HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 34 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 36,722

Journal Archives

Gangs and swarms

How is it that when multiple women agree on something we are called a "gang" or a "swarm"? The use of those terms suggest to me that some members see something illegitimate about women expressing their views. Is there a certain number at which we are allowed to agree before we become a swarm? Are only one, two, or three women allowed to participate in a thread? Why is it that some so often use language that deems women's speech illegitimate?

Perhaps, just perhaps, people ought to think about what they mean to communicate with the words they choose? Unless of course you believe women and their speech less worthy than men's.

Finally, something really important

more than a SCOTUS decision allowing discrimination against women in healthcare.

All four versions of the now self-deleted OP are here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025204896#post108

Here is the meme

I also added it to the OP so you can use the FB share button there. Thanks!

The solution is not taking off our tops

and showing our breasts to men who think depriving us of reproductive rights is a big joke. If you want to engage in bodily protest, do one that makes sense. SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby seek to deny women access to birth control. The logical response--besides a consumer boycott, legal, and political action--is to go all Lysistrata. At the very least, refuse to have sex with someone who doesn't take your reproductive rights seriously. If he thinks companies have a right to make your reproductive choices or your reaction is "hysterical" or "hair on fire," that is someone who isn't worthy of intimate relations with you.

Crafters United Against Hobby Lobby

Are you a crafter? Do you know any crafters? Hobby Lobby is a business like any other. They depend on retail sales to survive. The SCOTUS ruling today is a blow to women, and many of us craft. If you do, spread the word to your crafting friends. Find other options for your supplies.

Get those Martha Stewart punches using a 50% coupon off at Michaels.
Get your K&Company paper stacks using one of Joann's 40% off coupons.
Go to Scrapbooking Warehouse for your Tim Holtz inks.
Buy your Bazzill Cardstock at Scrapbook.com
Check out Archivers.
And don't forget HSN crafting days for fantastic deals on a range of paper crafting and sewing supplies.

There are many, many other options, so whichever you choose, make sure it's not Hobby Lobby. If you go to crops, tell everyone you'd like them to boycott Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby needs to learn that actions have consequences. We have purchasing power. Let's use it!

Also I don't Tweet much at all, but we need to come up with a Twitter hashtag. #craftersagainsthobbylobby? It needs to mention crafters because that is who generates Hobby Lobby's profits.

ASU Professor's (of color) Brutal Arrest for Jaywalking

On May 20, Dr. Ersula Ore, an English professor at Arizona State University was stopped in the middle of the street by ASU Police Officer Stewart Ferrin for obstructing a public thoroughfare—jaywalking. When Ferrin asked for her identification, she refused to provide it, having been warned she faced arrest for not presenting it. Ore resisted arrest, dented and scratched a police vehicle, and kicked the arresting officer in the shin. She was arrested and is being charged with a class five felony aggravated assault and two misdemeanors. She has claimed that she was acting in self defense, and the story appeared to end there.

But footage released this weekend shows that the altercation went down very differently than described. In the dash camera video, Ore, whose only threat was walking across a street to avoid construction on the sidewalk, clearly attempts to reason with the police officer, but is met with disregard which escalated into violence.

Ferrin: Let me see your ID or you will be arrested for failing to provide ID

Ore: Are you serious?

Ferrin: Yes, I'm serious. That is the law. If you don't understand the law I'm explaining the law to you right now. You're walking down the middle of the road, which is a public thoroughfare—

Ore: Which I have no problem with abiding by the law, but all I'm asking, do you have to speak to me in such a disrespectful manner? That's all I ask of you…I have been here for over three years and everybody walks this street…I never once saw a single solitary individual get pulled over by a cop for walking across a street on a campus, in a campus location. Everybody has been doing this because it is all obstructed. That's the reason why. But you stop me in the middle of the street to pull me over and ask me, 'Do you know what this is? This is a street.'…

Ferrin: Are you aware this is a street?

Ore: Let me finish

Ferrin: OK, put your hands behind your back

Ore: Don't touch me, get your hands off me…

Ferrin: …Put your hands behind your back right now. I'm going to slam you on this car. Put your hand behind your back

Ore: You really want to do that? Do you see what I'm wearing? Do you see?

Ferrin: I don't care what you are wearing.

ORE: Don't talk to me like that. This entire thing has been about your lack of respect for me as a citizen, as a professor of...Arizona State University.

, , ,

Ferrin throws her to the ground, exposing her as she was wearing a dress. When the officers pull her to her feet and Ferrin attempts to adjust her dress and pull it back down, she kicks Ferrin in the shin. As Ferrin cuffs her, the other officer tells her to relax. . . .

The Arizona Ethnic Studies Network has called out ASU on their response to the matter, demanding that they launch a "comprehensive investigation into this matter as well as an audit on the conduct of its police force vis-à-vis racial profiling."

Video recording at link.

This is in YOUR journal

(I did not actually say you posted RT news stories, but since you decided to distract from the overwhelming evidence proving your claims false by focusing on that piece, it's easy enough to prove that the RT claim is yet another "untruth."


People can read the links themselves and will quite clearly see evidence of everything you have denied.

The links in my previous post showed that you clearly do MRA, or at least get yourself all exercised because someone dared to criticize a hate group.

I have asked you for links to your accusations of me before and you never can provide them, so I know to do so now is pointless. Part of the problem is your grasp of facts is shaky, so you end up charging me with all kinds of shit that you think other people have done. Given the source, I have no reason to believe others are guilty of anything you charge anyway. This entire discussion and the links I've provided to refute your denials and allegations. I don't know if you willfully distort or something else is going on, but it is troubling. I don't think I've ever known anyone who denied what they posted quite so often.

Apparently you don't read your own posts

So I will provide links for your benefit. This is what prompted your banning from HOF. I personally wrote the hosts suggesting that you should be banned. Casual readers will have no trouble understanding why.



Here is the post where you said what you claim you never did.


Evidently a jury found something objectionable about it, or it wouldn't have been hidden.

Calling someone "darling" is "abusive and bullying behavior," clearly far more grievous that bigoted insults like c...t, which you insisted in recent poll should be used on DU. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025128694

You have a habit of denying what you just said. Take my sock for example. Here you deny ever mentioning it, while it's obvious you bring it up with great frequency, usually when you have nothing of substance to say.

I provided evidence to the contrary. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5024891

And you came up with this rather laughable excuse. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5025540

When this in fact was the text you were responding to:
Yes, insert sock reference. I'll save you the trouble. That's always the go to when you don't want to address the issue at hand.

A rather, shall we say "loose," recounting of events is something you do often. For example, here is the lecture you insist I gave you with my sock.

3. I guess you missed the point about imperial feminismhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2605208

Naturally you have been traumatized by that one remark every since. I'm afraid I have to point out that FEMEN is not FEMA. Yes, you will call that another lecture. It's what you do.

Your first remarks to me were many months earlier in Meta. The exchange was a memorable one, but since Meta links are not available, I won't go into the details. Suffice it to say your responses to me have been very much the same ever since.
The subject never seems to matter much to you. I had you on ignore at the time my sock in effect, so clearly I had had previous "discussions" with you.

Now that the facts are on the table, readers can come to their own conclusions about the veracity of your version of events.

Can we review what is acceptable speech on DU?

I feel the need for a list. My recollection of things that we are told we cannot discuss: privilege, racism by anyone except Republicans, rape, violence against women, any issue concerning women's rights other than abortion. We aren't allowed to make any reference to white people, even when speaking about a Republican like Bill Bennett, because that makes some other white people upset. Talking about racism and sexism "divides" Democrats so it is explicitly forbidden. We can't mention MRAs because some have decided that somehow applies to all men, though I'm thinking a lot of men don't see it that way. Still the righteous indignation about making misogynists look bad ensues.

What is righteous speech that must be protected at all costs: racist, homophobic, and sexist and/or misogynistic slurs, as specified in vivid detail in another thread. Basically the most vulgar insults against anyone who isn't white male or elderly are not only acceptable, expressing them is central to liberalism. Whereas those members who suggest that those segments of society deserve respect equal to the minority white male population are just like conservatives--because we all know how much respect conservatives have for LGBT, people of color, and women. And of course insulting segments of the population based on how they are born doesn't divide Democrats. That division only occurs when feminists and people of color are allowed to speak about issues that they erroneously believe matter.

Oh, and it's not okay to suggest that someone exercise restraint and avoid bigoted slurs because it amounts to censorship, but censoring that opinion about restraint is not only acceptable, it is essential to democracy. In fact, the Republic cannot stand if people are confronted with opinions with which they disagree.

I'm sure I'm forgetting others. Please fill me in so I can conduct myself accordingly in the future. I'm told that freedom of speech requires that certain disagreements never be uttered. I hate to say the wrong thing and ruin our constitution and democracy itself.

Louis CK on black and white in America

This encapsulates a lot of what we've been talking about lately on DU, only he does it with humor. Enjoy!

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 34 Next »