HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Zenlitened » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Massachusetts
Home country: USA
Member since: Fri Dec 3, 2004, 01:09 PM
Number of posts: 9,354

Journal Archives

Good news: You can take a breather and stop worrying.

Because it turns out no one is expecting you to solve all the problems. Heck, you're not expected to solve ANY of them. No one is.

You see, solving big problems is a group project and lots of other people want to pitch in too, some of them neither white nor male. Imagine that!

Sure, it would be great if you wanted to pitch in as well, but that's entirely your choice.

If it all seems too daunting, or if working in big and often unstructured groups is not your thing... well fine. Not a problem.

Other folks are happy to get on with the project, and ask only that you avoid interrupting their work.

I couldn't say where they've come from, but yes I'd agree...

... DU seems to be crawling with conservatives, more so than I remember from years ago. And it's incredibly obvious even from just a casual scan of the site.

Lots of the sort of ugly-minded thinking that, to me, marks the right wing: arrogant, uncaring, dismissive, incurious. Simmering with resentment, soaked in privilege.

I'm certain their "objections" are not genuine at all.

I'm certain that this all a tactic they deploy: Phony Outrage.

Newt Gingrich built his whole career on this kind of shit back in the 1990s.

Screeching and squawking, boo hoo hoo-ing over every little thing.

Blowing even the most minor comment massively out of proportion.

Squealing "it's reprehensible!!!" and demanding constant apologies.

The goal: Knock your opponent back on his heels, get him reacting to nonsense instead of pressing his own attack.

Sidetrack the conversation, get people all riled-up and arguing over anything but the hard truths we as a people have to face, the important decisions we need to make.

Gingrich injected this toxic technique into our national discourse decades ago. And he's still at it now.

I'm convinced there's no "why" to this latest criticism of Pres. Obama, because there's no sincerity to it at all.

It's just intended to fuck things up. That's what they do.

Excellent, excellent post.

Please consider turning it into an OP.

They have taken the "Big Lie" technique and mated it to a stunningly cruel and cynical sadism, to produce something monstrous.

Truly monstrous.

How Not to be Defensive When Accused of Transphobia (A Guide For Cis People)

By Lisa Harney

3) Take the criticism seriously. Do not dismiss it out of hand, especially if the criticism comes from a trans person. Trans people tend to be more aware of transphobia than most cis people are. This is because transphobic attitudes are often a matter of life and death – the ability to find a job, get housing, not get murdered, that sort of thing. ...

5) Don’t Make It About Your Accuser. ...Don’t tell them they’re trying to silence you – they’re not, they’re trying to tell you how your words and actions hurt them. Don’t tell them they’re driving you away. Don’t make the accusation that “any disagreement with a trans person is labeled as transphobia.” None of these things are true, and trying to claim they are is simply an attempt to stop others from pointing out your transphobic behavior. ...

6) Don’t "Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner." Don’t try to justify your actions by claiming you’re opposed to transgender politics. Just don’t. You’re rationalizing your transphobia and imposing your worldview on trans people, by assigning motives and politics to them that they may not themselves have. ...You’re not dealing with theory, you’re dealing with human beings, and their lives. To you, the question as to whether trans people have valid identities may be a matter of theory. For trans people, it’s a matter of life and death.


I understand what you're saying, I honestly do. And maybe...

... maybe it's just my own wishful thinking that the story should be "Vast, Near-Unanimous Numbers in Girl Scouts Community Are Totally Cool."

Which is true, but doesn't sell newspapers, as we used to say.

I do think it's time, or nearly time, for reporters and editors to react to the bigoted fringe by saying, basically, "Eh, whatever. That's not a story," and move on to something else.

We're beginning to see this, ever so slowly, in coverage of marriage equality.

There's less and less ink/air-time/electrons devoted to the the bigots, even when the reporter is looking for "balance" in the story.

There's some growing recognition that this 'phobic crap is not balancing the perspective at all. And the sanctimonious hate-aholics can just STFU already.

All that said, I do see your point. I'm just being grouchy and impatient, I guess. Been pushing for newsroom reform for a long time.

Plus, I'm down to my last row of Thin Mints.

"Feels like home: Helping homeless LGBT youth"

If your faith in humankind has been... um... ebbing lately...

Feels like home: Helping homeless LGBT youth

By Mona Iskander
January 13, 2012

This week, as part of our ongoing effort to shed light on under-reported issues, we focus on a problem a surprising number of young gay people experience: homelessness — often because of rejection by their families.

Need to Know correspondent Mona Iskander traveled to Minneapolis recently. There she met one young man who made it up from the streets thanks to a small innovative program now drawing attention across the country.

Video available at link:

What are DU3's Community Standards? What do we want our CS to be?

Perhaps we should "convene" right here in Help and Meta to begin drafting, by consensus, a document to encapsulate the various ideas people have about CS.

Something that would give future jurors a clearer sense of the community's sentiment.

It's true we no longer have a set of Rules handed down from On High. As I understand it, that's by design, and IMO it's a good approach. One that will require some time and patience to nurture.

Others, however, feel it's become a free-for-all here, and that bad precedents are being set, an overall poor standard emerging already. And they're concerned it may become irrevocable at some point.

I don't favor a new set of rules created by admins. I think it would be more in keeping with the intent (as I understand it) of the new DU, and make better use of it's still-unexplored potential, if the members themselves held a summit or conference open to all, to attempt to express the various wants and don't-wants of the community present right now.

Maybe start from scratch, maybe begin with existing guidance from the admins... I dunno. We'll see what emerges, or begins to emerge, I suppose.

What do you think?

I've signed my jury statements as well, but am aware of a flaw...

... in this system that allows for spoofing. Anyone can write in any name they please.

Perhaps a future upgrade to the jury system could include a way to grant permission to attach one's name formally, in a way that the software and database can verify.

For example, juror statements would be anonymous by default (because there IS a need for anonymity).

But we would have the option of checking a box or button that says "Permission to sign my name to this statement" or something to that effect.

Excellent, excellent post.

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »