This one comes from the heart.

[Pab Sungenis]

I left Democratic Underground on Saturday. I didn't pull the usual histrionics with a big "I'M LEAVING DU!" post like some people, although I did PM Skinner I was saving him the effort of tombstoning me, but I made the conscious decision not to post here ever again.

After watching more of the nonsense going on here over the last few days (this is still one of the best political news sites out there), however, and with a changeover in the moderator forces coming up, I figured just walking away wasn't the right answer. There's an old belief that silence is equivalent to consent, and I didn't want anyone to think that I like or approve of how things have gotten in recent weeks. I also feel that some (although hardly all) of the people on here who have been creating the hostile environment are good people who don't realize what they've been doing and need to be told so.

So please try to fight back your knee-jerk reactions to everything in this posting, as I fought back the desire to tell a lot of people here to "fuck off" over the weekend, and try to approach all this as rational adults.

Most long-time participants here know my story. I'm a former syndicated radio host, former movie theater owner (before the recession really hit in late 2006), and current syndicated comic strip aritst struggling to get by on what little savings I have left after my mother's house burned down last month with no insurance, forcing me into the decision of whether to pay my back mortgage, or make sure she still had a roof over her head.

I'm also a gay man who has refused to hide that fact since shortly after leaving college. In the fall of 1992, before New Jersey even thought about any kind of anti-discrimination law for gays, I left a good broadcasting job, and probably mortally wounded my career, because of anti-gay harassment by a manager which his boss just laughed off when I complained. That boss, by the way, was the local Democratic chair, not some rabid Reaganite fundamentalist. That was the first of many lessons I learned about the real position of gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party.

Two weeks later, Bill Clinton was elected the 42nd President, and I felt confident that things were going to get better for gays and lesbians. After all, Clinton had run on the most aggressively gay-friendly platform in history. I had no idea how wrong I was; the Clinton Administration signed DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, and brought about one of the most homophobic atmospheres since the early days of the AIDS scare.

Some people on here have tried shouting down my criticism of Obama's treatment of gays since his election, and my reluctance to think that it's going to get any better under him, by saying that "Obama's platform is the most gay-friendly ever." Maybe, if you don't count Howard Dean's in 2004. Or Cynthia McKinney's or Ralph Nader's this year. Or any of a hundred smaller candidates who are classified as "unelectable." An overwhelming majority of gay Americans voted against their best interests on November 4th by opting for Obama's "gay-friendly-lite" campaign instead of those of minor party candidates because we believed that he had a chance of getting elected and instituting at least the half-baked separate-but-equal policies he campaigned on, instead of fighting for full rights.

In the weeks after Obama's election, those of us who are old enough to remember the lost dreams of the Clinton years experienced a major form of deja-vu. We watched the man we fought to help get elected lend legitimacy to today's friendly face of homophobia, Rick Warren, by asking him to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. We watched talk of considering gay Americans for his cabinet devolve into leaking one lesbian's name to the press, then ignoring her when the time came. We watched him elevate to the chairmanship of the DNC, replacing a man who signed a domestic partnership bill in his state at a time when it was considered political suicide, a governor who won his office, in part, by campaigning to destroy the types of rights his predecessor as DNC chair fought to preserve. And now all talk of repealing DOMA has disappeared, with just talk of "civil unions" taking its place.

It's no coincidence, I feel, that Barack Obama is acting this way in the area of GLBT rights. Obama is the first man elected President who did not come of age in the era of either slavery or Jim Crow. Born in 1961, the final battles of the Civil Rights Movement for African Americans were fought in his childhood, and the largest battles in that fight happened before he was even conceived. Brown v. Board of Education was seven years before his birth. Barack Obama never had to sit at the back of a bus; Rosa Parks made her stand six years before he was born. He was probably only starting to speak full sentences when Dr. King told us all of his dream, and when his voting rights were secured by the Voting Rights Act, he was still 17 years shy of voting age.

To Obama, the Civil Rights Movement is part of the history he learned in school, not a living event as it had been for eleven of his predecessors. He is a beneficiary of it, and it can easily be argued that his election is the fulfillment of it, but his understanding of it is different from that of previous black presidential candidates like Shirley Chisolm, Jesse Jackson, and even Alan Keyes.

On the other hand, I was born a little more than a month after Stonewall. There has not been a single moment of my life when gays and lesbians have not been actively fighting to protect their rights. As I said above, I've been a victim of job discrimination, something Barack Obama honestly cannot say. I've been denied the right to marry, something Obama should be very glad can not be said about his parents. Should I have chosen to, I would not have been allowed to serve in the military, and my orientation still can keep me from serving my country in some civilian areas.

Obama has spoken good words on gays and lesbians, but then again, so did Clinton. For that matter, so did George W. Bush in 2000! It wasn't until 2002, and the need to energize the religious right for the midterm elections, that Bush's real anti-gay leanings were brought to the fore. Hell, Bush was roundly criticized by the right wing because he refused to overturn Clinton's anti-military-witchhunt executive orders. That should help you understand, to a degree, my reluctance to "hope for the best" from an Obama Administration whose approach during its transition to gays and lesbians has been even more antagonistic than was the same period for the most-hated President in all history, who he will be replacing in less than a week.

After the 2004 loss, my partner and I started researching a move to Canada. We seriously contemplated it again this September when it looked like McCain might actually pull off the election. We've stayed and fought it out, but when all you hear are more pretty words and all you see are more slaps in the face, whether intentional or not, you have to wonder if we made the right choice after all, and it's sad that six days before the inauguration I have to sit here wondering if we should take the plunge and go north after all.

Getting back to why I stopped posting here, and still half want to stay away, I've found the snide, condescending attitude of some people here when it comes to the issue of Obama and gays to be horribly offensive. I will not pretend to know what it truly was like for blacks during segregation, but so many heterosexuals here on DU feel the need to pretend to know what it's been like for me, and millions of others, in this battle. For all of you, GLBT issues are academic ones, like transportation policy or theories on economic development, but for us they are bread and butter issues, and when a decade after Matthew Shepard killers of gays and lesbians can still get off with a slap of a wrist, a matter of life and death. So when you call us drama queens, or mock our frustration and anger, it truly does hurt. And when certain moderators give all the leeway in the world to the mockers yet liken our complaints to gas can and match, it's not that much of a logical leap to feel personally betrayed by the people you've fought shoulder to shoulder with in the political trenches, thinking that you were all fighting for the same things.

These are our lives in question here, and if you can't sympathize, fine, but don't mock the seriousness of these issues and why many of us feel betrayed already, and will believe all the pie in the sky promises you keep touting when we see them.

When Obama urges Congress to repeal Don't Ask, and DOMA, and promises to sign the resulting bills, maybe then I'll believe. Until then, I hate to tell you this, but we've heard it all before from both sides of the aisle. Fool us once, shame on you. We won't get fooled again.

Thank you. I'll go fade back into the shadows now and try to figure out how I'm going to save my house now that I've helped my mother save hers. Maybe when, and if, I come back, some of you will have a new perspective on what all this "nonsense" means to me, and other GLBT Americans and why we feel the way we do.

I'd like to think, were the shoe on the other foot, we'd be there with you unlike too many people here right now.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. My dear pabsungenis...

I was unaware of your very poignant history, and I want to tell you that I will never mock the dreams and hopes of my GLBT friends.

Your essay is indeed from the heart, and I am proud to recommend it.

I do hope that Obama will fulfill his promises!

K&R

:hug:

[yardwork]

17. That's kind of you to say, but.....you did.

Everybody who kicked and rec'ed a certain thread some weeks ago mocked the hopes and dreams of every GLBTQ person and their supporters. Perhaps you didn't realize that?

[LostinVA]

23. Yes

[CaliforniaPeggy]

24. Can you provide me a link?

Hypocrisy is not something I want to ever be guilty of.

[yardwork]

26. You are as familiar with DU rules as I am so you know that I can't provide a link.

A record number of DUers kicked and recommended a thread telling the entire gay community on DU and our allies to shut up. It was extremely hurtful and, as welcome as kind responses are now, they don't undo past actions.

[uppityperson]

could you pm me it?

If I kicked it I am ashamed. Thank you.

Pab, best wishes and there is still a really long ways to go. People amaze me often, and not in a positive way (NOT meaning negative towards you).

[yardwork]

40. I haven't seen it in a while. It lived on the Greatest page for a long time.

If you don't think that you agreed with it, I doubt that you did!

[QC]

43. 329 recommendations for that ghastly thread.

I will never forget that, and I will never feel the same way about this place again.

[yardwork]

51. It was a turning point, and I won't forget who rec'ed it either.

[QC]

52. That thread is what finally made me acknowledge that the community I had known since 2001

was truly gone forever, replaced with something strange and a little scary.

[defendandprotect]

109. I don't think homophobes take over at DU by accident ---

First, the thread should have been LOCKED --

Where were the Moderators who shut down threads at the drop of a snowflake????

Obviously, DU has lost a lot of good people -- before my time.

But, letting something like that thread go on seems a great miscarriage of justice

at DU. And, I am left to question whether those Mods should ever be back on the

job at DU again---

[yardwork]

111. Psst. I happen to know that the thread was brought to the attention of Admins.

Who declined to lock it. And complained about the complaint, if you follow me.

[defendandprotect]

169. If we want to end homophobia at DU, we need to keep that in mind...!!!

[The Doctor.]

265. Does it not occur to anyone...

that there may not have been a legitimate cause for locking it? I know, it's crazy to think that a mod might be acting in strict accordance with the rules rather than some bit of bigotry... but might that not be the case?

If an OP breaks no rules, then are we saying that enough complaints about the thread's perceived character should override a mods adherence to the rules? What then should be the threshold for number of complaints necessary to get a thread locked?

I don't discount the possibility that a troll made it to moderator status... many have tried. But it should be pretty cut and dried; either a thread breaks the rules in a demonstrative way, or it doesn't.

Not having one's personal perceptions validated does not necessarily indicate bigotry.

[yardwork]

274. As you can see, there are differences of opinion.

Does "not having one's personal perceptions validated indicate bigotry?" As you say, not necessarily. On the other hand, sometimes, yes, invalidation of certain perceptions is indeed a valid indicator of bigotry. There are rules on DU that include the expectation of adherence to a specific set of principles, of which gay rights is one.

On the matter of different interpretations, I'd say that everybody knows in their own hearts how they personally interpreted these and many other threads on DU, and everybody knows what they intended if they posted replies. If a person was genuinely in the dark about the implied threat to gay folks, and posted in good faith, then there's no problem.

I think that you can see by the responses to this thread, however, that many people immediately recognized these and other threads' meanings as calls to bigotry. So far, I've only seen a few responses in this thread from folks who posted without intending harm. I accept them at their word. That leaves more than 300 other folks - many of them daily posters to DU who are posting merrily away in other threads right now, as we speak - who aren't contradicting anyone's assumptions about why they supported said threads. Is their silence a tacit acknowledgment? My guess is as good as yours.

"If an OP breaks no rules..." Yes, that's the excuse we've been given. This is, after all, a message board, though. Perceptions are 9/10 of participation. As you can see, a lot of folks seem to find the threads in question to be rule-breakers. Obviously you disagree. Disagreement to be expected on a message board.

A fundamental difference between our conversation right here and the ones that are causing the harm on DU is that in this conversation, you and I aren't telling one another to shut up. Neither of us is telling the other that their opinion is harmful to the president-elect and the country. Neither of us is telling the other that their opinion is a reflection of selfishness, greed, thoughtlessness, and arrogance.

(And before you point out that suggesting that a thread be locked is the same as telling the OP to shut up, I'll respond that there are rules on DU, and those rules include adherence to some DU principles, one of which is the support of gay rights. To me, the word "support" indicates more than lip service followed by insensitive and even homophobic verbal abuse. So yes, I happen to think that the threads in question broke those rules, which is why I asked for them to be locked. Clearly the mods and admins disagreed. That doesn't make them trolls. It does make me question how well DU's rules are being applied lately.)

[The Doctor.]

287. Well, perception is always a grey area.

Oh, and in case I hadn't mentioned it before, your rationality is appreciated.

Basically, it still boils down to whether or not any rules have demonstrably been broken. Once we resort to a system of lockdowns based on a number of complaints rather than substance, then we open the door to anything being locked by any small group of actors, rather than by interpretation of the rules by the mods.

Here's an example of how a thread was locked, not because it broke any rules, but because the participants deliberately pushed the envelope;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8036150#8036215

The thing here is this; The poster made a fairly legitimate and well thought out point about needing to have bipartisan support to save the economy, and that there may be a real choice between losing political capital by trying to ramrod equal rights legislation, or securing the economy while letting the fight for equal rights take place on the ground where it always has.

I've seen no one say 'shut up and wait'. What I've seen are people saying that the courts WILL eventually rule that discrimination is unconstitutional. One executive order, or bully-pulpit inspired piece of legislation actually could make that fight more difficult and take longer... all the while blowing away cooperation that can save the future of America.

That is not saying; "Just wait because there are 'more important' things.", it's saying "Should we risk the sacrifice the future of an entire nation to push for something that will happen whether the President tries to force the issue or not?"

Now that I have stated that there seems to be a legitimate point to the OP's concern, Am I the enemy now? No, of course not.

If people seriously think about it; What would happen if Obama DID try to force equal rights legislation?

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with his doing so... but what might the cost be?

That is honest speculation. I'd like to think that such a legislative push wouldn't be used to divide and enrage the nation against its own best interests, but those of us who have been paying attention know that such an event is likely.

[yardwork]

288. Um, that was another thread telling gay people to shut up and another inflammatory locking message.

That wasn't a good example.

For one thing, the issue with Warren isn't about asking Obama to push legislation. It's about a decision to honor an outspoken bigot at a Democratic president's inauguration. Obama created this issue himself. We didn't create it. I never expected or wanted Obama to chose a "gay representative" for the inauguration or his cabinet. I didn't want or expect him to make an issue out of it one way or the other. He did that.

Second, nobody is asking Obama to make gay rights the top priority and certainly not the only priority. The country's in a shambles. I know that. Everybody here on DU knows that. It's kind of insulting to be told in slow patronizing tones day in and day out that there are other issues. We know that. On the other hand, it's wrong for one group of people to have fewer rights than everybody else. A Democratic administration that ignores that issue is on morally perilous ground.

Your points are well-taken. There's little disagreement over them. The trouble is that every day when I open up DU there is yet another thread calling me out as a lesbian. Yet another OP insulting me for having the temerity to object to Warren. Attempting to intimidate me into shutting up. That's the problem.

[The Doctor.]

296. Well, I just re-read through it, carefully, for the third time.

This one;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8036150#8036215
(just so we're on the same page)

Now where, precisely, does it tell anyone to "shut up"?

See, I have no problem acknowledging anger. I've had to do it for many years. It's not hard to see why anyone, yourself included, has every right to be angry. I too have been the victim of homophobia... it's why I learned to fight as a teenager. I can't imagine what it is like going through your whole life being told that you are some kind of abomination. Nor can I pretend to.

But here's the other part of the equation;

I've also spent many years bringing people to introspection. The process is simple enough, and it requires the application of rational thinking. Since you're already there, no techniques are necessary.

Ready?

Exactly WHERE, or exactly HOW did that OP tell anyone to "shut up"?

[yardwork]

322. I've cut and pasted some of the phrases from that thread below.

Context is very important here, too. Remember that this thread was written by someone who had already written other, more overtly offensive posts that had been locked. Also, the thread appeared after weeks of turmoil here.

You know how angry and hurt folks already feel, so imagine how those angry, hurt people feel when they see the phrases I've cut and pasted from the thread you reference below. Does the word condescension come to mind? Might the people who are already hurt and angry find these words somewhat demeaning?

I don't like being referred to as being part of some random group. I don't like being told that grownups are telling me something that I'm too childish to understand. Emotional satisfaction? And marriage, being a civil contract that provides at least 1,000 benefits denied to the unmarried - life-saving benefits like health insurance, survivor's benefits, the right to visit a dying partner in the hospital despite the wishes of homophobic in-laws - is a lot more than the emotional gratification of marrying the one you love.

Do you see how this might have been perceived as telling us to shut up?

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

Whether you are straight or gay

or what the fuck ever random group...

very serious, grown-up experts are telling us there is a genuine and looming threat of a repeat of that Great Depression...

This means putting off any sort of emotional satisfaction we as Progressives might enjoy by ramrodding a Progressive agenda down America's throat in the same fashion Bush did with his Neo-Con agenda. If we aren't grown up enough to do that...

You may want to ignore these dire, terrifying ideas because it is more intriguing to flame on forever against each other about Warren ....

but I think he placed the opposing ideas on a scale and saving the country from a second Great Depression weighed just a bit heavier than avoiding angering an already upset and wounded GBLT community...

but that is a childish impulse...

the emotional gratification of marrying the one you love might not be worth the price of both of you starving to death....

[defendandprotect]

303. I wouldn't argue for ....

"locking" such a thread ...

I would argue that Skinner's stated policy on supporting homosexual rights --

including "gay" marriage -- should call for more than a Mod locking it ...

what Skinner said was something like ... "if the poster doesn't like that policy,

the poster an consider posting elsewhere" -- (paraphrasing)

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[DWilliamsamh]

218. How many mebers are on DU? 329 is a tiny minority.

On DU as well as in the larger society there are a number of people who don't take these issues seriously, but I confidently point out that on DU, you face a MUCH smaller segment of peers who feel that way. In any group there will be people who vehemently disagree with you on some point or another - even points you take as mother's milk, rock bottom issues. If you seek 100% agreement with your point of view and the order of priorities you wil never find that. Not even in your own house. That is reality.

I want to make one personal point: That I do not agree with where you place certain issues (be it gay marriage, or nuclear proliferation) on the list of priorities does not mean that I will not or do not devote my energy and efforts toward the achievement of those goals. And I (like the vast majority of DU members) did not recommend the thread in question nor any other like thread. The OP slanders me and the majority of DU. I understand the passion and sense of urgency that leads to the post but I implore such posters to try to remember to have a bit of reality based perspective.

[The Doctor.]

255. Actually, the thread just complained about all the incessant fighting.

It didn't tell the GLBT community to 'shut up and get over it', but angry people will see insults anywhere there is not abject agreement.

The OP didn't understand how hot topics often dominate, and that the extreme infighting was just a phase that will become a dull roar for a few months until Obama either does something right or wrong.

[yardwork]

276. As you can see, many people have a very different interpretation of those threads.

If you read the entire threads in question, you might see why that is.

[The Doctor.]

282. I have.

And I can understand how the 'STFU' meme is construed, but that doesn't change the fact that any perceived implicit content is highly subjective.

Those in adversarial mode will always interpret whatever can be construed negatively as an attack. Those who have been put in a socially defensive position, been treated like garbage by the powers that be, are naturally inclined to fight.

As I've said before; some assholes might be out just to get a rise out of people through thinly disguised bigotry. Should they get their way by pushing people's anger buttons... they win.
Many people, especially here on DU have legitimate concerns that rage is getting the better of people. When those people are attacked for asking for unity or begging for sanity or reason, their concerns are proven justified.

Either way, the only people who benefit from the infighting are the instigators.

I've asked people not to let their buttons get pushed so easily, or better yet... not to push their own buttons out of perceived slights that either aren't there, or are otherwise more a matter of interpretation than explicit substance.

You'll never guess what I've been called for doing so. :think:

Rampant, non-discerning outrage only opens the door to ruin, and right now, I've no doubt that some people have had a field day watching it happen here.

[yardwork]

284. Isn't it frustrating when people won't take your advice, no matter how good or well-meant?

It's one of those things. Angry people tend to stay angry until their anger is acknowledged. That's why group facilitators are taught to acknowledge everyone's emotions before beginning the task of reconciliation. Skipping the acknowledgment step - or worse, fanning the flames of anger by continuing with the words and actions that prompted those strong emotions in the first place - is inevitably futile.

As I've posted here in this thread, my initial responses to the Warren thing were far different than they are now. I've been radicalized by the behavior of other DUers. You have said the same, as have other posters.

Now would be a good time for facilitators to step in, start applying DU rules evenly, and stop fanning the flames. Unfortunately....

[The Doctor.]

253. 329 Recs for a thread that told people to just shut up?

That's virtually impossible to believe.

It's even harder to believe that California Peggy has one nasty hair on her body.

[Zomby Woof]

69. Here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8036794


Sometimes, the zeal for approval and validation, the need to be on the bandwagon, to go with whichever way the current seems to be going, wherever the din of the crowd may lead, overrides wisdom, reason, or compassion. So they go in there with their 'thumbsup' emoticon and "proud K&R" unthinkingly. As long as it gets them a 'hug' emoticon and a virtual pat on the back, thet are going to be oblivious to any offense or hurt they have caused. Approval and validation above all! There are some sick, narcissistic, overly needy people all over here, to be sure. Most of them are guilty of K&R'ing on threads from all sides of the issue. No inner convictions, other than the pathological NEED for love, approval, and saccharine praise.

[Nederland]

130. I don't get it

I read the OP several times and don't understand what the problem with it is.

Perhaps people who know the poster and things he posted before this might read something into this post, but someone just looking at the post by itself would be clueless, as I am now. What exactly is it in this particular OP that is so offensive?

Now this post, by the same author, is offensive: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8036150

[Starry Messenger]

133. Actually the post you link was locked about 5 minutes before

he rolled out the other OP. So in context, yes...very offensive.

[Nederland]

148. Yes, but how many knew that?

How many of the people who read and rec'd the OP knew that the author had previously posted some pretty offensive stuff? Personally I don't find it odd that many people rec'd that thread. It didn't even mention GLBT issues.

[RaleighNCDUer]

260. good point. I never saw the first locked thread, so when I saw the

follow up thread i was really at sea as to what the seemingly over-the-top responses were all about.

Now i understand.

[yardwork]

162. And the other one was locked, according to mod message, not because of the OP

but because some of the replies were "ostentatious."

[awoke_in_2003]

150. Both are by the same author...

both are telling gay people to shut up and sit down- one nicely, one rudely, but both doing the same thing.

[Nederland]

153. Where?

I agree that the post I linked to is offensive, but what in the other one is so bad? Show me the sentence you have a problem with, because I'm mystified.

[awoke_in_2003]

164. It is subtle, but from the 3rd paragraph...

"being drowned out by a din of repetitious noise that has very little to do with anything other than sheer negativity, ugliness and reproach."
What has happened in the "shut up and sit down" threads I have seen, is someone will say "come on, civil rights are important, but there are things of higher priority". Someone will shoot back that civil rights should be a top priority for all, to which the poster will come back with a weak assed defense and get called on it. This person calls that ugliness.

Or, it will have something to do with (p)Rick Warren. This was a wrong headed choice any way you cut it. A little digging will show where this guy equates homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. He is also mysoginistic, and thinks that women should be subservient to men. The offending items have been cleansed from his website (shortly after the shit started hitting the fan) but google cache is your friend. This guy should be removed, not only for his opinions on gay people, but for his opinion of women.

Yes, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed by this president. But civil rights for all should be at the top- and I am also including the Patriot act in this, as it violates at least 4 of the bill of rights. If every one does not have civil rights, none of us do- or at least may not in the near future.

The government sending out the message they do by their actions, we get things like the Matthew Shephard killing, or the woman who was gang raped because she had a gay pride sticker on her car. The gov't needs to start sending the signal that this stuff will not be tolerated. That is the first step. Will it stop overnight? No, but then again, neither did the lynchings in the south. Being silent about what our politicians do, and not holding them accountable, has got us to the point we are at now. Make yourself heard, or just keep on taking it.

[Nederland]

174. Very subtle indeed

Considering that nowhere in the OP do the words "gay", "GLBT", "homosexual", or "Rick Warren" appear, I'd say its clear that people were reading a lot into that post.

[Cronus Protagonist]

247. That's par for hte course on here

Say in one thread a week ago that you don't like ice cream, then this week post a thread about how Eskimos are abused and someone will post a huffy note in the second thread about how it's racist to link Eskimos and ice cream and run off a diatribe of fake outrage! And more than half the time the "outraged" squeaker will be responding solely to voices in his own head that were never spoken or written out loud before, but will still be attributed to YOU!

I'm so used to it here now, that I have lowered my expectations of DU accordingly, and I'm sure someone is right now feverishly searching for a past post of mine to link to this one in their filthy mind as you read it.

:)

[AntiFascist]

268. I find the poster's condescending tone in post #20 a little offensive...

we should be able to, and we are, yelling about certain injustices until they are at least acknowledged, and this is not just being "morbid". For example, I'm going to continue posting about Obama's religiously bigoted behavior at the Saddleback debate until people can understand how it affected people's votes (particularly in places like the Central Valley!). Why am I doing this? So that it doesn't happen again!

[yardwork]

277. My post is #20 and all it says is "k&r"

Which post do you mean?

[AntiFascist]

281. I was referring to the original thread linked to by ZombyWoof...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8036794

[yardwork]

283. Oh, that #20. I love the way that people scream at us to stop screaming.

"If you fucking gays don't shut the fuck up I'll keep starting these goddamn threads screaming at you to stop shitting all over our president you assholes! And stop screaming!!! Nobody will help you if keep acting so goddamn rude!!!"

[yardwork]

275. If you didn't get it, then you probably didn't post anything hateful.

As you can see from many of the responses on this thread, many DUers understand exactly what was intended by many of the threads and posts that have been appearing with regularity on DU. You'll notice that there aren't too many people posting here, "Gee I had no idea! I never would have given it a big thumbs up if I had know that the intention was to intimidate and bully gay people and their allies!"

There are a couple of posts saying that here, and I'm taking them at their word. But there aren't too many of those posts compared to the 300+ folks who recommended those threads, often with posts that left their malevolent intentions in no doubt whatsoever.

If you've been in the dark about this, then it probably doesn't involve you. Congratulations and be happy that you've been missing some pretty unfriendly exchanges!

[GinaMaria]

160. I still can't read that entire thread

I think I haven't been chiming in and standing up for people when I should. I try to avoid posts like these. I'm amazed ZW, when I look at threads like this. I don't recognized any of the names. This isn't the same crowd it used to be. The only other time I remember feeling creeped out here was during the 2004 Primaries with the Wesley Clark supporters, but this is much worse. Thanks for posting this link.

Peace

[Mad_Dem_X]

235. That thread is disgusting

I am proud to say that I did not post in it, nor did I recommend it. The behavior of some DUers on the subject of gay rights sickens me to no end.

As I said on another thread, until everyone has the same basic civil rights, this country will never truly be free!

[yardwork]

60. Here it is. It's been archived so apparently its ok to link now.

The references to "Stockton" in some of the opening responses are mocking gay people's memories of Stonewall. Prior to the Stonewall riots in 1969, gay people were arrested, beaten, and often raped by police simply for being in gay bars.

When people around DU wonder "what's wrong?" they might want to recall this thread and the posts in it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8036794&mesg_id=8036794

[QC]

65. Ah. I was thinking of this thread, pictured below with its 327 recs.

This was the turning point for me:

[yardwork]

68. Oh, that was another beautiful one. There were dozens.

It's highly instructive to check the recs on those various threads.

[racaulk]

74. Oh yeah, I remember that disgusting, POS thread too.

I agree, that thread said volumes about the current state of DU. :puke:

[Starry Messenger]

95. Right in time for the holidays.

:sarcasm: I think a lot of people took advantage of the fact that there wasn't a lot of mod coverage over the holidays to do some nasty business here.

[defendandprotect]

173. So we have 328 posters at DU who don't like democracy ...!!!

Think we need a recommitment to consciousness raising at DU --

Especially re Human Rights -- and the right to dissent --

Also re Skinner's statement that every DU poster is expected to support

all rights for homosexuals -- including gay marriage ---

AND, finally a re-education on free speech and dissent.


Meanwhile, let's also keep in mind that criticism of Obama's appointments --

and Warren was widespread/universal -- and I don't think DU should be a

website where we ignore that reality.

But many at DU tried to do just that--!!!

[Ken Burch]

183. Weirdly enough, IIRC, Aya was viciously ANTI-OBAMA in the primaries

n/t.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

202. Sorry if anyone took offense at my being sick of the complaints before he even took office.

But I'm not sorry that I was sick of it. I find the accusations of being anti-gay as offensive as Dumbyass' anti-American label for those who didn't support his invasion of Iraq.

No, I don't approve of the choice of Warren; in fact I'd rather have no prayer involved in the ceremony. But I'm also sick of the constant Obama bashing that has gone on ever since he was elected.

All you have to do is listen to Obama and Biden and just about any "progressive" elected official banter about the semantics of the same-sex marriage issue, and it's obvious that the majority of them are scared to come out in support of it. That's not going to change overnight, as much as we'd like it to...as much as it ought to change overnight.

And when the rules finally do change, it's going to take a long time before gay people's civil rights are truly accepted and protected. Look how freaking long it's taken for the majority of people to recognize that it's not ok to be a racist.

I'm sorry the OP is leaving. In spite of the nasty comments, I'll continue working toward acquiring the civil rights for gay people which never should have been denied in the first place.

[nini]

66. wow

I saw that thread before but didn't pay much attention to it - I'm kinda glad now I missed it.

I think I'm gonna be sick :-(

[yardwork]

67. Yeah.

Just...yeah.

[Zuiderelle]

71. Oh yeah, I remember that nasty, divisive thread.

:grr:

[ScreamingMeemie]

89. Jesus Christ, that's disgusting.

That made the greatest page?

I am ashamed of some of the posters who recommended it and ashamed of myself for not being around that day.

[yardwork]

97. Hi Mrs G!

I've missed you - hope all is well.

[LostinVA]

124. Oh, that is nothing

Wait until Haruka calls you later.

[rhett o rick]

143. Hi. just curious are you still speaking to me? nm

[ScreamingMeemie]

179. Apparently not.

[rhett o rick]

192. Apparently

[awoke_in_2003]

151. Same here. nt

[AntiFascist]

92. Here's the thing about "Stockton"....

plenty of people were probably partying when the No on 8 side finally surpassed Yes on 8 in money contributed. We did do a piss poor job of reaching out to the more conservative and rural areas that were targeted by Yes on 8.

What people continually fail to realize is the profound effect that the words of Obama himself had on the success of Yes on 8. I don't care that Obama and Biden were actually opposed to Prop 8, the words he spoke at Rick Warren's church spoke volumes to the people in Stockton and elsewhere.

[XemaSab]

93. "Stockton" is code for "Fuck gay people?"

That's funny, I assumed it was code for "Hello, someone who lives in Stockton California!"

And according to the OP's profile, they do indeed live in Stockton California.

Not everything people say is designed to malign you.

[yardwork]

96. Possibly, but the rest of the thread is crystal clear.

[The Doctor.]

261. Well, it says "There are lots of things to talk about, and the rage over this subject is crowding

out all other discussion."

It's not a STFU thread, it's a "This is too much" thread. A sentiment many share. Could it be intentionally hostile or patronizing? I suppose, but on the face of it, it's a very legitimate complaint over the cacophony.

[Creideiki]

193. There's a Jimmy Buffet song you should listen to

It has to do with Nature vs. Nurture. Regardless, you seem to have succeeded.

[XemaSab]

207. I have no idea what you're talking about

Sorry. :shrug:

[sniffa]

116. Hundreds more for the ignore list

:woohoo:

[uppityperson]

158. Thankyou and the others for posting those.

My buddy list has grown a lot recently. There are some who are buddies on my buddy list, many who are in the watch category. I missed that one and the "whining" one.

I don't understand many people often.

[The Doctor.]

262. Well, the problem is this;

Through the lens of rage, insults are everywhere. If you do not see the same insult perceived by others, then anger renders judgment; "California Peggy is a jerk!"

Don't take it personally. You had no reason to think that thread was intentionally insulting because such things are just not in your nature. Those that choose to believe you are a bad person merely because you found no deliberate insult in what they have chosen to be offended by are the ones with the problem, not you.

[Zomby Woof]

297. You missed her thread about a homeless person

She posted about how she attended a meeting, and encountered a homeless person she once knew personally. Her reaction? She wished that she could have disappeared through the floor. She demonstrated a complete lack of empathy and compassion for her former "friend".

If she doesn't want to be thought of as a bad person, she shouldn't offer so much material.

[The Doctor.]

299. Admitting to feelings of helplessness shows callousness? How?

Feeling bad for not knowing how to feel or react, or just not wanting the problem to be as real as the person standing next to you and admitting that it makes you feel bad is the exact opposite of callousness.

Yeah, I bothered to look it up;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=7863471#7863898

What she offered was candor, and honesty about feelings she didn't like. That means, for all you high and mighty who take weakness as 'offering material' ( :puke: ), that she does have a great deal of compassion, and was disturbed by her instinctive feelings.

I'm sure you've always been courageous in the face of unfamiliar discomforts. Sure... and I'm sure you'd tell us if you weren't. Or maybe, just maybe, you'd decide not to 'offer so much material'.

God knows... if you did that, some shithead on the internets might judge you harshly for being so honest.

If you were to ask me whether you or she had more compassion, you've pretty much made up my mind. Way to go.

[Zomby Woof]

301. lol

Believe whatever makes you feel better; I don't give a flying monkey poop. :-)

[The Doctor.]

314. It has nothing to do with 'belief'...

and everything to do with respect.

I have a great deal of respect for people that explore their feelings, ask themselves what those feelings mean, and even more; open their soul to others for judgment.

I have very little respect for those who capitalize on the candor of others and seek to gain some advantage out of it.

I have exactly zero tolerance for attitudes like yours, and I have good reason for it.

Can you transcend, or will you decide that your pride/ego is more important than understanding?


Right now, I'm not betting heavily on 'ZombyWoof'.


Think for fuck's sake... now if never before.

[T Wolf]

2. "Your" issue is symbolic to many of us who think that we have been sold a rotten bill of goods

by the DINOs in our party and on this site. How many of us will be strong enough to say, "Enough?"

And, unfortunately, I am afraid that too few, if any, will be swayed by your heartfelt explanation.

The willful blindness by far too many is more discouraging than the overt actions taken by the rethugs. Betrayal by a presumed-friend always is more damaging.

[PDJane]

3. Kicked, recommended, and I wish acceptance

for you, and for everyone.

This world needs a lot more of it.

Please do come back; I do understand. What I don't understand is why your sexuality is anyone else's business. I likely never will.

May you save your house.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Good luck to you. That was well said.

My bread and butter issues are different issues from yours, and my expectation of the new administration is improvement on a wide range of issues, not solutions to a handful.

Whether I agree or not isn't really material. That was well said.

[Starry Messenger]

5. Hugs pabsungenis.

What a beautiful post. The mockery of Dems for other Dems in this issue has been shocking to me. I'm straight and I would never even consider making fun of people's concerns in this matter. I'm definitely looking around DU with a different perspective. I am really sad that so many of the GBLT posters are being run off here by the Passion of the Smug.

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. I sincerely hope those who truly need to hear this will take the time to read.

Best Wishes!

[TNOE]

7. Don't know if this will help any - but

a prominent astrologer (save it for those who disbelieve) - whom I like has predicted that in deed - Obama will Federally legalize gay marriage or put forth legislation that does indeed "define marriage". For those who are interested, the cost of the report is $4.99 - he has to make a living too. Lots of good stuff there. But, even without this report - I do feel that no way will Obama consider any human being "less" than another human being based on race, sex, background, etc., etc. I feel this to the bone, but only time can will say for sure. Meanwhile - I say chin up - and hope for the best - true equality on every level.

[Greyhound]

8. Double K&R. One for your excellent post.

Another for MPK's "Passion of the Smug".

Hang in, if for no other reason than to know there are at least some here that know.

[blm]

9. I wish I could recommend more than once.

Your post deserves front page status.

[1776Forever]

10. There are those of us who are on the march with you - You are not alone.

Blessings to you in whatever you decide. The time will come - here is one of my favorite writings on the GLBT issue and Civil Rights regarding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

Flexing the Fourteenth Amendment

Author: Joe Bergeron

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/4/8/p87480_index.html

The New Inclusion of Gay and Lesbian Americans in the U.S. Constitution

Abstract:

While the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to protect African American civil rights since the 1950s, it was first cited as protective of gay and lesbian civil rights only in 1996. This work analyzes the new social construction of gay and lesbian civil rights within the historical context of African American civil rights. I find that such a comparative analysis is key to understanding contemporary debates relating to same-sex marriage, since same-sex marriage policy is richly based upon the historical struggle in U.S. society to recognize interracial marriage. Furthermore, though the complicated hierarchy of legal case scrutiny created in recent decades by the Court seems incompatible with democracy and indicates to us that Fourteenth Amendment values of equal protection and due process cannot be taken at face value in the American system of government, I find that the Court's new inclusion, albeit limited, of gays and lesbians in the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment shows us that the U.S. Constitution can still be a significant and promising source of rights. The Court now understands sexuality, like race, as a fixed characteristic. By constructing gays and lesbians as a legal entity in need of protection, the Court is making it easier for them to challenge discrimination.

......

Let us hope that we see a full due process on this issue in President Obama's years in office. Please check my journal out for more information.

[.... callchet ....]

11. All problems

I have been for solving all problems of all people all my life. I have been a labor union activist as a coalminer. I have had my life threatened and put in jeopardy and thrived on it. I'll stand by you !

[rubberducky]

12. Why, oh, why would you leave a community that believes in you and your beliefs?

What more do you expect of this progressive community? I`m trying in every way to support the GLBT community. This sounds like a cliche, but I have many, many friends in the GLBT community. Do you demand a blood oath? I have many friends in the gay community that I would trust with my life, or more than that I would trust with my grandson`s life. You want to walk away from me, with my hope that ALL will be equal?? What a slap in the face you have given me. I totally support your equality rights. I can imagine that this hurts, but these things take time. We are dealling with a rabid right wing, die-hard anti- gay thinking.Please give us time! We fought a freaking civil war over the black and white divide. But, yeah, walk away from the people who support you. Turn your back on people who hold your rainbow banner high. Where do you go from here??

[Zuiderelle]

27. Have you not seen the mocking and derision and condescension of several people here towards us?

You may support us, but the OP's post was addressed to those who belittle and demean us. It's been happening NON-STOP for weeks now. I'm amazed that you take this personally. This is personal to US. Sure things take time, but why on earth would that gives license to people to put us down at every opportunity?

[defendandprotect]

175. Skinner has a POLICY on homosexuality which should have stopped ...

that thread COLD--!!!

Who educates the Mods on that policy--???

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. This is a Democratic Party community, not a progressive one

There is a fundamental difference, as the DINOs here are all too happy to point out.

[Generator]

80. Bingo

Sometimes I think has DU gone further right or was it always this way? (after Kerry lost it was horrible around here-it was blame the Gays for weeks-I was disgusted how IMMEDIATELY those with the least support are blamed for the loss because why not-they are expendable, we all know this-the party always thinks they are)

But the sit down and shut up thing-is that worth it to belong to ANY party-ANY group?

[donco6]

98. I stayed off for months during that time.

It was open season on all gays around here.

[GinaMaria]

163. I think I missed that.

Sounds horrible. What happened to the Progressives? It's like some weird invasion or something.

[Horse with no Name]

120. It used to be progressive

But with the infiltration that took place a few years back--it hasn't been in a long time.

[defendandprotect]

177. This community/Skinner stands by homosexuals, as DU policy ---

[Two Americas]

54. why reverse things like this?

It would be much more accurate were I to say this:

Why, oh, why would you progressives abandon the GLBTQ community, a community that believes in you and your beliefs?

What more do you expect of the GLBTQ community? We trying in every way to support the Democrats and progressives. This sounds like a cliche, but I have many, many friends in the progressive community. Do you progressives and Democrats demand a blood oath? I have many friends in the progressive community that I would trust with my life, or more than that I would trust with my grandson`s life. You want to walk away from me, with my hope that ALL will be equal?? What a slap in the face you are giving all of us. We totally support your party and your progressive program. But, yeah, turn on the people in the GLBTQ community who support you. Turn your back on people who hold your progressive banner high. Where do you go from here?? How can you move forward of you turn your backs on your friends and allies, for the sake of political expediency?

[yardwork]

85. I really can't thank you enough for saying this.

Words are inadequate, but I'll say them anyway: thank you.

[sniffa]

117. How do I join

What do I do

[Balderdash]

180. LOL nt

[racaulk]

189. Never gets old.

:rofl:

[sniffa]

279. Never gets old, indeed

:rofl:

I've been bringing the phrase out to a few threads. I think I'll keep it up.

[NMDemDist2]

13. K&N in solidarity. Please stay

:grouphug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. It is the responsibility of citizens of a democracy to NOT trust politicians.

The government is, allegedly, our servant. Unfortunately, the servants too often, if not always, see themselves as the masters.

They will indeed become our masters if we don't scrutinize their actions and take them to task for their crimes, lies, corruption and failures.

[WilliamPitt]

16. I wrote one of the more poorly-recieved threads on this issue

Regarding Rick Warren:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4672637

As you can see, nowhere in that thread did I make light of the struggle for Gay rights, nor did I belittle anyone fighting directly and intensely for that cause, nor did I belittle any GLBT Americans whose lives are personally affected by travesties like Prop. 8 and the general national reality that gay-bashing and the denial of gay rights are today's acceptable version of civic bigotry and hatred.

I argued that, in the case of Rick Warren, allowing him to speak might open the way for the Democrats to broaden their voter appeal, which could lead to more and larger victories to come, which helps everyone including the GLBT community in the long run. That is what I believe to my core: Dem wins = better America, for everyone. The problem is how many more wins we'll need to see this Better America, and how much time that will take, but that's a separate matter. This is what I believe, and that is what I was talking about.

If you read the comments in my thread above, you'll see how my words obviously offended and angered a large number of people here. For the record, I am sorry for those bad feelings, but in no way do I apologize for thinking what I thought oir saying what I said.

I can't think of a single DUer who actively resists/resents/refutes the idea that GLBT Americans deserve every single right and privilege of citizenry afforded to heterosexual Americans. If there are DUers who think this, they can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut in a gravel driveway. If any DUers offered insults or denigration because you and others here advocate for equal rights, they can likewise undertake a similar airborne copulation towards a similar rotating pastry in a similar rock-strewn roadway. Fuck those people.

I don't apologize, because when it comes to politics and people and progress, I think in terms of wins and losses first. The Warren thing inspired my analysis in this vein. I am not against you, or your cause, or your beliefs, or your life, or your love, or you. I am for winning, and in politics - especially today's fucked up nasty brutish asshole politics - sometimes some nasty, filthy, vile political geometry gets done trying to think the whole thing through.

So you being here means reading people like me writing stuff like that. I'm on your side, but I'm the guy who thinks we have to win before we can do any good for anyone, and winning often means dealing with situations that are filthy and vile.

So I don't apologize. But I am sorry. And I'm with you 100%, even if I go about it differently.

You should not leave DU. I hope you don't.

Thank you for your wonderful post. K&R.

[AntiFascist]

61. I'm one of those who reacted strongly to your post...

I think I gave pretty clear reasons for this and I stand behind them.

In another thread you complained that someone had called you a 'fascist'. Let me know who they are next time and I'll set them straight (so to speak). :)

[hfojvt]

264. so you are offering to be one of his brown shirts?

:P :scared:

[AntiFascist]

267. That's not what I meant! n/t

[AntiFascist]

310. Oh, now I get it....nevermind...

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

63. is that true, though?

Is this true: "allowing him to speak might open the way for the Democrats to broaden their voter appeal, which could lead to more and larger victories to come, which helps everyone including the GLBT community in the long run?"

Can we reconsider that? Someone here said that we cannot release the prisoners being held in detention because that would cost Obama votes in the next election. That is the danger in your approach. We cannot stand against torture and detention because how that might affect partisan electoral politics is the greater concern?

We are working ourselves into a political and moral trap. Here is how we walk into it - Democrats are better than Republicans. Supporting Democrats is the only practical option open to us. Getting Democrats elected is therefore always advancing the cause. Therefore, whatever we do to get Democrats elected is good.

While it could be argued that getting Democrats elected is always a good thing, certainly better than electing Republicans, it is no longer a good thing when getting Democrats elected becomes the purpose and when that comes at the expense of abandoning our principles and ideals.

[WilliamPitt]

73. At the time I wrote it

I believed it possible. I still do.

I also wrote that Warren appearing at the Inauguration, in and of itself, will make no appreciable difference. It's one move towards making a dent. It's getting closer to a group of wrong-thinking people, so we have the chance to win some of them away from that wrongheadedness.

Am I sure of this? Not at all. Do I think it possible? I do. Do I think gay, straight, black, white, you, me and everyone with a pulse can benefit from Democrats winning more and broader elections? I do.

So there it is. The trap you describe is very real, but we have to risk it because we also have to win.

My 2 cents.

[Two Americas]

83. may be a false dichotomy

Over the last thirty years it has become a more and more popular idea among Democrats that principles and ideals are at odds somehow with practical electoral success, and that we need to balance the two, and this leads to all sorts of compromising and back pedaling and sloppy thinking.

We don't support Democrats in order to be "right," nor clever, nor smarter, nor to advance "our agenda" because that is "what we want." We support Democrats because we believe that the traditional ideals and principles of the political Left are the most practical way to advance the well being of the people. It is Republicans who have some weird "ideology" that is at odds with practical reality, not us. If we allow our political views to be dragged into the same mud as Republican politics - as merely another "opinion" or "belief system" - we have surrendered and given up our most powerful arguments.

The times of the greatest electoral success by the Democrats, and the times of most aggressively standing for and speaking out for the traditional principles and ideals of the party are one and the same. The two do not contradict one another. I think that the right wing propagandists have succeeded in convincing us that they work against each other. They have had a more powerful effect on us than they have on their true believers.

We are at a turning point. Should the new administration govern from the Left, I think that the right wingers will be routed for a generation or more. Why? Because the ideas of the Left are not merely elegant arguments expressed by the few, the clever and enlightened, but rather they represent the shortest and most practical approach to giving the people the relief and protections they so desperately need. Should the new administration move to the right and try to govern from some imaginary "center," the support for the party will evaporate very quickly, and we will find ourselves back in the mess we were in during the late 90's. I suppose we will then once again hear Democrats saying "what is wrong with those stupid people? Can't they see that we are better?"

I don't know, honestly, how a person can be a Democrat and deny this. What is the point then of even caring about politics at all? Is it just a hobby, or a personal identity? That would be like calling oneself a carpenter and then not knowing what a hammer is for, keeping it in a glass case on the shelf and saying "see? I am a carpenter." The goal is to build something, not to "be" a carpenter. The hammer is merely a tool, just as the Democratic part is merely a tool. It is what we do with that tool that matters. Merely being "for" the tool because it is "better" in some vague way than other tools is of no value, and can lead us down the path to moral depravity and into the political wilderness.

[ColbertWatcher]

106. I think you should seriously consider making this post it's own thread. n/t

[Maven]

336. You are altogether awesome.

That is all.

[Chovexani]

110. Keep on digging, bro,.

No, really. Keep on.

PS: "We" don't win a goddamn thing when DINOs shit on the people who make those victories possible. DINOs do.

[Marrah_G]

229. I hated that post so much I couldn't even respond to it.

I think trying to justify your own justification for supporting bigotry is even worse.

This topic has brought out a very ugly side of many DUers.

Those liberals and progressives need to re-examine how they truly feel about the GBLT community, because honestly, lately it just seems like PC feel good speech. It seems as though deep down they don't really see them as equal to other civil rights fights that there is no rush, that it can wait. The problem is that the 'right" time never comes.

I would suggest you would never support reaching out to racists and bringing them into the tent on their own terms just for votes. But for some reason many of you feel that the GBLT fight for equality is different.

I usually enjoy your posts.

On this topic, not so much.

[Starry Messenger]

18. kick.

[LostinVA]

19. WONDERFUL OP -- and, please check your PM in a minute

[yardwork]

20. k&r

[Career Prole]

21. I've never asked people who want to go to change their minds.

Now's the right time to break that string.
Please stay.

k & r

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Zuiderelle]

25. You speak for me. And I hope you continue to.

Please don't fade into the shadows.

Great post. :patriot:

[democrank]

28. Hang in there, pabsungenis.

~PEACE~

[foxeyes2]

29. Right on the spot

As a fellow gay man I have to say that I agree with you 100 percent. Before the election we were advised to shut up until Obama got elected. Now we are being told to shut up again. Our very lives are being marginalized but we are expected to say nothing. Well I spent way to many years trying not to be gay, went through too many exorcisms, too many "counseling" sessions, too much self hatred, way too much pain, before I could live my life with integrity as a gay man to allow President Obama or anyone else push me back into silence. Yes I voted for him knowing that he was not perfect on issues related to our equality but to have fellow progressives demean our feelings is beyond the pale. Maybe one day DU will truly be an inclusive space but I won't hold my breath for that time to come.

[gorfle]

81. How to win equal rights.

I have pretty much steered clear of the whole "gay" issue, as I'm not gay, and it's not a priority of my agenda. I believe gay people should be treated like anyone else and allowed to do anything that straight people can do.

But it seems pretty clear to me that in order to convince "America" to grant you full rights like everyone else you are going to have to convince "America" that you are, in fact, just like everyone else. It sucks, but that's the reality.

Black people were granted full rights after it could no longer be defended to say that black people were somehow different in any meaningful way from white people.

There are many, many, MANY people out there who believe that gay people choose to be gay. Every gay person I have ever asked (some 7 or so) have told me they did not choose their sexual orientation. I know I did not choose my sexual orientation. As long as the perception exists that sexual orientation is a choice, gay people have virtually no chance at gaining enough support from "America" to gain equal rights. "Americans" will simply say, "Oh well! They chose to be that way after all!" and not concern themselves with what they perceive as the consequences of a personal choice.

Scientific evidence does seem to be leaning this way, but what is needed is to make it irrefutable that people don't choose their sexual orientation. Once you make it so that it is irrefutable that people are simply born the way they are born with regards to sexual orientation, it will no longer be defensible to exclude gay people from equal rights.

[AntiFascist]

86. Excellent point...

what muddies the water is when people point to bisexuals who have the option of repressing one side of their sexuality. For people at the exteme end of the spectrum, that would mean trying to repress all of our sexuality. Also, there's a lot more to falling in love with a person beside the sexuality.

[defendandprotect]

190. Why wouldn't "Equal Rights" for all ...

be a priority for anyone who supports democracy .. ???

What matter that you are not "gay" ...??

Or female, for instance --??

[gorfle]

204. You're right, it should.

be a priority for anyone who supports democracy .. ???

What matter that you are not "gay" ...??

Or female, for instance --??

It should be, but it's just not. I'm not gay. I'm not affected by the discrimination. Except for hearing about it in the news, the gay issue does not impact my life at all. Consequently I focus my political energies on things that actually do impact me and my family. I don't think I'm unusual in this regard.

My biggest concerns are, in no particular order: war, environment, economy, and the right to keep and bear arms.

[defendandprotect]

256. One any of us is not free, we are all less free ...

Don't recall who said that, but still holds --

Of course, guns are more important than anyone being oppressed ...

I can see that--!!!

[gorfle]

280. Sorry, but that is what you are up against.

Sorry, but that is exactly my point. For most people, there are many more issues that they find more important than gay people being oppressed. Like war. Or the economy. Or the environment. Or even guns. These are things that most people are affected by every day. It's really not a matter of being more important as being more relevant. Of course, for most people, relevance is synonymous with importance, as the more they are impacted by the issue the more important it generally is to them.

P.S.: I will point out that guns are the ultimate recourse against being oppressed. So while this does not make them more important than people being oppressed it does make them vitally important.

[AntiFascist]

286. That's fine, but we are 'up against' more than that....

there are a large number of threads about all the other issues that people feel should have priority. There also seem to be a growing number of threads critical of people who are complaining about Obama and who are labelling him a 'homophobe'. Why do these people feel it is necessary to keep bringing this up? Is it helpful to all the other issues that they feel should have priority? I may complain about religiously bigoted behavior, but I never called Obama a homophobe.

[gorfle]

291. Well, I can relate...

there are a large number of threads about all the other issues that people feel should have priority.

This is not surprising. Like I said, everyone has their pet policies, and since most people aren't gay, gay issues isn't likely to be the pet policy for most people.

There also seem to be a growing number of threads critical of people who are complaining about Obama and who are labelling him a 'homophobe'. Why do these people feel it is necessary to keep bringing this up? Is it helpful to all the other issues that they feel should have priority? I may complain about religiously bigoted behavior, but I never called Obama a homophobe.

Hey, I can relate. Being pro-firearm puts me in a minority in the Democratic party. I, too, have been criticized for my criticisms of the Democratic party's stance on firearms as published in the party platform, as well as Obama's published stance on firearms on www.change.gov under urban policy. If Obama's policies merit him being called a "homophobe" by people who ought to know one when they see one, then I guess I'll take them at their word. Just as I will refer to Obama as "anti-gun" if the policies he enacts relative to firearms earns him that moniker.

[AntiFascist]

294. Just for the record, I don't believe that Obama is a homophobe...

he can throw us under the bus for political purposes without having any underlying fear or hatred of gay people.

[defendandprotect]

300. misplaced

[defendandprotect]

305. "Speak so we may know you..."

What is clear is that you have considerable time on your hands to post over and

again how unimportant Human Rights for homosexuals are ... while at the same moment

claiming you its unimportant issue for you.


And ... If that pile of disingenuousness weren't enough to put you on ignore,

this pile certainly is ...

P.S.: I will point out that guns are the ultimate recourse against being oppressed. So while this does not make them more important than people being oppressed it does make them vitally important.

That's what the Palestinians probably overlooked -- giving every Palestinian a gun.

Remember New Orleans -- guns were immediately confiscated.

:think:

[gorfle]

335. This makes no sense...

What is clear is that you have considerable time on your hands to post over and

again how unimportant Human Rights for homosexuals are ... while at the same moment

claiming you its unimportant issue for you.

It is difficult to parse your grammar here but I will say this:

1) I haven't invested any significant amount of time on this issue.
2) I do not believe that human rights for homosexuals (or anyone) are unimportant, simply that it is unimportant to most straight people as it is an issue that does not affect them.

That's what the Palestinians probably overlooked -- giving every Palestinian a gun.

Remember New Orleans -- guns were immediately confiscated.

Small arms are no guarantor of successful forceful resistance of oppression, but they are necessary for successful resistance of oppression.

There is a reason why the Israelis postpone sending in troops as long as they can and instead rely on air strikes.

[Creideiki]

194. No one who doesn't have a vested interest in claiming that sexual orientation is a choice

makes that claim.

There was a freaking 2-hour show on the National Geographic channel about this crap.

Time to start figuring this out. The people that are left behind are the people who still think that Africans and Asians are somehow different from Caucasians.

As for the people who can't figure this out, I don't know what to do any more. I've been trying to hit people over the head with the clue-by-four, but apparently they're so intellectually challenged that nothing will penetrate their petty little minds.

[gorfle]

205. You are exactly right.

No one who doesn't have a vested interest in claiming that sexual orientation is a choice makes that claim.

I'm sure you are right. Lots of people are totally unsympathetic to homosexuals because they 1) find it disgusting and 2) believe that people choose to engage in behavior they find disgusting.

If you can convince people that #2 is wrong, then you have a shot at convincing these people that although they may find homosexual behavior disgusting, they don't have any choice in the matter and this is no reason to discriminate against them any more than you would discriminate against someone who enjoys eating a food you find disgusting. The problem here is that most people can't get beyond #1, and consequently they completely lack empathy with homosexuals, which is a huge problem.

This is where science has to ride into the rescue and make it clear that homosexuality is simply a natural human condition. Lots of people feel shock and revulsion to physical deformities, but most people realize it would be unfair to discriminate against anyone because of them, because they understand the person can't help the situation.

The religious folks, unfortunately, will never be won over. They are lost.

I was talking with my Mother over the holidays and she says now the Catholic position is that they now accept that homosexuality is a natural condition, but you are supposed to resist those urges anyway!. This, of course, is insane. I made a huge dent in my Mother's logic, though, when I pointed out that most people cannot resist their sexual urges any more than people can resist the urge to eat. Since she has battled her weight her whole life (as have I) she did stop and paused over that one. My Mother has no sexual urges and I doubt she ever has so she can't relate on that level.

There is, of course, no logical reason to resist your normal, natural sexual urges as long as consenting adults are involved.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

30. Great post.

Thank you for this.

[hfojvt]

31. Aren't lives always at stake on any number of issues?

I scoff at greed, but when my wages went from $5.5 an hour to $7.15 an hour it seemed to make a huge difference in my life. So the minimum wage has an impact on people's lives. So do things like headstart, LIHEAP, food stamps, etc. Not having health care or housing has an impact on people's lives and so does not having a job. People who smoke pot can lose their jobs and goto prison for it.

Ironically, most of the issues that I support, do not personally matter to me. I care about civilians dying in Iraq even though I have almost no connection to them. I also care about things like global warming, environmental damage, conservation of scarce resources, and severe income inequality. Things which I think should be an issue for everyone because they impact most of us. I don't lobby just for things that impact my life.

This line does not seem correct to me "when a decade after Matthew Shepard killers of gays and lesbians can still get off with a slap of a wrist".

Still? I had to google it, but Matthew Shepard's killers got double life sentences, both of them. There are many here who are anti-death penalty, but almost nobody here wants to see killers of anybody get off with a slap on the wrist.

[Zuiderelle]

34. Are you really trying to insinuate that not having equal rights doesn't make a huge difference in

our lives? How about if my relatives come and take my house away if I die, leaving my partner destitute, because contracts that resemble marriage are not allowed in Michigan? That will make a huge difference in my partner's life.

And how about my partner not getting my social security survivor benefits that I've paid into all my life, which she would get without question if she were my spouse. And how about the taxes I have to pay on domestic partner health insurance, and how about the additional thousands I have to pay in taxes, because she and I cannot file jointly?

And what the hell, we ALL support things that don't affect just us. I'm pro-choice, yet I've never been pregnant, I support affirmative action, yet I'm not black, I am against the Iraq War, yet I have no relatives in the military, I support welfare and food stamps, yet I've never had to use them, I donate to many causes, yet I've not benefited personally from any of them.

What's your fucking point?

If it was just your point to diminish the impact of the OP's words by saying that lots of things put lives at stake, I still don't understand your post. He is talking about DUers ridiculing and issue that puts lives at stake. Do people here ridicule people who make minimum wage? Do they ridicule people who care about Iraqi casualties? Do they ridicule people who care about our environment?

Again, what's your fucking point?

[eridani]

77. In one respect, yes. I think the term is "loony leftie" n/t

[hfojvt]

82. That jumped out at me too

I should have added a line.

"I don't lobby just for things that impact my life."
add "Presumably, neither do you."

My point was to expand things. GLBT issues affect your life. That is conceded. However, every issue impacts somebody's life, sometimes larger groups, sometimes smaller. Sometimes minor impact, sometimes major.

We all care about many issues, and we all also prioritize. These issues I care about more than other issues.

I am certainly not trying to defend ridicule, or other forms of hostility. We are presumably all on the same side, first trying to nominate more progressive Democrats against DINOs, and then trying to elect Democrats (even DINOs) against Republicans.

Yes, though, there is lots of ridicule and hostility on many issues. You should not feel so all alone, everybody must get stoned.

Stoned, as in having rocks thrown at them.

Insofar as the OP is saying something like "my issues matter because they impact MY life and those who do not support them can feck off, even Democrats like Tim Kaine and Obama." then I take issue with that. But there are, at present, more than a few reasons to be unhappy with Obama (Clinton sec of state, Sec of Def Gates) and I never did like Clinton. So, again, we are perhaps on the same side.

[Two Americas]

91. elections are an effect, not a cause

I do not think we should be "first trying to nominate more progressive Democrats." I think that is the problem, not the solution. In a representative democracy politicians will do nothing unless they are pressured to do something. That is the way the system works. Too many say "we should focus on electing Dems first" and say that dissent and pressure are counter-productive.

As I said in another post here, yesterday someone was arguing that Obama should not take a strong stand on detentions and torture because that would cost him votes on the next election. That is where this "first elect Democrats" thinking leads us.

The reason for electing Democrats is in the hope that they will respond to pressure when the Republicans would not. It makes no sense to say we should first last and always elect Dems, and use that as an excuse to abandon principles and discourage dissent. That is not only destructive to the party, it is destructive to representative democracy. People know that this doesn't work, but won't let go of it. That is why people are now saying "OK just electing Dems doesn't work, so I know - focus on electing progressive Dems!" Then when that doesn't work, we are back to the lesser of two evils arguments.

The right wingers have driven us into a false and shallow loyalty to the party, as well as a popularity contest horse race view of elections and a "personal choice" approach to politics. My guess is that if we could get everyone here to stop watching television, that within 6 months we would never hear these "first elect Dems!" arguments anymore.

Democrats will become more left wing if we are speaking out strongly for left wing politics, and if we stop putting party loyalty above that. That is the only way we will ever have our "progressive Dems."

[yardwork]

101. True, but it's not an even playing field when only one group lacks equal rights.

Speaking for myself, even though I'm a lesbian I've always spent a lot more time working on improving access to health care for minorities and uninsured people rather than gay rights.

What radicalized me was the overtly hostile response to people's reaction to Obama's choice of Warren. It would be very instructive to go back and read the first set of responses from GLBTQ. I remember my first post on the subject. It was something like, "Obama picked Warren to give the invocation? Odd choice. Why'd he do that? That's disappointing." And I was pretty much happy to leave it at that, UNTIL dozens of incredibly nasty posts and OPs like the ones linked in this thread got right up in my face shouting at me about what a terrible, selfish, greedy, thoughtless HATER I am for daring to criticize anything about Obama. Wow.

It's one thing to disagree, but when people start telling a group that is already disenfranchised to stfu, it's downright insulting.

[Balderdash]

236. That was exactly my experience too.

I pretty much thought that here on DU I would find some comfort and
reassurance from fellow progressives and I found concern over
disagreeing with Obama trumped all.

[hfojvt]

263. my experience was kinda the opposite

My first thought was that "WTF is Obama thinking/doing? Throwing GLBT under the bus when they are already hurting/angry about prop 8?"

(although this post is after the firestorm)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/97

However, once it started going, it seemed to me that the hatred of Warren was over the top. At least on the surface, Warren seems like a Democrat on some issues - environment, poverty, etc. To me, he's the sort of person that we want or need to persuade to vote Democratic, especially in Kansas and the midwest. Trying to find common ground with him seems like a good thing.

Finding common ground on DU is a good thing too, but we seem to be dividing, that there are groups of DUers who cannot stand other groups. (but that is common too, since we regularly have firestorms at DU over various issues) Since that linked thread was from GDP, I did not see it until an hour ago or so.

To a degree that seems common too. Every time DU goes off on an issue-war, there are always several threads about "Can we stop talking about X" whether it is Steve Irwin or I/P or Schiavo. Supposedly a silent majority wants to talk about "more important issues". Why those people can't start their own threads about those issues, and KNR them, is a mystery to me, and why they cannot ignore the threads that 'bore' them is another mystery. It's often very junior high around here, but so it goes.

[AntiFascist]

270. Here's the reason we shouldn't try to establish common ground with a religious basis...

and this is exactly why I took issue with Will Pitt's post. Obama made it clear at the Saddleback debate that he shared religiously bigoted principles with Rick Warren. This is the point in time, really, where we got thrown under the bus. At that time, I was willing to excuse this for the purposes of getting Obama elected. Then, later, he puts Warren in a position of honor at his inauguration. To me, this indicated that he might continue using this common religious ground in order to curry additional favors from the Religious Right. I now find this unacceptable.

Yes, there are plenty of areas involving poverty and economic conditions where can achieve common ground with people who happen to also subscribe to right-wing beliefs. I'm all for this. I just don't think we have to do this by accepting the lowest common denominator. That would be taking the easy way out, and I've always felt Obama was better than this.

[yardwork]

278. In any case, if you didn't attempt to bully an already disenfranchised group

then this thread isn't about you.

As a lesbian, I'm not just "already hurting/angry about prop 8." I'm hurt on a daily basis by the federal and state laws throughout this nation that deny me the same rights enjoyed by every single other citizen just because of whom I choose to love. Not only can I not get married, my entire personal life is an object of scorn, derision, fear, or mocking humor to a majority of the people in my state and country.

In North Carolina where I live and work I can be fired simply for being gay. Despite this daily threat, I am openly out at work because I refuse to hide in a closet. Also, it's more practical to be out because then I don't have to fear the constant risk of being exposed. Can you imagine what it's like to have a majority of other people hate you? In church pulpits every Sunday from end of this state to the other people get up and scream - they scream - about how I am an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Not only will I go to hell, but those who support me and my pursuit of equal rights are also hell-bound and bringing the nation to its knees. Do you think that those people who hold up signs saying that "God hates Fags" are unique in their beliefs? If that were true, how could a majority of people in one of the most progressive states in the nation take back the right of marriage from gay people who had already received the right? Most of the country is much deeper into homophobia than California. Prop 8 is the least of our worries. Three much worse anti-gay votes passed in other states on election day, all by much higher voting majorities than in California.

Hate Rick Warren? I don't hate him any more than I hate George W. Bush. Allow him to be honored at a ceremony inaugurating the Democratic president I worked and donated and voted to get into office? Not without a lot of noise.

[Maven]

87. Obviously you didn't do enough googling.

Gay man's killer could serve as little as eight months in prison

The mother of a gay murder victim is calling on advocates to help convince her state's parole board not to let her son's killer out of prison before serving his full sentence.

Sean William Kennedy, 20, was attacked in the early morning of May 17, 2007 outside the former Brew's Bar in Greenville, South Carolina. His assailant, Stephen Andrew Moller, pulled up in a car, threw one punch after reportedly yelling anti-gay slurs, and fled. Kennedy died about 17 hours later from the brain injury he sustained, and friends and family believe he was targeted at least in part due to his sexual orientation.

Since South Carolina has no hate crime statute, no enhancement was available for Moller's June 2008 sentence of five years in prison on a reduced charge of involuntary manslaughter. The judge reduced the sentence to three years with credit for seven months' time served and ordered Moller to seek help to manage anger and substance abuse.

http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Gay_mans_killer_could_serve_as_little_as_eight_months_in_pri_0106.html

You think the killer of a straight man with a nice girlfriend or wife would have gotten 3 years with a chance for parole after 8 months?

One example among many, many others that have taken place for decades. Open your eyes.

[hfojvt]

252. actually I do know of a guy in Muscoda, Wi who was killed,

strangled in a fight and his killers got nothing. As far as I know, that dead guy was not gay. I don't remember why there were no charges, but I do remember his grandmother had his picture hanging in her flower shop. I also know of a guy who blew a stop sign here in Kansas and killed somebody and he got a mere $200 fine for a stop sign violation.

If there are many, many others, is there a collection somewhere? The one story is unconvincing since it sounds like a freak accident or a freak punch. Who kills a guy with one punch?

Google did find this manslaughter conviction in Texas

"A 41-year-old Denton woman involved in a March 2007 wreck which left two Carrollton women dead has been sentenced to serve two years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice."

and this one in Australia

"Redman was given a three-year sentence in May 2008 for causing grevious bodily harm to Mrs Wiliams’ son Dexter and his friend Murray Smith in an assault outside a Mandurah kebab shop in July 2007.

The assault occurred following an argument between the men after Redman put a Chiko roll in the face of a young woman at Cafe Kebabs in Mandurah Terrace.

Redman punched Mr Smith four times, knocking him unconscious and breaking his cheekbone and nose.

Dexter Williams went help his friend and was punched in the face.

Mr Williams fell backwards and hit his head on the pavement, causing the fatal brain injury."

http://albany.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/anger-at-appeal-loss/1407970.aspx

[Marrah_G]

290. wow

:puke:

Your posts get worse and worse on this topic.

Can't stomach your bigoted words any longer.

Bleh.....get some fucking help.

[foxfeet]

32. Being a relative newbie here, I didn't know your story.

I have always appreciated your posts. BTW, I am a gay man, probably at least 20 years older than you. I was 18, during my college years in Indiana, when Stonewall happened and I still remember the electricity it sent through me, because it meant that I wasn't alone in the world. It also meant that there were LGBTQI folks willing to fight just for the right to exist. Since then there have been many bumps and disappointments along the way (and that doesn't begin to touch the virulence of the organized hate that exploded during the Reagan years and continues to this day). But by the Gods, I still exist and I still fight even though I'm not physically able to do what I once did. Take it from your elder, kid (meant affectionately, not condescendingly), you can't let the bastards get you down. There will always be bastards and some of them will arrive disguised as friends. There also will always be true friends (somehow I typed that word as "fiends." Hmmm.) You have to take a break, recharge, spend time with your honey, whatever you need to do to "buff up" mentally and emotionally. Then please come back. We need you here.

[meegbear]

33. Shine On pabsungenis ...

:hug: :patriot:

[queerart]

35. Many Hugs For You My Friend (nt)

[myrna minx]

36. K&R in solidarity.

:hug:

[webDude]

37. I wish you well and hope to see you back here soon.

[ThomCat]

38. You have always been one of the good ones here.

I hope you come back. You will be missed while you're gone. :hug:

But I agree with your reasons for leaving. :(

[bullwinkle428]

39. Fantastic OP, pabsungenis - one of the most personal, heart-touching

posts I've ever read here, and there have been some truly amazing ones over the years. K&R!

[Hydra]

42. Stand for your principles, everyone

Is winning at any cost one of our principles? Are blank checks to the people who supposedly work for us one of our principles?

Is sacrificing our brothers and sisters part of our principles?

I sure hope not.

[timtom]

44. Passionately and eloquently stated.

And you certainly do allow me some measure of empathy (through your words).

Thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Hope you stay

Or come back soon. And good luck with the homefront too.

[racaulk]

46. Thank you for this beautiful, heartfelt post.

You drew some great parallels among Clinton, Bush, and Obama. In the words of the great Yogi Berra, "it's like deja-vu all over again."

I completely understand your reasons for wanting to leave, but I must ask that you reconsider. Your posts (this OP, for example) have always impressed me, and your voice is needed in this community.

At least wait and see who are selected to be moderators for the next term. I think seeing that list will speak volumes about what the tone of DU over the next three months will be like. My hope is that it will be for the better for everyone.

:pals:

K&R

[helderheid]

47. You brought me to tears.

[QC]

48. KICK! n/t

[Glorfindel]

49. I'm very sorry to hear it, but I understand completely

I wish you the very best, and, by the way, I think "The New Adventures of Queen Victoria" is a work of genius. Sincerely.

[AntiFascist]

50. I'm one of those who did go through the usual histrionics....

in posting a "maybe its time to leave DU" thread. In the course of that thread I realized that there was a small handful of other DUers who were fighting just as hard, if not harder, for the same cause and that they were depending on people like me to promote rational arguments. I hope you can come to the same realization. Your post is very thoughtful and it is posts like this that can get through to people. K&R.

[unapatriciated]

53. Hopefully you will come back home to DU....

here's to love, may we see true equality in our lifetime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ucqDoP2FZw

[Cabcere]

55. Thank you for an amazing post

and I wish you the very best. :hug: I don't know what else to say. Peace. :loveya:

[mitchtv]

56. Great post, but stick around a word of advice

stick to the GLBT forum , there someone always has your back. I agree with all you said. ( I thought of you the other night ehrn I saw your handle on a storefront or marquis while watching some movie or other, I don;t pretend to be educated enought to no what it means). I grieve at losing our old time smart DU'rs . stick around , if just to cover our not so smart backs

[TK421]

57. I hate to see you go...you were one of the first posters here to welcome me!

and I don't forget stuff like that. I can't say I blame you for wanting to leave...I've seen how ugly it has gotten here, but I do hope you reconsider. ( love your posts ) Peace :thumbsup:

[yy4me]

58. There are 135,000 members of DU, most are good people like

you who are spending their lives struggling with all kinds of personal issues. Why let 329 idiots make you fade into the background. I say stay with us, things will get better, The country had shed much of its' bigotry, prejudice, slavery and all other horrible kinds of personal affronts and it has taken far too long.

Let this be the beginning of the end of this kind of junk on DU. It hurts many and helps no-one.

Stick around and join the fun. We've not chatted back and forth but I am sure you are one of the more lucid and intelligent posters here.

[LostinVA]

62. There are not 135K members

[yy4me]

75. Why in heaven would I think that 135,000 user registrations

could ever be construed as members. Where is the difference? Does the fact that someone registered not make him a member? I'm missing something here.

You mean all this time I have been bragging at the speed DU has grown, I was wrong?

No wonder why my far right leaning brother-in-law won't listen to me. Rules upon visiting his house:

#1 No politics,
#2 no religion,
#3 no golf talk

Back to biz: How many members are there and what is the difference? I joined, I post, I donate, am I a member? Do I need a secret misspelling or something?

[yardwork]

102. That number is the total cumulative registrations. On a day to day basis, many fewer post here.

I don't know what the average daily unique post count is here, but I'm sure it's less than 135,000. It's unusual for any thread, on any subject, to get more than 100 recs. We had several with nearly 400 recs telling gay people to shut up. In comparison, threads expressing support for gay rights generally got less than 100 recs. The message was clear and seemed representative of the majority of folks who post here on a regular basis.

Anyway, that's my reasoning behind that poster's comment.

[LostinVA]

125. That includes inactive posters, TSed posters, etc.

A few thousand are active members, and that includes occasional posters, all forums, Loungers, etc. That's not tearing down DU in anyway -- it's probably the most active political board by far.

[Creideiki]

197. Sockpuppets and zombies

Have to count those.

[EstimatedProphet]

59. Hate to see you go, but I understand

I'm not gay, but I'm listening. I wish more people here were too.

[Dystopian]

64. KandR for love.

peace~

[4 t 4]

70. I'm sorry about the previous events

I know how bad this site can make people feel sometimes. Obama was asked today on several so called news channels "are you going to get rid of the policy Don't Ask-Don't Tell" and his answer was simply "YES" I have no doubt he will.

[xchrom]

72. 81st recommend

[WilliamPitt]

76. P.S. from my post #16

I am the world heavyweight DU champion of "I'm leaving" posts. Don't let the fact that you wrote one keep you from coming back here someday.

[NashVegas]

156. Hehe ... Ain't That The Truth

You've flounced out of the room so many times I ought to lend you a skirt so you can do it proper next time.

[WilliamPitt]

161. "...I ought to lend you a skirt so you can do it proper next time..."

Would that comment be classified as sexist, anti-gay, or both?

Just want to make sure I keep my insults straight.

[NashVegas]

165. What a Great Question

Perhaps a bit sexist, yes, but I've yet to see anyone grab their trousers with a "hmmmpph!" and swirl.

You?

[JaneFordA]

78. Sad and depressed...

... that this forum stands to lose such an eloquent writer and first-class human being. If this sort of persecution from fellow Democrats and "ignoring" from the candidate we all worked so hard to support and elect, I think it's very likely we'll be waiting for a GOP inauguration four years from now.

[Two Americas]

79. beautiful post

Thank you so much.

[Ms. Toad]

84. Thank you.

I was very vocal following Obama's selection of Warren to give the invocation. I felt it was (and still feel) that it was a major slap in the face and was deeply disappointed. I was even more disappointed in the reaction of far too large a vocal clueless minority on DU who made it their mission to tell me (and others who felt similarly betrayed) to grow up.

[Shardik]

88. Glad you're here.

recommended. Thanks for taking the time to post this. I'm better for having read it.

[ismnotwasm]

90. Don't go

I've been thinking a lot lately, compulsively reading the bible (I'm NOT religious--This is my third time going through it and it's painful) and other documents trying to figure out how we got to this horrid state. I have a feminist answer of course, I always have, but "patriarchy" doesn't communicate very well. (I even have a laypersons theological answer, but I won't go into it, not being an expert. Suffice to say, the "clobber" passages in the bible condemning homosexuality all open to other interpretations, the most common ones being quite wrong)

So I'll just say this. Homophobia/hatred is a pathology, a disease, a societal sickness that is accepted without a thought. People who use "that's so gay" as a derogatory term, for example, add a tiny tile to that ugly mosaic of blaming the blameless victim. Of hatred.
Why we let this pass with mild condemnation? Political expediency for people who have stopped growing, stopped spiritually evolving, and in cases like Warren are promoting an unconscionable evil, I don't know. I really don't

I'm not the language police, except in my own presence, there I take responsibility.

Homosexuality is a necessary and sacred part of healthy human sexuality. It goes way beyond "normal and natural" it's a balance, a beautiful part of evolution. Accepting and understanding this, quite possibly contains an answer to many of the worlds social ills.

Yes, it's that important.

And a small story, that I tell every now and again. In the 1970's, I was a street kid. As bad as you can get and about as stupid. My saving grace was a group of young, male Gay prostitutes, who guarded me against my own idiocy. I lived, they didn't. None of them. If nothing else, I've always felt I owe a debt of honor to the gay community. I should have been dead. When I go think back in time, I grieve I see the faces and only remember a few names. Those nameless boys have all honor to me, I could write a small book about what they taught me. What they went though at the end was a horror worse than any I've ever known.

[Mike 03]

94. Extremely Poignant. Glad you came back. NT

[donco6]

99. I'll sincerely miss you.

I've seen so many leave in the past months. Your posts were always thoughtful and well-done. This place will be that much less without you.

[tbyg52]

100. Thank you. nt

[SoCalDem]

103. I missed all of those threads, and I'm sorry you felt the need to leave

BUT I'm glad you stayed.. :hug:

I avoid the "kick and recommend, if you.." threads like the plague..

DU has changed a lot over the years (I joined in 2001), and unfortunately, many of the changes have been less than helpful or kind:(

[bonito]

104. But never give up

I can't directly relate to the issue,but I will not condemn what I don't know, but the one thing I know and show as example to my now grown kids is never give up no matter what the odds, win or lose it's doing the best you can for what is right no matter how it makes you look, you will have to live with this. did it again today long story short, wife in hosp, things regressing, went to admin, told them I would call 911 to get her in the er for proper treatment and I would have, but I didn't have to, good people sometimes a jolt now and than.

[Solon]

105. This placed has changed so much, and is so hostile to GLBT people, its simply inexcusable...

frankly I wish the admins would weigh in, but they already did, the straight bullies on this board have won. I understand why you want to go, and I would tell you to stay and fight, but this board is lost, that's a simple fact.

[defendandprotect]

186. Let's keep after Administration with e-mail to encouage them ...

to end this "hostility" to homosexuals ---

How about it--???

Something we can all easily do on a regular basis --

[Solon]

208. That does no good, as far as I can tell...

and given one moderator's attitude further down this thread, it seems the Admins and mods have a distinct, shall we say, bias in regards to this issue. Believe me, this isn't a new thing, but rather something that's been going on for quite some time.

[defendandprotect]

257. One msg at a time, probably not --

BUT, should many of us protest a homophobic thread .. I think it would ....

[ColbertWatcher]

107. Kick and rec. Thank you for your post. n/t

[defendandprotect]

108. Wait..why wasn't that thread locked ...? OFFICIAL policy at DU is ...

that no homosexual bigotry will be tolerated here -- homosexuals have support on DU --

including for gay marriage--!!! So . . . what's up with the garbage thread?

I hadn't seen it before, butwe need as many voices as possible to be raised against

religious fanatics and homophobes.

LIKEWISE, this is about Human Rights . . . and anytime anyone like Obama decides to not

stand with homosexuals against religious nuts like Warren, then Obama is also not standing

with women, not standing with Jews, and, he may learn the hard way . . . not standing with

his own people who have been well worked over by Christians!!

[BlueIris]

112. I'll miss you. Thanks for this important post.

:-(

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

113. I hope you stay posting

I enjoy your words and The New Adventures of Queen Victoria. I have known gays all my life, known about their struggles (from a time when society called it a mental illness--I recall the struggles some of my father's friends went through via overheard conversations), and yet I know I will never know what it is like to be gay. I can empathize, and try and walk in your shoes, and that's all. If in any post I have ever offended you, please forgive me.

[mudesi]

114. Skinner has to admit he made a mistake

It's OK, even for the admin, to be wrong and admit it. Not only do I agree with every single thing you have written, but I think every single person here who doesn't think the Rick Warren story is a "big deal" ought to be tombstoned immediately. But, as we know, Skinner himself thinks this issue is one where "thoughtful people can disagree". He cannot be more wrong, and I hope DU changes its official policy on this one.

[rasputin1952]

122. My suggestion to you, is if you feel that way about Skinner...

Please contact him w/your concerns.

In case you have not noticed, we are a broad spectrum of people here, not every one will agree with some of the things posted here, and a common act of decency is understanding that some may have differing opinions on many issues.

Calling for the banning of members because they are not in agreement with any POV is not why this site exists. There are always differing opinions, and just as I would not expect {b]everyone to agree with what I post, (in fact, that idea scares me half to death), no one should expect everyone else to share their passions.

Threatening to silence people by banning them, just because they may not agree on something, is taking things a bit too far.

[AntiFascist]

135. Dear rasputin1952...

I have to point out that the "heavy handed moderation" may be partially responsible for DUers like pabsungenis deciding to leave DU. While I don't necessarilly agree with lynyrd_skynrd's post, would you at least consider that tombstoning certain DUers might be somewhat on the same level as locking out certain threads, or deleting certain sub-threads and posts? Just a thought.

[rasputin1952]

138. Allow me to have a slightly different take on your post...

has it never occurred to people that perhaps the "heavy handed" posts some make might be, at least in part, a source of some of the things we've seen on DU?

I do not advocate banning members, trolls and the like are a different story entirely. As far as the issue considered in this thread, while often seen as contentious, it can be discussed rather than become a slugfest each time it rears up. There are several different "takes" on the issue mentioned. As long as people maintain a sense of the rules, an air of dignity and respect for others, there is rarely , if ever a problem.

I have stated on a few occasion my support for Human Rights for everyone. I stand firmly by that ideology. I do not have to, nor will I, fly off the handle every time an issue comes up that may be a contentious. I want to know why people feel as they do, I want to be treated with respect, so I treat others with respect. I have yet to see where name calling, attacks and general nastiness, from anyone, has ever won anyone to a "side".

Perhaps I had a lapse of clarity in my post above, but in this post, I hope I have been just a little clearer in my intent...:pals:

[AntiFascist]

140. As another DUer may say, those are certainly pretty words...

but I also have to say that I know for fact that relevant DUers have a problem with your "heavy handed moderation".

[rasputin1952]

145. This issue has been discussed for quite some time, it is a

contentious issue, people get their emotions up. When that happens, Moderators will make a call. That is our job.

All I am saying is that if people from all sides of this issue would respect each other, there would be no situation where this should even have to be discussed.

We are having a conversation, we may not see eye-to-eye, but we are not arguing, we are talking...that's the way it should be.

[AntiFascist]

152. I should also point out...

another DUer whom I have long respected has been threatened with being tombstoned if they "post in controversial threads". I'm sorry but this seems to be the opposite of supporting discussion. I have often felt it was important to post in controversial threads, sometimes for the purpose of pushing the envelope and sometimes for the purpose of bringing opposing sides together.

[rasputin1952]

171. I am willing to gamble it "what" they posted as opposed to

anything else.

Some people cannot control emotional states of mind. If someone posts and degrades another member(s), it is in the best interest of the site to cool things down. It is proper for people to express their POV, but not in a manner that degrades others, regardless of where one stands on an issue.

There is always more than one side to story, those that have been admonished for some action on their part, generally go directly into "victim" status, it's human nature. The question is "why" was it brought to the attention of Moderators in the first place?

And for the record, there have been many casualties over this from all sides. Sadly, far too many have suffered, regardless of where they stand on this issue.

[yardwork]

170. Ras, with all due respect, some of your locking messages have been perceived as disrespectful.

I can only speak for myself, but I have been hurt and offended by some of your locking messages. I would not have posted this on this board, of course, had you not begun posting in this thread yourself.

I appreciate all the work that mods do for this board and I know you are all volunteers. You are DUers with exceptional power, however, and with that power comes the responsibility to "first, do no harm." I don't think that you have intended to cause hurt, but some of your locking messages are clearly signaling your agreement with one side over the other, and sometimes the words you choose are very strong. Furthermore, it is clear to me that you and perhaps some others in DU leadership have no idea how hurt and alienated many people - both gay and straight - feel as a result of posts that have been allowed to stay, other posts that have been deleted, and certain locking messages that have been made.

If there is genuine interest in returning this board to the way it was before, there needs to be some reconciliation, and that can't happen unless both sides can give their stories. I offer this post with the genuine hope that it will lead to better understanding.

[rasputin1952]

176. I know where your coming from...

and it is never my intention to deliberately "harm" someone w/a locking message, or anything else.

However, when one must shut down a thread that has gotten completely out of hand, I feel there should be a message as to why it is being locked. Some are going to take it as it is spelled out, some will read something into it.

When I post, I try to remain as neutral as possible, particularly when I post as a member and not a Mod. There are people however, and for whatever reason, would find the winning lottery ticket on the ground, go cash it in and complain they have to pay taxes.

I understand the problems involved with this issue, I sympathize with the plight that is being felt, but what Warren says means nothing in the scheme of things, he's preaching to his choir. All of us should be working where we can do substantial good for our GLBT brothers and sisters; overturning Prop 8 is a darn good start. What Warren says, is nothing, compared to the realistic view of overturning Prop 8. To me, even though I am not in CA, is far more important than what some blowhard says for 2 minutes. I undersand the symbolism, but there are far larger and more important battles to fight...and win.

[FreeState]

200. I dont want to butt in but Im going to

I understand the problems involved with this issue, I sympathize with the plight that is being felt, but what Warren says means nothing in the scheme of things, he's preaching to his choir. All of us should be working where we can do substantial good for our GLBT brothers and sisters; overturning Prop 8 is a darn good start. What Warren says, is nothing, compared to the realistic view of overturning Prop 8. To me, even though I am not in CA, is far more important than what some blowhard says for 2 minutes. I undersand the symbolism, but there are far larger and more important battles to fight...and win.

I have a problem with this paragraph. As someone who was raised in a very anti-gay conservative church what Warren has to say is not "preaching to the choir" or "nothing."

This is where DU has been failing the GLBT community and that may very well be the fault of GLBT persons such as my self for not pointing this out. When a preacher speaks there are always GLBT persons present and most of those GLBT persons are their because of their parents faith or their own sincere faith. His preaching does way more harm in the long run than not having civil marriage or any other right for that matter.

• GLBT youth are 3 times more likely to commit suicide than their peers (http://www.soulforce.org/article/653)
  
• 26 percent of gay teens who came out to their parents/guardians were told they must leave home (http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/homeless_youth)
  
• 3 to 5% of U.S. population identifies as gay or lesbian, yet up to 40% of homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prHY_013007)

Think about that. Why? Its not because GLBT persons do not have civil marriage or other rights. Its because of societies homophobia that is taught and learned from people like Warren. Parents do not kick their kids on the street out of the blue. There is a reason that thy do this - and its almost always because of their parents toxic religious views.

Many of us have grown up in this atmosphere and have tried very hard to make changes so that others will not have to be treated the same way we were. intended or not your post just dismissed this as not important in the grands scheme of themes - and I strongly disagree.

Warren has an ex-gay ministry at his church. By allowing this man to say a prayer IMO it is de-facto saying he is okay and he is not nor is the hate he spews at GLBT person. Every single gay youth that is in a family that is a member of his congregation or a member of a church who agrees with him is indeed being harmed by this.

[rasputin1952]

211. My post was about his invocation for the inauguration...

not about his ministry as a whole. Sorry if that point was missed. His invocation will be generic, what he says and does other than that concerning his church is indeed despicable, and not just for the GLBT community. I personally think he missed the maxims of being a Christian, he and others like him, have little in common w/what Jesus spoke of.Condemnation of an entire group of people is about as far from true Christian tenets as one can get.

[Zuiderelle]

226. I must also disagree with you. ONE prayer, no matter how "generic" in THIS setting is dangerous.

It gives validity to him and to his entire ministry. People who have never heard of him before know his name now, and more will know his name after his prayer. I'm willing to bet that his congregation has and will grow as a result of this. And THAT is what's dangerous to US.

[FreeState]

254. That was my point - about the one prayer - it legitimizes Warren and his message

Im so furious at the lack of empathy and understanding right now I just cant reply.

This is exactly what the GLBT community and our supporters has been complaining about.

[AntiFascist]

273. Exactly...

not to mention that the MSM is often promoting his book when they interview him.

I have personal experience with certain conservative churches using contemporary books that promote homophobic ideals. This can be more dangerous and insidious than anyone can realize, and it is also blatantly anti-Christian.

[Solon]

210. Your statement about not meaning to harm anyone is a straight up lie, and you know it...

you posted snark, rather unproductive snark at that, and you claim you didn't mean harm? What BS is this?

[rasputin1952]

212. What you see as snark, others might not have...

calling me a liar is not very conducive to discussion.

For the record, are you taking everyone to task for what they posted? I have seen far worse than "snark" posted here over this issue, by all sides. It is difficult to emphasize how a message can be taken w/the written word as opposed to inflections used inn vocalizations. Fact of the matter is, far too many times people have posted exceptionally vile remarks to people who have not agreed w/their POV. This is a discussion board, not a grenade range. Locking inflammatory threads is a job we take seriously.

I'll just add, could you post a link to the message you found so offensive?

[Solon]

213. After only a cursory search, not exhaustive, I found one I thought was particularly enlightening...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8036150#8036215

Look at your own locking message, and then look at the OP. You complained about rude responses to an OP that basically dismissed GLBT issues as, and I quote: "This means putting off any sort of emotional satisfaction we as Progressives might enjoy by ramrodding a Progressive agenda down America's throat in the same fashion Bush did with his Neo-Con agenda."

You claim your locking messages were informative, and in this case, it was more than informative.

And like I said, this is just one, and given your history, there are most likely many, many more.

[rasputin1952]

216. So, you are saying that may of the responses were

not out of line?

As I have posted previously, there is plenty of "blame" to go around from all sides of the issue.

What is so terrible about asking for discussion as opposed to attacks...from any side of this issue?

Just in case people have not noticed, there have been other threads from the sides of the issue for the same reasons, although the locking message has been different from lock to lock, in essence, threads are locked because they have become slugfests with little hope for a redemption.

DU has always supported Human Rights for all, this includes gay marriage. If one thinks that simply because some will not toe-the-line as to the parameters given by a few, they are mistaken. You seem to think that by attacking me, or a locking message that attempts to explain why a thread was locked
is somehow going to change what was posted, then you need to look at what happened in the entire thread. I read these threads long before action is taken, it is a time consuming and often a painful thing to do. I see people that I have great respect for posting things that are inflammatory to the point where it is actually embarrassing.

This particular issue has taken on a life of it's own. I don't agree with Warren on virtually everything he talks about. But I'm not going to allow one bonehead kill off the hope od serious and overdue change because he gets 2 minutes of airtime. All this has done is hurt DU and some excellent DU'ers; Warren will speak, hit mute, the things posted here have not had Warren removed from the program, it is open for discussion...but the e-mails and letters should be directed to Obama and Warren. Attacking people who support GLBT here on DU will not advance the cause for Human Rights.

[Solon]

217. No, what I'm saying is that the OP expected that very response...

because of the flippant attitude they displayed in the OP, in other words, it was flamebait, even if you couldn't see it. The posts weren't out of line with the OP because the OP itself was out of line.

The fact is that fairweather supporters for GLBT civil rights aren't supporters at all, especially not when its inconvenient for them or their leaders. That's just a fact.

Besides that, this issue with Warren has taken a life of its own, the man is symbolic of all that is wrong with the United States when it comes to Civil Rights for GLBT people. The fact of the matter is that, in this case, you simply don't know of what you speak, you are straight, and can't understand why people are pissed, and frankly that's OK. The problem is when clueless straights such as yourself decide to try to "talk down" to GLBT people as if they were children in what they should be outraged about. Frankly that's offensive in the extreme, I'm a straight guy myself, and I can see this plainly, why can't you?

[rasputin1952]

306. I have to take exception to the remark that I can't understand

because I am straight. I'm not black either, but i was beaten in the 60's for standing by them. I have been in more contested areas than most people can even dream of. You don't know me, you don't know where I've been and how I've stood up for Human Rights long before most people even became aware there was a problem.

I am not a woman either, but I've stood shoulder to should with thousands when we've faced down misogyny. I have been there physically, whenever I see injustice, and fight when i have to to end such injustice.

I don't call others names, I don't stand around and watch people be abused, no matter who is doing the abusing...hell, I got slapped around up by the college because I jumped in to help a classmate who was being harassed because he is gay...but somehow, I "don't understand?" "You didn't 'have' to get in that fight", that's what the dean and Disciplinary Board told me. My answer was simple, "I did have to get into that fight, it was the right thing to do."

All I'm going to say beyond that is that I am not a "keyboard warrior", I'm out there fighting for Justice and Equal Rights...and I do understand.

[Solon]

330. I don't understand your defensiveness, of course you have no understanding...

you can try to empathize, but you can't really understand the position or life experiences of minorities without being one yourself. I have no understanding either, as I said, I'm straight, and I also recognize that. Just like I can't understand how a black person would feel for being pulled over for driving while black, or being harrassed at work, you can't either. We can't control such things, because we simply cannot experience those things first hand. There's no fault to lay blame for this. To give an example, let's say a friend of yours told you his mother just died, yet your mother is still alive. Do you truly understand the loss he is feeling, or do you try to empathize with it?

Its not completely impossible to understand what minorities feel, but it is extremely rare, first hand racism due to being married to someone of a different race would be an example, however, in most cases, people who belong to a majority generally have no understanding of what a minority goes through in their daily lives when they face discrimination and prejudice.

[rasputin1952]

334. It is not defensiveness...

I spoke facts.

I don't appreciate the "argument" of "no one understands", that is an argument based in fallacy. If no one "understood" no one would care, and no one would would fight for anyone else's basic Human Rights. The "you don't understand" stance drives people away from causes that need to be addressed.

[Maven]

246. That you don't understand why the *OP* was inflammatory

especially at that particular moment, is the problem.

[Starry Messenger]

272. Much is becoming clear.

As someone who was in that thread too, I was shocked for the reason it was locked. I thought I was having a productive conversation in my subthread. And the context for the other replies was readily apparent. As QC stated in that link, at that time, the number of threads complaining about Warren and "gay issues" easily outnumbered the threads addressing the issue head on.

There is a disconnect: some people write that making nice with Rick Warren will solve world peace (or solve world hunger...what!!). Some say, it's just a two minute prayer. But the overall response of the board has made it impossible to discuss the issue. I just gave up going into GDP for the most part.

[Zuiderelle]

228. The lock message said he was not locking because of the OP, yet the OP was pure flamebait.

"Whether you are straight or gay or what the fuck ever random group, you have a stomach that needs to be fed or you die."

That's the first sentence. It should have been locked because of that alone... "what the fuck ever random group" immediately diminishes GLBT members as a "random group."

[Solon]

230. Oooh, but the OP wasn't out of line, just the responses, according to the all wise moderator here...

:eyes:

[QC]

233. Oh yes, the "you whiny queers are going to cause mass starvation

if you don't sit down and shut up" thread.

And those of us who correctly recognized it as trolling were chewed out for not being nice.

That happens a lot around here: someone posts blatant trollery and a mod--always the same mod, come to think of it--chastises those who object to the trolling and defends the troll.

[Solon]

234. Yes, it does seem to represent a pattern, doesn't it?

I'm saving this thread, at this moment, a snapshot, so it doesn't fall into the memory hole.

[Zuiderelle]

241. The OP says we have a choice between a Great Depression and Gay Marriage.

Here he again claims that MILLIONS of people may starve to death if we fight for gay marriage. That's seriously fucked up and exactly the kind of thing I expect bigots like Warren to claim from their fire and brimstone pulpits.

I don't make excuses for bigots, I hate Rick Warren and everything he stands for, I make no excuses for him. I weigh in my heart Gay Marriage or millions of Americans starving to death(because from the information I have in my head that seems to be the choice, either push hard on Gay rights on the Federal level and lose all political capital to get the right stimulus package, or leave the gay rights fight on the state by state level and avoid the great Depression)and in the end, the millions of lives at stake weigh heavier on my conscience than Gay Marriage, I don't think someone is crazy if they chose the other, it's a deeply personal, deeply fucked up choice to have force on you, but it is forced on us as far as I understand.

How is that kind of inflammatory bigotry allowed to stand, and why wouldn't the lock message be admonishing THAT language instead of admonishing gay people for objecting to the OP's bigotry?

That's what I want to know.

[Maven]

244. That was particularly heinous, and this moderator has revealed a bias

about this issue within this thread and others that frankly should disqualify him from making calls to lock/delete messages on threads relating to this issue.

[yardwork]

239. But Rasputin, the moderator's locking message carries far more weight than any other post.

As I said in my post to you up thread, the power given to moderators on DU carries a responsibility to be objective.

Many of your recent locking posts have not been objective. Some of your locking messages have been overtly critical and hostile to DUers (gay and straight) who have been speaking out against what they perceive to be insensitivity and outright hostility toward gay people allowed here on DU.

One of your recent locking posts was particularly hurtful, and that perception is shared by many straight as well as gay DUers. We're asking you to be objective in your locking posts - and in your moderating in general - and not join in the gay-bashing that is taking place with too much frequency on this board.

That in no way excuses anybody else's behavior. This is about a moderator's style, not anybody else.

[rasputin1952]

304. For one thing, I have never "bashed" gays...

and if you look at the locking messages objectively, you will see that they are not aimed at any "group", but in reality the very few posters who refuse to allow any leeway in their discussions...it is all aboout..."you listen to me, I'm right and you're not", regardless of which side of the aisle this comes from. It has nothing to do w/gay/straight, and has everything to do with how people behave on these Boards.

I don't care if an individual is a part of any "group", it makes no difference to me in the slightest, what I see are some people who refuse to allow others to talk, to ask, to be a part of something even if it is peripheral.

I do not allow myself to be swayed by the position a person takes on an issue, what does move me in the direction to request a lock, or second a lock, is the behavior of some of the posters in a thread.

Look at this sub-thread, it started because I stated that an individual should take his side to Skinner via e-mail, and now this, suddenly I am "the enemy"...a Mod made a statement to another member, bringing up an infarction of the rules, and somehow, this came about. People can pile on me all day long, I know I am not a an insensitive clod, but if others want to see me as such, that is the way things go.

as for what consider snarky locking messages, my suggestion is to not read much more into then than is what is there. Locks are made because some people take things to extremes and call others out and make all kinds of accusations. I can't count the # of times when I've seen a good DUer blasted because they posted something that was taken out of context. Not on this issue alone either, but many times over various issues and stances that have nothing to do w/sexuality.

[Zuiderelle]

311. How could you not see that particular thread as flamebait all by itself?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8036150#8036215

Whether you are straight or gay or what the fuck ever random group, you have a stomach that needs to be fed or you die.

During the Great Depression, Millions of Americans died of starvation -also of preventable diseases that were not treated because they could not afford the treatment.

"what the fuck ever random group" is completely inflammatory and diminishing of gay people, and MILLIONS of people did not die of starvation during the Great Depression. Everything about the OP was inflammatory.

I read all the posts in that thread, and I didn't see anything unreasonable. In fact, I was quite impressed by many posters' ability to maintain a sense of humor and treat the thread lightly.

Even later in the thread the OP again makes a hugely inflammatory claim that millions of Americans may starve to DEATH if we choose to fight for gay marriage. How is that not inflammatory?

I don't make excuses for bigots, I hate Rick Warren and everything he stands for, I make no excuses for him. I weigh in my heart Gay Marriage or millions of Americans starving to death (because from the information I have in my head that seems to be the choice, either push hard on Gay rights on the Federal level and lose all political capital to get the right stimulus package, or leave the gay rights fight on the state by state level and avoid the great Depression)and in the end, the millions of lives at stake weigh heavier on my conscience than Gay Marriage, I don't think someone is crazy if they chose the other, it's a deeply personal, deeply fucked up choice to have force on you, but it is forced on us as far as I understand.

And yet YOU lock the thread with this:

rasputin1952
Fri Dec-26-08 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
29. I am going to Lock this...

Not because of the original message, rather some of the replies are quite ostentatious and downright rude.

It is sad that such things come about because some people simply have refused to discuss matters civilly.

You felt the need to say that you locked it specifically NOT because of the OP, as if the OP was being reasonable, and instead inferred that the responses to it were irrational and ostentatious. Ostentatious? How do you justify using that word? To me it sounds like "uppity."

I am amazed that you don't see your mistake in that thread lock, and cannot admit that you might have been wrong. You were wrong.

[rasputin1952]

315. I can accept that the locking msg I made was OTT in retrospect...

at the time, some of the responses were worse than the OP, and when i locked it, the decision had been made to do it for the reason cited. The OP was indeed inflammatory and elicited some of the responses it got.

[Zuiderelle]

317. Thanks. I appreciate you saying that, even though I don't agree that any of the responses were

worse than the OP. I do appreciate you seeing that your message was not fair.

[rasputin1952]

319. While my locking message might have been off...

It was a "fair" lock none the less. The object was to stop the fighting from all sides. There was no bias involved. My message was done in haste, after discussion, it was my error, but it was not done in a biased fashion.

[Zuiderelle]

320. Then we'll just have to disagree about that.

I believe it was biased. You indicated that you thought that the OP was reaching out to discuss things civilly and that the responses were ostentatious and rude. I think that the OP was rude and condescending and insulting and the responses were completely appropriate.

[yardwork]

324. Can you see how your message - the locking message of a mod - might have caused a lot of turmoil?

As I said upthread, the locking message of a DU moderator or admin carries a great deal more weight than anyone else's post.

You now acknowledge (after initially denying it) that your locking message was OTT. Do you see how it might have inflamed rather than quieted the fighting?

When people are already feeling attacked, demeaned, legally discriminated against, the (as you call it) "OTT" lock of a moderator is likely to further inflame hard feelings.

One such locking message could be smoothed over. Unfortunately, there is a pattern here that many of us perceive, and it isn't just on you, Rasputin. There is a perception among many DUers right now - gay and straight - that gay people are being treated unfairly. I'll say no more than that, other than to suggest that if DU management really cares about this issue, they might consider asking people what is wrong rather than attempting to stop the fighting by way of locking messages, OTT or otherwise.

[AntiFascist]

312. So, this issue 'only' has to do with sexuality? n/t

[rasputin1952]

318. Let's not work the semantic line too hard...

Many of us think Warren gives humanity a bad name. But the only thing being brought up is his anti-gay stance. he's not just anti-gay marriage, he's anti gay. While he should be pilloried for that, as he has often here, the issue is Human Rights.

[yardwork]

325. There are many threads and posts that discuss Warren's terrible positions on a wide range of topics.

It has been discussed at some length how Warren is anti-women's rights, anti-science, antisemitic, anti-health education, and a whole host of other issues. Many of us - gay and straight - are discussing a lot more than Warren's anti-gay stance.

[mudesi]

149. The point of view you refer to is homophobic bigotry

Let's not kid ourselves here. You would ban someone who is against interracial marriage. You would ban someone who thinks the Iraq war was a great idea and that it's going well. You would ban people against gay marriage (or, at least that's how it used to be...) People are banned all the time for having certain points of view on this site, and rightly so, because they are either hateful and/or conservative.

I fully expected everybody - everybody - on this forum to be disgusted with the choosing of Rick Warren. He is equivalent to a Klansman delivering the invocation in the 1950's. The idea that reasonable people can disagree on this issue is false in its premise: Those who have no problem with it are not reasonable.

Let's not forget that Rick Warren actively campaigned for proposition 8. People's human rights were taken away thanks to this man and everybody like him. And you're saying it's OK for so called liberals/progressives to condone it. It's not.

[rasputin1952]

166. He actively campaigned for Prop 8, so I don't like the guy,

I could not care less at what this guy has to say. I'll probably hit mute when he does his invocation, but I doubt it, I'm going to see what he has to say. I am not going to allow this creep to even come close to ruining the day. I am looking forward to seeing Obama take the Oath of the Presidency, and move on tho the WH. Warren will creep back to his church.

You can look at this any way you wish, I see it as a day when we will have at the least, a chance to take this nation back from an administration that has done far more to deny the GLBT community Human rights than anything Warren has to say on 20 Jan. I am willing to bet he won't come close to anything remotely "offensive" to anyone. It will be a generic invocation, nothing more.

I don't have to see eye-to-eye with Warren, he and I have nothing in common as per our views, the 2 minutes he'll talk means nothing. Mute, spit at the TV, yell, do what you want...I'm there for the inauguration and the collapse of the neo-con agenda.

Fueling fire-fights on DU will not change a thing, all that will be accomplished is division and more flames.

[Balderdash]

188. With all due respect, I now understand why it's

been hell here for LGBT people here lately. I've read the rules and the
way LGBT folks have been allowed to be treated here have be appalling.

[rasputin1952]

191. To be honest, as I've stated before, if there is "blame" to go

around, there is no shortage of individuals from all sides.

I've seen many good DU'ers from all aspects being hurt during this situation. It should never have come to this. Most people want to talk about this issue, but talk is often not seen as an option. I don't want to see anyone harmed over this, and yet it has happened, time and again.

Sad situation for everyone.

[Creideiki]

195. Bullshit

Seriously. Bullshit.

If someone is denigrating one entire group repeatedly, they're sent home with one exception--it's okay to beat up on the gays.

You can deny it, but as Peter Schickele once said, "Truth is truth. It doesn't change because you don't like it."

The LGBT forum is now practically a lounge--and still people will come in and criticize us there. Yes, this has been brought up over and over to the moderators/admins. You don't care. Truth is truth. You don't like it--tough. It doesn't change.

We can barely post about the most inane innocuous crap there (although my turnip post was, if I say so myself, a masterpiece) without worrying about when the warnings and bannings are going to come--and still posts get locked. What the hell do you want from us? To all leave so you can live in your straight privileged little world with the few gay people that are willing to take your kicks in the face and then thank you and ask if they can still stay and bathe in the wonderful presence of people that make no bones that they're superior to us.

[rasputin1952]

215. You might see it as that way, but only those threads that have turned into

flamefests have been locked. As I've stated before, civil discourse will change attitudes, not arguments and flamefests.

by starting off your post w/"Bullshit", you have already shown a penchant for not reading the content of a post, but reading what you want into it.

There have been offenses committed on both side of this issue, seems as though you only want to see those that you wan to see. Everyone must walk lockstep w/your views? Do you think that is realistic, people believe things for various reasons, you cannot ope top change a POV by attacking another, regardless of where you stand on an issue. When someone does not support a particular element of a POV, that does not make them instantly an enemy. But if you treat a supporter as an enemy, you will create one.

I agree and support the basic Human Right of marriage for all, I do not support denigrating people because they have a different POV on some issues, or the way they might write about it. Some people are much better at writing their views than others, therefore their POV might not have come across precisely as it was meant to.

Those of us who have fought for Civil Rights for many years know that change comes in increments. Fear of change is very powerful to many people, very few will accept a dramatic change in a very short period of time. Perceived "threats" are vanquished when they are shown not to be a true threat. This is inevitably done in steps, not wholesale change in a matter of minutes.

[Creideiki]

225. So when people disagree with us and start flaming

the thread gets locked, right?

There are some views that everyone must walk in lockstep with according to the DU rules. Everyone has to support the Democratic candidate in the general election. Everyone is expected to believe in the humanity of ethnic minorities and women. Everyone is expected to work toward equal civil rights for ethnic minorities and women. Fall out of lockstep and post about it, and you're gone.

Disagree with the humanity and equality of LGBT people who will form same-sex long-term relationships and this is just something that we can disagree on.

(for sake of example)
I fully support your right to marry whomever you choose, also. Well, maybe not, because as a Lutheran, I was raised to believe that other Christian denominations are screwing up. Their sacraments don't carry the actual weight that ours do. I just have a deepseated religious conviction that Catholic, for example, marriages aren't the same as Lutheran marriages--Catholics are screwing up and Lutherans are the only real marriages that matter. Therefore, if I argue that Catholic marriages shouldn't work, then we just have a difference of opinion. Surely reasonable people can disagree, right?
(end example)

Do you now see the problem here? This is what we're putting up with constantly here lately. All animals are created equal (but some are more equal than others).

[Marrah_G]

231. If you replace "gay" with "black" on these topic, the responses would be completely different

Unfortunately, for all the politically correct speech people spew, deep down, they don't see GBLT people or their fight for equal rights as important as they would other people's civil rights. That goes for some of those admining and moderating this site as well.

[rasputin1952]

307. That is simply not true...

It has to do with "how" people approach their posting, not anything to do w/gay/straight.

the3 argument you put forth is far from anything this site stands for. There have been hundreds of threads about this, some respectful and thoughtful, some nothing but bile and venom. Few of those have been locked. We spent weeks moderating this issue...very few thraeds were locked.

[Two Americas]

249. double standard

What you say here sounds nice and reasonable, but you are applying these standards to one group and not to the other. That is the problem.

You have no problem in this post and others "denigrating" those with whom you disagree, while you condescendingly lecture them about doing that.

[rasputin1952]

309. And how many are lecturing me?

I get posts telling me i don't understand, I get posts basically calling me a bigot, I get posts from members who don't see the large picture of DU, only their personal POV that I must somehow be "agaisnt" them individually or as a group because I locked threads that were scorhing hot because people from all sides can't talk civilly...or worse, listen to another's POV w/o lashing out.

Double Standard...it cuts both ways.

[yardwork]

326. You put yourself into this thread.

[rasputin1952]

327. Yes, to tell a member to take his concerns to Skinner and not

post them on the Boards.

:)

[yardwork]

328. You said a LOT more than that.

[rasputin1952]

329. People asked a lot more after I posted...

:)

[Two Americas]

248. this point of view

The point of view you are expressing here shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue. Do you really think this was about Warren saying something offensive in the invocation? Or should I say "offensive?"

Do you really think this is about whether or not you like Warren, or see eye-to-eye with him? Whether or not you are going to allow him to ruin your day?

Fueling fire fights on DU would be a bad thing. Can you not see that this very post of yours does just that?

The debate about this here, by the way, has changed everything.

[defendandprotect]

187. Skinner's policy is support for homosexual rights - or else ...!!!

I wouldn't push on "banning" people ... Skinner simply said they coukd go

"elsewhere" if they didn't like the policy--!!!

But I do think it's important for those of us concerned about homophobia

at DU STAY IN TOUCH WITH SKINNER and let him know how we feel.

[rasputin1952]

302. OK, this thread has become about me...and that was not the

purpose of my initial post in this thread.

Please excuse me as I had classes up at the college, and then work, so this has grow considerably since this AM.

Let me reiterate, this sub-thread has become about me, not the individual who initially went after Admin to just ban members who did not agree with is particular point of view. If we just banned people who tick people on DU off, there would be very few people posting at all.

i have tried to explain that people of various thoughts on issues have voiced their opinions on the areas they wished to respond to. As long as these posts have been civil and within the rules, they stand, if a posts are inflammatory, PA's, GA's and the like, if they are alerted on, decisions are made...those decisions are come by honestly and fairly, regardless of how some people feel about that. I find it somewhat amazing that some people think they might be the only one's able to post on DU, and not, in any way, feel they should be "challenged"...you want to talk about one sided, I guess that pretty well describes one sided.

For the record, I cannot, nor will I discuss what Moderators do and how they come to conclusions. I will tell you that after discussion, decisions are made. If you don't like those decisions, PM the Mods of that Forum. I would not suggest taking Admin or Moderators to task on the Boards, and then complain when a post is deleted, or a thread locked. Virtually everyone who has posted has been here for a long time, and knows how the rules work in that matter.

I would also suggest a little more flexibility. Just because an individual holds a particular POV, does not necessarily mean everyone else will agree w/that POV. No one will come around to any POV by being degraded...if you don't like being slapped in the face, please don't slap others in the face. I think that's a pretty good place to start from.

[TheKentuckian]

144. Calling for tombstones like this is wrongheaded and against much of what we represent

You are edging towards being an incarnation of what you despise. Banning should be treated like the death penalty, never or only in the most extreme circumstances. Its not my sight but I think you're on a path that spits in America's eye on par with the spitting in the eye it gets every day that rights are trampled.

I also think the use of ignore is for tittybabies and would be a feature I'd delete from any discussion board.

You can't only support freedom of speech when it is yours or you agree. If you don't support the rights of those that disagree with or even oppose you then you have missed the boat.
Acceptance and respect will never be legislated. You have to earn it and sometimes wait for it.

[Creideiki]

196. I thought we despised how Bush refused the thought that he could ever make a mistake

Silly me.

Well, you can go on despising gay people all you want. I like reading your posts because they always introduce new depths to me.

[TheKentuckian]

269. What would make you think I despise gay people?

I'm speaking purely to the call for tombstones for those that don't agree with you. How you'd miss that I could never guess but way to deflect. I just do not agree with the way some people wish to handle those that disagree with them. Hell, I'd keep the freepers around too for shits and giggles and to serve as whipping posts. I've got zero ignores, I think it is productive and positive to be offended, that's what real freedom of speech is about.

I see the entire logic as a parallel to Bush and Cheney's lame excuses for taking a dump on our Constitution and more importantly the spirit of the law. You convert and refute but you don't end conversation. I think your approach is childish and wrongheaded but that has nothing to do with anyone's orientation. My conscience is clear on equality, I've put my own ass on the line for gays to protect them from bigoted customers who were crying AIDS and fear of their children being molested and even more so for Muslims employees after 9/11.
I cost my company money and put my own ass in a sling on multiple occasions because I take the fight with me everywhere and have bet my livelihood and career on the line, not just pontificating on a message board. So, if my posts lead you to believe I'm not a supporter of equal rights for each and every citizen then maybe you lack discernment or are subject to making hasty judgments based on little, if any information. Further, it is my assertion that all rights are self contained and bestowed from above.

Whatever though, fire up your juvenile ignore, call for bans on those that disagree or plain old just aren't seeing it the right way instead of helping to educate them, or better yet be a voice for your beliefs and make a difference in converting sinners instead of being focused on creating an echo chamber and you'll do a little bit to advance freedom and equality rather than shooting all you believe in, in the foot.

[closeupready]

221. If Skinner thinks that, he's wrong. Period. So is Obama. You can NOT reject full equality wtihout

supporting INEQUALITY, i.e., homophobia and discrimination, and shame on those who argue you can. :mad:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

222. Yes, thoughtful people can disagree on it.

For instance, I wouldn't really care if he had Lester Maddox and Adolf Hitler doing a flamenco dance for two minutes instead of having whatever dingbat holy man spout preapproved nonsense and paeans to the nonexistent man in the sky in order to appeal to whatever idiot demographic gets their kicks from this kind of spectacle. The inaguration is and always has been a way to confer the title of Head of State (as opposed to Head of Government) upon the President. Even the Presidents' own speeches are rarely remembered, and even in those cases where they are remembered it's only because the President was found, after the fact, to have been a visionary of some sort.

Far more important to me is the fact that Obama's team came out yesterday and affirmed in the strongest possible terms that they intend to get rid of DADT. If they flake on that, I'll be angry. What they do at the inaguration is between them and the people who obsess about pageantry to an unhealthy degree.

[Texasgal]

115. Very beautiful post!

I hope you stay, there are many of us who stand in solidarity and will not tolerate bigots.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

118. truly sad that this went on here....

:hug:

"We are all in the Gutter,
but some of us
are looking at
the stars"- Oscar Wilde

[Horse with no Name]

119. Wow. I am in tears.

You are absolutely right.
There were hints along the way that Obama was going to be anti-gay...but even I thought that he would realize it and change course.
I cannot say that I have always agreed with your positions--but believe me when I say I am right beside you on this one, my brother.
Good luck to you and your partner.

[Trillo]

121. I'm terribly sorry to hear of your problems and difficulties with moderators and admin.

All of us who are outsiders have been bellittled with personally hurtful comments here, even tactics that aren't personal, comments such as quick one liners that have no relation to what was written, and that aren't humorous.

My problem is I've adopted their tactics here at times.

Years ago, the Internet was a great place. Not so much anymore, as more people have gotten online, and the medium has spread, Wall Street has interests in quashing ideas, preempting discussion, so to speak. By doing that, they intend to hurt your heart.

Well, my heart was shut down a long time ago by the compulsory education system, so in that respect I don't really care. But I don't like spreading hurt around more, cause sometimes someone really is *stupid* or *ignorant* (literally, not code words for something else), and I'm sorry about them having gotten innocently in the way of one of my rants and I presumed wrongly they were a troll.

[glitch]

123. K & R. I missed most of the nastiness, and I am sorry to see it.

Good luck to you, and please come back when you can. We really do need as many caring adults as we can get around here!

[tpsbmam]

126. I have tears in my eyes. I hope you'll come back to all of those who

support you and totally get what you're saying. I can't walk in your shoes but I can walk beside you. Your insight and eloquence is needed here. I hope you'll do what you need to do to take care of yourself, pabsungenis, and then come back to DU.

I want you to know that I have great trouble reading these days -- I don't read long posts anymore because reading exhausts me (intensified MS problems). I know I've missed great posts but it is what it is. I began reading yours and didn't want to/couldn't stop because what you said was so heartfelt, so generous to share, and was having a big impact on my own heart -- it was worth every bit of the exhaustion I now feel.


:loveya: :hug:

[ulysses]

127. well done!

:thumbsup:

[Wetzelbill]

128. Nicely said

[BR_Parkway]

129. Heartily agree - and even beyond the homophobia - the "everything Obama does

is right" attitude lately is pretty scary. In a Freeper=we must support Bush at all cost kind of way.

Good luck with your housing situation - I'm afraid I'll be tying that more and more as the next few months go by.

[varelse]

131. K&R

please come back to us.

[H2O Man]

132. I'm glad that you are here.

And I hope that you stay.

[alarimer]

134. I too have been disheartened by some of things written on this site about Warren.

And about gay rights in general, at least when it comes to Obama.

Obama courts gay voters and progressive voters when he needs them and then ignores them the rest of the time. This is just more proof that Obama, while claiming the mantle of change, is actually not anything new in a politician.

It is one of the reasons why I am just about finished with politics. I may never vote again. Progressives like me apparently have no place in the Democratic Party. It goes without saying that we have no place in the Republican Party. Yet, we are constantly told we have to vote Democratic or else. Frankly, I am sick of that too.

Regarding Obama and gay rights, only time will tell if he keeps his promises. I suspect he won't but then I am a hardened cynic, surprised whenever a politician keeps any of his promises.

[Ken Burch]

184. And, given that his unpopularity among LGBT voters almost cost him the nom

You'd think Obama wouldn't have decided that part of his reach over to the right strategy should include calculated disses to that same voting bloc during the transition. He didn't have anything to gain in that period by sending the "these people don't matter THAT much to me" message about LGBT voters.

There were non-hurtful ways to reach out available.

[JackDragna]

136. No retreat, no surrender.

Know that many straight DU'ers share you sentiments. You're not alone.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[AntiFascist]

139. Eww!

For those who don't understand the connection, neoconservatism came from the "Chicago School" of thought advocated by Leo Strauss. So, is Obama of the "Chicago school"? DLC?

[Deep13]

141. A note about DOMA and don't ask/don't tell.

I hope most of us understand that the reason DOMA was passed was because the Republicans were building an effort to amend the Constitution to make marriage hetero only as a matter of Constitutional law. This measure allowed individual states to continue to make progress towards gay equality without the threat of a Constitutional Amendment which a lot of people in the country would have supported. Now, one may disagree with the political strategy, but that was a big reason for its passage. Frankly, my feeling is that any sort of strongly pro-gay legislation would have been short-lived as most of those who supported it would have been tossed out in the next election and an even more rabid anti-gay Congress would have succeeded with a clear mandate for its amendment.

That was a similar with D.A.D.T. The far right was attempting to hijack Clinton's presidency during the 1st 100 days by insisting on legislation to bar gays from the military. Previously the ban was executive order only. That order allowed a soldier to be kicked out after a long military career and be deprived of his or her pension and G.I. benefits. Now if someone finds out a soldier is gay, it is not automatically ground for dismissal. This improved the situation without risking a legislative mandate. Yes, D. members of Congress would have voted for the statutory ban and that supports the OP's argument. Yes, maybe it was time to tackle that issue in 1993. I'm not saying I agree. I'm only saying it was not anti-gay to the extent one might suppose.

I agree that sometimes half measures are better than nothing, or worse, losing ground. This assumes we continue to make progress. While I agree that gay marriage is a basic human right, I really see the national protection against employment discrimination as the next feasible step. It may be hard for some blue state or blue city residents to appreciate that an employer in most states may fire someone for being gay and there is no legal recourse for the employee. That forces gays into the closet in these states. And secret people do not gain public support.

[rhett o rick]

142. pabsungenis I respect your decision one way or another. But I recommend you stay and fight.

Don't let the faux liberals shut you down.

What I don't understand, if there are those that think there are too many threads speaking out for GLBT rights, why don't they just ignore them and post their brains out on whatever subject they wish? Do they think they are obligated to respond?

[Number23]

146. "I've been a victim of job discrimination, something Barack Obama honestly cannot say."

Do you feel that way about every successful black person, or just Obama?? Because I would be willing to bet everything in my pocket right now that you are wrong.

To Obama, the Civil Rights Movement is part of the history he learned in school, not a living event as it had been for eleven of his predecessors.

What does this mean, exactly? Are you suggesting that a black man is simply coasting on the success of the Civil Rights movement, but it was actually his white predecessors who somehow eat, breathed and truly experienced the civil rights movement? How on earth could you possibly come to this conclusion?

I will not pretend to know what it truly was like for blacks during segregation, but so many heterosexuals here on DU feel the need to pretend to know what it's been like for me, and millions of others, in this battle.

Yet, you seem comfortable pretending to know what it's like for any black person now. Why is that?

I've found the snide, condescending attitude of some people here when it comes to the issue of Obama and gays to be horribly offensive.

I've found the snide, condescending attitude of some here towards black people, particularly on the issue of gays and blacks, to make me want to slap the sh*t out of a few people. But I haven't felt the need to insult large groups of people as a result of my anger. I did post a very nasty comment to Nance Greggs once, but I apologized a few minutes later.

I sense alot of hurt and pain in your post, and I'm truly sorry for that. But why you have decided to use your anger in such a way, I do not understand. I won't say exactly how I feel about your post, because I do believe that it will get me banned. But if your hurt and anger have lead you down a path where you feel that everyone black born after 1960 (of which I as a black woman born in 1972 would fall into that category) has had no direct experience with racism, discrimination and the pain and misery of the pre-civil rights era, perhaps a trip "up North" or at the very least an extended hiatus from DU would be best. Best of luck to you and your mother.

[Number23]

168. Speaking of moderating, my post upthread was deleted. No attacks. No name-calling. No nothing

I have no idea what is going on in this place.

[awoke_in_2003]

154. hey pab...

don't know if you will see this, but a lot of us here have your back. I don't see all the "shut up and sit down" threads out there, but when I do I will go off on them. My sister is gay, and I will not have anyone doing that to her (or anyone else). Civil rights for all, or none.

[Number23]

155. One more thing...

will believe all the pie in the sky promises you keep touting when we see them.

Have you truly not seen anything, one single thing that Obama has done since winning the election that has made you believe that things will be better, will GET better under an Obama administration?

[Jamastiene]

157. K&R

I cannot add anything to your OP except that I was almost ready to think things would get better only to see an outright turn for the worst on this message board. I cannot believe the place I once truly loved and believed in has turned into the hateful, vitriolic place that is has for GLBT people. There are lots of nice people here as well who do feel we are important enough that our right to exist is not something that is debatable. When the PTB do not believe that way, though, it takes any endorsement and any belief I once had and shatters it.

I hope all goes better for you and your mother than it has so far. Your OP is a living testimony that all gay people are not "rich, white men of privilege" as a certain contingent of posters here seem to like to swarm into any GLBT thread and proclaim OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It sickens me when someone would come into a thread and do that, but of course, someone already has.

From this poor mixed race lesbian, I hope the absolute best for you and your mother in the future. Despite what the stereotypers like to type, family does matter to gay people too. Of course, we already know that. :hug:

[Stinky The Clown]

159. You're not alone and more than that, you have an ally.

Me.

I can't speak for anyone else.

[NashVegas]

167. Thanks for Posting

I'm really sorry you and others are having this ugliness directed at them.

[Lisa0825]

172. I'm really sorry for everyone who has felt hurt, slighted, disappointed, etc...

I have not yet given up on Obama in regard to GLBT issues. I still think he has a plan, and that it includes bridging the gap between moderate conservatives and liberals. I still hope that when he is judged on actual policy, he will be a knight in shining armor. I still HOPE that. There have been so many things that I either disagreed with him about or have been disappointed in at various times from mid-primary wars to now, but so far on most of those, I was proven wrong, and his strategy worked. I am sincerely hoping that his plan will unfold before us over the next year. I am waiting to witness that. I really do want equal rights for all. Honestly I do.

But I have felt (since the Warren pick), that I am the enemy because I am not condemning Obama for his choice, and I still think he has cards up his sleeve. I AM disappointed in his choice, but I think it is part of a plan. I do not approve of discrimination. I am sorry that a lot of hurt has been caused by words posted here. But this place has also felt like enemy territory to me, not just to you, because I have felt like if I did not 100% disapprove of Obama's choice (because of my hope that it may play out to have been a strategic maneuver), then I am the enemy.

I am even scared to post this, because I don't want people to hate me for it and call me a bigot. I'm not. I promise. I protested Prop H8 here in Houston. My car has a sticker that says "I'm straight but not narrow." Someone vandalized the sticker, but not enough so you could no longer read it, so I left it as is to display the bigotry. I have joined one advocacy group, Atticus Circle, and am checking out others. I have written letters to Senators and Reps. But I am still afraid that having a difference of opinion will result in me being labeled a bigot.

Please don't hate me. I want you to have everything you deserve. I mean it. I am sorry for the injustice, the hurt, the loss... I wish it would all go away, and I am still hopeful that now is the beginning of the end of it all.

[Still Sensible]

271. Well said Lisa

I obviously think a lot like you. I absolutely understand the OP's position and hope they reconsider leaving. There are abusive people here from time to time and some of the posts are in every way unacceptable.

On the other side of the coin, however, I have been flamed because I haven't condemned Obama for Warren (even though I have seen and cited numerous gay posters that have expressed they are not upset about it).

I wish the flamers would understand that in order for the change they seek to occur it will take progressives and moderates and probably even a few moderate conservatives in order to get "the whole enchilada." Prop 8 was just the latest example of what we are up against. Said differently, if California can't pass full marriage equality, who can?

Your last paragraph sums up my feelings exactly.

And to those who will accept nothing short of instant success on this or other progressive issues I say I wish you the best of luck, but if you keep chastising those of us that suggest a more incremental approach to your issues, you will only get farther from your goals IMHO.

[Bjorn Against]

178. K&R and thank you for coming back to us, you are a valuable voice to have.

[Balderdash]

181. I hope that you will come back, we need you

But I do understand the sentiment.


:hug:

[Ken Burch]

182. Wonderfully eloquent post.

I hope the haters and the silencers actually read it.

We need people like pabsubgeneris on DU AND IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

viewpoints like this deserve respect.

Thanks for your words, pabs.

[tnlefty]

185. Got another K&R in, and yes it has been nasty in here

for quite some time. I'm so sorry that you and so many have been hurt. I haven't been exactly thrilled by a lot of the discussions that have transpired here, and I'm not here to see all of the ugly.

I honestly hope that I haven't posted anything here, either out of ignorance or lack of understanding that has caused harm, because I'm full on for ALL of the citizens of this country being treated equally. DOMA and DODT would be a start, but hate crimes legislation is also needed, and most of all...no more of the demonizing and putting bigots in a place of prominence.

I hope that you'll stick around, as I need to learn from you. Trust me, it isn't easy to stand up for gays in TN, and I talk to friends who are gay here, but many perspectives are needed and appreciated.

Take care of yourself.

[rosesaylavee]

198. I will miss your posts here.

and I do hope you change your mind and return. I do have great hope that Obama will surprise us all in expanding the civil rights of GLBT people. Rick Warren was/is a terrible mistake for him. I don't think there is any good reason why he was selected to give that stupid prayer. But again, I am hopeful that this will have a good outcome - in some ways it already has as more people are talking about GLBT rights than were before.

Peace.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

199. I'm with you

even though I don't know you personally. I'm with you because the feelings you poured out deeply, deeply touched me. Even though you are under stress at this time, your honesty, decency and clear thinking is bound to turn life events around in your favor.

Please check back and tell us how well you're doing. I'm with you.

K&R:hug:

[Caliman73]

201. Heartfelt post. Thanks

I hope that things take a better turn for you and your family. Homophobia, racism, and sexism are hard to kill. It will take time, but fighting together we will triumph. I agree with you that the proof is not in words but in actions.

[Skittles]

203. in solidarity with you, pabsungenis

I fucking hate those certain piece of shit DUers too

[whirlygigspin]

206. happy trails

this songs for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85lKsSCZm4k

[girl_interrupted]

209. pabsungenis ...And what a beautiful heart you have

I was overcome with emotion reading your post, if people had trouble relating to what Gays go through, I think they have a much better understanding now. And that's exactly why you shouldn't go away. People need to know what it's really like and they will, if they hear more from the "heart". I wish you and your mom the best & I hope that in the very near future you enjoy the same rights we take for granted. Thank you so much for sharing.

K&R

[mmonk]

214. Recommended.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

219. God only knows how many hundreds of Rick Warren threads...

And how many responses to my post, linking to an article from a major national news organization stating that Obama's team specifically said yesterday they were going to overturn DADT?

Six.

[QC]

232. Maybe this isn't algebra.

Maybe this is not a case where +1 + -1 = 0 and so it's a wash and everything's hunky dory.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

238. And maybe policy is more important than appearances.

Just a thought, after having suffered through eight years of oh so "compassionate" conservatism.

[QC]

242. Not all of us think that putting the presidential imprimatur on a bigot

is a mere matter of appearances.

For some of us it's a pretty big deal.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

250. And for some of us it's not.

Reasonable people can disagree.

[QC]

266. It probably depends on whether one has some skin in the game or not.

It's easy for us to be sanguine about things that do not affect us personally.

[sniffa]

285. *plonk*

[yardwork]

289. But is it reasonable to insult, demean, intimidate, and abuse those with whom you disagree?

Can you see that for those to whom this is important, it's just adding to our anger and hurt to be attacked so relentlessly?

If you don't think it's a big deal, why bother to post thread after thread telling other people to shut up about it? I'm not accusing you of doing so, just pointing out the logical fallacy of those who keep telling us to shut up about it because they don't want to hear about it. It's a message board. Instead of abusing a group of people who are already legally disenfranchised, why not start threads on different topics entirely and fill the board with them?

I've never complained that other DUers are talking too much about something I'm not interested in discussing. I just go to the threads on topics that do interest me.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

308. I've never posted a single thread about this idiocy and I've never told anyone to shut up.

As far as I'm concerned the convocation could be the reanimated corpse of Stalin having oral sex with a donkey. Because I'm not watching it and I don't care about it. Spectacle only has the power it does because people refuse to turn away. I don't plan to watch the inagural. I don't care about it. I wish fewer people cared about it. In my estimation the best thing that could happen at the inagural is for nobody to turn up, and nobody to watch on TV.

[yardwork]

323. Did you read my post? I stated that I wasn't saying that you have done these things.

However, many others - including at least one moderator - have done so. That's why people are angry. We're not angry at you. We're angry at the people who are attacking us here.

[LostinVA]

313. Reasonable people can NEVER disagree on bigotry and equal civil rights -- EVER

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

316. I don't think anyone here really likes the guy.

If he was at my house for dinner I'd pee in his mashed potatoes. But he's at the inaguration, about which I simply do not care.

[LostinVA]

321. Hmmm

[mtnester]

332. But see, you let him stay at your house instead of throwing him out

and even though you peed in his mashed potatoes because you did not like the guy, he was still sitting at your table after that, and he was invited in.

THAT therein is the problem, as is the same problem with Warren. He is at the table...he was invited...and unless you TOLD him you peed in his taters....well, no one does that, everyone would say "shhh, don't tell him", just like everyone right now is being told there is no elephant on the room with Warren,and you all simply MUST stop pointing it out no matter how big and ugly and scary it is.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

333. I don't take issue with anybody getting upset about it.

As far as I'm concerned people are well within their rights to get upset about it. Just don't expect me to get upset, too. I'm not, and it has little to do with the fact that he's a bigot and everything to do with the fact that I think the inaguration is a silly, overblown pageant and waste of money to begin with.

[ScreamingMeemie]

220. Don't fade too far...

Your words (that I read yesterday) stuck with me all night and into this morning. Your last line...you have been there with us. Always. Your thoughts, your posts-they are the things that keep the sometimes lunkheaded (read: me) from forgetting to think.

And I thank you for that and I have your back.

[Baby Snooks]

223. "Fully protected under the laws in Texas"

Somewhere in a file I have a letter from then governor George W Bush that stated that homosexuals were fully protected under the law in Texas - a response to his refusal to support a hate crimes bill in Texas that included any reference to "sexual preference" as I recall was the term used back in 1999. They all say what is politically correct at the moment. They all are hypocrites when it comes to equality under the law.

I believe Barack Obama does believe in equality under the law but the problem is that the people at his table do not. And the real problem with his table is that it is not even his table. It is their table. Not his. Not ours.

[Marrah_G]

224. This is one of the most amazing posts I have read on DU

I am in tears.

Please, don't go.

Stay and see if things change.

[MessiahRp]

227. I had a post here a couple of days ago

asking aloud whether or not anyone was questioning whether or not they were a Democrat just because the direction of the party has not been in line with fighting for traditional Democratic Values. Not fighting for Equal Rights for GLBT people was one of those complaints I made.

I was roundly attacked for even thinking of questioning Obama or our party in any way and usually with the same canned responses as if they all read from a talking points sheet.

I hear you and agree with whole heartedly. The last 30 years has taught us to be skeptical and that actively questioning or showing dissent is the most patriotic form of Democracy. I'm willing to bet that most of the angry Obama supporters who go out to flame those who question or dissent agreed with this concept when it was Bush because he wasn't their guy.... It doesn't matter whose guy it is, it's America's duty to question and should we be unhappy about things, dissent. Otherwise we're all a bunch of stepford wives trained to do as we're told...

And there was quite a band of people in the 1700s who would be pretty pissed if that's the America they fought for. Especially since they refused that treatment from their own King.

Rp

[defendandprotect]

259. Yes ... It's the protect Obama from criticism squad....

vs free speech --

And protect big "D" vs small "d" agenda ---

[Lydia Leftcoast]

237. I never had any illusions about Obama, because I know

that the system will never allow anyone who was not a center-right Democrat to make it to the final round.

However, the selection of Rick Warren for the Inauguration is one of those unnecessary slaps in the face to an important constituency. Why not select Gene Robinson as his first choice, or at the very least, someone who was not a known homophobe?

I have similar feelings about the House and Senate resolutions in support of Israel in Gaza. If they disapproved of Hamas, that's one thing, but to turn that into outright support for a country using a strong, well-equipped army to attack a mostly civilian population is just unconscionable. Why state support for either side?

Given the vagueness of Obama's campaign speeches, I was wont to say, "We need an FDR, and we're going to get a Tony Blair." However, not even New Labour misfired that much in its early days.

[jaundicedi]

240. I understand that it's too late to change your mind...

But I wish you would. We need eloquent progressive voices to counter the impression that DINOs are all there is.

[Laelth]

243. Well said. k&r

:dem:

-Laelth

[Unca Jim]

245. Do I have the forever taint of evil too?

I posted the following on that thread:

_____________

There are a lot of casual users of DU that just look at the greatest page for news. The greatest page has been dominated by "I lost my rights" and "no you didn't, relax" and "everyone here hates everyone else" threads for a while. It gets old.

Just saying it gets old is not telling anyone to shut up nor is it telling them they didn't lose their rights. Me feeling it gets old is not saying my annoyance is equivalent to your lost rights.

Because people are sensitive now having lost their rights it often happens that they hear all that and more, then lash out. Which is also getting old.


That is all.
_____________


I didn't recommend the thread and I feel everyone should loudly defend their rights, but I was just trying to describe why people were annoyed with how DU had been lately. In the same way I can understand Reverend Wright's anger is based on his experiences, I get why people are mad about Obama softpedaling Gay Rights. I fully support everyone having equal rights under the law, which a lack of gay marriage rights clearly violates.

Even though all of that is true, am I indelibly evil because I posted on a thread? I know the rage is legitimate, and I understand where it comes from. God Damn America indeed.

[helderheid]

251. I hope those of us who believe we are all equal and should have equal rights will visit here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4828490

[Heidi]

258. pabsungenis, take a short break if you need to, but come back to us, please.

I can't speak for every DUer or every former DU moderator, but I've learned so much from my GLBT brothers and sisters in the past few weeks and, before that, in the run-up to the GE. Please don't stop telling your story; please don't allow people who think they know your struggle better than you do to shout you down and/or relegate you to some unofficial waiting list. Please?

ETA: This comes from the heart, too.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

292. One day we will stop trying to be like RW Republicans

it's all about we can't think for ourselves incease it upets the RW Religious Right.

Well, Religious Right - your days are numbered.

By 2010 we will have legalised gay marriage al over the country!

[Marrah_G]

293. I am very sorry that the usual shitbags dumped on your post....

BUT

And yes there is a

BUT

Look how many lovely, wonderful Duer's appreciate you, listened to you and support you.

THAT says something.

[TrogL]

295. Consider coming to Canada

Click the immigration link below to see if you qualify. With your skill set, you should.

There's plenty of broadcast jobs in Alberta. Give real consideration to the CBC.

PM me for details.

[Zhade]

298. You speak for me.

(And if petgoat is out there -- I GOT YOU BANNED, YOU FUCKING HOMOPHOBE. FUCK YOU.)

[bluedawg12]

331. Well said! This is about human lives and justice in America.

Those are not mutually exclusive for gays and lesbians.