HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » Was this really necessary...

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:17 AM

Was this really necessary?

Automated Message: You have been blocked from a group

You have been blocked from posting in the History of Feminism group by boston bean. If you believe this is an error, you may contact boston bean for more information.


So I was wandering through some of the DU Groups, this morning, that I check out from time to time (Cooking & Baking, Science Fiction, and, yes, History of Feminism) and reading a few threads. This one, "When Men on the Left Refuse to See Their Sexism" was new, so I read through it. Somebody named 'sigmasix' posts this:

I think you probably should edit your post so that it reads "some men" or even "a large number of men"- the way this OP is worded can be taken to mean that all men are this way. I'm sure that isn't what you meant to indicate though.


Strange. Kind of like he didn't realise the article was quoted from elsewhere. Of course, that's because there's no cues that it is: no quotation marks, no excerpt tags, no by-line, nor link, until the very bottom. Not that this is a big problem, but it's clearly confused some people as to the author of the writing. So I posted. The first time I'd ever posted in that group (and, might I add, trying hard to be diplomatic):

theKed
It may help

if you make it more apparent from the outset that you're quoting an article.
I was a good 2 or 3 paragraphs in before I scrolled down to see it there was a link. If you put it in quotations, or even dropped a by-line at the top, it would go a long way to clearing that up. (I would say 'excerpt' tags, but you have them throughout the quote and I honestly don't know if DU does nested excerpts like that).


Cool. I didn't mention anything about the body of the article, for or against. Inoffensive as I could make it, I thought.

seabeyond
no. i am not playing this stupid ass game. again...

thank you for the suggestion AND no.


Well, that seemed oddly belligerent. Did seabeyond misunderstand me? Is it some sort of massive affront to suggest a quotation mark at the start of the article, standard procedure when, you know, quoting? So I responded, diplomatically, again, I might add:

theKed
What game?

I'm entirely earnest and honest. It's not readily apparent that you're quoting somebody, and that might be contributing to at least 2 people not realising and asking you to alter the text.


Clarifying that it really wasn't my problem, that I was trying to help make it clear that the quote was a quote, and that I didn't think she should alter the text. So what's next?

seabeyond
first... this is the way OP after OP is created. title. then article in body

of text.

if you are confused over this ONE piece, you might ask yourself why.

secondly, another form of derailing men use when women speak up... ok, SOME men use when SOME women speak up is having to clarify with a some, many, vast, few, handful, before we can say anything.

the reality and simplicity is, if it does not apply to you (which i would suggest it does apply to you reading your posts) then do not take it as being one of the MEN that the article refers to.


Ad hominem attacks, obviously. Suggesting a quotation mark at the start of a quote is sexist, somehow. Remember, of course, that I was purposefully avoiding discussing the actual article in question since, well, I don't think my opinion is really valued on such topics 'round there. So...yeah. I was going to respond with this:

I really didn't come here looking for a fight

I read the article and, as I said, sorted out that it was an outside article eventually. And I noticed other people maybe not realising it was a quoted article, and offered a suggestion to make that more apparent. It's not a "game" and it's not intended to "derail" anything. It's a " at the start and end of it, to clear up any confusion. If it were anyone else's post and I saw people not getting that it was quoted, I would do the same thing.

I don't want to continue this debate, because it has no bearing on the article in question.


But...apparently I have been blocked on, I don't know, orthographical grounds?
Frankly such a blocking is a wild abuse of power, and utterly baseless.

91 replies, 16011 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 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply Was this really necessary? (Original post)
theKed Apr 2013 OP
nebenaube Apr 2013 #1
rrneck Apr 2013 #2
galileoreloaded May 2013 #91
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #3
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2013 #4
seabeyond Apr 2013 #5
theKed Apr 2013 #6
seabeyond Apr 2013 #8
theKed Apr 2013 #9
seabeyond Apr 2013 #12
snooper2 Apr 2013 #18
seabeyond Apr 2013 #19
quinnox Apr 2013 #7
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #11
Soundman Apr 2013 #45
Major Nikon Apr 2013 #10
theKed Apr 2013 #13
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2013 #14
Major Nikon Apr 2013 #17
libodem Apr 2013 #15
Vinnie From Indy Apr 2013 #20
libodem Apr 2013 #25
Buffalo Bull Apr 2013 #21
libodem Apr 2013 #24
Buffalo Bull Apr 2013 #36
libodem Apr 2013 #38
quinnox Apr 2013 #16
polmaven Apr 2013 #22
quinnox Apr 2013 #23
libodem Apr 2013 #26
quinnox Apr 2013 #27
libodem Apr 2013 #28
quinnox Apr 2013 #29
libodem Apr 2013 #30
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #31
libodem Apr 2013 #33
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #34
LadyHawkAZ Apr 2013 #42
LanternWaste Apr 2013 #89
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #90
Major Nikon Apr 2013 #43
Upton Apr 2013 #46
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2013 #48
Major Nikon Apr 2013 #51
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2013 #54
Major Nikon Apr 2013 #50
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #52
Major Nikon Apr 2013 #53
opiate69 Apr 2013 #60
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #32
libodem Apr 2013 #35
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #37
libodem Apr 2013 #39
HappyMe Apr 2013 #40
libodem Apr 2013 #41
HappyMe Apr 2013 #44
libodem Apr 2013 #47
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2013 #49
seaglass Apr 2013 #55
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #68
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #69
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #70
name not needed Apr 2013 #81
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #82
opiate69 Apr 2013 #71
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #73
opiate69 Apr 2013 #74
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #75
opiate69 Apr 2013 #76
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #77
opiate69 Apr 2013 #78
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #79
opiate69 Apr 2013 #80
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #83
seaglass Apr 2013 #84
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #85
seaglass Apr 2013 #86
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #87
Buffalo Bull Apr 2013 #88
Gore1FL Apr 2013 #64
libodem Apr 2013 #65
opiate69 Apr 2013 #57
Buffalo Bull Apr 2013 #62
Buffalo Bull Apr 2013 #66
opiate69 Apr 2013 #56
ElboRuum Apr 2013 #58
TreasonousBastard Apr 2013 #59
libodem Apr 2013 #61
redqueen Apr 2013 #67
TreasonousBastard Apr 2013 #72
Gore1FL Apr 2013 #63

Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:27 AM

1. I agree with you...

 

but offer no further comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:29 AM

2. HoF is a protected group and they can run it any way they want.

For some in this country ideology is a product designed to satisfy people's personal needs. Since it is an ideology product (as opposed to durable goods) it is designed around confirmation bias and narcissism. Some people seem to think such an ideology is a proper substitute for civic duty and they confuse research to support it with smart shopping.

We know who they are, whether they do or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #2)

Fri May 3, 2013, 01:57 AM

91. agreed. their echo chamber is their right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:31 AM

3. It's a purge.

 

Don't take it personally.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125519789

Their self-identity as besieged defenders of moral virtue is entirely dependent on the number of people on their blacklist. For all practical purposes, the hosts have only the power that the members of the group give him or her. The host is doing exactly what the members want; creating a blog in which a handful of DU'ers [strike](and their alter egos)[/strike] can participate, and within which no dissent is permissible.

My feeling is that a group's value and relevance is inversely proportional to the number of people banned from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:39 AM

4. Nothing wild there. Just SOP

They don't exist to entertain debate or dissension, because they couldn't even tolerate the divergent views of feminists in the other G&O forums. They are there to bemoan how awful the rest of DU is because they don't see everything their way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:42 AM

5. i like sigmasix. he is a thinker. i can always appreciate that in agreement or not. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:46 AM

6. Do you

have any comment on my unpostable final response to our exchange?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:48 AM

8. i did not read it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:50 AM

9. It's quoted above

"I really didn't come here looking for a fight

I read the article and, as I said, sorted out that it was an outside article eventually. And I noticed other people maybe not realising it was a quoted article, and offered a suggestion to make that more apparent. It's not a "game" and it's not intended to "derail" anything. It's a " at the start and end of it, to clear up any confusion. If it were anyone else's post and I saw people not getting that it was quoted, I would do the same thing.

I don't want to continue this debate, because it has no bearing on the article in question."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:54 AM

12. I don't want to continue this debate, because it has no bearing on the article in question

 

that was nice, and the point.

now, i am outta this group. i rarely come in here. just wanted to give a wave to sigmasix knowing he uses both forums and wanted him to know i appreciate his posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:48 PM

18. DRIVE BY!

 

LoL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:51 PM

19. shake it out, shake it out

 


&feature=player_embedded



no, just being respectful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:46 AM

7. me too, I said one damn thing and was immediately blocked

 

by one of that group's hosts (the same host that blocked you). One post. And that was it. And then, there were two others who were blocked just from that thread. You, and one other person, who was being civil and it didn't matter though. You can see who it is by going to their group and clicking about this group, and so they blocked three duers in that one thread alone!


Oh, and this is the supposedly awful post that I was blocked for. I was disagreeing with the article posted, and that was enough for a split second block.

My one post - "Yea, right, attacking men who support women's rights is the ticket. Great strategy"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:53 AM

11. C'mon guys. That was the purpose of the thread.

 

The bright shiny hook isn't very well hidden.

"It's getting to the point when you can't even accuse your allies of gross sexism without having to defend yourself!"

The block list is a metric of perceived persecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:01 PM

45. Me too.

 

I also was blocked after responding to your post. I guess they have zero tolerance policy for anything other than group think there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:53 AM

10. Welcome to the club

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:56 AM

13. If I had known my membership card to the club

was in the mail already, I would've at least discussed something of substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:00 PM

14. Hey Warren D got blocked from there without ever making a post

They lifted it during the "truce" in good faith I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:46 PM

17. How about a free video?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:06 PM

15. I've been blocked from a group

And was surprised at how dejected I soon felt. At first I thought fu, and then I puddled up and cried awhile. But I'm female, so I wasn't totally shocked. I am usually unsentimental, I don't cry easily.

I have had feminist leanings since the 70' s. I'm prochoice. I'm equal pay. But I'm sex positive, so I'm excluded from the circle. I've publicly stated that the word bitch, should be reclaimed and worn like a badge of honor, and not huddled sobbing in a corner over.Some Mods, used to advance search, DU2, looking for bitch references to delete. I'm clearly on the wrong side of the cool kids.

I'm still trying to analyze the schism. It might be a "wave" issue? A generational thing. I'm nearly 60. I think many of the current members of the groups are 30-40, and have families and husbands. They are concerned very much about deleterious effect of porn and the sex trade. The use of any 'slur' word trumps global warming and world peace, as an issue, as far as I can tell. I see quite a bit of, "you are trying to shut us up!", "we will not be made to stfu", protests. I take from that that they care about being heard and understood, want to be treated with respect, and the physical form of the female body, should be properly presented as chaste, modest, covered, and not sexualized for attracting attention. If a man does admire, it is called the "unwanted male gaze" and can cause shame and disgust, in the female. I'm still studying this phenomena for more clues as to how to get along. I suspect, I'll never be accepted. I read, recommend, and run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:54 PM

20. Don't let it get you down!

This small group of people seem much more intent on driving DU'ers apart and they even go so far as to advocate boycotting the pledge drives that keep DU afloat. It sometimes helps to remember that even if these bullies are not secretly committed to disrupting DU and sowing discord, they have an extremist outlook and that is simply a natural part of human thought. The left is not immune to extremism.

In short, just think of these folks as the FOX News of feminism.

Hope that helps!

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinnie From Indy (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:06 PM

25. The women do seem to have a very conservative bent

Set on protection and image management. The behavior is very controlling and exclusionary. They seem very parental in nature, lecturing and correcting, the rest of DU on what is the right way to think, and tossing you out if you don't conform to the expected group think.

Very conditional acceptance.


And, to be honest, I got booted from the GBLT, group, for discussing the 'Friends of Dorothy' and asking if the reference might mean the good witch was a fairy image to them. Bang. The door was shut. I blew it. No pun intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:09 PM

21. Free throught and free speech are always pretty



I would have hoped that when it comes to censorship the forum would error on the side of adult participants being able to use well placed language that may not be pretty.

When speaking of SCOTUS and gay marriage,If I were to say.
"Social conservatives eager to claim the cloak of decency, attempt to make straight men's skin crawl but bringing up homosexual acts. Look inside the court to find what makes my skin crawl. When it come to decency ,Scalia is the cocksucker".
I may offend you, it may be entirely vulgar. Such a statement may brand me as not fit for DU. Yet it may relfect Scalia well in the contex that it is used. Thus it is political speach and shoud be allowed by adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buffalo Bull (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:52 PM

24. "They know it when they see it"

As far as the SC judges were concerned about what constituted smut, too nasty to see. Apparently some judges consumed a ton of it in chambers. There is a word for it that I can't think of, but it means the perverse stuff. Maybe it was, pornography?

I hope you don't get trolled, and hidden for your "cs" reference. It was discussed in Meta as having no other greater meaning, than to be a homosexual slur. Profound Revelation. Be prepared. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:20 PM

36. Free speech is primary; thank you for the warning



If it is required that I be punished so be it.

Of all of the many decencies that mankind has granted itself free speech is primary.
If we do not speak freely than...
... our assembly becomes an endorsement of the prevailing wind.
I ask you this, would you prefer the company of a dedicated ally with a potty mouth?
The company of a implacable foe with pure speech?
Or a coward afraid to speak lest he express an agreed upon thought, in a disagreeable tone.


The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager


The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers


Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buffalo Bull (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:25 PM

38. Agree

About free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:32 PM

16. I have made an official complaint against this group, History of Feminism, in ask the admins forum

 

I think their recent behavior has been highly inappropriate, and I'm not just talking about these blocks. They actually have nothing to do with my complaint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:11 PM

22. And, of course,

since it is absolutely required by the site rules that you visit this group on a regular basis, anything with which you disagree must be corrected immediately!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polmaven (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:15 PM

23. nope, didn't say that

 

And it is very possible Skinner may not even post my complaint publicly. I just think this group has been way out of control lately, and it has risen to the point of negatively affecting DU as a whole, in my humble opinion, not just their little corner of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:09 PM

26. I admire your gumption

They make life interesting. I feel very much as you do. Glad you are sticking your neck out., for the rest of us chickens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:15 PM

27. no problem

 

it looks like Skinner didn't want to post my complaint, oh well. I still feel good about making it, it needed to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:34 PM

28. I think he must know

I think he tries to stay on the fence. I noticed a big push lately to add sexism and misogyny to the TOS, so more people can be banned for making mistakes. He seems to be standing firm on the current wording. I'm relieved.

When, I see a request such as that on ATA, it fills me with dread. Even as a female it makes me feel like some want to be out laying traps to catch liberals and have them removed from DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:40 PM

29. I think he does know

 

I also have appreciated him not bending to a tiny minority of people sub-group who apparently think they should run all of DU. I get the same impression as you do, that they want to ban people who are not their followers. Heck, todays example of what they did to me and the others in that thread by blocking us is a prime example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:51 PM

30. They seem to represent the Phyllis Schaffly faction

Of Feminism. And the Andrea Dworkin/Ed Meese, league of all male penetration equals rape philosophy. Very anti-male and very Christian Conservative, reflections if you ask me. They do not speak for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:01 PM

31. But if you criticize that, you're criticizing all of "Feminism"

Which, of course, is a progressive viewpoint that should not be criticized on a liberal website!

Mention the alliances of Dworkin and MacKinnon with Meese and Shlafly, or criticize the continual reliance on "research" by troglodytes like Anti-Gay bigot Dr. Judith Reisman, or even speculate on why there is all of a sudden such a reflexive defense of Islamic Fundamentalists and The Pope from said "progressives", and you will be met with


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:06 PM

33. Good graphic

Nah, Nah, Nah, I can't hear YOU.....but you can't shut me up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:09 PM

34. I had one yesterday where someone was following a DU member around throwing a quote from one of

their posts, taken out of context, at them continually- so I took a quote from one of that person's posts, NOT taken out of context, either... and asked them to explain that;

to which I got "I'm not playing that game".

Yes, you are- you just don't appreciate having it done back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 04:50 PM

42. It's not sudden

I've heard it before outside of DU- from the same person that recommended artificially reducing the male population of the Earth to 10% (there was a strange reluctance to explain to me how exactly they wanted to accomplish this). They trashed Sila Sahin, they trashed Aliaa Elmahdy, then they wanted to tell me how feminist burqas were... Argh. That kind of disconnect makes my brain hurt.

However, forewarned is not always forearmed. It didn't get any better reading it the second time around, nor did it make one bit more sense. At some point fundie Islam apparently became the pinnacle of feminist ideals, and I didn't get the memo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:00 PM

89. Precisely how?

"I just think this group has been way out of control lately, "

Beyond the odd aberrant post (of which all of DU is so indicted), precisely and objectively how?

(unique, of course to that group only, else the statement would more accurately be, "I just think DU has been way out of control lately,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #89)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:03 PM

90. I think if you want to reply to a post that contains the words "lately"

you probably shouldn't wait 21 days to do so. The expiration date may have passed. YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 04:57 PM

43. The new rules on limiting alerts seems to have many of them spun up

They created a thread to call out what they think are "sexism and misogyny". In other words, if you are out of alerts, just post it there and someone else will alert on it for you. Of course there's also the recent evidence of sock puppetry in an attempt to circumvent the rules here, as if that wasn't already going on. So yes, there certainly seems to be a disparate number of malcontents for the number of people they have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:08 PM

46. I was under the impression..

that creating a sock puppet to use for, shall we say..nefarious purposes, was a bannable offense. Am I wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:40 PM

48. I thought so too

Especially someone who has already "distinguished" themselves with a colorful transparency page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:02 PM

51. Tied for 2nd most in last 90 days it seems

I wonder who is 1st.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:25 PM

54. Oh, but that's because....

....everyone is out to get them.

I suppose that's good insulation even after it's exposed you're up to no good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:01 PM

50. Evidently

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:05 PM

52. Surprisingly enough, the "examples" of "sexism and misogyny" mostly seem to be, instead,

Examples of people on DU disagreeing with a HoF member.

Color me shocked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 06:14 PM

53. There's a difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:27 PM

60. Ahh... but you see, apparently the sock thing was all an innocent misunderstanding..

 

And Skinner for some reason is misunderstanding the reasons for her making it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=19985

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:06 PM

32. It's their group, they can run it how they want.

Far more concerning, to my mind, has been the near-constant campaign to order GD and DU at large to sign on to their agenda and their list of action items, "bannable" words, and the rest of it.

I will add that whoever sent the alerts on B.Bean's OPs, it wasn't me- nor did I serve on any of those juries (presumably, many have figured out how to spell "DeMontague" on their jury blacklists) ... I can't say I agree with all of the hides, although mabye the fact that randomly-selected juries are continually voting against HoF ought to be taken as some indication that maybe they may have finally irritated the DU populace at large past the point of no return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:18 PM

35. OMG

The link, was jaw dropping. Must be the school of thought for the Conservative Control and Command Center of Feminist Information Dissemination. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:22 PM

37. Her "research" and groups affiliated with her have been repeatedly promoted on DU

by... uh... SOME people.

Because she's the only "scientist" [strike]full of crap[/strike] brave enough to posit the theory that PICTURES OF NEKKID WOMEN ARE 100X MORE ADDICTIVE THAN HEROIN ZOMG O NO!

It's disgusting, it really is. She blames the Holocaust on Gay People. But since she's fighting porn, she's a "trusted source".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 03:30 PM

39. yuck

If they just stayed in the echo chamber, and spoke amongst themselves, I would not care, but it gets dragged into GD, where everyone can be shamed into repenting and conforming. Barf is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 04:31 PM

40. It does get very wearying.

If they are the new voice of feminism, they can have it. Right wing blathering and holding up Dworkin and that scary 'scientist' Warren noted above are not at all my idea of feminism.

They are mostly concerned in gadding about DU, alerting on 'slurs' (some real, a bunch imagined) and that seems to be the extent of what they do. I rarely see any of them in a thread about reproductive rights or any other issues.

I refuse to bow to their ideas, nor will I conform. They complain about being vilified, but I must say that I believe they have brought it on themselves. They have driven a wedge beween themselves and other women here, who no longer wish to be bunged over the head with their crap. Unless you are 100% on board with everything, you are not a feminist. Fuck that. It's a few people on a discussion board. In the end, who the hell are they to tell me what to think or believe. The very thing women are fighting against - being told what to do, what to wear or not wear - is kind of what they do.

Neither you nor I have anything to repent, be ashamed of, and not a single reason to conform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 04:46 PM

41. Thank you

I wonder if they really believe their own hype, or if it is contrived to drive an agenda? They seem out of step with real feminists, but somehow maintain credibility. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure it out and see the issues from their perspective. I can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 04:59 PM

44. I don't think they have that much credibility.

I think it may be a 50-50 split with believing their own hype and their agenda. What that agenda might be...I don't know. Drive people away that they decide they don't like? Nothing else to do with their time? Who knows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:13 PM

47. Driving people away

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:45 PM

49. They are not the new voice of feminism

They would like to be, and Rush Limpballs and Sean Hannity would like them to be to make an easier target than going after someone like Sandra Fluke, but they aren't even close, and it annoys the fuck out of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #40)


Response to seaglass (Reply #55)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:39 PM

68. Most of us do that. For instance, I am a staunch supporter of choice, reproductive freedom, equality

etc.

However, the problem arises not only when those who would ally themselves with the likes of Ed Messe in an effort to rid the world of smut label themselves as "Feminists" , but when they label themselves the ONLY "correct" brand of Feminism, and then try to paint any disagreement on those points- like Ed Messe and naked breasts- as an "Attack on Feminism".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #68)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:55 PM

69. Okay, where's my cookie? I want my cookie!

Only reason I'm pro-choice is cuzza da cookies! Cookies!

Nothing to do with any sort of philosophical across-the-board commitment to people (aye, that means all people) being able to make their own decisions about their own bodies, no sir!

It's for the cookie!!!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #69)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:56 PM

70. Also, for the record, this was NOT me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #70)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:10 AM

81. They're migrating west.

Let's just say Elmo has some unorthodox ideas about the global banking system.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/ranting-elmo-finds-prosperity-out-west/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to name not needed (Reply #81)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:14 AM

82. And his name is ACTUALLY "Adam Sandler"

I swear, you can't make this shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #69)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:13 PM

71. And also..

 

Appatently anything redqueen disagrees with is now an "MRA type" position... I swear, the intellectual vacuity is astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #71)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:52 PM

73. Yeah, I'm supposed to be one even though I'd never heard the term until people complained about it.

but even beyond all that, It's the loathing that really sets be back a step...

Honestly, and I'm not just blowing smoke up the proverbial @$$, there is almost noone on DU who I can say I actively loathe. Maybe the guy who signs up to send those vile PMs, but that's about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 11:05 PM

74. It's exactly like...

 

teabaggers/wingnuts throwing out "Lib'rul!!!!" at any perceived slight to their ideology... primarily covered under fallacy of division and poisoning the well. And I agree.. I've told my wife before, there's probably a good 99% of DUers who would be welcome at my front door, any time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #74)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:48 AM

75. just not all at once.

Here comes everybody!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #75)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:53 AM

76. lol.. no shit..

 

since the whole "Rock Star" thing didn't quite pan out, I don't quite have that kind of room!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #76)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:54 AM

77. What a cool pad!

Does it float if the river rises?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #77)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 01:58 AM

78. heh.. Steven Tyler better hope so

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #78)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:00 AM

79. Fine, then... I'll see you Steven Tyler's house

and raise you Jerry's.



Can't beat Marin for lifestyle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #79)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:02 AM

80. For some reason... and I mean, I know they made BRAZILLIONS...

 

but it's still hard to picture any of them (except Weir maybe) living in anything other than an old Microbus.

Sweet pad, though, for sure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #80)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:21 AM

83. I remember a story in the early 80s about someone's friend who was a very blissed out

vegan hippie, she secretly followed Jerry back from a show, maybe hoping he would impart the secrets of transcendental wisdom or whatnot, snuck up to his window to see what he was doing, expecting him to be levitating, meditating, surrounded by technicolor buddhas or something..

and he was plopped down on the couch in front of Days of Our Lives, eating a burrito from 7-11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #68)


Response to seaglass (Reply #84)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:06 PM

85. Couple things. One, Gary Johnson is pretty different from Ed Meese.

Two, it only matters as to "how someone labels themselves" when it is part of a disingenuous and dishonest pattern of debate, particularly when trying to conflate disagreement with the extreme parts of the agenda of outliers with "bigotry" against a larger group- like Creationists saying "we're Christians" (technically true) but then turning around and portraying all criticism of Creationism as "Christian Bashing".



I wrote out an example of this sort of thing a while back, it kind of sums up why it matters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2601779

553. Here's a totally made up example of the sort of logic at play:

1) Hoznofsters call themselves Flimshotters, even though Hoznofsters have a history of criticizing large swaths of other Flimshotters, telling Flimshotters they're not REAL Flimshotters, using derisive terms for other Flimshotters -like "Funflims"- who don't agree to all the Hoznofster definitions of what constitutes "real" Flimshottery, etc.

2) However... when experiencing general, widespread rebuke or -ever worse- open mockery and notbeingtakenseriouslyenough,dammit-ry... Hoznofsters will, however, immediately claim that "Flimshotters are under attack!" and even better, since Flimshotters -the larger group- are known primarily as arguing for equal rights for Wagglehorns, this allows the Hoznofster to move the argument onto a favorable playing field, because really everyone who is at all reasonable believes Wagglehorns ought to have equal rights.

3) Next move is to point out that a widely despised, if ill-defined, group- let's call them Mrazplotzes--- are known for criticizing Flimshotters.

You know what that means, right? If Mrazplotzes criticize Flimshotters and we've established by assertion that Hoznofster=Flimshotter... then everyone who criticizes a Hoznofster MUST BE a dread Mrazplotz!


It's logic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #85)


Response to seaglass (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:32 PM

87. Exactly. But logical fallacies abound on DU, particularly in certain corners.

Another one that seems to be popular right now is "you can't be angry about this since you're not upset about that"- like, how dare you pretend to be concerned about axe murdering, since you don't take gum chewing seriously enough. As though gum chewing leads to axe murdering. As though gum chewing has anything to do with axe murdering.

But far be it for me to tell the "Dudgeon and Drag-On" aficionados around here, how to play their game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #87)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:37 AM

88. and the corollary...



If you do not word it properly you are disagree ing
and
If you refuse to see one issue our way you are the enemy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #39)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:14 PM

64. Meta was awash with it too.

I am not sure what they think they are accomplishing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #64)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:53 PM

65. It floated over the top of the bowl

When meta was flushed, and into GD, for 2 weeks. There we all were in the living room with our rain boots and toilet plungers, flinging excrement, while newcomers perused the site. Very bad behavior. Best to keep it in the groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 08:57 PM

57. Just to maybe head off some of the accusations against you,

 

I proudly admit to alerting on this post. I think this was the first (maybe second) alert I have made in HoF since before the truce. Funny how they run around pissing off countless people, but if a post gets alerted on, there's only 3 or 4 names they can think of. And, not "funny = haha!", more like

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #32)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:22 PM

62. It is their space, it should be respected

First off, I am relatively new to DU
Yesterday looking for an interesting thread, I came upon this.
I followed the link back to the item that TheKed was referring to.
Being a Left male and a real big fan of free speech i objected to the assumption that we adults had to watch for 'micro aggressions'. That these micro aggressions could some way sum up to Homophobia, misogyny and racism as well as being a bully.I finally did some quick thinking and realized that i had violated what one participant called 'safe haven'.
Now I am blocked
I regret having violated their space, accidentally,it wont occur twice.
That space is sacred
The remainder of DU is fair game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buffalo Bull (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:47 AM

66. but in our space... beating the dead horse

Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is...think about it
Woman is the nigger of the world
Think about it...do something about it


We make her paint her face and dance
If she won't be a slave, we say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's trying to be a man
While putting her down, we pretend that she's above us


Woman is the nigger of the world...yes she is
If you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with
Woman is the slave of the slaves
Ah, yeah...better scream about it


We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only place she should be
Then we complain that she's too unworldly to be our friend


Woman is the nigger of the world...yes she is
If you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Yeah...alright...hit it!


We insult her every day on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she's young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb


Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is...if you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Yes she is...if you believe me, you better scream about it


We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance

by John Lennon and Yoko Ono

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 08:53 PM

56. Necessary? Of course not. Wholly and pathetically predictable?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:12 PM

58. Oh, it doesn't really matter that you weren't looking for a fight...

You are not of the body. Hence you were expunged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:26 PM

59. I'm still burning a little over a thread I started...

over there a few months ago about this book:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/books/review/far-from-the-tree-by-andrew-solomon.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It has an excellent chapter in it discussing women who have been raped and the differing attitudes they have toward the children the rapes produced. Silly me-- I thought it would be a good resource, but I got swarmed so badly I had to delete my OP to stop the nonsense.

My sin? I mentioned in passing it was "ironic" that a gay black man would write such a sensitive work about women in such crisis. So it was demanded that I explain myself.

There were a couple of women who thanked me for the reference, but they were drowned out by the screams for my head. After I killed the thread, though, someone with more sense asked that I repost it with a small change, which I did and then watched it sink like a rock.

But, at least a few people got something positive out of it all, which is sometimes the best you can do around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #59)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 01:39 PM

61. I think the gender reference

Makes it interesting. I generally get along well with trans type males. I like the men whom identify as female. We have stuff in common.

I've actually had a bit more difficulty with very masculine females whom identify as male. They can be quite dominate and entitled, when I worked with them or had them for friends.

A black writer as well faces special discrimination. I think your author was a gifted speaker against rape.

Sorry you took so much heat for your effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #59)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 04:20 PM

67. The OP is talking shit about HoF. You posted that in Feminism.

Sorry to ruin your addition to this little hate fest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11399181

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #67)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 10:23 PM

72. You're right...

thanks for clearing that up (really!)

I would mention, though, that some of the swarmers were better known (to me at least) as HoF members-- one in particular. Most are on ignore at the moment, though, and it's not important enough to clear the whole list to see who all, but that is where my confusion came from.

But, you are right, that particular thread did not involve HoF.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 02:36 PM

63. I have answer for a question you asked

Well, that seemed oddly belligerent. Did seabeyond misunderstand me?


In my experience "oddly belligerent" trumps understanding or misunderstanding with some posters. "You are a male, ergo you are guilty of something. Please take this obnoxious abuse as your parting gift" seems to be the order of operation for many.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread