General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you decide to call someone a c***, you have no place here.
Anymore than you would if you call someone a n*****, a f**, or a k***.
That word is a very strong pejorative aimed at women.
No one, no 5 post troll, no 50,000+ member, no one has any excuse to call anyone that here.
LexVegas
(6,121 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)But I still think the ban is a bunch of hooey.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Justified a ban?
bobGandolf
(871 posts)the ban is too strong in this particular situation, regardless of who said it.
I find it more disturbing that most of the people, against the severe punishment, feel that way because they know, and like, the long time member.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)using this substitute for one of those naughty words: *(^&_^(*^? If he had actually used the word, then, maybe. But he didn't. He made a joke and people had to read into a tongue twister a word that the people doing the reading put there and found there and then got shocked about.
Talk about hypocrisy! NYC_SKP did not use any offensive word. I don't get this. I wonder whether NYC_SKP is some sort of sacrificial symbol for the Hillary fans. Look, Hillary, look what we have given you.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Google is their friends:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cunning%20stunt
treestar
(82,383 posts)So much he was not going to last anyway. Once she's the nominee how was he going to last?
Cha
(298,139 posts)night calling skp out on what he said.. which was this..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
He even has it in his journal.. so proud.
This Bernie supporter doesn't want to be associated with skp's cleverness..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782293
You can think it's clever and amusing.. if it had been directed at Elizabeth Warren you might feel differently.. The whole board would want the person banned.. me included.
"I wonder whether NYC_SKP is some sort of sacrificial symbol for the Hillary fans. Look, Hillary, look what we have given you."
Good grief.. this isn't about "sacrificial symbol for the Hillary fans.".. If you think so then talk to Skinner in ATA and let him know how you feel about it.
C Moon
(12,227 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)He was quoting the person he responded to.
He thought it was clever to be sure but it wasn't his idea. He was agreeing with the poster he was responding to.
Had he come up with it himself I might be on board with this but he didn't and taken in context I don't think it is right to ban someone who has contributed for years based on one response agreeing with someone else's snarky comment.
Did you see this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6778538
Feel the Bern.
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
He basically repeated what the poster he responded to said. Yes he thought it was clever but it wasn't his and blaming him for it is pretty lame IMHO. Even more so when we have a poster here that calls our democratic president a POS used car salesman.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)"Even more so when we have a poster here that calls our democratic president a POS used car salesman."
The punishment strikes me as a bit harsh but it's disingenuous to deny what he thought he cleverly conveyed.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)He piled on to the other persons comment to be sure. But it wasn't his idea in the first place. Interesting that the person who originally made the comments post can no longer be seen but NY's is still visible. If both are banned why is one visible but not the other?
This situation stinks
A time out to be sure but an outright ban is ludicrous.
Response to Egnever (Reply #175)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Egnever (Reply #175)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Egnever (Reply #175)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Egnever (Reply #175)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Egnever (Reply #175)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Egnever (Reply #175)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)- I favor a time out, not a ban.
- SKP used a clever circumlocution to call a woman the most offensive thing you can call her.
- The poster who call President Obama waste deserves a timeout
-You can't see the post SKP responded to because he responded to a troll who was banned.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that he was repeating almost word for word the previous poster. Or that you attribute it to him instead of the person who originally wrote it.
He found it funny and repeated it. While people may not agree with that humor placing the blame on him without acknowledging that he didn't come up with it strikes me as quite odd.
A time out I can see though I would likely still not think it was right but a ban is so far over the top it wreaks of a personal agenda as opposed to good housekeeping.
Should have been a hidden post and nothing more.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Which is what so many seem intent on doing.
A hidden post would have been appropriate, a ban and pretending he was the one who came up with it is a farce.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)When I was kid there were two Downs Syndrome kids in our neighborhood, Other kids would call them the r word to their face. Was the person who said it last less culpable?
The punishment was excessive but the offense was odious.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)It is one thing to call someone something outright and quite another to be amused by a turn of phrase that someone else wrote.
I don't find luis CK funny at all but that doesn't mean I think the people who do find him funny are despicable people.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)As a member of the MIRteam, I can look it up. The first of these in no way repeats "almost word for word" the second.
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
Is NOT word for word at all this (the banned newbie troll)...
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The words that banned him were drawn straight from the original post. You can quible that it is not an exact quote but the fact remains the words he was banned for supposedly were drawn directly from the post he was responding to.
Regardless the idea that a decade long poster should be banned over one post is ludicrous and indefensible to start with.
The actual word appears thousands of times on this site without so much as a hide. Pretending that post was so offensive as to warrant an instant ban is ridiculous.
A hide certainly, a ban is personal and way over the top.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)rest. That is my only point.
Since the banned troll's post is not visible, I thought perhaps you might like to see what they wrote as NYC_SKP's certainly was not "word for word".
The only words he repeated were "to", "I" and the bad term.
That is my only point, not whether or not he should or should not have been banned. Just that he did not repeat "word for word" the banned troll's post.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Yet that has been repeated here over and over. I think if you look through this thread I re-posted the full exchange long before the post you are responding to.
The words he repeated were the posters handle "Feel the Bern" and the phrase "Cunning stunt" Which is exactly what got him banned.
It wasn't the rest of his post that got him banned according to the banning notes it was the phrase he repeated "Cunning stunt". So I think it a bit disingenuous to try to say he wasn't banned for repeating what the original post said.
Appreciate the attempt to try to add relevant points but it was seeing the whole exchange that made me think it was a ridiculous ban in the first place. It was also the constantly repeated line that he had used the C word that prompted me to post that he did not and that he was repeating what the other poster had said. So I think we are sort of coming from the same place.
I am in no way a fan of NY-SKP in fact I butted heads with him more often than not. So I am not at all affected by his banning really other than the fact that if he can be banned for something so ridiculous so can any other long time poster on this board. I am much more concerned with the personal nature of this ban than the personalities involved.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)Excuse me, I copy/pasted their name as part of the exchange when it wasn't. The thing they wrote was
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
He welcomed them by name, which was Feel the Bern. My apologies for the confusion in putting that as part of their post before as the banned troll did not write that, that was their name.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=323545
My point was he did not repeat the above word for word, as has been claimed. That was and is my only point.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,262 posts)I've casually seen this debate unfold over the past week and once I've read the exact flow of the discourse, this level of political correctness opens up a whole bunch of grey areas as to who can and will be censored in the future. Whether a person volunteers for, is an active member of, or past member of the MIRT is irrelevant.
The censorship of this user is an abomination, one which palces people on pins and needles over their next post, as local and regional dialects and euphamisms could come under scrutiny. Word play, banter, and literary creativity are what makes this country and literature great.
People need to step back a bit and let their fur settle or their feathers unruffle.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)If you are a new DUer and get banned, your posts go away. If you are a long term Duer, they don't.
DU has several serial zombies who sign up repeatedly and get banned, often after 1 post, in this case after 3. Some of them, including most likely that one, have signed up and been banned literally thousands of times. The software automatically removes their posts if they are under a certain number, I am not sure what that is but NYC_SKP was well beyond it.
Hence hers was removed, his wasn't.
It makes one wonder about the mindset of someone who would sign up thousands of times, knowing their post would often be seen by only 1 person before getting banned. But it is good, to remove their often nasty crap and not give them the satisfaction of knowing they've caused discord or pain.
NBachers
(17,192 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #167)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The banning was just way over the top. The post was simply stupid. Removing it should have been the worst that happened. Really.
I guess that expression is something the younger generation knows and uses. I had never seen it before. But NYC_SKP did not use the "c" word, and it goes to show you how crowd insanity works. I'm getting posts to my posts responding that he used the "c" word, and threads are begun warning about using the word. And the only people who used the "c" word are those writing posts about the "c" word.
I can just picture my dear husband, with his love of language discovering the new expression that NYC_SKP used. I would hear it several times before it would quietly join his vocabulary of very colorful, delightfully shocking words. My husband learned his English in the United States Air Force and knows lots of very expressive ones, but I never head this stunningly clever cunning stunt expression. Anyone who is fascinated with language could not help but find that expression one to repeat and rejoice in. Sorry it was not the "c" word. Far from it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The lynch mob mentality is alive and well here at DU.
If it was his comment originally I would be a little more sympathetic to the ban but the fact that he was basically finding humor in what the other person posted leaves me feeling this is a really bad ban.
I can certainly see how people take offense to it but a ban of 10 year member over finding humor in someone else's post is so far over the top it looks personal.
FarPoint
(12,487 posts)Understanding this detail serves me as a warning.... Thus, I just read verses posting much at all. I'll slip into the cooking and TV forums....safer there.
Cha
(298,139 posts)associated with it.
If it were used against Elizabeth Warren.. I don't think anyone would be defending it here. I know I wouldn't.
He put it in his journal.. so proud of it.
NBachers
(17,192 posts)in the Miami x-rated movie houses back in the '70's. I've run across it quite a few times since then.
You can also go to http://www.matthewhunt.com/ under the heading "The C-Word." This is an exhaustive word history that goes back to the birth of language itself.
Scroll down to the section titled "Euphemism." It's a detailed account of the history of the term being discussed here. It goes back to a record produced in the '70's by a group called Caravan with the "Cunning ....." name.
Look under the Discography heading for the band Caravan in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_(band)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)or anything like that. And it was not specifically used by NYC_SKP with regard to Hillary. It was used by the previous poster sort of with regard to Hillary. NYC_SKP did not mention Hillary in his post.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's a well-known way for chickenshit misogynists to call a woman that word while giggling about how clever they are.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)until someone posted the Urban Dictionay link
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Cha
(298,139 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)I have never put anything in my journal yet there are posts there of mine I have no clue how they got there.
Cha
(298,139 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)He thought it was clever to be sure since he repeated it.
Unlike you I do have posts in my journal I did not put there. Hell I don't even know how to put something in my journal nor do I care.
Cha
(298,139 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Used car salesman could be directed at anybody.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 02:30 AM - Edit history (1)
to use on juries in order to use this sock puppet to get posts by DUers who they disagreed with hidden, and, ultimately, to try to get those posters tombstoned, and the admins found out about it, but did not tombstone the offending poster, how would you feel about that?
Also consider that this poster may be a supporter of Secretary Clinton.
Should the admins ban this poster, or just "spank" them, and give them another chance?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Actually defending this would have found it unacceptable directed at Warren
We know there are people with ODS on DU. But not one veered anywhere near the n word.
Cha
(298,139 posts)They'd be screaming for the person's head who said it! Rightly so..
But, instead some are excusing him by accusing the Admins of "looking for a reason and got it" because he was outspoken on his dislike of Hillary.."
"Loudly, incessantly critical of Hillary. Nothing hide-worthy. Which is my point. He was out spoken in his dislike of HIllary and I am sure many wanted him gone. I think the admins were looking for a reason and got it."
Notice they use the word "dislike" which is wildly understated.
Btw, I didn't want him gone.. before he got banned by the Admin. That's what the Trash server is for.. or just ignore it. . I never think in terms of someone being "gone"..
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I guess I just have to shake my head, and disagree because it was not the same as calling a person the sea word. I know you probably won't believe that, but that is the truth.
This is going to get to the point of nausea. I already asked my question in "ATA", and I'll probably get a vague response that reminds me of mom and dad saying, "because I said so".
Cha
(298,139 posts)"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
Posted it in his journal too..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
EarlG (Administrator)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Assumptions can only play out so far, but that's such a stretch of imagination, I'm calling you out on it.
IT. IS. NOT. TRUE, what you say
Cha
(298,139 posts)misogynistic slur against Hillary Clinton.. that's on you.
The important thing is that EarlG and the Admin got it and so do at lot of other people including Sanders' supporters.
Go wag your finger at the mirror.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)They "got" what you "got"
"It" was subjective. I don't really care how many of this person's supporters or that person's supporters also "got it"
. "It" was wrong and once again there is a pattern of those who are too obtuse to realize what they really "did".
I don't excuse anyone for a misogynistic slurs, but you cannot see past that. That is your problem and not mine.
Cha
(298,139 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'm a woman, too. I've been around this planet for 61 years. I'm as young today as I was 30 years ago, but a bit wiser to be so easily "insulted" by someone else's challenge to my opinion, finger-wagging and all.
I know you by your historic passionate posts that it's harsh to be called out on something. But, when it's called for, I'll wag my finger at ANYONE who write as you have on this subject, regardless of who they support as president (as if that is supposed to matter?)
BTW, the same administrators that made this ridiculous decision put that emoticon there
must be for a reason.
However, you want the last word on the insult that someone calls you to task
? Fine...
You are officially challenged. Now, go write the next thing, because I know it's coming. Meanwhile, I won't count the number of insults on this board, but I will rise to the challenges of persons who have the same problem you do on this particular issue.
You and they are wrong about the decision the administers made, regardless.
Cha
(298,139 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Context is very important for me to carry an opinion. All I got from the OP this morning was he called Hillary Clinton the C-word which by itself I don't consider appropriate but if it was something else like satire than I would like to know, precisely, to judge for myself. I may run into it very soon as yours is like the 3rd or 4th post I read on all this so far today.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)In response to a troll, he posted a tongue twister which, if you repeat it fast can turn into the "C" word. Since the troll's post was deleted, most of us didn't get to see what he was responding to. Since it was posted in the middle of the night, it's entirely possible he'd had one too many. But that he posted it with this icon it's clear to me at least that he posted it as a light-hearted joke. I'm a 60+ year old woman who did not find it in the least offensive.
He's posted some things that have occasionally gotten under my skin, but this wasn't one of them. I'm a Bernie supporter and have been concerned about some of his posts of late, which I felt did more harm than good. This also wasn't one of them. Banning him, imho, was very much an overreaction.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Seemed a lot nicer than me and respected his stance so it surprised when I read the OP this morning and by night seen several OPs -- all long reply counts that had a general consensus (though Nukes thread I could see after the fact be a zero tolerance kind of opinion then stevenlesser's who heightens my suspicion to the highest based on judgment of "Bernie Sanders supporters" had no idea his fact appear to be wrong on the defense of the C-word (unless he is a zero tolerance guy too). I have pretty much the same opinions of Skip as you do but does strike me as an overreaction but how does Hillary Clinton tie into this (and it may be why it was an overreaction as 1 that i know of so far as claimed to be a supporter of Clinton but I'm not going down the road of speculation, just wondering where Hillary Clinton ties into this which brought up the possibility (to me anyway)
This is why I wish meta was still around. It was probably like pouring gasoline on a fire but it did clear up things, I suppose its better to have it brewing underneath with PMs and attacks over something unrelated to the seemingly innocent thread but better to address & challenge the problems but I totally get why though I wish there was an archive or something. I won't lie I loved reading for entertaining but hate its disappeared because there are liars who explain their lies with lies and when is challenged in-depth the truth is explained with lies but the kind of lies chosen were fascinating -- its hard to explain because the record is gone but post at FR, say you were slow playing them into liberals, get kicked out -- bounce out to another forum -- bash Democrats there & event post racist opinions but Meta was probably shut down for that reason -- certainly the call-out nature of the place had something to do with it. I don't know but (might as well go all-out) a DUers who I like a lot insulted people here for years with various insults (though it was more funny to me than offensive and troll accusations are up given that he has an H avatar and don't want him to be kicked off but he had an open transparency that would always remain open and had a suspension or two (one of them he says he is going to leave DU because a jury hid a post where he insulted someone that he felt he had a right to insult. Glad he came back, underneath it all he is a good & honest poster.
Cha
(298,139 posts)and the misogynistic slur did offend me.
"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Posted it in his journal too.. just in case anyone missed his Hide..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
Those making excuses for him like.. "he was only joking" "he really didn't say it.." "it wasn't directed at Hillary.." ".. the Admin is biased.." "he was ignorant of its meaning.." are Not helping him.
Everyone makes mistakes.. but, you get nowhere unless you own up to it and don't try to cover it up. Apologize and see what happens.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)His reference to a tongue twister makes that obvious, and with the devil smiley, he knew he wad skirting the rules. Too clever by half.
Bernie supporters should be disavowing some despicable behavior, not trying to minimize it.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I don't consider his behavior despicable, or even close to it. Grow a sense of humor. And go away. There are about 5 zillion threads on this. Get. Over. It. You effing won. You and small-minded ninnies like you banished a perfectly good DUer. A ban was an overreaction. Live with it. and leave me the fuck alone.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)names, you might want to rethink that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Playing innocent about that is as disingenuous as it gets.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Cha
(298,139 posts)"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Posted it in his journal too.. just in case anyone missed his Hide..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
Those making excuses for him are not helping him.
He needs to own it and apologize.. and I don't think using any of the excuses that some are throwing out there are going to work.
Like "he was only joking" "he really didn't say it.." "it wasn't directed at Hillary.." ".. the Admin is biased.." "he was ignorant of what it meant" ".. it was childish.." ..I've seen it all and more.
Everyone makes mistakes.. but, you get nowhere unless you own up to it and don't try to cover it up. Apologize and see what happens.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)"Cunning stunt", indeed!
Cha
(298,139 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It's beyond my imagination that people are minimizing that kind of bahavior for the sake of supporting a candidaa in the primaries.
man4allcats
(4,026 posts)by the "don't split the vote, party 1st" contingency to eliminate a boisterous naderesque Bernie supporter. I guess we'll never know for sure.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)On Sat Jun 6, 2015, 03:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I agree it's possible that NYC_SKP is the victim of some cunning stunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6787954
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
He is using the c word because he is angry at administrations decision. How easy to insult women using a misogynist slur to make his point. The men are angry at the decision and the acklash is a slap across women's face repeatedly, by a number of men on DU. They think it is a cute little game, like NYC SKP thought it was, that resulted in a TOS. For many women, the c word is like the n word to POC. Hurtful. Insensitive. Over the top.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 6, 2015, 03:19 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Which "c word"? "Cunning" or "contingency"? How are they misogynist??
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Completely inappropriate. NYC_SKP got banned, not sure why some folks are thinking that pushing that line is going to work out differently for them. One can only hope the admins are still paying attention.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I was voting to hide until I read the OTT Alert.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's not the dreaded C word, but that's how this jerk is using the phrase. How clever. Oh, and all the Bernie supporters whining that this is the beginning of some purge is not cute, not adorable, but really is some of the dumbest fucking shit I've ever read on the internet. Don't like it here? Then fucking leave. No one is making you hang out here. And I say this as someone who likes all 3 of our Democrats running, even though I've not committed to one. The real reason these knuckleheads are crying about an imaginary purge is they aren't Sanders supporters. They just hate Clinton as much as the Republicans do. NYCSkip didn't give a fuck about Sanders. Ok, rant over. Hide this ass who thinks he's being clever but has actually exposed himself as the ass he is.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cha
(298,139 posts)Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's not the dreaded C word, but that's how this jerk is using the phrase. How clever. Oh, and all the Bernie supporters whining that this is the beginning of some purge is not cute, not adorable, but really is some of the dumbest fucking shit I've ever read on the internet. Don't like it here? Then fucking leave. No one is making you hang out here. And I say this as someone who likes all 3 of our Democrats running, even though I've not committed to one. The real reason these knuckleheads are crying about an imaginary purge is they aren't Sanders supporters. They just hate Clinton as much as the Republicans do. NYCSkip didn't give a fuck about Sanders. Ok, rant over. Hide this ass who thinks he's being clever but has actually exposed himself as the ass he is.
I actually think SKP does support Sanders.. but, his over the line rage tripped him up. the ones on DU who are denying what he said are only enabling him and not helping him get back. They're doing the opposite.
Juror #5 Nails it.. They're just making the case why SKP should have been banned. The Admins already knew this..
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Completely inappropriate. NYC_SKP got banned, not sure why some folks are thinking that pushing that line is going to work out differently for them. One can only hope the admins are still paying attention.
"This is how Sanders supporters choose to campaign.. through misogyny".. In quotes because I read it and thought it applied.
mahalo JT
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)You aren't doing your side any favors defending that reprehensible behavior.
That is so.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)as is not selectively enforced as it appears to be
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)denem
(11,045 posts)"Cunning stunt" and worse. Look it up.
still does not change the fact he never said the word and was quoting another person.
840high
(17,196 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I remember right after Sandy Hook when they posted a "What's your favorite gun?" thread in GD. If I were an admin I'd have banned them right then and there for objectionable conduct. Perhaps the admins remembered that incident and took it into account too, perhaps not.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)EarlG could have easily said,"This poster has a history of..."
Instead, we got this message: "Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
Poor comment, if there is more to the story. (I always place the disclaimer that NYC SKP and I were not friends in this spot) As it stands, it looks like bias. I posted it before, and I'll post it again. It's why I don't take this site seriously at all anymore. At least the jury system worked well once tonight in a protected group. I thought I'd be the only vote to hide. Good to know there's still some sanity left across our wide and varied group.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He did not use the word. Not as literally as those who have condemned him for this imagined sin.
I just don't understand this. It makes utterly no sense to me. I think I am watching a crowd mania and seeing how a crowd can create a reality that is false.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it just feeds on itself
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I may not be as as smart as some of the denizens of this board but I do believe I possess the intellectual acumen to copy and paste a phrase into google search and then see and read the results.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)A word is a word. A phrase that means a word is not the same as that word.
If I say that my cat is a sneaky animal with fur that meows, I have not used the c for cat word.
A word is a word. The substitutes and euphemisms and round-about expressions that evoke or mean the word are not the same as that word. NYC_SKP did not use the "c" word. Now I came closer to using the "c" word than he did.
People just love to jump on a bandwagon especially if it means that get to feel good about judging someone else for making a mistake or doing something "'naughty" than to be honest enough to admit that the "naughty" act did not even happen.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)A random internet poster or my lying eyes?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I am sorry I don't have as much affection for the word as some posters in this thread. It's an assault and an insult against every woman including the widow who raised me since I was fourteen.
beevul
(12,194 posts)And why use "it" rather than "she" if that was his intention?
Could it be because he was referring to the troll whos words he was throwing back in said trolls face?
I think so.
People quite regularly refer to obvious trolls as "it" on DU, like this one, for example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025535599
If he was referring to the troll, what ever he did was no more out of line than the long list of examples listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026785070#post24
Not to mention, that apparently, a DUer talked to him on the phone and confirmed that such was his intent.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)called anyone anything. People interpreted what he said to mean what they wanted it to say. I couldn't understand what they were talking about when I first read it but then the infamous or famous "c" word is not a part of either my vocabulary or my ready thought.
He did not use the word. He made a joke and it was apparently in response to a remark that was actually banned. It's a lot of to-do over nothing. Someone lost their patience with NYC_SKP for some reason. He used a phrase that substitutes for one of those "naughty" words that they used to wash kids mouths out with soap for.
It's all rather juvenile if you want to ask me.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Using a circumlocution to call a woman a c--t is never acceptable whether that woman is Hilary Clinton, Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin because it's a slur on all women of which my mom and girlfriend are one.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)direct. Maybe you can find the post and prove me wrong. But when I first saw it, I couldn't understand the fuss. It was all innuendo. Happens all the time on DU. A lot of people just don't get the insults.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Precisely
If I used innuendo to call a black person the n word
If I used innuendo to call a gay person the f word
If I used innuendo to call a Jewish person the K word
If I used innuendo to call a Lations the s word
I would expect to be rebuked here.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!"
That is the precise wording of his post. He does not say he is talking about any particular person. He just delighted in the language. I can picture my husband who loves words and jokes delighting in it and not using it to refer to anyone.
Hillary was not mentioned in the post. She was mentioned in the previous post. But what is "it"? At most, it was Hillary's avoiding the press. That's as close as it might come to referring to Hillary and that link is tenuous. It might refer to something Hillary was doing, but not to Hillary.
NYC_SKP did not call Hillary the "c" word. It isn't there. A mistake was made. The mods should apologize to NYC_SKP.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to any person. He referred to it. The Mods were wrong.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)You can threaten to drop me from an airplane and I am not going to countenance a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-semitic slur just because it is made by someone I like or used on someone I don't.
That's not how my widowed mother raised me.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)There are admins who have access to all of our posting history and can ban anyone at anytime. From the TOS:
If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun don't make it suck.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"People just love to jump on a bandwagon..."
People also love to cower behind implication to better justify a sexist remark. And no doubt, the dogmatic and the biased will love to rationalize the obvious and oft-discussed consequences of that sexist remark as righteous martyrdom.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)we have those every primary, and at times off them. You were here for the great Gay Purge...
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)before the primary. They have also been bombarded with complaints from Hillary Clinton supporters about juries supposedly being staked with Sanders supporters. If the results of the primary are what I think they will be, I will be locking myself out of DU for several months.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Of course, I already saw a few use some lovely anti Semitic slurs. So this is confirming why I left to begin with. One was hidden, not all.
Nor does it surprise me in the least either.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In a way it's worse, because it's not a slip of the tongue, etc. he MEANT it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I've seen much worse.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The statement that he repeats that expression several times a day shows that he was not referring to a person but was just having fun with the fact that the words say something naughty in a clever way. How juvenile to ban someone over that post.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)to do physical harm to a female member who was living in their car.
he was banned for a couple of weeks (I think) and low and behold
he came back none the worse for wear.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Or a k**e joke about Bernie?
Just because it was a slur about a woman doesn't mean it's any more acceptable.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)When did he use that offensive word?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That kind of "who me?" ignorance as a defense is exactly what he was counting on to save him.
Stop pretending we're imagining it.
If he had done the same thing with any other slur it would be just as despicable.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)IMO, it was an unjustified ban, especially as it's selectively enforced.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I agree about selective banning in general, disagree that in this case it was unjustified.
I would be more than happy to see everyone who uses a slur (cleverly or otherwise) against a Dem banned.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)When he used that slur he was maligning all women including innocent bystanders like my mom and girlfriend.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)By the tongue twister reference, and the fact that that phrase is a well known spoonerism of that slur?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think you will realize that he didn't really call anyone anything.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I know what it means, google it if you don't.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He just repeated it and said he used it many times a day. He was joking. This is a lot of fuss over nothing. The Mods should apologize and rethink their decision.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The troll that used it first was banned.
And rightly so.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Lives on!
Someone who has contributed to the site as long as NY had should not be insta banned over something so trivial. A brand new poster hurling it out is a totally different situation.
Hidden post yes hell I could even sort of see an immediate time out but given the reaction to the POS used car salesman line I find it incredibly odd.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm consistent.
I don't consider using any kind of slur "trivial".
Egnever
(21,506 posts)But it isnt..
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They should address this and soon.
Thanks for not trying to tell me what was said wasn't offensive.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)What I am learning is that we can traffic in the ugliest of slurs as long as they don't like the target.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)If there's one thing this place taught me it was that when it comes to the ability to have blinders the left and the right are just the same.
It's a human thing I am pretty sure.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's only a slur against women. Every excuse in the book is trotted out.
That poster rabidly hates our most likely nominee.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'm beginning to wonder if his HDS had some origins in misogyny. However, he was not going to last beyond her likely nomination. He was going to flame out then anyway.
Cha
(298,139 posts)and apologize.
I don't think pulling the ol "I was only joking" is going to get him re-instated..
"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Posted it in his journal too.. just in case anyone missed his Hide..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's what's wrong. He has been banned. Learning curve pointed downward. No chance to redeem himself. It's fine to object to some mistake an oldtimer makes, but banning him? That is too extreme. The post should have been removed, but banned? No way.
Cha
(298,139 posts)excuse that he "was joking".. or any of the other disingenuous reasons those trying to wiggle him out of it are using.
I hope he does make peace with it.. by being honest he may just get back. But not by trying to cover it up.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Back in 2008, your rhetoric about her was WAY, WAY over the top.
brush
(53,978 posts)Sorry, he knew exactly what he was doing.
What I don't get is why go there with such a disgusting term just to be clever?
Not worth it, no place for that kind of stuff.
If it's allowed we'll soon see clever (in the users mind) tongue twisters for the N-word and all the other ethnic and sexual slurs on this board.
First I've ever heard of that.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)"a really clever trick?"
When I told him what it meant,"Horseshit."
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I would have thought the same as your father.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Guess I am just getting old
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)you have me by a bit
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)by then, I was a squadron commander in charge of 12 AH-64D Apaches.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)85-05
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Go figure.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Matt Drudge did the same thing in 2005 to Cindy Sheehan.
It is NOT a coincidence that the phrase always appears in relation to a woman whom the author hates with great intensity.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I was simply responding to someone who commented on age and understanding. My dad had no flipping idea what it meant, while I do. This was simply an anecdote, meant to neither support nor argue a point. Time to take a breath. Thank you.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Dirty by innuendo. You fill in the blank.
"What the difference between a nun in the bathtub and a nun at prayer?"
Well, the nun at prayer has hope in her soul..................
Ba dum dum.
Lame. Juvenile. Off color. Ha. Ha.
And "cunning stunt" was the punch line to one of those jokes. I don't remember the joke off hand.
I feel like you Meemie. Skp wasn't a pal. And I still don't know what he meant by that post. It was ill advised at best and at worst was pretty awful. The ban hammer was utterly absurd. I worked with admin and they know much I respected them. However just as I would say to a family member that screwed up. "You look really silly here."
I can't not think that there was a back story.
However the repeated keening and preaching and proselytizing by the usuals here while utterly predictable is vastly more puke worthy then that post.
Now excuse me please. I need go start an OP warning everyone about you should never trim your toe nails using a chain saw to show them all how concerned for their safety I am.
Meanwhile in other news a boat flips over in China and over 400 die. But DU has other more important matters to discuss.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)You always put it so much better than anyone else.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)brush
(53,978 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I was on ESPN and this poster wrote "there are two groups that are perpetually aggrieved, one is a race and the other is a tribe." It didn't take a genius to know what groups he intended to defame.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think a lot of people have forgotten just what he said.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)refusal to talk to the press -- an act, not a person.
And then he said he used it several times a day. Obviously not with regard to any particular person.
The Mods were wrong and should apologize.
The devil's in the details, and the details are that NYC_SKP did not call Hillary anything at all. The poster to whom he responded did. But NYC_SKP did not.
Cha
(298,139 posts)with all kinds of excuses for him.
"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Posted it in his journal too.. just in case anyone missed his Hide..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
SKP needs to apologize to the Admins and ask to be re-instated.. not try to wiggle out of it like others are trying to do for him.
They're not doing SKP or Bernie any good..
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)He was referring to Clinton's speech/interview---it, not her, viz:
"Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!" (emphasis added)
Oh, well . . . . . . I'm offline for a couple days and THIS kinda shit happens? (**tsk!**)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Matt Drudge did the same thing to Cindy Sheehan in 2005?
Petrushka
(3,709 posts). . . Considering that I neither know---nor care---what Drudge said about Sheehan in 2005, your question (in my opinion) seems like a "sweet and innocent" attempt at baiting.
Have a nice day!
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He very well knew what he was posting, and what it meant.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)so I'm thinking EarlG remembered it, too, and I agree that if it was part of the reason it'd be nice to have it included in the ban message.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I just hope they hold all to the same standard. I am glad you are not an admin, because I know you do not hold posters to the same standard by how you run your group. The insults to us are allowed to stand and you block us so we have no way of responding. I especially like how you allow the sexual references to be posted.
Or the racist ones
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628945#post2
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I don't consider Hoyt to be a disruptor in GCRA. I'm not saying that all gunthusiasts are racist misogynist bullies, but, like Hoyt, I've come to realize that most racist misogynist bullies in America are gunthusiasts too. There's a pretty big overlap, even though your side likes to pretend otherwise.
NYC_SKP finally outed themselves as a misogynist, and that can't be denied.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Of course you don't consider Hoyt a disruptor.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)this can be done by by sending an IM to the poster as some hosts have done to me so I can edit a post. This can also be done by you posting a post asking that person to tone it down. You as far as I know tend to do neither of those with one exception. After that person left in a huff and quit DU, you posted you will never do that again.
Lets look at that post in question, OK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628945#post2
calling most gun lovers, "racists." I was right, and they prove it daily
He was talking about the RKBA group, he called that group the "KLAN" and called gun lovers "racist" and said DU members in the RKBA group prove it daily.
Seems that poster was talking about fellow DU members and calling them racist, YOU sir allowed it to stand without comment and doubled down about it in this post.
The vitriolic posts you allow in that group against DU members that support the RKBA is just a sad thing to see.
Have a great night
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The NRA was never a part of this nice dialog. It was about how a host has OPTIONS to moderate a group to cut down on some of the vitriol of this board.
Option 1 - lock posts
Option 2 - block posters
Option 3 - Send an IM or a post requesting that member tone it down. You seem to always forget that option and I am just reminding you about it.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I asked him to tone it down a bit, and he self-deleted everything he could find and quit DU entirely. After that I decided that I'm not the "make sure everyone is nice to gunthusiasts on DU" police. If someone wants to say what they think about you and your gunthusiast buddies, go right ahead. If it's way over the top, a jury will take care of it. That's not my role.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You don't disappoint.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Yes I have blocked for agreeing with a post in your group
Yep
a lot of people here see gun owners that way
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1458
and this is the post I agreed with....
I carry a $1million cover policy on my home and land, $1 million on my business, have all my firearms that are not in use in steel fireproof safes installed in a concrete block room inside my home. I have both a alarm system and a fire suppression system.
However I live 30 miles from town on 40 acres and, depending who is on duty at the time, usually must give directions to LE if they are needed.
Despite all of this to many here I am a dirty, scum sucking future murderer with dreams of shooting small children and cats.
I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging.
I never broke the stated SOP but I was blocked from the group
It is sad that now you are resorting to name calling. I always think you are better than that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Shrug. He blocked me for an OP I accidentally posted there in the middle of the night, then deleted after like 2 minutes realizing my mistake.
Its not like there are actual written standards they follow.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)In my humble opinion, I think it is an abuse of power. You did not violate the SOP or TOS. He should not be able to block outside SOP violations. The amazing thing is comes over and also tries to run groups he is not a host in.
beevul
(12,194 posts)That's a big insinuation, coming from the host of the Bloomberg group, where things like this are ignored:
http://www.aspentimes.com/news/14957190-113/michael-bloomberg-calls-colorados-decision-on-legal-pot-stupid
You haven't much leg to stand on there, fella.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Have you not seen the history of purges over the years here? They're just getting warmed up. Gonna be a long primary.
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I hope the standard is clear and consistently enforced now.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I have seen the ax fall every time, but I don't pretend to read a high percentage of posts.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)only instance. I asked for examples of posters being banned for using the word and haven't seen any yet.
In the long thread there is a link to a poster who called Ann Romney the word, uncoded, had the post hidden by still posts. I have no idea if there are more like that.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You have to follow through to see if a banning has occurred, and I have not been motivated to do that. The hidden message is pretty consistent.
840high
(17,196 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I think it's hypocritical if the answer is no.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5784073
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... But I never saw anything that crude in there before. I would say linking to THAT article would be bannable. Which begs the question...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Anymore.
Virtually everything seems to be a crapshoot, depending on who gets on the jury.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)That one really bites.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)especially when you have an alert stalker. The jury blacklist helps some though.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)One tonight... I have to admit I was stunned to see who the poster was. I had thought much better of him than that.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I've seen some of the most vicious attacks allowed to stand and some of the most innocuous comments hidden, depending on whether or not the juror likes or agrees with the alerted poster.
Yes, it's a crapshoot and a popularity contest.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I've gone utterly fucking ballistic on people here and have earned some very well-deserved hides, but I never even considered calling the targets of those posts anything like that.
Coming from someone that calls another woman a tool.
I guess being nasty is allowed in degrees and who is being called what
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)If you're going to ban words that are mean, then ban words that are mean.
And frankly, I think the tool comment was much worse as it was directed at another person on DU. A person that actually sees it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Saying "You are an asshole" is mean. That's not banworthy.
Saying you are the n-word for African Americans, or k-word for Jews, or the C word for women is a slur against a particular group.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Is pretty demeaning. There's no excuse for it. And to ban something because it demeans a group and not because it demeans an individual is just an excuse to allow individuals to be demeaned.
Either demeaning someone is wrong or it's not. Whether it's a group or one single person
And to feign anger at word being used that demeans women and someone being banned for using it, while calling a woman a tool is pretty hypocritical
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I find it highly unlikely you don't know exactly what the deal is but are feigning ignorance.
marym625
(17,997 posts)As OK because it is not a "slur" to be reprehensible. It is you that are feigning ignorance here.
And again, to do that while objecting to a slur against women is, minimally, hypocritical
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This is pretty basic.
marym625
(17,997 posts)It's either OK or it's not. Again, can't get more basic than that.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I thought wearing a set of blinders would more likely be for a triple crown winner, not DU folks
but, there you go.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I think it's pretty basic. Guess people can convolute anything
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They tolerate that crap for whatever reasons - and it's always a bigger sin to point out their "tolerance" is anything but tolerant,
It's a formula the RW have down pat.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I didn't excuse anything. I stated very clearly that being nasty is obviously tolerated in degrees.
You, on the other hand, use the excuse that you used one nasty term instead of another to get away with being plain, outright, mean.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)What a flimsy excuse
Btw, I am not feigning anything. I am quite clear in my thoughts and words. Excuses are what are flimsy.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Excuses are what they live by.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)wise Frenchman (La Rochefoucauld) many years ago.
Cha
(298,139 posts)Congrats again! Beautiful family, Steven~
Cha
(298,139 posts)Clinton by NYC_SKP. The rw is over practiced at playing the victim.. it's sickening to watch. To see anyone doing it.
If some other dude would have hurled that stupid ugly crap at Elizabeth Warren I think they'd be screaming for his head. Instead they're making up lots of different excuses.
"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Posted it in his journal too.. just in case anyone missed his Hide..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
He needs to own it and apologize.. and I don't think using any of the excuses that some are throwing out there are going to work.
Like "he was only joking" "he really didn't say it.." "it wasn't directed at Hillary.." ".. the Admin is biased.." "..he was ignorant of what it meant.." I've seen it all and more.
Everyone makes mistakes.. but, you get nowhere unless you own up to it and don't try to cover it up. Apologize and see what happens.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)To them. They really think that using a slur is the same as someone here not being nice to them as an individual. There's just no comparison at all.
I see today people who have seen the links and made excuses for them still asking others to provide them. Playing stupid so they can play stupid. Yet they demand to be taken seriously, lol.
And then there the old saw - the real oppression is elsewhere and privileged you don't care.
I just can't abide this bullshit. If you're happy to excuse sexist and racist slurs then you're fine on 80% of the Internet. But if you're in a progressive space that is trying to embrace diversity it's not okay. They have to grow up and accept the TOS instead of thinking the rules apply only to those they do not like.
Cha
(298,139 posts)that's as mean spirited as they come.. terribly trollish behavior.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022002711#post15
Of course there's no comparison.. unless they were called a misogynistic slur.. and guess what?! That still doesn't excuse SKP.
I wouldn't have searched for this if there weren't so many trying to excuse his behavior with dumb excuses.
It really is weird.. some of the people who are acting stupidly about this.. who otherwise aren't.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)sheshe2
(84,102 posts)every single one of the threads. You know why? They hurt. Worst slur you could call a woman. So much disrespect.The defenders? I don't have words.
You know something, SKP has been very kind to me here. He has helped me with my computer and more. I know he has had multiple surgeries. Yet, his venom toward Hillary and his last comment, the c word, over the top and so incredibly hurtful to women.
This makes me so very sad.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Point out where he used that word?
sheshe2
(84,102 posts)I also had to google what he said. Urban Dictionary.
You think the admins are lying?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And why the selective enforcement?
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)"Go look it up I had to."? Urban Dictionary? Really? (**tsk**) Instead, I looked up what NYC_Skip said, viz:
"Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!"
. . . and, as an old biddy in her 80th ride around the Sun, I'm witnessing a race for the 2016 nomination that's off to a piss-poor start when it comes to the supposed need to silence dissenting opinions . . . nothing like free-for-all eight years ago.
Oh, well . . .
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
No one was fooled by NYC_SKP's post:
NYC_SKP
55. Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cunning+stunt
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spoonerism
spoonerism
noun spoo·ner·ism \ˈspü-nə-ˌri-zəm\
: a humorous mistake in which a speaker switches the first sounds of two or more words
Cha
(298,139 posts)He even "put it in his journal he was so proud of it". As I found out here..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782293
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782326
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)The Brits use it all the time. Nobody's undies are in a bunch over it. I'm not saying that I want to use it or anything, but I am curious how the word has been ascribed so much power.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They get to decide.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)eom
Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #122)
Name removed Message auto-removed
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)that people are defending the post & I don't feel like getting into a pissing contest with people who want to play the willful ignorance card. I don't care that he's gotten banned one way or the other simply because I have seen some very nasty posts come from him. I do however think that if they are going to ban people like this they should do it for across the board because I've seen some overtly racist shit get posted & recc'd through the roof.
sheshe2
(84,102 posts)Agree here.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)I'm pretty sure it's a lost cause.
marym625
(17,997 posts)You think it's okay to call a woman a tool while complaining about a word being used that is a slur against women.
Wow. Just wow.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)as equivalent in anyway, shape or form is incredibly special.
marym625
(17,997 posts)About calling a woman a tool, especially while complaining about a word that demeans women, hypocritical and misogynistic.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)However, tool generally a unisex type of insult much like jackass or dumbshit. So to try & equate it to the term c&+t which is blatantly derogatory towards women is just silly. But I've seen you trying to push this meme all day so trying to discuss it with you is pointless.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Degrees of nastiness is obviously acceptable here. A pointed, mean, uncalled for attack is all good. It is only when a group is insulted that there's an issue.
I have responded to anyone that responded to me.
Defend either or none.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Things. False equivalence is a useful technique for some.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Is what is a useful technique for some. I have not said the words are equivalent. In fact, I clearly stated that being mean is excused in degrees here.
If you think that saying to one person that they're a tool, or whatever other choice word you might use, is excusable because the word isn't equivalent to another, you are excusing being hurtful. I see no excuse for it. And that is all it is, a convenient excuse to be hurtful and mean. Period
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Context matters.
marym625
(17,997 posts)But your excuses to be nasty are just plain sad.
I do hope that you will rethink how you speak to people. Especially to kind,older women on this board.
Cha
(298,139 posts)it's incredibly stupid. and, no need to even try to explain the difference if they don't know a misogynistic slur directed at Hillary Clinton when they see one. They're campaigning for Bernie through misogyny.
"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Posted it in his journal too.. in case anyone missed his cleverness that was a hide.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
SKP needs to apologize to the Admins and ask to be re-instated.. not try to wiggle out of it like others are trying to do for him.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Someone said they cared more about humanity than about "PC." That hurt my heart. If you brush off use of that word, you are supporting the dehumanization of half of humanity.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Which is frankly, gutless and selfish more than anything.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And I know who mine is too
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)Anyone who has known a woman for any amount of time can kind of figure that out.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But others have and are still members in good standing
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)C*** disguised by a spoonerism is still c***.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and I did not and so do many others I assume. We are not into that kind of thing.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)It was linked to repeatedly in the original post the actual definition of the statement that got him banned.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it was a poor choice and it should have been hidden or he should have been put on a vacation. That word has actually been posted by active members and nothing happened, they are active today.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)being clever, so much so that he apparently felt the need to add the post to his journal (just found that out by reading below). The post was hidden 5-2, irregardless of if he came outright & said it the words are still intended for use in the same manner. Denying the culpability is just silly. As far as bannings go I think people should be careful what they wish for but it should definitely be fair across the board.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Time for bed, early morning. Have a nice night.
kath
(10,565 posts)Selective enforcement sucks.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... the person in question danced along the line -- just too close to the line for those with the power of the axe.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)When I said that before, my post was alerted on.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Sadly, that won't happen. While I'd support it if it happened, in the face of it not happening, this ban has a bias.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)especially when THE word was not even used.
peace13
(11,076 posts)People think he used the word. I don't have a dog in this fight but I am smart enough to know that the word in question was not used.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)link to the post with THE WORD. He may have insinuated, but he did not use it.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If someone had come here and called the president a "nucking f****r" we wouldn't be having this discussion. We all would know exactly what they meant by that.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Why aren't we banning for use of the word "thug?" It seems to be agreed upon that thug is code. I just don't understand why the post wasn't alerted on and sent to a jury or why there is not system in place to warn the poster instead of taking an ax to his neck because an admin was in the mood to do so.
peace13
(11,076 posts)I just don't see it. I have watched both sides out here attack each other with bullshit arguments. Frankly, watching people ignore facts and history is more disturbing than a thinly veiled anything. There has been no room for discussion since this election talk began.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)things are said that are just not factual and passed off as facts
unblock
(52,517 posts)spammers know they can get past automated mail blockers by using tricks like putting spaces between letters.
e.g., "e n l a r g e m e n t".
see? ha, ha, i didn't "use" the e-word, right?
the rule against c-word usage isn't a programmatic one an the admins shouldn't say, wow, what a clever way of circumventing our intent, we'll let you and anyone else who wants to use that word get away with it as long as you use an obvious encoding that would trip up a weakly programmed machine.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,370 posts)This guy doesn't use it:
http://www.salon.com/2008/01/25/hillary_clinton_4/
Neither do people who passed this pic around in 2008. I no longer speak to an old acquaintance (Obama supporter) over this one and the lashing I gave him over it.
Totally innocent. Who ?wha? Me?:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/today_in_hillary_bashing_and_defending
Or this innocent political group:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/msnbc-hosts-founder-of-an_n_87356.html
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That wasn't rain?
Shit.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)roamer65
(36,748 posts)Did the banned individual actually use the word in question?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)roamer65
(36,748 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yes, it would be very difficult to purge everyone who's used it in the past, but I think after how public this one's been, there should be no excuse for people using it down the line.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)The posts are easy enough to search.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)even more as he never did say THE word itself and he was banned
herding cats
(19,569 posts)No place I've ever posted has ever done anything like that. That seems a bit extreme even to me, a person who despises that word used as a pejorative.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)That, or I don't buy it. No warning of an automatic ban for use (or allusion to in this case) that horrendous word. Sorry.
herding cats
(19,569 posts)The precedent is set now. So be it, I'm fine with that. If you use that language as a pejorative you're asking to be banned.
Of course if NYC_SKP apologizes and is allowed back, all this discussion is going to amount to nothing.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)For the money being brought in, admins can do the same. Otherwise, I don't buy it at all.
herding cats
(19,569 posts)I replied there. I'm impatient like that, sorry.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782501
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Unless some sort of warning was posted between those horrendous posts and this one, I don't buy it.
herding cats
(19,569 posts)Correct me if I'm misinterpreting something. I'm working off what you're giving me and not trying to put words into your mouth.
Others here have used the word as a pejorative and not been banned. If the owners are to be consistent they're to ban everyone who has ever used the word as a pejorative in the history of the site.
My question is, has any other person ever in the history of the site ever been banned for using the same language in a similar context?
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)And not that anyone has linked to.
I have seen people banned for a history of disruptive behavior which may or may not have included several instances of nasty language (which I abhor across the board--I'm crazy like that).
My comment is basically a nice way of saying there was a hidden agenda behind this banning (in my opinion, and no, I support no one in particular in this upcoming election because it's becoming a rather large joke as the years go by--and in case people have their stenos and pencils out while reading this), and unless the admins care to comment on why this comment deserved a ban while others passed by and no rules have changed, I don't buy EarlG's excuse. I've got nothing to lose. It's their site at the end of the day, but I still can call bullshit.
herding cats
(19,569 posts)I don't have enough information of my own to say if I agree with you or not, but that's not really important here. I do understand what you're getting at, though. I did my own Google and found several instances of things which disturbed me. Including a post about the exact same phrase used here where the poster in question obviously knew what the phrase in question means. That was disappointing, but not totally unexpected I suppose. It was mostly old post, from back when the previous incarnation of the site existed. Which doesn't negate the potential agenda you're talking about.
I don't have a candidate either, and I likely won't for a while yet. I don't care who is taking notes of that.
I've just spent copious amounts of time researching this. I need a life or a hobby, or something. In the end I can't disagree consistence is needed, but some do mention that the owner who banned the person is more likely to ban for such offenses than the other owner.
My takeaway after all my reading is, we all get disillusioned. Even the owners of the site didn't expect what they ended up having to deal with here over time. You couldn't pay me enough money to have to wade through all the unrest, anger and angst they're expected to manage here. However, I admit I deal with a myriad of politically verbose people daily in my work, and may be a bit overly empathetic on that point. Our ideals feel so beautiful when we find them in our youth, and they pain us so deeply when they're ripped from our grasp when we begin to mature.
yuiyoshida
(41,874 posts)As much as I hate the Asian slur words..
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)and after posting for only a week, I have a question on this topic.
What pejorative terms are ok to use when referring to public figures? Does it matter who the public figure is?
Which of these are ok?
mo********er
fu****ad
fu***ad
co******er
cu*****er
bu******er
That's all I could come up with at this time.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)If you want to be 100% in the clear, use none of them. Otherwise, a jury may rule against you. Others may not like the word implied, even though there are asterisks. The admins may not like it.
The co*******er one is homophobic, so, not a good idea.
The bu********er one is also homophobic.
If you disagree with me, fine. I gave you a straightforward answer. Welcome to DU.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)since I never intend to use those again, with or without asterisks.
Cha
(298,139 posts)Warren.. the whole place would want the person banned.. including me.
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He was so proud of his cleverness he entered the post into his journal.
No one has been banned because they didn't support Hillary, that's a bullshit excuse.
Cha
(298,139 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)As a Bernie supporter I don't want to be associated with that kind of behaviour.
No excuse for it.
Response to NuclearDem (Original post)
Maraya1969 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...,even I would not use it though. I certainly respect the values here. When in Rome and all that.
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)I used it with the prefix 'evil' to describe Joe Hockey after his first budget, but I'd never use it at DU, work, or in front of my parents
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)I've been called a "cobber", should I take offence? Is Wanker offensive or is that just what you call Americans here? Should Pom be the "P " word? Excuse the tangent, but as long as we are trying to figure out our Slur-to-English glossary...
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...about the whole weird thing in the USA is the Women rule the slurs.
Call a women in the USA a private body part= bad
Call a Man in the USA a private body part= no big deal
I just go along with the program...I never know what-the-fuck is going on anyway...
Violet_Crumble
(35,992 posts)I was wondering last night whether it's viewed as bad in the US if someone calls a man the dreaded c word.
Another thing I was wondering was after I read a post in one of these many threads that said that the word's totally misogynistic because of the history of oppression towards women in the US. As there's not much difference in the trajectory of women's rights in the US and here, I don't understand why the word's treated so differently there than it is here.
Zamen
(116 posts)As in septic tank/Yank.
I just laughed.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the word. I wish more people would read more carefully. The statements by so many impose the reality of the word from their own minds on the words that NYC_SKP wrote.
He did not actually write out any word. He used language less clearly a "naughty" word than those who write *$&(#@)."
I think the fuss is based on something other than what NYC_SKP wrote.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)I've been confused about how NYC_SKP was "clever" about using the C word without actually using it. Since I didn't see the post, I'm still confused. While I loathe the use of the C word, even in a joke, I would like to know if the room for interpretation here is wide enough as to make this a political maneuver from NYC-SKP haters.
For the last 24 hours there has been a lot of overwrought grave-dancing about NYC-SKP, as if the banning needs to be approved by the community somehow. I hope that doesn't start to take on the aspect of the loyalty oath.
A couple days ago NYC_SKP was annoying Hillary supporters with some post about how she wasn't managing her free event on Roosevelt Island well.
I didn't bother to read either side. The concern did look like a reach, but the "Hillary under attack" complainers always seem like they are just shadowing how their own group attacks other candidates - so no one was worth listening to.
But then suddenly someone gets banned? Huh? On the forum where people who shade too far left get identified with "freepers"? WTF?
I can't really make a judgment on it since I didn't see the evidence. All I can say is that I hope the same standards get applied to people across political cliques equally here.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)supporters would like. She gave a good speech today. It was stodgy but she said was very important. She dealt with some important issues. I'm a Bernie supporter, and i think it is good when the candidates stick to the issues.
SunSeeker
(51,829 posts)Turbineguy
(37,427 posts)No Hint Of Humor Allowed Brigade and the Right-Wing-Nut-Job Hurt-Feelings Protection Team, there really isn't much wiggle room.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Silly me.
murielm99
(30,790 posts)I don't care about this person's longevity or popularity.
This will be the last post I read about this person, and the last reply I make about this incident. I don't come here for stupid squabbling. I come here for discussion.
elleng
(131,459 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)but I don't get how one gets c**t from "cunning stunt" unless it's some sort of homophone (which I wouldn't catch because...like I said, HoH) or a Cockney rhyming-slang thing.
If it was intentional, then that's unacceptable...but this feels like one of those magic-eye puzzles that never worked for me. I feel like it's obvious to everybody else and going over my head.
Edit: Oh duh. HoH: hard-of-hearing
yewberry
(6,530 posts)A spoonerism is when you swap sounds between two words. Jelly beans becomes belly jeans and master plan becomes plaster man.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and many here didn't either.
And those showing the scalp cannot accept that we are not daft, it is simply not clear. One even went so far as to bring a post from Drudge
peace13
(11,076 posts)He was stumped and turned to his aide and asked,'What is a word ending in u n t that is often used to refer to a woman?' The aide replied,' aunt'. The Pope replied, 'Oh...Got an eraser?'
Now this may offend some, not all. Just as a thinly veiled word smith may. We have to choose the fights around here, chuckle when we can and realize that things will get worse before they get better! Peace and love to all! And remember, five beautiful deep breaths do the mind and body a world of good!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and the punchline is that the Pope has a dirty mind. Very different from a joke in which the slur is aimed at an individual.
Another point about your joke is that SKP felt very strongly that no one should insult religion or religious figures, and that anyone who does should admit that they are asking for strong reactions. Making jokes about the Pope was a big no no in his world. His views after the Hebdo killings were very, very clear.
So your example is ironic considering the views the departed had so strongly expressed.
peace13
(11,076 posts)As for the the slur, I never actually saw the word #unt used by the poster. And... As a woman I think a word is a word, it doesn't mean I am that. Ms. Clinton is probably laughing her head off at all of this. She should be the last person to squawk about name calling. She is a politician for goodness sake. If I call a male politician a rat @8?4er it doesn't mean that I am insulting the entire male population. Women are strong, smart humans and they do not need this pretend outrage. If we want to respect women we will protect the children from male predators! Now that I can get behind!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That seems to follow?
2banon
(7,321 posts)reasons.
But lo and behold, these days - every.where.here.in.Oakland. I hear that word spoken, shouted, and wrapped endlessly. Everyone (apparently) is a N*****, including white women. It's like shorthand for any and everyone. male female, black, white. I am coming to think that word no longer has the traditionally hurtful implications of negative slur it had when I was just a kid many decades ago.
But I still can't bring myself to accept it when I hear it. It will always remain in the category of foul/potty mouthed/racists words. I don't like hearing the B word either especially in the public fora.
But I would be completely dishonest to portend that I've never used the B and C word myself with all that those words imply. and then some.
men and women are equal in their abilities to be disgusting human beings. selfish, stupid, power hungry, greedy, hypocritical, diabolic, just plain evil.
So, I call it as I see it regardless of gender.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I mean uh... You know what I mean.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)however, NYC_SKP didn't call anyone that offensive word and the ban was, IMO, unjustified.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)deurbano
(2,896 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I've seen the exchange. It remains my opinion that Skip intended his reply as mockery of the troll's original...but it was vaguely constructed (and completely tone-deaf). It also remains my opinion that banning a long-time poster who put a ton of work into this site (without any sort of warning or talking-to) was a grotesque overreaction on EarlG's part.
I'd like to think Skip's being pro-Bernie and pro-2nd Amendment had nothing to do with this terrible decision. I sure hope I'm right about tat...
deurbano
(2,896 posts)I dont think he should be banned, but it also concerns me that so many (including DU women of my own advanced age) seem to think its no big deal to use the c-word (or a spoonerism that means the same) on this forum. I mean, when I was young, I would (for laughs and shock value) call my female friends (the ones I KNEW would find this funny), you dripping cunt. I used it in the way marginalized groups appropriate hateful or dated language to empower and amuse themselves. (Like when my daughter performed with a disabled womens theater group-- Wry Crips.) But I would never say the word to a woman not comfortable with that in-group joke, and I find it especially troubling when used by progressive men.
NYC_SKP was certainly aware of what the spoonerism meant, given his previous response to a Sarah Palin post that included the term, and that response also leaves me unconvinced he meant it as a mockery of the troll's original post this time:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7059909#7059935
And I really dont get all his Sturm und Drang about how allowing the use of cracker (of all terms) is destroying DU, when he seems so much less incensed about a known spoonerism of cunt:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025932415#post9
Many seem too willing to overlook misogynist language, and give it a pass, when they wouldnt do the same with slurs directed at other historically oppressed groups, so I am sympathetic to EarlG's dilemma. I can't speak to the possibility that NYC_SKP's political positions made him more of a target, since I haven't paid any attention to that, but of course, any policy should be consistent.
That said, we live in a world without strong sanctions against misogynist slurs, so apparently more education is needed, even among "progressives." I think someone said it could be a "teachable moment," and I'm all for that... but that would also require the recognition that misogynist language is unacceptable, which doesn't seem to be a universally held value here. Still, I don't think he should be banned, and I agree the totality of his contribution should be considered.
Im also for Sanders, and Ive been a fan since I voted for him when he was running for governor of VT in 1976. I met him in Albany, CA (or maybe Berkeley) when he was on a book tour around 1998, and we chatted with him about VT (since we had recently been back to visit), including about how he had helped make Burlington much more wheelchair accessible while mayor. (And my daughter got a nice photo with him she can now post on Facebook, once I scan and send it her!)
So it's not like I'm a giant Clinton supporter, but I greatly respect her position as the first woman to actually have a real shot at being president. (Historic and precedent setting-- a big deal, in and of itself, even though I disagree with her on some important issues.) The sexism in 2008 was very disturbing. With all the passions of the primary season, I wish to god people would just focus on positions, legislative records and other actually relevant information. Hey, at least I havent heard (on DU) how OLD is Clinton is, lately! (Baby steps )
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)At best, it was tone-deaf. At worst, it was deliberately offensive in a misogynist way (although given his history, I doubt that was the intent). We seem to agree that that history, one of support for progressive causes and putting in a lot of work on the board moderating forums and groups, should have ameliorated the penalty. A time-out and an ass-chewing would have been proportional, in my estimation. A ban was a gross overreaction.
I'm not a Hillary supporter (she's not nearly liberal enough for my preference and I consider her ethical record to be dubious), but I absolutely agree that her candidacy is a huge, gratifying milestone. I actually preferred her in 2008...and I also notice a double standard in a lot of places: racism against Obama was anathema (as it should be), but a lot of sexism against Hillary got a pass. I ground my teeth plenty over that...
Generic Brad
(14,276 posts)Look how divisive this has become. Had someone less prolific posted the same thing they might not have been banned, but that would be more because of their circle of limited influence.
Someone widely read sets the tone for entire board and has far more influence. In my view, that was a significant factor in what happened.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)have been warned. I am going to miss him as he was the first person to help me here when I had an altercation with another DU.
This is so frigging sad!
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)Seems as though you are, grave dancing much!
What goes around comes around, unless you are clean as a whistle.
Cha
(298,139 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)My only problem is that he was a very good DUer and I stand by him and hope he will get reinstated.
Some of us make mistakes when posting, depending on our mood!
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)My only problem is that he was a very good DUer and I stand by him and hope he will get reinstated.
Some of us make mistakes when posting, depending on our mood!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)you didn't earn the bad grade, the teacher gave it to you... amirite?
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)maths and English tests we go through to qualify to get into high school.
So, just get lost or educate yourself!
Good grief, do not claim you know whom you are responding to!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)EarlG, I'm waiting for my cut from the job.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)Guess you are the pastor on here who never telled a lie. Do carry on! Pastors lie all the time!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I was actually the banned troll who entrapped him into making that post!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Wow.
Some people will say anything to excuse misogyny.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I asked to be paid in cookies.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bartender, a round of cookies for everyone involved!
Cha
(298,139 posts)to him. Like he has no mind of his own.
The banned troll made him put it in his journal too.. I'll bet or it happened by magic!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)But I ask the administrators in advance to ban me if I use a racist, anti-semitic, sexist. homophobic, et cetera epithet, whether implicitly or explicitly, because I shamed myself.
LostOne4Ever
(9,302 posts)still_one
(92,552 posts)offended.
This isn't not just about women, it is a mindset among some that really should not be tolerated on DU.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I think you should not so quickly discount the voice of other women who have different views while claiming to represent the monolithic "right" position and that is the voice of all women.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)themselves and other women.
And fuck yeah.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... a "Democratic" site. And yet it has become a place where calling Democrats vile names, and insinuating (in no uncertain terms) that the Democratic president and other elected D's are sell-out shills for Republicans has become not only acceptable, but is often cheered and K & R'd.
It is hard to ignore the irony that on what is, first and foremost, a political message board supporting Democrats and the Party, such posts are allowed to stand, while implying a certain word that many find offensive is too egregious an offense to warrant anything less than total banishment.
SKP and I have had many run-ins over the past few weeks. So it's not like I feel compelled to stand up for him on the grounds that we were good buds, or in agreement with each others' views. In fact, it was quite the opposite.
However, the fact is that he did not use "the word" he is being said to have used. And I personally don't find "well, we all knew what he really meant" to be a good enough reason to do anything more than "hide" a post many took objection to.
As a staunch Democrat posting on a site that is self-described as being supportive of Democrats, I have had my senses assaulted on an almost daily basis by some of the anti-Dem bullshit that is permitted to be posted here as a matter of course.
So you'll excuse me if I don't run to my fainting couch at the notion that someone used a euphemism for a word that is considered a "big no-no" - on a board that holds itself out as being supportive of the very Democrats it allows the most disgusting, outlandish, and vile things to be said about without interference or consequence.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)There is no fucking mystery over what was said.
Unless he was somehow referring to a fucking Metallica video, he used a spoonerism for "stunning c***." Seriously, this isn't an obscure reference either, its definition is on the first Google results page for it.
Seriously, how stupid do some people think we are?
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)The fact remains that he didn't actually post "the word" - as is being implied in many posts here tonight.
bluesbassman
(19,387 posts)Obviously DU is not a court of law, but if it was the judge would throw this out in a heartbeat.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)To paraphrase Sinclair Lewis never try to convince somebody of something that their whole world view depends on not believing,
still_one
(92,552 posts)except this pertains to gender, and sexism.
If one is against someone's policies, then argue on that basis rather then resorting to personal sexist attacks
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)but I'll call my friends what I'd like to when we're inebriated and watching footy, thanks.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)now adays than I'd like, but the marching morons and their locked steps keep blocking my eyes and disturbing my good peace.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Did you miss the reference? Or did you get it?
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)but when I picked the name I wasn't going off of it, and wasn't super familiar with the song or subsequently, it's importance to me when it was initially pointed out.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... a mindless cheerleader, an authoritarian, a DINO, a ConservaDem, a Third Wayer, a water-carrier for the 1% - or if you decide to call a Democratic president a POS used car salesman, a sellout to corporate interests, a shill for the GOP you have no place here.
This is or alleges to be a Democratic-supporting site. And yet all of the above are posted here on a regular basis, and are allowed to stand.
The irony is amusing. It's okay to say the most vile, detestable, outrageous things about Democrats on DemocraticUnderground - just as long as you don't use "certain words", or euphemisms for those words that may offend some sensibilities.
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #238)
Name removed Message auto-removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)But you know that already!
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,387 posts)... as long as you're talking about someone other than MY favorite candidate.
"Third Way" is only an insult if the candidate doesn't identify with the third way, I think, but it's maybe a little too technical for my simple mind. Would a "third-wayer" find it insulting? Are there Democratic politicians who self-identify with the third way?
Saying outrageous things about some Democrats seems "normal" during the primary season. 2008 was a bit contentious at times.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... I was referring more to the fact that some posters here call other posters "Third Wayers", DINOs, etc. if they dare disagree with them about anything. And it's been done for ages now - has nothing to do with the season.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,387 posts)... of dealing with that (juries and mirt).
We also seem to have increased use of the "alert" system for simple disagreements. I've been on a few juries for "spite" alerts.
But, I am NEVER juror #4, that DUer is just plain wrong.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... you're not that pesky Juror #4!
But in truth, the jury system is a joke. Just sayin' is all.
romanic
(2,841 posts)but the explosion of threads over this ban is so meta, it's bordering on surreal. I've never seen such open discussion over it on any other forum I've been on, it's weird to watch. :/
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Just read a headline this morning but haven't hung around for the debates but whether or not and its not for me to decide -- I know what would happen if I used that word but it isn't something I ever have to worry about as generally I stay away from ad hominem or remind myself when I catch myself doing so but I have rarely ever heard that word personally and something very vicious behind it as "bitch" can be gender neutral or get away with it depending on context and every use depends on the context but the word is exclusively derogatory for someone who is a woman (maybe except the use of the word with British accents but don't know the truth behind the rumor).
That said, being banned I could deal with it but people debating my existence, I would like to hear from NYC Skip. If one truly understands the offensive use, realize the error -- I can accept that or if one stands their ground or give a phony apology (you can't really tell, especially through here, unless there is a pattern or they put the responsibility on someone else or blame someone else unless a clear provoking but a C-word -- I can't see that but not my place to decide here or there. I will say there is a poster here (that I like) that have insulted more people here ever but in just a monthy average, suspended more than once, had an always open transparency page (don't know if it is but enjoyed a laugh). Remember the douchebag thread?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)but only a handful of people seemed to mind when he did that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Including clever sideways ways of doing it.
dembotoz
(16,866 posts)Geuss like life my stay here could be limited
Does peeve me a bit how we eat our own when the really bad guys run my state to ruin
So while I am here
Koobay yah and all that
And when I am gone, may no one ever confuse me with a teabagger
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Brilliant!
dembotoz
(16,866 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)dembotoz
(16,866 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Yes or no.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Because reverse sexism is about as fucking real as reverse racism.
What a handy rationale.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Hot-button words like that one should be used with care, but it rather depends on who's using it, about whom, and to whom. In some places, I'm given to understand, the c-word is a general rather than a sexist insult. I have my doubts about that assertion, but we should probably judge cases individually.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Night before last, Jon Stewart used the word "pussy" on The Daily Show. Did you make sure to email him a lecture on what is appropriate language and what is not? Or does it just bother you when you see a similar word in print here?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Vinca
(50,342 posts)After reading all the threads re this subject I can't ascertain whether the "c" word was or was not said or if the word "cunning" was used, which definitely is not the "c" word. Cunning means sly and is not a slur for a body part so I'm left wondering why someone was ousted for using it.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)"Cunning stunt" is a spoonerism for "stunning c***".
Vinca
(50,342 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)mcar
(42,479 posts)Sad to see the rationalizing going on here.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)calling someone a "dick" has no place here as well. Right?
And making fun of men who are not well endowed, including mocking such people in a sig line, has no place here as well.
Agreed?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and that is the top of the list.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)
We gotta stop referring to bush as a dick now ??????
*edited to add obviously missing sarc tag for any swinging richard that took the post seriously.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And it's been explained why for the quadrillionuple umpteenth time in several of the discussions about this.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Brits use f** to refer to cigarettes too. Is that alright here?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)At least the brits know how to relax and get on with things. We're so overwrought and outraged all the time in this country.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)This is clearly what happened. A person was banned for the implication. No one called any one a c***. Just like, last week, no one called Bernie a racist. However no one was banned for the implication that Bernie is a racist and this is where I take issue with what has transpired on this site in the past week.
One may have implied that one is a c*** and, others of us may have inferred it from the reading of the post and, still others inferred it after looking up the phrase "c*nn*g st*nt" on Urban Dictionary.
Is all very interesting how people do not understand the ramifications of implications and how unevenly the Admin are meting out justice on this site.
However, it is their site and they may do as they wish. Kind of like living in a "right to work" state, I suppose.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That word has been discussed to death here. People here know what it is and what it means.
I've got utterly ballistic at people here, and yet somehow managed to avoid calling them a c***, f**, or n*****.
samsingh
(17,607 posts)posting a good part of his life here and contributing financially.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)but some geese are more equal than other ganders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5961759
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)name calling is acceptable? Also if a person may have a different view on a subject does that give others the right to attack that person on personal level? Just wondering.
TNNurse
(6,934 posts)And therefore do not have the time to read all these comments and go to the links provided and read them.
I am a white woman. I do not use the n-word. I acknowledge that Black people may use it and that is their choice. I cannot (and do not want to) say it and have that be acceptable.
The c-word referred to in all this discussion is a hateful slur. I have never heard or heard of a woman calling another woman that word and anyone thinking that is OK, because they are both women. Maybe it happens, but it is certainly not common.
That word is commonly considered to be intolerable, unacceptable and foul. You can certainly insult a woman quite well without using that word.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Should go back and do a site search and ban every member who used the word. Do a site search for the word. You will be surprised at the number of members who used it and never got punished for it. Comsistency is definitely a jewel. SKP shouldnt have used the spoonerism, but should not have received a harsher punishment than all the othera who used the actual word. It does make one wonder whether the ban came because it was tied to HRC.
kcr
(15,331 posts)Sadly not surprised someone who got banned for it is getting support.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Or even had their posts hidden.
Cha
(298,139 posts)"Troll"
If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,
she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.
I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...
"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775879
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783979
How SKP responded..
I say that to myself every day, over an over.
It can be a tongue twister!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Posted it in his journal too..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~NYC_SKP
EarlG (Administrator)
"Called Hillary Clinton the c-word. Thought he was being clever about it. He was not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=221412&sub=trans
SKP needs to apologize to the Admins and ask to be re-instated.. not try to wiggle out of it like others are trying to do for him.
Yeah, others are saying it.. and choosing to campaign for Bernie through misogyny..
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)is that DUers should better stop criticize the Party Already- Designated Candidate.
Btw not so long ago I was personnaly attacked . The poster got his post hidden by Jury but not banned
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Would you be ok with someone here calling you that? Or how about if someone called Bernie Sanders' wife or Elizabeth Warren the "c" word. Are you good with that happening?
Omaha Steve
(99,898 posts)Trendy Man: Mr. Melon, your wife was just showing us her Klimt. Thornton: You too, huh?
Response to NuclearDem (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed