HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I'm going to toss this ou...

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:30 AM

 

I'm going to toss this out there regarding NYC_SKIP.

If a member of Bernie's campaign had said that we would not be surprised to hear he had fired them and apologized to the Hillary campaign for those comments.

Let's not forget that the best way to support your candidate is to do it the way they want it done.

149 replies, 18565 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 149 replies Author Time Post
Reply I'm going to toss this out there regarding NYC_SKIP. (Original post)
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 OP
lovemydog Jun 2015 #1
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #9
lovemydog Jun 2015 #14
Petrushka Jun 2015 #10
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #11
Petrushka Jun 2015 #20
lovemydog Jun 2015 #27
Petrushka Jun 2015 #33
lovemydog Jun 2015 #37
Petrushka Jun 2015 #40
winterwar Jun 2015 #49
BeyondGeography Jun 2015 #55
Petrushka Jun 2015 #116
CTyankee Jun 2015 #78
Petrushka Jun 2015 #115
Divernan Jun 2015 #126
Petrushka Jun 2015 #134
Divernan Jun 2015 #144
akbacchus_BC Jun 2015 #142
Petrushka Jun 2015 #143
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #2
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #3
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #5
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #7
SoapBox Jun 2015 #24
Name removed Jun 2015 #29
man4allcats Jun 2015 #43
nenagh Jun 2015 #59
CTyankee Jun 2015 #62
bettyellen Jun 2015 #69
zappaman Jun 2015 #75
bettyellen Jun 2015 #89
CTyankee Jun 2015 #76
joeybee12 Jun 2015 #87
Scootaloo Jun 2015 #8
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #13
stonecutter357 Jun 2015 #53
Aerows Jun 2015 #44
Scootaloo Jun 2015 #50
Hatchling Jun 2015 #118
Aerows Jun 2015 #120
2banon Jun 2015 #124
Petrushka Jun 2015 #15
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #21
CTyankee Jun 2015 #77
sabrina 1 Jun 2015 #86
KoKo Jun 2015 #93
Ed Suspicious Jun 2015 #129
Petrushka Jun 2015 #114
herding cats Jun 2015 #22
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #25
herding cats Jun 2015 #28
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #84
herding cats Jun 2015 #104
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2015 #106
Ed Suspicious Jun 2015 #130
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2015 #140
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #119
okasha Jun 2015 #131
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #141
Sheepshank Jun 2015 #117
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #81
Jim Lane Jun 2015 #136
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #137
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2015 #105
brer cat Jun 2015 #52
99Forever Jun 2015 #58
sabrina 1 Jun 2015 #63
peecoolyour Jun 2015 #4
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #6
delrem Jun 2015 #12
Blue_In_AK Jun 2015 #16
delrem Jun 2015 #41
mnhtnbb Jun 2015 #51
Bluenorthwest Jun 2015 #61
mnhtnbb Jun 2015 #73
Bluenorthwest Jun 2015 #112
okasha Jun 2015 #132
dsc Jun 2015 #74
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #17
delrem Jun 2015 #34
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #66
Cha Jun 2015 #19
delrem Jun 2015 #30
Cha Jun 2015 #31
delrem Jun 2015 #35
Cha Jun 2015 #36
delrem Jun 2015 #38
Cha Jun 2015 #39
delrem Jun 2015 #42
Cha Jun 2015 #45
delrem Jun 2015 #46
Cha Jun 2015 #47
delrem Jun 2015 #48
DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2015 #68
treestar Jun 2015 #96
DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2015 #99
okasha Jun 2015 #133
delrem Jun 2015 #135
okasha Jun 2015 #138
delrem Jun 2015 #139
treestar Jun 2015 #94
Cha Jun 2015 #18
SunSeeker Jun 2015 #23
SoapBox Jun 2015 #26
Cha Jun 2015 #32
bettyellen Jun 2015 #70
Cha Jun 2015 #113
KittyWampus Jun 2015 #54
geek tragedy Jun 2015 #56
Codeine Jun 2015 #57
Bluenorthwest Jun 2015 #64
CTyankee Jun 2015 #65
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #80
treestar Jun 2015 #97
Bluenorthwest Jun 2015 #60
Autumn Jun 2015 #67
madfloridian Jun 2015 #82
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #90
KoKo Jun 2015 #101
closeupready Jun 2015 #71
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #72
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #79
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #83
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #85
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #88
-none Jun 2015 #91
treestar Jun 2015 #98
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #103
daredtowork Jun 2015 #92
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #95
daredtowork Jun 2015 #100
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #102
daredtowork Jun 2015 #107
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #108
daredtowork Jun 2015 #109
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #110
daredtowork Jun 2015 #111
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #146
daredtowork Jun 2015 #148
Hiraeth Jun 2015 #149
Petrushka Jun 2015 #122
2banon Jun 2015 #125
Petrushka Jun 2015 #127
2banon Jun 2015 #147
Divernan Jun 2015 #145
Aerows Jun 2015 #121
2banon Jun 2015 #123
Petrushka Jun 2015 #128

Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:35 AM

1. That's a really good point.

One thread has already reached a thousand posts. Maybe now we can get a thousand threads on the subject.

What's funny to me is not only how willing people here are to say nasty things about another democratic candidate, whoever that may be. It's how repetitive they are in being absolutely nasty to each other. It just doesn't seem that tough to me to be nice to posters here. I don't really get it, but I guess some people really really really enjoy fighting on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:51 AM

9. "One thread has already reached a thousand posts."

 

I expect this one to sink like a rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:57 AM

14. LOL

Mine tend to sink like a boulder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:52 AM

10. You should have been here when HRC was running against BHO . . .

. . . because that was a wonderful free-for-all of dissenting opinions . . . with few, very few (if any!) complaints about folks seeming to be "nasty" to one another (though we certainly were nasty now and again). In other words: (**gasp**) pearl-clutching cases of the vapors weren't the norm back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:56 AM

11. I was a lurker back then....

 

They're still mopping up the blood from back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:11 AM

20. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:18 AM

27. Vapors

reminds of this Biz Markie song



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:44 AM

33. Oh, my!

Can ya feel it? Nuthin can save ya,

for this is the season of catchin' th' vapors.

And since I got time, what I'm gonna do

is tell you how it spread throughout my crew.

(etcetera)





P.S.
I recently completed an online course with Bun B as one of the professors . . . Hip-Hop and Religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #33)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:53 AM

37. Bun B

That's amazing! I love it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #37)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:04 AM

40. Hugs!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 05:05 AM

49. Thank you

Life is always better when Biz Markie is part of your day. Mr. Dynamite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 07:24 AM

55. Not only that

now many posters goes to their "room" where none of the baddies can say neener things about their loved one. This place has gotten very thin skinned compared with eight years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #55)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 06:47 PM

116. Ain't dat da troot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:04 PM

78. Yeah, like women objecting to that word is somehow pearl clutching vapors...

boy are you captain obvious today...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #78)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 06:39 PM

115. Exactly!

You said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:12 PM

126. Flash: "pearl clutching" is a misogynistic term!

One pro-HRC woman poster ridiculed me (also female) as a pearl clutcher for expressing concern over links between HRC's state department arms contracts and MIC companies "donating" to the Clinton Family Foundation.

The obvious inference is that it's hysterical women who clutch their pearls - that was the point of her insult. Fortunately, I'm a female who has scuba dived with sharks & into sunken Japanese ships from WWII in Truk Lagoon, climbed Mayan pyramids in Central America, and argued motions to hard-nosed federal judges, so I did not even bother to alert on her. But you know I do have 5 or 6 lovely strands of pearls I've inherited from my Mom and Grandmother - both of whom were lifelong, outspoken Democrats (the old-fashioned kind, who supported unions, not corporations), so I guess I was remiss in not alerting on a poster for hurling sexist insults at me and the other women in my family. I mean what she was really saying was that women who wear pearls are hysterics. What a nerve!

Quick! Someone get me my smelling salts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #126)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:36 AM

134. Misogynistic? "Ay-yi-yi," my grandma used to say, clutching her pearls.

Lately, I'm wondering why supposedly "liberated" women imagine it's necessary to attempt to silence dissenting opinions by labeling others "misogynist". Hrmph! Such uncalled-for labeling or name-calling has become so much of an insult to my delicate sensibilities that I shall, now, pull the shades and retire to my fainting couch.



"Quick!" Someone bring Grandma a vodka and tonic."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #134)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 06:13 AM

144. Make mine a Blue Sapphire g&t w/ a twist of lime, please!

I couldn't agree more with your comment. As others have pointed out, a similar phrase was applied to Sarah Palin in a DU thread, with no alerts/hides, let alone banning.

So it's OK around here to use that phrase on GOP women, but not on Dem. women? I have no doubt the admins, unencumbered by any statute of limitations, have the ability to track down the aforesaid anti-Palin post and ban that poster as well.

Puts me in mind of George Orwell's Animal Farm: ??All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. How can anyone claiming to be a feminist, knowing that bit of DU history, continue to argue that the instant banning was not politically motivated to "get" one of Bernie Sanders most influential (at least in the DU world) supporters?

Not that there's anything wrong with being politically motivated - everyone on DU is, but own up to it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 03:07 AM

142. Do not know about you but Hilary was horrible

against President Obama. Glad he won. Well to be honest, if I were an American, I could never vote for her! The shit she said cannot be forgiven!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to akbacchus_BC (Reply #142)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 05:14 AM

143. Don't let on that I told you, but . . .

. . . (**heh**) . . . I was one of her very vocal supporters during the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:37 AM

2. All true, but NYC_SKP did not call Hillary anything.

He repeated a phrase from a prior post. It's a language joke, not an insult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:39 AM

3. How many times have we heard of someone getting in trouble for forwarding a "joke"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:44 AM

5. I'm unaware of that.

Doesn't seem fair to me in this instance because NYC_SKP did not call anyone anything and did not actually use the "C" word.

The whole thing is completely unsubstantiated by the facts. Sorry. But if you read what he said, then it doesn't have anything to do with Hillary. The prior post, the one he was responding to mentioned Hillary. NYC_SKP might be viewed as agreeing with that post, but it is ambiguous as to what his intention was or as to what he said really meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:49 AM

7. I read it. I believe he got caught up in the moment.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:16 AM

24. I finally saw the post...he did NOT use the word.

That is what I know and have seen.

I'm appalled that so many are insisting that the word was typed fully, four letters and all...it was not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #24)


Response to SoapBox (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:22 AM

43. Ditto! I read it, and I agree with you.

Furthermore, after having read it, I couldn't help but wonder why anybody even alerted on it, much less that it got him banned. Certainly didn't seem actionable to me as the lawyers say. Good lord! Sheesh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 08:16 AM

59. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:09 AM

62. I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary and what NYC Skip did write is identified as

meaning the c word and nothing else. And it's cynical. And a slap to most women. There is a good reason why it is deplored.

And another thing while I'm at it: If NYC Skip knew that and used it anyway, he has to be able to accept the consequences of his action. Taking responsibility of what you have said and said willingly is what our parents' taught us when we were young children.

It's appalling and tremendously disappointing to see all these slyly cynical defenses. They are fooling no one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #62)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 10:38 AM

69. He knew exactly what it was - there a link from years ago referencing it....and if that's not enough

 

He did explain it was a tounge twister.
Those pretending it that just repeating it are full of shit. All slurs get repeated by some jack ass - and they're just as bigoted coming out of the second persons mouth as they are from the first one.

I hope it's applied unilaterally going forward. But I do think that EarlG took the whole history into account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #69)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:56 AM

75. People are still acting like it's nothing?

Unreal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #75)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:55 PM

89. Yeah, we have people saying it's similar to any mean word at all-

 

And besides, women should shut up about being denigrated - or they are "hot house flowers". Lol, it's chicken shit- going along to get along with imaginary friends, who just happen to think bigotry is a laugh riot.
You are the company you keep!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #69)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:58 AM

76. I honestly don't know why his defenders here take the tack that he didn't actually

say the word. It's pretty transparent and kinda lame, IMO.

I think EarlG banned him to enforce a zero tolerance policy against using the c word. Besides it not being good form overall, it slides this place further into a sinkhole of misogyny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:46 PM

87. Jebus...

 

Everyon on this effing planet knew what he meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:50 AM

8. Seriously, can we not do this line of arguing?

 

He capitalized it out of place, said "it's quite a tongue twister," dude was doing exactly what people are saying he did.

"well, he didn't exactly say, quote-unquote..." isn't gonna fly, man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:57 AM

13. It isn't evidence of anything. It's ambiguous, mysterious, hard to know exactly

what he was thinking. Could have removed the post without banning him. The banning went much too far. It was an over-reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 07:12 AM

53. The banning went much too far.

That is funny you ban me for telling you your OP was on the front page of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:25 AM

44. Question

 

Was it ban-worthy of a person that has been on DU for a long time and has contributed their unique view of the world?

I say no, it wasn't. He can learn his lesson, but I don't think it was a ban worthy offense. We have all sorts of attitudes around here.

That's my take on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #44)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 05:36 AM

50. Point is, let's not pretend that what he said was some mystery, or unintentional

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #44)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 07:49 PM

118. The fact that he was a long time Du'er makes it worse.

He was here long enough to know better. He was being 'clever' and and thought he could get away with it. Now we all have learned that being a long timer doesn't earn you a Get Out of Jail Card for using misogynistic terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hatchling (Reply #118)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 08:58 PM

120. Making a mistake

 

and taunting a troll is nowhere near the same level as being a misogynist.

Hey, Hatchling, maybe you are next. You might be 'clever' in a post and someone makes a mountain out of a molehill and you get banned.

If you are itching to make an example of people, there are about 160,000 of us on DU, but the group that posts regularly is a lot smaller.

There are people that have posted things far more foul, repeatedly, get a time out, and return.

So no, I don't think it is the same thing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hatchling (Reply #118)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 10:47 PM

124. your scary, creepy avatar has a certain misogynistic characteristic to me.

 

was that one available in the DU avatar files I wonder or did you upload that one from your files?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:02 AM

15. I think he was referring to "it" rather than "her" . . .

. . . "it" being HRC's speech/interview. In any case, he did NOT use the c-word; nor did he name-call Hillary.

In my opinion, it was an over-reaction to ban NYC_SKP . . . but, then, that might just be the senility of my 80th year talking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:13 AM

21. Agreed. Removing the post? Good. Banning NYC_SKP? Over the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:02 PM

77. C'mon, you knew what he was talking about and so did everyone else.

Please don't be coy and split hairs. If you look up the definition of what he wrote in the Urban Dictionary, it is perfectly clear that the spoonerism is a reference to the c word. It didn't come from outer space...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #77)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:44 PM

86. I finally read the post after reading here that he had used the 'c' word. He did not, that loses

credibility for those running around saying so. And frankly I do not try to read people's minds here, I read the post and did not see the 'awful crime'. I have read much, much worse here that doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

Seems he offended the wrong people, that is what is being asked now by an awful lot of people.

Ageism definitely gets a pass here, at least at this point in time. No matter how blatant it is,.

However, if these are going to be the standards, I hope they work both ways. I find ageism as offensive as sexism, ymmd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #86)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:01 PM

93. ....!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #86)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:02 AM

129. Ageism, Or the myriad fat jokes I suffer every time Chris Christie makes headlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #77)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 06:32 PM

114. Urban Dictionary?

With my rural background---and at my age---a "cunning stunt" would be synonymous with a "clever trick" . . . and, thus far, it hasn't hurt my understanding of words to use an online etymology dictionary once in a while --->

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=cunning&searchmode=none

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=stunt&searchmode=none

Oh, well. Be good. Don't take any wooden nickels. Look both ways before crossing the road. Etc., etc., etc.



P.S.
Is the Urban Dictionary from outer space? I mean: like: y'know: its contents are pretty far out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:14 AM

22. At a glance it was meant as an insult.

To pretend otherwise is being dishonest, in my opinion. I read he told another poster here he was just playing with a troll. That doesn't float either, not in context of his actual post vs theirs. Both of which were shared here today. It looks very bad on it's face, even if the punishment was too harsh. He made a poor choice and he has to face some sort of consequences for it, not be defended as if it never took place. No one is doing him any favors pretending he didn't mess up. He did.

We all have choices in what we say and do in life. All those choices have consequences, both good and bad attached to them. If we choose to learn and grow from our mistakes is just one of the many choices we face in life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:17 AM

25. Removing the post would have been appropriate. Banning NYC_SKP was too extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:21 AM

28. That may well be true.

As it sits now he has to choose to admit it was wrong and ask for a second chance and apologize. Hopefully he'll see that as the proper course of action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #28)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:35 PM

84. What shoud he admit was wrong? He did not use the "c" word. He did not mention Hillary in his

post. What do you suggest he apologize for?

I think someone else should be man or woman enough to apologize.

Show me where NYC_SKP used the "c" word or mentioned Hillary in the post for which he was banned.

I can understand that a jury might have voted to remove the post, but to ban the poster on that post? No. The wrong was not on NYC_SKP:'s part. Sorry. But I have to defend not just NYC_SKP but the English language. It takes a big stretch to read both the "c" word and the Hilllary word and connect them in that post. The post was a joke that induced the readers to put the "c" word and the Hillary word together without NYC_SKP's having used either word. If anyone should be banned, its the readers of the post who inserted imagined words into the post and then condemned it. Ridiculous. It was a joke quite obviously. And it illustrates how we see things in posts that really are not exactly there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #84)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:31 PM

104. This is where we're going to disagree.

The spoonerism he used is the equivalent. He knew that at the time which is evident in his choice of capitalization. Fine, that was a mistake, wrong, bad or whatever. Did it deserve the punishment? Most probably not unless there's more I'm not aware of, but the fact remains it's still what took place. The way you can deal with a situation such as that is you say something like, "I screwed up, and I'm sorry for that, but I think you overreacted in banning me." Hopefully a dialog can begin and they could work out the problem like adults.

It's not something we here can fix for him, and people posting he didn't say it really aren't helping him. Even though I understand their intentions are good.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #104)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:48 PM

106. If you look at the exchange between SKP and a troll...

 

...it becomes rather obvious (to me, anyway), that SKP was throwing the term back in the face of the troll (who used it first).

Here's a post from snagglepuss showing the exchange:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6784393

Here's the exchange, as cited by snagglepuss:

Troll's post:

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...


Skip's reply:


Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!


You can't see the actual post to which SKP replied any more (it's been auto-removed when the troll was tossed), but fortunately, snagglepuss saved it.

NYC_SKP got fucked over. EarlG blew this one, and badly. Ridiculous, ignorant over-reaction...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #106)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:09 AM

130. Hillary wasn't the subject of the phrase, it was the stunt, whatever the hell the stunt is.

The interpretation that got him banned doesn't seem to recognize the rules of grammar.

It's a cunning stunt. Not she's a cunning stunt. It's a cunning stunt. There is nothing right about this banning. I don't believe this would have been hidden by a jury. The ban is off the wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #130)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 01:33 AM

140. Actually, it DID get hidden by a jury.

 

Prior to Skip getting hosed...

But yes, using that pronoun to refer to a person would be odd. Just one thing that makes me think Skip was trying to be funny. Unfortunately for him, that attempt was more than a little "off" (and tone-deaf), and left him vulnerable to EarlG's overreaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #104)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 08:21 PM

119. There are lots of ways to say what he said. I hope they won't all be banned.

Lots of ways to depict a candidate that cheapen the candidate.

I've seen some of them on DU about various politicians.

He simply did not use the "c" word.

Here is the problem. In order to have justice, you have to apply rules consistently to all.

That means in the case of words not to use, that it would be best if we had a specific list of them. That way people would be able to prevent themselves, stop themselves, from using a forbidden word.

The problem with banning NYC_SKP is that the language he used was ambiguous and not clearly something that would cause him to be banned, and thus the banning was arbitrary. On a different day, with a different person posting about a different candidate or person, the spoonerism would have been ignored. Clearly it was somebody's bad day or maybe a particularly sensitive issue for someone.

Rules need to be clear. The jury system is frustrating for me because some of the rules really are not all that clear. We get one jury result for this and then for the same conduct we get an entirely different jury result.

Anyway. We need clear rules as to what words we should not use to get us through the primary season. There was in particular one post that I found to be very misleading about my favorite, Bernie. I handled my displeasure a different way. I simply added facts that refuted it. I would have liked to have had an apology from the person who posted it. But that was not to be. And actually, it's probably better not to have removed the post. It revealed the poster who posted the misleading post for what he/she was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #119)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:09 AM

131. Adults should not have to have a list

that tells them that c--t, n-----, f----t and the like are unacceptable to a liberal audience. Skip knew he was saying something extraordinarily offensive. That's why he tried to disguise it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #131)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 03:04 AM

141. But the point was that he didn't use any of those words.

I'm not going to go on and on about this, but he did not use a banned word. Removing the post would have been adequate to deal with the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #84)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 06:56 PM

117. The word he use is the equvalent....abslutely no different than saying

 

"That woman is a c***" absolutely the same, the intention, the insult, the mysoginy, the sexism.....all the same. I don't have to spell out all 4 letters for anyone to understand what it means. NYC_SKP didn't have to rearrange the letters or annunciation in the spoonerism to make the intent known.

Ban worthy? well that part is not my call. Maybe knowing he would come back (a la another poster), something serious was needed to ensure a non repeat of the vile intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:24 PM

81. Forum hosts should be held to a higher standard as they reflect the site more than scum like me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #81)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:52 AM

136. You're wrong. At 20k posts, you graduated from being scum to being riffraff. (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #136)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:58 AM

137. It was just a jump to the left....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:32 PM

105. It was an excuse, not a reason.

 

SKP is a Bernie supporter and pro-2nd Amendment advocate. In other words, not part of the club around here any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 06:57 AM

52. +1

I agree entirely, herding cats. I also think those who claim he was banned just because the insult was directed at Hillary, who is supported by the admins, are being disingenuous. Anyone tossing the "n" word at PBO would be banned in a heartbeat, same if someone called Bernie the "k" word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 08:10 AM

58. Exactly. A draconian death penalty for a misunderstanding of a 7 year member...

... is way over the top. Speaks loudly about ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:19 AM

63. Thank you. Accuracy seems to be unimportant. I searched to try to find the 'offending post'

and found only the one you are referring to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:40 AM

4. Who NYC_SKP supported is irrelevant to the discussion, IMO.

 

It makes me think some people are less outraged than they're letting on and more interested in tying this around the neck of Bernie supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peecoolyour (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:46 AM

6. That's typical. Think of the times we've tied a republican staffer's actions to their boss.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:56 AM

12. NYC_SKP wasn't a member of Bernie's campaign.

What contributors to DU say doesn't reflect directly back on specific politicians.

It isn't even close to being that kind of thing.

In one series of exchanges on this topic I learned that one contributor here said, back in the day, that a prominent Dem politician was "morally depraved", reiterating that the Dem politician is just plain "depraved", and there was no ban, no hide, yet it was during the last primary -- but now that same contributor says that altho' that post claiming "depravity" was totally OK (because considered true, or why?), thinks this ban is righteous because.... some difference cited in what read to me as argylbargl.

That doesn't make sense to me. Because "depraved" isn't on a list of banned words?

I learned that "the c-word" has been used thousands of times on DU, with absolute impunity. Esp. when directed at R's, used with glee. This case was an oblique usage in a massive fail of a joke, in response to a troll.

Generally:
Contributing to DU has made me care more about the words I use. In fact just a day ago I was searching for another word to use because the word that came to my head, "brethren", was male-centric and didn't capture the full meaning intended, or rather, it was *exclusionary* in a subtle and somehow insidious way -- whereas in my lazy normal day to day I just let that stuff go, because impossible to be perfect. So yes, language is important.

But shit, are we not allowed to make a mistake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:08 AM

16. It is extremely difficult to always use gender neutral words

when hurling an insult at someone. I've been called out for using "bitch" to describe Sarah Palin, although to my way of thinking it fits perfectly, and I got into a huge dust-up for calling a particularly unpleasant female reporter on Chris Hayes a "harpy." Personally, I didn't see what was the difference between calling her a harpy or an asshole, but apparently to some here I am a misogynist, even though I've been a female for almost 69 years.

These days I try to keep to myself any thoughts that might be perceived negatively by any of the more sensitive among us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:05 AM

41. I think that's where the fault lies.

It's the intention to hurl an insult, then doing it, that's wrong.

Then there's the question of punishment - - of relative power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 05:38 AM

51. How true.

When you hear women of a certain age--Medicare eligible or better!--get together and let their hair down,
you can hear quite a few words that would be deemed inappropriate here on DU. I guess that's why
a$$hole has become my insult of choice here, although I tend to stay away from any of the raging
discussions.

Personally, I've always felt that Shakespeare had it right: it's not the word that is important when describing
something that has a specific characteristic.

That said, I think the banning was excessive. Who hasn't told a bad joke?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #51)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:02 AM

61. 'A rose by anyother name would smell as sweet' means that the thing is what it is, no matter what

 

artifice or verbiage is used. Thus, a slur is a slur even if the letters are inverted, even as a spoonerism, even in Pig Latin. Call it a joke, it's still a slur, mispronounce it, still it is a slur. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #61)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:18 AM

73. Indeed.

I have seen two older posts--using the very same language that got NYC_SKP banned--applied
to Sarah Palin. I followed the links this morning. Both the people who posted them are still here.

So what's the point? Only slurs using certain DU approved language are acceptable? Some slurs
that are acceptable to be applied to politicians we don't like on DU are ok, but not to be applied
to Dem politicians?

I think a lot of people are objecting to the banning as inappropriate because it seems that double
standards are in evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mnhtnbb (Reply #73)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:56 PM

112. If double standards are your concern, consider the fact that NYC_SKP stated that he felt those who

 

used provocative and intentionally insulting language about persons and things others hold in high esteem should expect and are in fact calling for strong retributive responses. That is to say he claimed others should use moderated speech to avoid offending him or people he likes, but he used very strong and intentionally insulting language constantly himself toward posters and toward persons and things others hold in high esteem.
I really don't get how anyone who said the things he said about other people's free speech has any right to call for considerations for himself when his own choice of verbiage causes offense.
The people objecting to the banning are demonstrating a standard very different than the one NYC himself claimed other people should meet.
Double Standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #61)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:16 AM

132. And a skunk cabbage is a skunk cabbage is a skunk cabbage.

"Cunning Stunt" is a skunk cabbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:51 AM

74. No it isn't hard to do that

just like it isn't hard to avoid using racially charged language when criticizing people. You, and all people here, manage to avoid those words why not these ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:08 AM

17. "What contributors to DU say doesn't reflect directly back on specific politicians."

 

They could, and that can be a good thing as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:46 AM

34. I don't see it that way.

I see DUers as being individuals first and foremost, each with a different upbringing, education, experience, building a different understanding. Nothing of that "reflects on a political candidate".

Even when someone flies a candidates icon, I don't presume that they're somehow a proxy for that candidate. That wouldn't be fair to "candidates". It just wouldn't.

w.r.t. "candidates" in the Dem primary - well, I'm Canadian so I look at the US circus from the bleachers. We have our own problems. But in that regard I look at the policies that each candidate brings to the table, and I look at the history of the candidates themselves to get an idea. For example, Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair, *and the history of their parties*, will all present their best foot forward e.g. on "the environment". They all might say the same kind of thing, relatively speaking, about how they care. So I look at their historical record with an eye to that. In general that's how I judge "political candidates", or "politicians".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:40 AM

66. You have to admit that your conservatives have been harmed by our Tea Party.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:10 AM

19. No shite.. bet Bernie wouldn't want him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:26 AM

30. Do you think Hillary wants you? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #30)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:40 AM

31. I don't have a candidate I'm commiting to yet.. I like all the candidates. are you excusing his

misogynistic slur against Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #31)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:47 AM

35. No, I asked you a simple question, that's all.

And you can tie me to "this misogynistic slur against Hillary" anyway you want, Cha. What else can I expect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #35)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:50 AM

36. Good. I'm glad you're not excusing his misogynistic slur against Hillary because so many are and

it's sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #36)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:00 AM

38. Actually I don't see that, Cha.

I think everyone knows NYC_SKP crossed the line.

Perhaps you're reading some other forum than this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #38)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:03 AM

39. doesn't matter.. I see it and I'm sick of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:19 AM

42. Is to call a politician "morally depraved" acceptable to you, then?

Since you're so righteous about this ban of a very long-time DUer, from long before I arrived, for a post that ....
was a mistake. A correctable mistake.

You're claiming that tons of unspecified DUers are saying it's not an offence to call Hillary the c-word, and I say you're wrong. People are questioning the punishment.

I'm asking you, is it acceptable to call Hillary "morally depraved"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #42)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:26 AM

45. I've talked about that twice on this board and here it is again..

"Yes I was pissed at her. I think she's learned a lot since Mark Penn was running her campaign..

And, the IWR vote..
Things change.. people learn and grow or they're stagnant.

I have too.. wow, I was out of control! "Two Americas" didn't turn out so good, though.

I started liking her after she graciously conceded at the Dem Convention and then after President Obama appointed her as SOS.. she did a brilliant job. They put aside their differences and came together for the country and so did I. I can certainly change how I feel about people over the years. This isn't the first time.

I haven't exactly settled on a candidate yet but now I don't like the slimey posts about the Dem candidates. So I'm all for these positive Posts Agschmid is making about Hillary."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6770547

I said "so many" not "tons".. and if you don't believe me I don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #45)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:33 AM

46. So you forgive yourself, in retrospect, and suffered no harm.

That's quite a testamonial.

And this gives you your righteousness w.r.t. NYC_SKP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #46)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:39 AM

47. Oh get over yourself. People grow and learn.. I have nothing to forgive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #47)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 04:44 AM

48. OK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #42)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:48 AM

68. She also called Hillary a liar in very plain, stark language.

 

I'm not a fan of Clinton, so I don't much care, but I do take the lesson from it to be careful about taking people's internet utterances at face value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #68)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:06 PM

96. Politicians get called liars here all the time

It's nothing next to using the terms we all know are wrong, N word, F word, C word, K word, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #96)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:08 PM

99. Hey! We agree on something.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #42)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:23 AM

133. False equivalency.

"Morally depraved" is not a slur against anyone's gender, race, sexual orientation or faith. Elizabeth Bathory was morally depraved. Giles de Rais was morally depraved. See how that works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #133)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:45 AM

135. False argument since I didn't suggest "equivalence".

In fact, if you bothered to read the exchanges I was CLEAR that I wasn't defending the slur, tho' the person I was discussing the issue with tried to load that view on me.

So you think it's OK to call Hillary Clinton morally depraved, on a par with Jeffrey Dahmer, so long as I don't call her a "cracker" or some such slur? The one is easily forgivable, understandable even, but the other is a capital one-strike-and-your-out crime, but only when directed at that candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #135)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 01:02 AM

138. What you were trying to do

What you were trying to do was hang a"worse" offense than SKP's around Cha's neck.

Now, obviously I don't think Hillary's "morally depraved," or I wouldn't be supporting her. But for someone else to call her "morally depraved" does not insult or demean Hillary as a woman, nor does it insult or demean women as a class."Cracker," on the other hand is an ethnic slur that stereotypes and demeans white southerners, especially poor white southerners, as a whole. It insults Jimmy Carter right along with Huckabee, who would be far better characterized as "ignorant idiot." Note that "ignorant idiot" is completely without gender, racial, or sexual bias of any kind, just as "morally depraved" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #138)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 01:21 AM

139. What are you trying to do?

Bye.

eta:
1. I DID NOT suggest that "morally depraved" and "the c-word" are somehow "equivalent".
2. No, I DID NOT suggest that Cha committed some capital crime worse than Satan himself ever conceived of.
3. I DID ask a question, in an ongoing discussion, regarding Cha's earlier postings coupled with her ability to forgive herself - or give herself a chance to change her mind.
4. I DID accept her response and concluded my exchange with "OK", giving Cha the last word.

After which you came in to do some twisting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #30)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:04 PM

94. Who wouldn't want Cha?

She's not going to make unjustifiable slurs on anyone, and any candidate would be glad to have a positive supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:08 AM

18. Excellent point, Spitfire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:15 AM

23. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:18 AM

26. Watch your step if you want to say any thing negative about HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 03:42 AM

32. A misogynistic slur is "negative"? there have been tons of negative things said about Hillary and

yet nobody was banned until this happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 10:42 AM

70. Someone tried to tell me the word "tool" was worse, lol...

 

Tools are useful- and not always to people were politically aligned with. It's not a slur. To argue that you'd have to think slurs and bigotry do not exist at all. Some here certainly don't care if sexist slurs are thrown around- and they'll use a myriad of excuses to defend them. That's useful behavior to RW assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #70)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 06:08 PM

113. I saw that little exchange.. it was all I could do not to enter the fray. lol

It should be shocking that Dems on a board are excusing a misogynistic slur for various different reasons, but it's not.

Actually I think they would care if someone had been directed that slur at Elizabeth Warren and it had been someone else amusingly spouting it. But, I can't see that happening.

It was just SKP.. who owns this. Nobody else.. not the "name removed".. not EarlG.. SKP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 07:14 AM

54. how about- watch your step if you want to use a slur about a Democrat nominee for POTUS?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 07:34 AM

56. Everyone needs to watch their step w/r/t bigoted language. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 07:50 AM

57. There are hundreds - maybe thousands - of negative posts about her every week.

 

They don't get people banned. Perhaps "Watch your step if you want to throw around nasty sexist slurs about HRC" might be more accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:24 AM

64. There are many negative posts about Hillary and a few posters who make such posts regularly

 

who are not in hot water and that very strongly indicates that the negativity was not the issue for that poster SKP, who had, by the way, claimed to oppose any form of denigrating or insulting public speech after the Hebdo shootings when he said anyone who uses insulting language should expect retribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #64)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:31 AM

65. Yeah, excepting him. funny how that works isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:22 PM

80. I hope that's not the lesson you got from this.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:06 PM

97. Silly because plenty of negative things

are posted here every day. There are threads and people who are definitely against her post all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 08:55 AM

60. A very excellent point. Bernie's campaign is in part about changing the way we campaign and run

 

elections, he's trying to raise the process up out of the gutter. Bernie has consistently refused to sink into personal attacks not only in the brief history of this campaign but throughout his career and this is one of the best attributes Senator Sanders has to offer this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:48 AM

67. Yes Bernie would have fired that person, and had Skip not been banned he would have been

removed as host in the group. It crossed a line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #67)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:29 PM

82. Wow

Message received. Loud and clear.

I just happen to disagree very much with you about hosts. But then I unsubscribed so it's not my business.

Whatever happened to let's look at all of the story before we pass judgement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #82)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:59 PM

90. Yes, I have unsubscribed as well. I am still trying to decide what lesson is to be learned from

what I have seen on this board within the past week or so. Be wary, I think is a good take away from all this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #67)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:25 PM

101. Autumn, Did You See This? The Exact Exchange---including Reply to Banned Poster

(Now, I realize SKP's reply can be interpreted in many ways. My view was he was doing Snark at the Banned Poster "Feel the Bern." While SKYP does not like Hillary and may have gone to far in his snarking back it hardly deserves a Banning considering the volunteer service he has done for DU as both Moderator and Host of Forums and Groups on DU with a pretty clean record of no "Time Outs." If he was the HATER that some say he is being both racist and anti-female he would certainly have been Timed Out here in his long history. So...why this one bit of snark gets him thrown out like trash without any recourse? Poster "snagglepuss" has their own view at the bottom of their post which differes from mine. That so many can have different interpretations of SKP's post shows that it wasn't a clear cut case for a FOREVER BANNING, imho)]

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6784393


snagglepuss (10,344 posts)
98. Here's the exchange.


Troll's post:

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...


Skip's reply:


Welcome to DU, "Feel the Bern!" And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!


snagglepuss view:

IMO skip is being blatantly ironical, letting the troll know that he is on to her and it seems very clear to me that skip's comment is a reference to what the troll is doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 10:47 AM

71. That's sheer speculation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 10:47 AM

72. Yes and, if a member of Hillary's campaign had implied that Bernie was a racist I would expect the

same.

Unless we are arguing that Bernie does not support that plank of the Democratic platform. Is that what we were doing last week?

And, let us be absolutely clear about what has happened here over the past week:

Precisely, no one called Bernie a racist but the implication was there.

Just as no one called Hillary a c*** but the implication was there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #72)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:20 PM

79. There is a difference between a coordinated effort to smear and a cheap shot.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #79)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:31 PM

83. I agree the OP about Bernie was a cheap shot. What I find hard to understand is why

NYC_SKP's transparency page is not loaded down with hidden posts if his was such a coordinated effort. Was no one alerting on his previously offensive posts and/or were juries not voting to hide them? I have not seen any jury results posted to any of his replies so I am having a hard time understanding just exactly how he got this reputation for being offensive.

I may not have always agreed with NYC_SKP but, this is all news to me that he was offensive to such a degree around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #83)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:43 PM

85. The cheap shot was a one off slur against Hillary....

 

The coordinated effort was against Bernie. That came from off site stuff like this:

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8671135/bernie-sanders-race

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #85)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:49 PM

88. From my understanding of what transpired, NYC_SKP was replying to a troll who had also

used the phrase and SKP was actually warning the troll that he was onto him. Therefore SKP was actually defending HRC and those who are campaigning for her nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #88)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:59 PM

91. ^^^That is it^^^

But he was on someones target list and they saw their chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #72)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:07 PM

98. Though the idea Bernie is a racist was never said

It would be using the K word or a clever sidestep that implied it that would be equivalent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #98)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:30 PM

103. The implication of the total OP, including the pictures chosen, was very clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:01 PM

92. The thousand threads were launched over the ambiguity over what NYC_SKP said

IMHO, if EarlG had provided an (optional) link to exactly what NYC_SKP said, there would have been a lot less room for speculation about what happened. The fact that EarlG just said he had to interpret a "clever" remark left room for people to wonder if his actions had been fair, if he interpreted something in the wrong way, or if political motivations were involved.

There have also been many lame attempts at claiming victim - especially feminist victim - status for Hillary. As someone who has gotten any many scuffles with the MRA gangs around here, I hope people know I have a low tolerance for misogyny - but I think that fight is undermined when people invoke fake victimhood to score points, and I've been pretty irked at how Hillary has not only appropriated feminism but some of her supporters have appropriated victim status along with it. That's why I was initially waiting to see the comment itself and not willing to to take a banning that had been "interpreted" at face value.

Well, now I've seen the remark. It was clearly vulgar and demeaning to woman. If I were the host of this site, I'd bring down the banhammer.

This is not a comment on NYC_SKP's character, history of service, medical condition, or anything else the DU hosts may decide to take into account in regard to him. I'm just saying that for this specific comment of NYC_SKP's, the ban was justified. Quick exercise: imagine him saying that to your mother or sister.

Sadly, the ambiguity around the reason has led to all this meta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #92)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:05 PM

95. Respectfully, totally and emphatically disagree

with what transpired; you have taken his remark out of all context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #95)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:11 PM

100. I respect your respectful disagreement

I have trouble imagining a context where that comment wouldn't be demeaning to women. Did you read what he said below the "cunning" headline?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #100)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:29 PM

102. Yes, I did. Did you read the post to which he was replying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #102)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:49 PM

107. Unless I missed something, wasn't he just set up by the word "cunning"?

In any case, his remark was very sleazy, and actually worse than the crafty MRA crap that I keep hoping someone will deal with around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #107)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:52 PM

108. I do not think Skip was an MRA. In fact, I find him to be quite the opposite. Please refer to:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #108)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:55 PM

109. No Skip was not an MRA

Skip was a great Bernie supporter. I hope I made clear that I only agree with the specific action on that post.

What I'm saying is lowering the bar for Skip makes it harder to go after MRAs without being a hypocrite about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #109)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:01 PM

110. Actually, given the action taken by the Admin, it will now be much easier to ban anyone

for mere speculation as to the poster's intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #110)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:55 PM

111. IMHO, it was EarlG's wording that was poor

What Skip said was crude even if he didn't use the C word. If EarlG had linked it, that would have been clear. I don't think he actually left the door open to any "interpretation-based" bannings.

I realize we disagree on that point. That's just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #111)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 06:40 AM

146. Then it is "kinda" like a poor choice of pictures for *that* OP and you know a picture is worth

a thousand words. I am sorry but, in my mind, the intent of that OP was very clear and as equally reprehensible.
If that is the defense you choose to take. Then what choice do I have but, to think that Hillary supporters are always right and Bernie supporters are always wrong.

Somehow, very clear pictures indicating that Bernie is a racist became ... NO WAY!!! You Bernie supporters misunderstand. That is NOT what is being said.

Yet, Somehow Hillary supporters KNOW exactly what were NYC_SKP's intentions. You Bernie supporters misunderstand. Cunning Stunt means c*nt and Skip called Hillary one. Even though her name is never mentioned neither is the C word.

The way you all twist things around here boggles the mind.

Both times Hillary supporters are right and Bernie supporters are wrong.

The implication is very clear ... Bernie supporters need to watch their step on this website. Zero tolerance for Bernie and a wide berth for Hillary.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #146)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:35 PM

148. It wasn't Cunning Stunt

I wish you could take a better look at my history so you could see where I stand vis-a-vis Hillary and Bernie. I'm a Bernie supporter, and I despise the idea of Hillary claiming to be the feminist champion and playing the victim while standing for policies that hurt women. The amount of fake "don't be Hillary haters" posts on DU drives me crazy given the amount of hate other candidates have had to absorb with no defense whatsoever. While the NYC_SKP's comment was still unknown, I wrote several comments to the effect that I felt an "interpreted" comment amounted to a politically motivated one.

However, when I read the actual comment, I had to agree with EarlG. It's not just the "Cunning Stunt" headline. I'm not going to go back and look at it, but it's the reference to his repeat trips, and all the tongue action he's getting. It's a lot more graphic than a simple pun. That's why I was asking if you had read the whole comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daredtowork (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 08:29 PM

149. Yes I read the whole thing. Thing is I know nothing of this

Other Side of Skip that everyone is claiming. I find it hard to believe that he has not been alerted for his past transgressions. No one will take credit for alerting or jurying his posts.

I think he was baiting a troll.

Btw, I am Sanders/Clinton 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #110)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 10:35 PM

122. Kinda like a "thoughtcrime" --->

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #122)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 10:58 PM

125. No Kinda about it. it wAs a Thought Crime n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #125)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:29 PM

127. Oops! Must remember the Ministry of Love might be watching and . . .

. . . of course, I must learn to begin to take my practice of "Crimestop" just as seriously as I take my daily diuretic.





In Newspeak, "Crimestop" = protective stupidity.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #127)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:18 PM

147. Thanks for the reminder. Been a long time since I read 1984.. (high school back in the 60's.)

 

uncanny to see come to fruition what Orwell had foreseen decades ago, way a head of his time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Petrushka (Reply #122)

Sat Jun 6, 2015, 06:30 AM

145. Is it just me, or are things getting a bit Orwellian around here?

A thoughtcrime is an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts. The term is also used to describe some theological concepts such as disbelief or idolatry,[1] or a rejection of strong social or philosophical principles.[2]

The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party
.[3]

Thought crimes are really big in North Korea, where they are the main source of the tens of thousands of prisoners in the slave labor camps. Look cross-eyed at any members of the Holy Trinity (the 3 Kims) and not only you, but three generations of your family are shipped off to the slave labor camps/mines. http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/north-korean-labor-camp-survivor-story/1654697.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:01 PM

121. Immaterial

 

since NYC_SKP isn't working for Bernie Sanders' campaign.

And generally, immaterial because what he is accused of doing is not even half as bad as certain posters that have been on holiday here before, nevermind that he just had brain surgery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #121)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 10:39 PM

123. Hear! Here!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Original post)

Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:44 PM

128. After reading all the comments above, the word for today isn't in the Urban Dictionary---I looked.

The word for today is:

AGELAST

agelast (AJ-uh-last) noun

Someone who never laughs.

From Greek agelastos (not laughing), ultimately from gelaein (to laugh).

The opposite of an agelast is an abderian person, one given to excessive or incessant laughter.

"Between the obscene, crude buffoon of the old comedy and the boor, the dour agelast who takes offense at everything ..."
Giuseppe Mazzotta; Playboys and Killjoys; Shakespeare Quarterly (Washington, DC); Autumn 1988.

"An hour of stand-up which the audience absolutely loves. I don't spot a single agelast."
Deborah Ross; Interview: Sandi Toksvig - I'm Sorry; I Haven't a Hairdo; Independent (London), Jul 16, 2001.

From the most noble soul to the most dastardly individual, we all share traits that span the spectrum. It would be rare to find a person who can be completely characterized by a single word. This week's AWAD discusses words to help us describe people we come across in our life. Can you see the face of a friend, relative, or co-worker in these assorted arrangements of the alphabet?


X-Bonus
You can sometimes count every orange on a tree but never all the trees in a single orange. -A.K. Ramanujan, poet (1929-1993)

http://wordsmith.org/words/agelast.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread