Should Skinner follow RimJob's example?

[Renew Deal]

This has been a tumultuous week on DU, mostly because of the big thread Skinner has posted. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here, there's nothing DUers like to talk about more on DU than DU.

I think we're at a point in the argument on this site where Skinner should state what DU stands for. The rules do this to a large degree.

I think he should say here is what we are:

Completely supportive of Marriage Equality
An ally and political tool of the LGBT community
A home for LGBT supporters of Democratic causes
A place to discuss how, not if to achieve equality in the US and abroad.

Then Skinner should promise this is how the site will be run:

Opposition to Marriage Equality is homophobia and homophobia is banned.
The cause of equality is our cause and people against this cause do no belong here.
Discussion on how to implement measures of equality is permitted here.
DU will do it's best to live up to the principles stated.

I think this would clearly state what DU stands for. It also allows people to discuss how a political agenda should be laid out.

[justiceischeap]

1. I agree with your post

Skinner does need to make a stand on DUs agenda when it comes to supporting equality and what, if any, rules are broken when you don't.

[Sapphocrat]

54. Did. Didn't help then, won't help now.

It's Democratic Underground. Full stop. The vast majority of the membership pledges allegiance, first and foremost, to the Democratic Party. Full stop. Until the Democratic Party supports full equality (and don't hold your breath), we, the minority, are Sisyphus.

Skinner has already made his stand, repeatedly. He couldn't have made it any clearer than he did in 2004 -- and yet here we are, nearly seven years later. Has anything really changed?

It isn't right, but it is what it is. You can't change it. I can't change it.

And that is what I wish I could get through to my beloved LGBTQQIA brothers and sisters here: Stop trying to change DU. Accept DU for what it is, and channel all the time you're wasting trying to change DU into battles you can win.

As I wrote in my long post in the "Mending Fences" thread, the best part of banging your head against a brick wall is how bloody good it feels when you stop.

I learned the hard way that there is no way to reason, or cajole, anyone into "giving" us (or even recognizing) our rights, or even our due.

Power, as Ms. Steinem said, can be taken, but not given. But not everywhere. Not here. Leave it be, and fight where you can win.

We can't win here. Look at some of the replies in this thread. Look at Skinner's "hash it out" thread. We. Can. Not. Win. Here.

Really, it feels a lot better when you stop banging your head against a wall.

There are more productive ways to achieve equality. Think of all the time we (and I include myself) have wasted trying to change minds that aren't ready to be changed (or refuse to be changed, ever).

Just stop trying here. It won't happen. It won't work.

Remember Einstein's definition of insanity?

I'm not jumping on you, justiceischeap. In truth, I admire your writing, your passion, and your tenacity. You just provided me an opening to say all this. Sure, it's a downer, but it's realistic. And if Teh Gheyz on DU have ever been accused of anything more consistently than of not being "realistic" (read: "pragmatic"), I don't know about it.

Of all people, I know how hard it is to accept defeat. But defeat on DU is not wholesale defeat. DU is... just what it is.

Now, I am going to slap my own hands, hard, for posting (three posts! in two days!), go take a nap, and try not to post again for another long while.

[hfojvt]

57. minds cannot be changed?

It didn't seem like the OP was about changing minds. Except maybe the minds of people who are against a purge.

[aquart]

2. There's a big Skinner thread? Where?

[Vanje]

28. Here.

Its a whopper!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[hlthe2b]

3. You want a forum modeled after the Freeper "lock step" model?

Your issues, however laudable, would make for a pretty authoritarian climate--quite like the other side. Is that REALLY what you want to propose?

I believe that women's equality should likewise be front and foremost, yet, I know that there are Anti-Choice Democrats and other liberal/progressives. So, as much as it pains me to see my colleagues argue against my own right to control what happens to my own body or to even ensure my own survival, that's the case.

Democracy is messy--both in real life on on political message boards.

[Renew Deal]

15. We sort of do this already

And I agree that anti-choice DUers should be permitted to be here. But Skinner needs to clear up what DU stands for. I know he does this already in the Rules, but this needs to be cleared up. I did say that the "how" should be permitted here too, so that covers pretty much the entire thing. There will be people pissed off when someone argues that XYZ issue should follow ABC issue, but that's what DU is here for.

[hlthe2b]

30. You realize your inconsistency--the paradox...

You argue that Skinner should allow those who would remove the right of autonomy for women--the right to decide what happens to their bodies and if their very lives are put at risk (or preserved), yet do not believe that those who disagree on all aspects of GLBT rights, including marriage equality, should have a voice (I am NOT among those, so please realize the devil's advocate stance I am taking).

If you want Skinner to make DU official policy one of absolute and equal civil rights for all, then why are women excluded?

[Liquorice]

72. Good point. I support marriage equality and

women's autonomy and equality. I have noticed that people are generally more tolerant of sexist/misogynistic viewpoints than of racist or homophobic views. For example, Tracy Morgan recently went on a homophobic hate rant and had to apologize, but he also said a lot of hateful things about women in that rant. He didn't have to apologize for that.

Women's rights are often not taken as seriously as other human rights issues.

[a la izquierda]

38. I'm happy I don't know any Anti-Choice...

Dems or Progressives. Yikes.

[hlthe2b]

41. They post here....

I think we've had a recent reprieve from the abortion discussions, but you can bet they are here and quite sincere and emotional about protecting the rights of a fetus--while fully willing to sacrifice even the life of the mother.

[ldf]

48. then they are not democrats

if they are pro-life to the point of sacrificing the mother, they haven't voted for a democrat in decades.

the south (i mention that because the first 45 years of my life was in north florida) is full of democrats who continually elect republicans. it's a little name game they play. they were democrats back when the republicans were the party of lincoln. they have always been democrats, and aren't about to change their title.

the problem is many of the southern politicians aren't democrats either, they just call themselves that. instead they are blue/yellow dogs that do nothing but bring the democratic party defeat. they are the ones continually voting with republicans. why? because the ARE representing their constituency.

sorry, but my tent is not that big. we need a purge, and a leadership that is willing to get back to democratic basics, and announce it proudly and loudly. they may be surprised at the response they get.

but i don't see THAT happening any time soon. they don't have the guts. plus, they don't WANT that to happen. it would be game changing and that is the LAST thing the democratic leadership wants.

and that is why they are content in the fact that we will continue to vote for "sorry pieces of shit" democrats, because the republicans are even sorrier pieces of shit.

[SusanaMontana41]

62. Sure they're Democrats. But they're not reformers/progressives. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

52. What about economic democracy? I think that's more

important than ANY of the other issues. Without economic democracy, we' ALL, whether women, colors, gays, etc., slaves to the exploiters.

BTW, I haven't waded in on the LGBT threads because, to me, it's a no brainer. NOBODY should be discriminated against by government.

[originalpckelly]

66. Would you accept it if someone debated interracial marriage?

Some viewpoints are just so extreme they cannot be tolerated.

[hlthe2b]

68. Yet, you don't think those debating whether or not a woman should be allowed

to die or be placed at severe physical or mental/emotional risk in order to preserve a pregnancy is not of this ilck? Umm, ok....

Damn....


I think there are a lot of viewpoints that are not consistent with progressive/liberal/Democratic beliefs, but I also realize that Skinner believes in moderation where establishment of stringent rules/regulations for the site are concerned. He believes in free, yet civil discourse and that becomes more and more difficult the more finely drawn the threshold for what is and is not acceptable for discussion. And if, as is pretty clear from many here, my own health, well-being, and ownership over my own body is open for debate, then I have a hard time drawing those lines so finely for other topics with which I vehemently disagree. I become ever more incredulous that while we all become enraged at the lack of equality in terms of marriage rights, that we are so damned complacent about the increasing loss of autonomy and basic human rights for women.

[notadmblnd]

4. I have no problem with marriage equality

However, DU is so much more than just a forum for marriage equality. I think your post makes it sound like DU should be exclusively LGBT.

[Marrah_G]

12. I think that was the point of the post

It was sarcasm

[Renew Deal]

18. It was not sarcasm.

The title is kind of a joke (like "Obama beats Weiner"), but the content of the post is serious.

[MrScorpio]

45. I have absolutely no opposition to marriage equality and equality for lgbts as a whole

But I have gotten into heated discussions about how to go about achieving it, the pace at which it is or is not coming about and the roles of various participants.

Most of these things come down to differing opinions about the significance and insignificance of various issues.

[yardwork]

59. You routinely post OPs mocking and belittling gay people and then pretend to be surprised

when people call you on it.

[MrScorpio]

65. From what I've observed, some have been offended by what I've posted in the past...

While others were not offended.

There really isn't a consensus here on DU, even among LGBT members.

Usually, I find myself apologizing to those I've offended and just having regular old conversation with the people that I haven't. I'm quite aware that different people are quite liable to respond in different ways.

Some of this I chalk up to pure old personality conflict. Some people don't like either me, or the fact that I bring up certain topics… At times, with an embarrassingly lack of finesse on my part, I do admit. Some people have a tendency to take things personally when their assertions are not unquestionably accepted. Would those particular instances indicate that I'm belittling or mocking someone with whom I happen to disagree?

Well, I understand that myself and other hetero members have been told, in no uncertain terms, that our opinions either have no merit or are completely unwanted when it come to LGBT issues. So based on the source alone, such a reaction from someone who holds that general opinion would be all too natural.

And If I'm to be accused of creating controversy, I'm hardly the only one doing that and it isn't something that I do all of the time. We see controversial posts from a few regulars frequently on the both sides of any argument. While some of this is intended, others times it is not. It's all about who's own point of view that's coming in to play at any particular time, from what I've observed.

Having discussions in GD can be quite the minefield to traverse, as I'm sure that you're well aware.

However, I have to admit that a purely emotional response, one that is merely a dramatic expression of exasperation without a corresponding explanation as to why it is taken as objectionable (This is in general, of course), that usually has a tendency to take me by surprise.

[Renew Deal]

17. DU should be exclusively what I said

or what Skinner says is more like it. How things should be implemented would still be up for debate.

[FreakinDJ]

39. maybe try forming your own website

rather then dictating priorities for everyone here

[lpbk2713]

5. What? Invite Coulter over to his house?

He would have to fumigate after she left.

[MuseRider]

6. Marriage equality is not what the problem is.

That is one tiny part of the fight for equality.

To use that as the basis for change will not solve the problem. The problem as I see it is how people talk about LGBT equality and the dismissive, rude, mean, bullying tactics of a few (?) members.

[QC]

8. Precisely. DU does not have an LGBT problem. We have a bullying problem.

And anyone who has ever been bullied sees a familiar dynamic here, from the behavior of the bullies themselves to the way those in authority look the other way.

I appreciate the Renew Deal's stand so much, but what I would really like to see here is a stand against bullying. Then we could talk about pretty much any topic, even the most sensitive ones, and still keep some respect for one another.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

26. are you calling some one out there ?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

24. Kind of like alerting your friends to help rebuff a poster's opinion

and attempt to provoke him into posting some thing that will get him banned ?

No thats not Bullying at all if it is "Our Opinion"

[QC]

29. Like the way so many LGBT posters have been hounded from one end of this place to the other

and then banned when they got fed up and fought back.

Like that?

[FreakinDJ]

32. Honestly I haven't seen that

but if you could link some examples of your statement I would certainly look at it

I feel "Freedom of Speech" is a Right and hurt feelings are a consequence. When we attempt to squelch our rights over issues of hurt feelings we have circumvented our goals

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

70. I've got one even better:

Some of them even started a 'satirical' website trashing L & G members of DU who are actively working in the social justice movement to facilitate legislative and societal change.

It's easier for this group to point fingers and accuse others of bullying, while possessing little, if no ability to reflect on how the fake drama they create about some of us really makes them look kind of unhinged.

[Vanje]

71. "Them"?

"THey"?

What in the world are you talking about , Bayard?

[Renew Deal]

19. I agree

And I think it can be configured however it needs to be to state what stands for.

[shraby]

7. Change that to equality in all ways for all people and I'll be

onboard with your suggestion.

[Renew Deal]

20. I don't have an issue with that

As long as it's clear.

[William769]

9. The rules remind me of a conversation I had back in 1993 with Then Rep Porter Goss in Washington.

During a visit to his office at the Capitol we were discussing Gay rights & he stated to our group that he did not see a problem "that Gay people were protected under the Constitution as straight people were".

We saw right away that this was not going to be a very productive conversation so we switched tactics & asked why Gays were not afforded the same protection as straights under our Constitution He at least agreed that the laws were not enforced on an equal basis (at least some headway). Then we pushed him on hoe we could at least get the laws enforced equally, he stammered & said he had to get to the floor for a vote.

Well thats how I feel here on DU. Like it or not thats how I see it.

[geckosfeet]

10. I disagree.

That is all.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Rules vs: Agenda

I've watched the rules around here change over the years. What was perfectly acceptable and condoned by consensus is now a means to be banned. Skinner has handled most of it very well, even sent me a personal message asking me not to use certain terms as it could be construed to mean some thing offensive. Again the "Majority Consensus"

I wonder how much of it is actually a Liberal / Progressive Consensus ?

When the Dems swept the 2006 and 2008 Election cycles I saw a lot of folks who would ordinarily have little or nothing to do with the likes of DU come on board and bring their "consensus" with them. Only because those they had been previously supporting just got their Asses handed to them during the election cycle.

[Marrah_G]

13. .

[FreakinDJ]

14. LOL

[pintobean]

16. ATA

[William769]

31. People keep knocking

But no one seems to answer.

[sufrommich]

21. Do you know how many people are banned from Freeperville

for disagreeing with JimRob daily? No thanks.

The rules are fine as they are.

[Ian David]

25. I agree. But the flip side is also that Marriage Equality is not a free pass to bash President Obama

Yes, he can and should be pushed and criticized for not "evolving" fast enough.

But, IMHO, it crosses the line into being unhelpful when one says things like Obama's useless on LGBT rights and stuff like that.

But yes, I agree that we, as a community, have to agree to be fully supportive of LGBT rights, and to also offer at least a certain level of support for our President.

[SidDithers]

36. +1. Good post...

Sid

[leftistboy]

34. that would help further shift focus from economic leftism and towards social leftism

the rich people hate it when liberal activists focus on economic leftism. Hits them in their wallets.

With all our massive power and influence we can easily do everything at once.

And there is no way that the focus on pluralism helps divide leftists. No way. Uh uh.

[hfojvt]

35. so you'd like this to be GLBT Underground?

We are not a group that supports a variety of causes, from ending the war, to progressive taxation, to helping the poor, to ending the war on drugs, to opposing the Prison Industrial Complex and the corporate takeover of the US Government.

Your statement of "here is what we are" (rather than here is Some of what we are, or here is what we are in regard to GLBT issues) seems to be "We are GLBT uber alles".

I would think an obvious first step in "How to acheive Narriage Equality" or any other issue, would be to "win more people over to your side". Well, I don't think you do that by making your first principle one of intolerance "People who oppose my issue are bigots and will not be tolerated".

Sure that might seem satisfying, but making your group smaller is not a way to win in a Democracy. Sometimes you can find common ground even with people you might consider to be bigots. Say you have a large group of people who gets together to work on a huge issue - like defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Not everybody who wanted to defeat Bush was in favor of marriage equality. But if Pro Marriage Equality and Anti Marriage Equality are working side by side to defeat Bush then friendships can be formed, and it is easier to persuade a friend than it is to persuade a stranger, or an enemy. You start right out by declaring anybody not already on your side to be an enemy, then you are taking a huge step backwards in trying to persuade them of anything. You push them out of your tent and they are not going to disappear, they are going to find another tent and make friends there. Friends who will convince them to stay strong and fight against the name calling a$$holes who pushed us out of their tent.

[Joe the Revelator]

40. Well written.

[MuseRider]

46. Equality

I would think that any issue involving equality would simply be a Democratic issue. It is simply a constitutional mandate that we are all equal. I can't see how any site that is liberal could ever allow discussion on whether equality it right or wrong for anyone. There should be no arguing about equality for anyone if liberal is what you/we are.

Marriage equality is but one single piece of the pie. Everything they have been "granted" has been one tiny piece of the pie. I don't give one flying fuck that Obama has been so "good to the gays" . Piecemeal equality is not equality and it hurts more than it helps IMO.

My problem with all of this is that we allow horrible things to be posted to one group or another, not singling out LGBT as the only group, with tactics that show no sensitivity to their lives. The impact of those statements are devastating. Our not being fully behind something the party or liberals have always stood for, equality and safety to minority groups is just sad. There are terrible bullies here who spare no occasion to tell people that they are not important when all they are asking for is the same rights as everyone else. This site has become demoralizing to everyone impacted by the bullying, not to mention TSing those who are the victims who rightfully stand up for themselves. Has that end gotten out of line too? Of course on occasion they do, but their reason is intensely personal and I think you would agree that nobody wants to be told their lives are not as important as everyone else. It goes on constantly here.

Really, should anyone have to draw others to their side when they are asking for equality? Really? It is bad enough that the Talibornagain will never listen and the RW in general has made it an issue to bat around for scaring people into voting for them but to see the same shit here? It should never happen. Happens to women here, happens over poverty issues......can't even begin to list it all. It is the rudeness to an individual or group, the dismissiveness of their problems that make each and every attempt at talking about them turn into something else and nothing ever gets accomplished.

Nobody ever asked for it to be GLBT Underground. Your saying that seems terribly dismissive, actually rude. That was never and has never been the point nor the issue.

I will not be here much so my response may be late or not at all so go ahead and respond and hopefully others will answer you if you do feel like responding.

*this is not written specifically to you hfojvt but to the many who use every occasion to demoralize others who are different in one way or another.

EDIT to add a quote

[TrogL]

50. I'm a bit confused

I don't see support for gay marriage needing to be a zero-sum game. LGBT people support a lot of issues as well. I go to a variety of rallies, political events and am heavily involved in the local community. There's a pride centre the end of my block.

I see the same people at LGBT rallies that attend other events.

Hence "We are not a group that supports a variety of causes" seems to clash with the rest of what you're saying.

Am I missing something?

[hfojvt]

55. maybe I am reading it too exclusively

What I see wrong.

"Completely supportive of Marriage Equality" - I sorta thought we already were, at least 90% if not completely
"An ally and political tool of the LGBT community" - that seems exclusive. A tool of the LGBT community rather than a tool of the progressive community?
"A home for LGBT supporters of Democratic causes" - not a home for all progressives? For a variety of progressives, to include GLBT and others?
"A place to discuss how, not if to achieve equality in the US and abroad." - Is this not allowed now, or are there just too many people saying it is impossible or that trying would likely backfire?

Then Skinner should promise this is how the site will be run:

"Opposition to Marriage Equality is homophobia and homophobia is banned." - Even pragmatic objections?
"The cause of equality is our cause and people against this cause do not belong here." - We don't have other causes? If it is "our cause" that sounds exclusive. If it is "one of our causes" that is less exclusive, but banning people would seem to make it a primary cause. The only cause where there is a litmus test and deviance is not allowed. So if you support the invasion of Iran or North Korea, you would be allowed here, but if you think civil unions would grant the same rights without involving a losing political battle over the word "marriage" then hit the road, Jack.
"Discussion on how to implement measures of equality is permitted here." - it's not now? Or it gets shunted out of GD into the GLBT forum?


I guess that just because it is a home for GLBT does not mean that it cannot be a home for others, but if it is a home for a variety of progressives, then why can;t it also be a home for GLBT? If "what we are" is "a tool of the LGBT community" (damn, have I been writing that wrong this whole time? Is it L first or G first?). Then it would seem that we are not "a tool of non-LGBT progressives".

I think that "what we are" should be more inclusive. That narrowing a focus or putting one group at the top and excluding others based on their say-so, is just a way to get smaller and less relevant. The OP seems to make LGBT-specific causes into our primary causes to the exclusion of others.

[TrogL]

60. I think you're reading the OP wrong

I'm taking it as "DU should be among other things (the list)".

[EFerrari]

51. You don't take a vote on civil rights. You either support them or you don't.

I don't see what is so difficult about that.

[hfojvt]

56. the passage of a variety of civil rights acts

would seem to belie that sentiment.

[EFerrari]

58. Not at all. Those acts of Congress pre-empted localities

from deciding the majority could f#ck over the minority or tell them to suffer patiently or to be quiet or ask them to consider how much worse their lives would be under Attila the Hun.

[Romulox]

37. I'd like to have anti-worker posters banned.

Where does the line form?

[richmwill]

42. Bad idea, in my opinion.

You want DU to resemble JimBob's "Agree with me on everything, otherwise you're booted immediately" site? No thanks.

[madinmaryland]

43. Fuck no. This is not free republic.

[Fumesucker]

44. Under your proposal Obama would be kicked off DU..

For his religious conviction against gay marriage.

[yardwork]

61. A religious conviction that he didn't used to hold, interestingly enough.

[FreeState]

64. One that his previous church current church at the time, does not hold either n/t

[scheming daemons]

47. Then just rename it LGBTQI-Underground and be done with it

While an important constituency in the Democratic party, LGBTQI is not the ONLY one.

[yardwork]

63. Where in the OP does it say that DU should only be about gay rights?

You seem to assume that if DU is supportive of gay rights, then we are automatically not supportive of other Democratic policies.

That is the problem, actually. You and many other Democrats don't believe that gay rights are a valid part of the Democratic Party's platform.

[LLStarks]

49. Yes, as long as he doesn't stifle respectful debate. nt

[billh58]

53. I agree with the premise, but not

the subject:

"I think we're at a point in the argument on this site where Skinner should state what DU stands for. The rules do this to a large degree.

I think he should say here is what we are:

Completely supportive of the Second Amendment
An ally and political tool of the RKBA community
A home for RKBA supporters of Democratic causes
A place to discuss how, not if to achieve armed equality in the US and abroad.

Then Skinner should promise this is how the site will be run:

Opposition to RKBA is hoplophobia and hoplophobia is banned.
The cause of 2A equality is our cause and people against this cause do no belong here.
Discussion on how to implement measures of equality is permitted here.
DU will do it's best to live up to the principles stated.

I think this would clearly state what DU stands for. It also allows people to discuss how a political agenda should be laid out."

[kelly1mm]

67. Is it really DU if the President, a Democrat and head of the party, couldn't post his view? nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

69. That wouldn't be anywhere near the level of crazy in FR.

Hell, you can't say good things about some REPUBLICAN candidates there or you'll be banned!

[EarlG]

73. Okay, having just got around to this one now

I'm going to lock this. Because if I don't I'll have a bunch of people in ATA tomorrow asking why this thread wasn't locked when x, y, and z threads were locked.

But to be clear: Skinner has already stated, on the record, and on numerous occasions over the years, that:

a) opposition to marriage equality is a bannable offense

b) people who state direct opposition to full equal rights are not welcome here

c) discussion on how to implement measures of equality is permitted

d) DU will do its best to live up to these principles

And yes, that means that if Barack Obama came to DU and stated that he didn't think gay people should be allowed to get married, then he would be banned from the message board.

Now, those of you who think this thread should not have been locked may proceed to ATA to complain.