An End to Bigotry on DU

[CT_Progressive]

bigot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially
: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial, ethnic or political group) with hatred and intolerance


I really get upset whenever people on this site say something like "All the Democrats are responsible for this outrage!" or "The Dems are spineless!" or "They are all a bunch of damn DLCers!". These are very bigoted statements. These DUers are treating all of the Democrats with disrespect simply by virtue of the group they belong to, and as shown above, that is bigotry.

Blaming the entire Democratic Party for failures in Congress is wrong, and achieves nothing. Every member of Congress is individually elected. Every member of Congress has their own individual agendas, beliefs and constituents. If an important issue does not get passed by the House or Senate, most of the blame is clearly on the Republicans. But even then, not all the Republicans, just the ones that voted against it. (which is usually all of them, but not always). Similarly, the Democrats who voted against it are the ones to blame, not all Democrats. If there are Democrats that are not voting the way you'd like, the proper response is to start a grassroots campaign in the district where that candidate lives, and get them replaced, or challenge them in a primary with a candidate you support. The wrong response is to blame all the Dems with a broad-brush attack.

I mean, for crying out loud, WE'RE the liberals. WE'RE the ones that are supposed to be open-minded. WE'RE the ones that stand against bigotry, racism, and discrimination. It really upsets me to see people on this board demonstrate text-book bigotry on a daily basis. Maybe these people are not really DUers. Maybe they are the freeper trolls. I don't know. But I do know that there is something I can do about it.

I hereby suggest that we, as liberals, progressives - Democrats - put an End to Bigotry here on DU. I call for a change to the Rules of DU, prohibiting the broad-brushed, biggoted attacks on the Democratic Party as a whole. I can see no place for bigotry on DU. Call me anti-first amendment if you wish. But this is a private site, and there are already many forms of speech banned from DU. I think its perfectly acceptable to add this onto that list.

As always, I appreciate any rational opposing views. I open the floor to discussion.

[OzarkDem]

1. ...

:nopity:

[0007]

7. 2....

[bryant69]

2. Humans have a natural need to treat others with hatred and intolerance

It is part of our make up. We are full of hated and intolerance, and we have to direct it somewhere. Because we are Liberals we have cut off a lot of potential targets for our hatred and intolerance - we aren't allowed or we won't allow ourselves to attack each other for racial or gender differences (in theory anyway). But all that pent up hatred and intolerance has to go somewhere - so when we can find someone or some group that it is "acceptable" to cover in hatred and intolerance, well, you can't expect us to forgo the opportunity to treat this "acceptable" group with hatred and intolerance.

It's human nature.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[CT_Progressive]

4. I fear you're right.

Which is sad.

[King Coal]

10. So, If someone laughs at some made-up monkey business

but nevertheless tolerates it, it is okay to call them a liar? Why should we be force not to mention the foolishness of our political opponents, just because a few of our fellow democrats believe in the same monkey business? It's human nature to say it how it is.

[bryant69]

15. Well I'd say no - it's not ok to call them a liar, unless of course they tell some lies

In which case that would seem to be an appropriate description.

As for the second question, you are free to say what you like; I would appreciate, however, if you not feel obliged to say it to me.

Bryant

[King Coal]

19. Did Joseph Smith tell any lies? If so, call him a liar.

[bryant69]

49. Oh, Good comeback.

I see you took off your reasonable hat - not high profile enough for you to pretend to be unbiased?

Here's a suggestion - why don't you stop pestering me you (description deleted)!

Bryant

[King Coal]

97. Truth hurts, eh? Answer t;he question and quit changing the subject.

[bryant69]

98. OK I believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God and not a Liar

So I wouldn't call him a Liar.

Does that answer your question?

Bryant

[King Coal]

101. Yep, I would say that answers a whole lot of questions.

[bryant69]

102. And there it is. A polite poster adds "n/t" incidentally. n/t

[King Coal]

104. Is there no end to your how much of a baby you can be?

Is that what Moroni teaches? Be a big baby?

[bryant69]

107. What a sad little person you are. n/t

[King Coal]

108. Yep. I have to believe in made-up stuff I'm so sad. LOL!

[melody]

44. I'd suggesting kicking your own tires first

I'm much more strict with my own ignorance than I am anyone else's. ;)

[Blashyrkh]

111. BULL. SHIT. You are trained to see and react to differences between people, not the similarities.

When you meet someone, you notice their height, colour, distinguishing features and then catergorise and treat them based on that assessment. That's how humans behave, but that is not human nature.

Have you ever noticed that "spark" when you meet someone who has the same interests as you, or someone who likes the same author, or band, that connection when two individuals "connect". That's human nature.

If human existence is as meaningless as the insects we crush as pests, then why do we bother striving towards ideals of "freedom", "liberty" and "justice". If we are hateful by nature, then fuck you and all your silly talk of "freedom". How can a hateful being co-exist with freedom? If you hate, you deprive others a free existence. If you deny others a free existence, what makes you free?

[maxsolomon]

3. we should make a rule covering every post: no generalizations.

all generalizations are bigoted.

:eyes:

[CT_Progressive]

5. Maybe you're right.

I thought limiting it to remarks about the Democratic Party would be suitable for DU rules since those are the only types of free-speech-impeding rules we have. But you could be right.

[AZ Criminal JD]

62. Your post is a generalization

It should be banned by your own rule.

[maxsolomon]

96. ya think?

;>)

[Dr. Strange]

110. Intolerance will not be tolerated.

[TheDoorbellRang]

92. I hate all bigots!

:7

[Kurovski]

6. RUN, AL, RUN!!! (nt)

[bleever]

84. Your response is off...uh...oh hell, RUN, AL RUN!!

:thumbsup:

[Kurovski]

109. I'm confused. Are you saying that you'd like it if

someone named "AL" ran for...president, perhaps?

Go Al Roker, go!!!

[Richard Steele]

8. You don't like the way DU is moderated; somehow that adds up to "bigotry".

Sour grapes make stale whine.

[saracat]

9. I agree but conversely, is it not equal bigotry to imply that those Dems

who do not agree with the DLC or are furious at various votes taken by the Democrats in congress are not real Democrats or "freeper trolls" ? The thing about the Democratic Party is we are a "big tent" and one of the greatest freedoms we have is to criticize ourselves. Unlike the GOP we do not walk in "lockstep". There are times I have thought we could "learn" from the GOP and a little bit of unity would be helpful, but not at the expense of diversity of opinion. We must reserve our right to express displeasure with the actions of our own party, otherwise what avenue would we have to influence the party as a whole?

[CT_Progressive]

11. I agree, but blaming of the many for the actions of a few is not criticism

its bigotry.

I'm all for criticism, as long as its properly placed.

[saracat]

21. I personally agree with differentiation between individual members and the broader interpetation but

the difficulty lies when such persons as the "Speaker'are the spokesperson for the party.When the Speaker outlines a position, it is the position of the party and it becomes difficult NOT to include the Party in the criticism even though some in Congress may not agree with it. This is a real "sticky wicket".

[CT_Progressive]

25. You have a very good point I hadn't considered.

It may be too difficult to tell the difference between criticism of a Party Platform position vs the members of the Party on the results of a vote. Maybe not.

I think we're all intelligent enough to make that distinction, just as you did.

[robinlynne]

91. When people say they are mad at "democrats" or congress, it doesn't mean

all democrats or all of congress. The democrats in Congress are right approximately half liberals/progressives and half dlc or right wing. On the really important votes, they split right down the middle, as in civil liberties, and the war. Noone is angry with the people who vote for our civil liberties and against the war; it is the Democrats voting to give Bush more power that people are angry at. including; Feinstein, Rahm Emmanuel, etc.

it has nothing to do with "bigotry" as you call it. It is real anger at our elected representatives handing more power to the monsters. There is no justifiable reason for it. Better for the next election is not a good enough reason to legalize the misuse of the FIsa courts, for example, or continue this illegal war.

[OzarkDem]

24. Big Tent is anathema to the DLC

it goes against their core principles. Their policy very much reflects the master/servant model.

[tandem5]

12. but we can still generalize all we want about republicans right?

those pasty-faced, double chinned, bible thumping, non-bible heeding, closeted homosexual gay-rights restricting, hypocritical, puppy kicking, child health care denying bastards!!!!

oh I feel better.

[bighart]

13. by this definition well over half

of what is posted here is bigoted. I'm just sayin'.

[CT_Progressive]

14. What if you're right? Should we ignore it just because its such a large percentage?

Or does that mean we should police ourselves and try to enlighten people to stop being so bigotted?

Your post seemed a little defeatist.

[bighart]

18. not defeatist,

just a realist. I believe it is possible to eliminate bias and bigotry from a moderated forum, but the unintended consequence is to squelch a broad range of opinion.

[CT_Progressive]

20. I totally agree with you.

That is why I wanted to discuss it.

As I said in my OP, there is already some speech banned here - anything advocating Greens, Libertarians, Republicans, etc. is banned and would be deleted from DU by the Admins.

I wonder if this goes over that line, or falls within it. That is why I appreciate your posts and general discussion about it.

[bighart]

29. I suppose the end-game is the important point to consider.

If the goal here is only to have like-minded people engaged in an exchange of "oh you are so correct" posts than limiting the subject matter and type of comments allowed to be posted is a good way to achieve that. If however the goal is to promote a free exchange of ideas and thought, then you will without doubt have to put up with bigotry and generalization.

[CT_Progressive]

31. I dont think we have to live with such extremes.

I think its totally plausible to have Board Moderation use their best judgement as to when something is simply a flat bigotted comment about the Democratic Party, and when something is a generalization against a specific idea or platform issue or vote.

It won't be perfect, but what is?

I think we can promote a free exchange of ideas and thought without having to allow obvious bigotry.

[bighart]

38. I tend to be one who would rather err to the side

not impeding someones right to be an idiot if they choose to be.

[Bluzmann57]

All mass produced beer stinks!

Oh wait, that's a generalization and way off topic. Sorry. Think I'll have a mass produced beer or two now to make up for the generalization.
On edit- Sorry, just trying to add some levity to the situation. You win a few, you lose a few.

[IDemo]

16. This should apply equally to state/region bashing

Which is occurring right now on GD, again, for the ~8,000th time.

If there's one thing I have never understood, it's the readiness to believe that entire states/regions/countries march in lockstep with a perceived notion, right or wrong, about their politics, and that they therefore all deserve (insert horrible fate or ridiculous reputation here). That's a form of prejudice I would hope we can rise above here.

[AuntPatsy]

17. Well there are many people on Du attempting to get these people to view

the newest outrage of the day by a dem to realize that they are individuals and as such should be addressed as individuals per their voting records and actions to date, I agree that pinpointing the latest outrage as bashing all dems is more than self defeating and plays right into the playbook of dem bashing written by those that oppose any and all things liberal...

[porphyrian]

22. No. You don't get to determine the language everyone has to use.

You're entitled to your opinion and right to voice it, so is everyone else. If you don't like what they have to say, you can ignore them and/or their thread. You don't have the right to control what people think or how they express it, though.

[CT_Progressive]

26. If you think that's true, make a new thread advocating a Green for President

See how long it lasts before its deleted by the Mods.

[porphyrian]

30. You didn't make that rule, the owners of DU did.

That doesn't justify your call to control our thoughts and language.

[CT_Progressive]

32. I think you don't understand the post.

I'm asking if people agree that bigotry against the Democratic Party goes against the spirit of this site, and that the MODS (not me) should adopt that into their rules.

Do you think that I do NOT have the right to bring this topic up for discussion? If so, why not?

[porphyrian]

37. You don't understand what I've written.

I told you that you're entitled to your opinion and that you have the right to express it. However, you do not have a right to control the thinking or the language of other posters, who are presumably following the same DU rules everyone else is. You don't get to make the rules any more than I do, nor do you get to define the spirit of DU and what behavior constitutes it, though you can feel whatever you like along those lines and post them here. I'm simply responding in kind with my own opinion about your opinion. I don't really understand what you don't understand about that.

[CT_Progressive]

39. Why do you think that I am trying to control other posters?

I am raising what I feel is something we can all agree on - bigotry is bad.

Now, taking it to the level of "banned from DU" is a whole other conversation, and its one I feel is fine to have. You seem to be implying that I am somehow wrong for bringing this topic up, as if I don't have the right to do so, only the owners of DU do.

So, that's why I'm asking you why you think I don't have the right to talk about potential changes to the DU rules?

I know for a fact that the Mods/Owners are pretty nice people, and maybe I can sway their opinion on this issue with this thread. Are you saying that I don't have the right to do that?

[porphyrian]

42. You aren't even aware of your own actions then.

You are making a call to change peoples' behavior and to institute new DU rules enforcing your behavior change. That is trying to control, by definition.

Adding new rules and banning only differ in matter of degree.

I never thought or suggested you couldn't talk about anything. That's what you're doing.

I am saying you are wrong for wanting to control the behavior of others rather than simply controlling your own.

[CT_Progressive]

46. So you disagree with the rules of DU prohibiting certain speech?

I'm trying to understand your point.

You seem to be saying its ok for the Owner of DU to "control the behavior of others rather than simply controlling his own" because this is his website, but its not ok for me to try to influence him to extend his already-existing rules to cover one additional topic?

You don't see that as hypocritical ?

[porphyrian]

58. No, I disagree with your trying to prohibit certain speech.

When I signed up at DU, I accepted DU rules. I do not accept your attempt to define what speech is acceptable on DU and I do not agree with your campaign to change DU rules to reflect your opinion.

You also signed up and accepted the same rules I did. If they weren't stringent enough for you, maybe you should leave rather than trying to alter DU for everyone.

[CT_Progressive]

63. I see, so basically you're against people expressing their opinion.

You are defending your right to be bigoted against the entire Democratic Party for the actions of a few.

Wow, how liberal of you.

:eyes:

[porphyrian]

95. No, you are having comprehension problems.

My position, which I've stated repeatedly, is clear and easy to understand. The problem must be with you. I don't know if you're intentionally trying to argue to keep your lame post kicked or if you really are having a hard time wrapping whatever constitutes your head around such a simple concept, but I am no longer interested in trying to help you either way.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Aaahhhhhhh shaaaaaddddaaaap

That is all.

[BlackVelvet04]

27. Isn't this something you should take up

with the admin?

[CT_Progressive]

28. I'd rather talk about it with the great people of DU first.

Maybe I'm wrong, and people can enlighten me to things I hadn't considered.

One person already did. :)

[baby_mouse]

33. That's an absolutel APPALLING definition of bigotry. NT

[CT_Progressive]

34. Please direct your complaint to Mirriam-Webster. Thanks! (nt)

[baby_mouse]

94. I might. It's crap. NT

[bighart]

40. it is very broad and general isn't it.

That is actually kind of ironic. Do you a better definition?

[...of J.Temperance]

35. How about

A request to Elad and Earl G - I can't remember which one of them is responsible for the technical maintenance of DU.

How about, as there's literally a TON of Sub-Forums here at DU, what about a DLC Sub-Forum?

It'd be a place where DLCer's could be in and have discussions and whatnot, and those who are GENUINELY interested in having POLITE, COURTEOUS and sensible discussions with us, would be extremely welcome.

Instead of us having to run the gauntlet in threads EVERYTIME something goes wrong in politics, and a crowd of people descending on us SCREECHING and BLAMING US for EVERYTHING that goes wrong, and calling us names like "parasites", "whores" and "evil".

To be honest, the UGLY diatribes and rants, OFTEN making NO SENSE whatsoever, are getting REALLY boring in the extreme....NOBODY pays attention to those who screech and rant ugly and nonsensical diatribes.

Of course, as with the other DU Sub-Forums, we'd still make comments in GD and GD: Politics, but our own Sub-Forum would be a place where we could go to escape the screeching, venom and hatred that's directed at the DLC and DLCer's, and some of it is quite personal I might add.

Anyhow, it's only a request, and I've probably put this request in the wrong forum and in the middle of a thread....D'oh!

Oh and to the person who posted the OP here, I'll give you a vote for your thread because I think you raise some interesting points.

[CT_Progressive]

36. Thanks, OJT.

For what its worth, I find that the most traffic on any website forum is usually the forum marked "General". But, if you're happy with a subforum with lesser traffic, I'm all for it.

[...of J.Temperance]

41. No problem :)

You raise some interesting points, of course I'm not too surprised that some people are telling you off in your thread *sigh*

I think we, the DLCer's would obviously still make comments here in GD and GD Politics....but I'd also be quite happy to have our own small Sub-Forum, at least it'd be a place where we could escape to, to avoid the mayhem when they need to have a rant and screech about how the DLC and DLCer's are responsible for EVERY WRONG on....well, the PLANET it seems sometimes....Lol! Ridiculous really.

I like DU, heck I've been here long enough so I should, but the ranting about the DLC is getting very boring, and the personal attacks, you know I don't think we need to tolerate that sort of crap thrown at us....I don't appreciate getting called a "parasite" or a "corporate whore" and I DON'T APPRECIATE BEING TOLD TO LEAVE MY OWN DAMN POLITICAL PARTY EITHER!



On Edit: Dammit misplaced emoticon....D'oh!

[Sparkly]

66. I'd much rather you guys stayed around the big forums.

I'd rather see a sub-forum for people who say things like that. Don't know what it'd be called, though.

[melody]

43. That's not bigotry -- Democrats are not structurally a "political group" - we self-select

Now there's a straight line. lol

You're tongue-in-cheek mocking the bigotry argument, of course, but it doesn't fit in this case. Ask any anthropologist or sociologist. But it'll get you some high fives in the lounge. ;)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. That's a really silly distortion of the word "bigot"

[fishwax]

54. and to think, I clicked on this thread thinking it would be about real bigotry

fooled again :dunce:

[Kajsa]

103. I believe the definition comes straight from

the dictionary.

Here's another one from Merriam-Webster online,

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot

bigot

Main Entry:
big·ot
Pronunciation:
\?bi-g?t\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-g?-t?d\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

Hey, whadda know?
Same " silly distortion" in this one, too.

[undeterred]

47. Does that include bashing particular religious groups

which is almost always done by people who base their understanding of that group on extremely limited experience with them? Take Mormons, for example. We can't seem to go 2 days without a Mormon bashing post around here.

[Mutineer]

60. Christians of all demoninations are regularly bashed here

but apparently that's okay. Just don't insult your fellow Dems! Sorry OP but you are using the word bigotry for your own warped purposes to fit your own warped argument. No sell from me on this one.

[ruiner4u]

90. aww..you poor poor victimized majority religion..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. Yes.

Just last week we exorcised the Pentagramalists.

[Orsino]

48. Anyone not part of the solution is part of the problem.

So, yes, anyone calling himself a Democrat shares at least a little responsibility. Every letter I fail to send, every contribution I fail to make, every protest I fail to attend--these comprise my particular piece of the blame pie.

[fishwax]

50. Equating a comment like "The Dems are Spineless" with bigotry is just BS

[TahitiNut]

51. Wow. You make bigotry sound so .... trivial.

Congratulations. :eyes:

:puke:

[fishwax]

52. trivial

:thumbsup:

why couldn't I think of that word? :freak:

All I could think of was Bullshit. :rofl:

[Swamp Rat]

53. Since you are new here I find it difficult to listen to this complaint.

The rules are fine the way they are.

Why don't you stick around for a few years to see how the current set of rules work, then bring it up again?

[CT_Progressive]

56. I have been here a few years. 6 in fact.

I just never posted till recently.

So, does my post now magically become valid ?

p.s. this kind of remark (have to be a DU vet to be valid) pisses me and other people off.

[Swamp Rat]

59. "So, does my post now magically become valid?" - No.

Ok, I will take your word for it that you have been lurking here for all that time. Nevertheless, the rules are fine the way they are.

Nowhere in your profile does it say you have been a lurker here for 6 years, so you appeared to be new as far as I could tell. Plus, you wouldn't be the first new DUer to complain about the rules, as I have seen this type of complaint many times over the years.

"p.s. this kind of remark (have to be a DU vet to be valid) pisses me and other people off." - You and what army? :D

[CT_Progressive]

65. You implied that my suggestion was invalid due to my lack of time here at DU.

If you still think its invalid, now what do you attribute it to?

Or don't you have an opinion on the subject?

[Swamp Rat]

71. I already told you my opinion, but I will repeat it: The rules are fine they way they are.

"You implied that my suggestion was invalid due to my lack of time here at DU." - 1) I did not imply anything. I told you directly what I thought. 2) Why are you continuing this interrogative since I already answered it?

[CT_Progressive]

73. OK, so your position is bigotry and broad-brushed attacks against the Dem Party is ok.

Even though the entire Dem Party doesn't deserve to be attacked?

Got it. You vote for bigotry.

[Swamp Rat]

"You vote for bigotry." - Calling a DUer a bigot is against the rules.

You are obviously not the right person to decide what is good for DU regarding the rules.

[CT_Progressive]

80. Seems I am - my suggestion in the OP is already a rule here at DU.

I just must of missed it in reading the rules.

Oh well.

[Swamp Rat]

81. You should apologize for calling me a bigot. n/t

[CT_Progressive]

82. I dont feel that I did, but if you were insulted, then I'm sorry for my comments.

[aikoaiko]

55. only as long as we are still able to call a spade a spade.

:)

[CT_Progressive]

57. Agreed.

[Katherine Brengle]

61. Wow, I thought this thread might be meaningful from the title, but it turns out nope.

Deriding the Democratic Party for CHOOSING TO ACT LIKE PITIFUL MORONS AND KISS CORPORATE AMERICA'S ADD ETC ETC ETC is not bigotry.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Clark2008]

67. How 'bout when they assume all Southerners vote for Republicans?

Or that all Southerners are backward... or redneck...?

That's bigotry, too, particularly since 42 to 48 percent of Southerners (who vote) didn't vote for the creep in any given state.

[CT_Progressive]

69. I agree its bigotry. But I am trying to be careful not to infringe on free speech too much.

I simply noted that DU already prohibits strong anti-Democratic Party posts. We all agreed to that when we joined.

Bigotry against the Party, in my opinion, falls into that already-existing limitation on free speech on this site.

What you say is true, but out of the scope of moderator intervention, I feel.

[Sparkly]

68. I think that's already in the rules....

You said, "I call for a change to the Rules of DU, prohibiting the broad-brushed, biggoted attacks on the Democratic Party as a whole."

It's already there:

"Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[CT_Progressive]

70. Hmmm, I see. Well, maybe I should re-word my request then.

Can we start enforcing that rule when people blame all Democrats for the failings of just a few ?

[Sparkly]

Yes.

Click "alert," and quote the rule for the mods' reference.

Maybe we should all do that more often.

[dorkulon]

72. That is completely idiotic.

Think for one second and you'll see your argument applies equally to Republicans. All you're really saying is "don't criticize me or my group." Argument fails miserably.

[CT_Progressive]

74. Actually it appears my suggestion is already a rule here at DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party
--- Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.




Sorry, how idiotic was my suggestion again?

Want some ketchup with your crow?

[dorkulon]

75. I don't see anything in there about bigotry.

I know you're not supposed to smear the Democratic Party in a Democratic forum, but calling it bigotry is--I'll say it again--idiotic.

[CT_Progressive]

77. Actually, not realizing that its bigory is what's idiotic.

But this thread can die now. No need for it.

[dorkulon]

78. Is it bigotry when I say, "Republicans are ignorant, violent authoritarians?"

Or is it an astute assessment of reality? If I can insult the GOP and not be a bigot, then obviously the same thing applies for Democrats.

[CT_Progressive]

79. It is bigotry in both cases. One is illegal on DU, the other is allowed.

I don't make the rules, I just obey them.

I'll be /reporting any post that flames the democratic party from now on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. So then isn't your OP bigoted against freepers?

Using your logic?

[CT_Progressive]

76. I apologize for not being more thorough reading the current rules. My suggestion is already a rule.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party
      Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.


Thanks for the great discussion. Well, from some of you, anyway.

[Danger Mouse]

83. Bigotry???

:rofl:
oh man. you're too much.

[Kurovski]

85. I'm bigoted against horsecrap hitting the Greatest Page.

Just kidding.

[lostnotforgotten]

86. Calling Out DLCers Is Not Bigotry - It Is Truthful Recognition Of The Opposition

eom

[Gregorian]

87. And not just any opposition. They're fake Democrats.

It's not like they're Independents. I have no problem with Nader, and I never have. But the DLC was devised to divide.

[ThomCat]

88. Geez. From your title I thought you were posting something

worth reading. I'd love to see an end to sexism, homophobia, racism and other forms of prejudice here at DU.

Imagine my disapointment when I read your post and and saw it's actually just a shallow call for conformity. :(

[motocicleta]

89. Comparing anonymous negativity towards a political party

on a website to bigotry is the most preposterous analogy I have EVER seen.

Perhaps you know bigotry? Where innocents are harmed because of idiotic beliefs? Where people with dark skin are murdered? Where women are murdered? Where minorities have no hope of advancement in their careers due to prejudices? Are you for real, suggesting that folks being pissed at our party for one reason or many is similar to those instances of bigotry?

I can't believe I just responded to this idiocy. I suppose I am a bigot now. Lowest Common Denominator America, this OP is. If anyone can be a victim of bigotry, then everyone can. What a crock.

[bvar22]

93. You're right!

Our wrath should be reserved for:

*The Party leadership (Reid, Pelosi, Emmanuel, Hoyer)

*Those Dems who voted FOR the IWR

*Those Dems who voted FOR Kyle/Lieberman

*Those Dems who voted FOR the Bankruptcy Bill

*Those Dems who voted FOR CAFTA

*Those Dems who opposed the Alito/Roberts filibuster

*Those Dems who vote to FUND the WAR without timelines

*Those Dems who support the Oil Law Benchmark

*Those Dems who oppose holding the Bush Admn accountable to the Constitution (Impeachment)

*Those Dems who are members of the DLC

*Those Dems who didn't actively support Lamont after he defeated Lieberman in the Primary

*The DCCC (for rigging Democratic Primaries)

*The DSCC (for rigging Democratic Primaries)

*Those Dems who oppose the DNC "50 State Plan" (Dean)

*Those Dems who oppose Public Financing of Elections

*Those Dems who ignore the BBV problem

*Those Dem Senators who didn't stand with the Black Caucus opposing the 2000 Election Theft

*Those Dem Senators who didn't stand with Boxer in 2004.

Aside from those Dems, I'm pretty much OK with the rest.

[AngryAmish]

99. I agree we need to cleanse our nation of the bigots

We need to stamp them out completely.

[RiverStone]

100. Telling folks they "should" not do something....

Does not work around here.

Letting the Mods enforce the rules of the road does work.

Besides, what you see as Bigotry I see (mostly) as simply democracy in action. Much of the anger is justified in my view. I have been voting straight DEM for 30 years - and plan to continue doing so...unless my party and the values it stands for leaves me.

I see the fighting on DU as for the heart and soul of what defines who we are! Conflict is healthy when done in moderation - though simply name calling alone does little. But when the dust settles, I hope we will have a Democratic Platform at the convention in Denver which truly represents DEM values!

Based on recent votes on The Hill, I see questioning the Dem war enablers as not only valid, but patriotic!

I am a Democrat and that means something!