourse, IMO, although I'm 98% sure this jury will acquit because the poster didn't say F-your-mother-and-not-in-a-conditional-tense.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

The post in question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=13901

Here's the entire subthread; it's a pretty interesting read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/121813510#post38

[darkstar3]

14. I guess it's OK to call us bigots and prejudiced, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=20821

My alert was unsuccessful due a 3-3 jury result. I seem to recall that it was once considered completely unacceptable to bust out the b-word on DU.

[Warpy]

6. No, I didn't serve on this jury

but calling someone a liar on an open board is against the terms of service. The post was rightfully hidden but I don't see the benefit in making two more personal attacks when it comes to hiding it.

My own advice is to alert on anything of his that's a personal attack and then takes this out to the parking lot. Or DU mail.

[darkstar3]

7. It was against the rules in DU2. I don't think it's in the DU3 TOS.

And I think pointing out that someone is lying is a necessity when those lies are repeated. Of course, it's not so much the fact that my post got hidden, but rather the fact that his egregious behavior is allowed to continue by hosts and by juries because he's not attacking a majority group with his repeated BS, while at the same time those who call him out get silenced.

The personal attacks by the juror were just the icing on the cake, though I do have to wonder who outside of my jury blacklist so vehemently thinks of me as an "asshole" and an "imbecile."

[Warpy]

8. You need to do the oblique slam

Last edited Sun Apr 15, 2012, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

that those of us who are veterans of moderated political channels on IRC are masters at. When someone posts a lie, you attack the post, not the poster. You can actually get a lot of mileage out of that one. Without flinging a single insult you can curl the hair in their noses and make steam pour out of their ears.

ETA: The post that was similar to yours has also been hidden.

[opiate69]

23. nope...

he apparently just needs to be a member of the privileged majority... oh, and having a relative as a group host probably wouldn`t hurt either.

[cleanhippie]

9. AND personal attacks from the jurors as a bonus!

Tell you what, I will continue to post in your stead in that thread. Just tell me what you want put there.

[darkstar3]

10. I said my piece. It's clear that he's full of it.

The problem at this point is that it really seems like his BS is sanctioned by the community.

[cleanhippie]

11. I added to it anyway by reposting your words as a quote excerpt.

[2ndAmForComputers]

19. It seemed that way at one time for Kurmudgeon and Zebedeo too.

Patience.

[laconicsax]

15. You could have said the exact same thing without calling that liar a liar. n/t

[darkstar3]

17. Maybe I should have called him a "bigot" or a "fucking asshole".

It doesn't matter how blunt or how couched the language is, it matters only who is using it, and I think that is blatantly obvious.

[2ndAmForComputers]

18. Juror #2 seems to have developed False Equivalence into a high art form.

[opiate69]

20. And.... more Bias...

At Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:17 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Only to a bigot nt

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

personal attack... one of many by this poster in this thread.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Apr 16, 2012, 09:26 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's too non-specific. Rude, perhaps, but not directed at anyone in particular. It's a bad thread, but not worthy of action by the jury.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This subthread seems well balanced with mean spirited douchbaggery. Such is life on DU3.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Caustic but not over the top ,considering the Snarky post it was responding to.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: It is one thing to stand up for belief, its quite another to call someone a bigot for finding risibility in an obtuse statement. This is the religion forum. I'm pretty sure that "safe haven" does not apply here because non-believers are on equal footing with believers. I could be wrong. Calling someone a bigot without any follow up adds nothing to the discussion and is disruptive.

Thank you.

Sometimes I wonder about this damned place....

[darkstar3]

21. Nevermind, I found it. Wow.

Fucking WOW.

[opiate69]

22. yep....

just more evidence that the jury system is nothing short of an unmitigated, abject failure.

[darkstar3]

24. The problem is that a jury only works if it's one of your peers,

and those are actually hard to find in any community, which is why jury selection is such a pain-in-the-ass process.

[opiate69]

25. especially hard for us mean, godless "bigots".

[Rob H.]

32. That's exactly why

I've taken advantage of the jury blacklist* feature of DU3. If I ever post something that gets alerted, there's no WAY I want the people on my blacklist deciding whether it stays because I'm 99% sure how they'll vote already. It seems like even mild criticism of religion gets hidden right away, but when a religious poster goes on a rant about how he thinks atheists are horrible people who are so dumb they wouldn't know how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions are written on the heel, it stays. (Oh, and then he followed it up multiple posts that amounted to, "What? What did I say? Man, you atheists are so damned sensitive.&quot WTH?


*I know the odds are probably pretty small that any of the people on my blacklist may get chosen even if they weren't blacklisted, but better safe than sorry, I guess.

[laconicsax]

26. I think it's a few things short of that.

[opiate69]

27. huh? Not sure what you're saying here... it's been that kind of day for me though...

[laconicsax]

28. No problem:

You: Juries are "nothing short of" however you ended that.
Me: Juries are a few things short of that.

[opiate69]

29. like, 6 short of a half dozen most days. lol

[laconicsax]

30. I still disagree...

It's a few things short of an "unmitigated, abject failure."

1. A colossally stupid idea.
2. An insight into just how much the admins don't 'get it'
3. A fun way to spend a rainy day.

Those are just off the top of my head.

[opiate69]

31. you contrarian!

Can't disagree with you there lol