Gangs and swarms

[BainsBane]

How is it that when multiple women agree on something we are called a "gang" or a "swarm"? The use of those terms suggest to me that some members see something illegitimate about women expressing their views. Is there a certain number at which we are allowed to agree before we become a swarm? Are only one, two, or three women allowed to participate in a thread? Why is it that some so often use language that deems women's speech illegitimate?

Perhaps, just perhaps, people ought to think about what they mean to communicate with the words they choose? Unless of course you believe women and their speech less worthy than men's.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. It takes 5 people (of any gender) to make a gang (one G.U., or Gang Unit)

A winged gang is called a swarm, so it's really more about the flying than about the numbers. I'll leave the rest to others.

[BainsBane]

2. On DU

Swarms are exclusively comprised of women, and I have seen the term used for as few as two Posters.

[PeaceNikki]

54. It's the same "group" that a handful of hosts gleefully ignore the alerts of.

And have the fucking nerve to call US "shit stirrers".

[1StrongBlackMan]

230. I beg to differ ...

the term "swarm" has been applied to supporter of President Obama ... particularly, members of the DU BOG group.

Though, there IS significant Demographic overlap.

[BainsBane]

232. Someone pointed that out downthread

I suppose I filter it through the times the word has been in threads I've been involved in.

[Warpy]

3. Some men just can't handle a woman telling them they're wrong about something

and such men have usually been caught mansplaining right out in the open.

Knowing full well that one woman will always be dismissed, more women read the thread and tell him "Sorry, Slick, but you'd better rethink this because you are dead wrong."

So Slick and his buddies complain about all the women ganging up on poor Slick, who is still utterly clueless about what he said that was wrong because he just aint the kinda guy who's gonna listen to a buncha wimmen.

And yes, the left is full of these guys, solid Democratic voters who don't think half the human race has anything to tell them.

[BainsBane]

4. So true.

[Electric Monk]

13. How sexist is this "Wo-mansplaining?" We couldn't possibly understand because we have a penis.

(jury, please note the MUCH broader context, thanks.)

[BainsBane]

15. stop with the false equivalencies

White men are not persecuted. Challenging a man on demeaning women is not sexist. Plenty of men manage to speak to Women without being insulting.

[Electric Monk]

16. Yes, that has to be it. Of course.

Kinda depends on the filters you're using, though.

[pinboy3niner]

19. You should self-delete this

ETA: I see you edited to change your original comment, which was "Yes, Dear." Smart move!

[kcr]

17. Now I understand why you're defending that DUer's behavior

It's clear now.

[Electric Monk]

20. I know how to read, and what assorted punctuations mean. Yes, indeed. nt

[kcr]

23. Hm. Why did you edit out your "yes, dear" response upthread?

They were just words and punctuation, too.

[Electric Monk]

25. To keep the swarm happy. Good night, I'm out of here.

[pinboy3niner]

36. The "swarm"?

That's the last-ditch, dead-ender response of MRA defenders who can't come up with a counter to actual arguments.

[mercuryblues]

72. really

You expect to be taken seriously by women as having a legitimate POV. on anything after saying that? You come off more like a circus clown. But then you get poutaged and act all innocent when some are called out on the BS.


Please don't cut yourself shaving.

Electric Monk

25. To keep the swarm happy. Good night, I'm out of here.

[randys1]

203. Men who demean Women are afraid of Women and dont like them much...

That is the bottom line, most men who are like this are republicans and thankfully not as many Dems, but yes, demeaning Women for any behavior that is acceptable for men, makes you a misogynist and someone the real liberals should avoid at all costs.

I learned at an early age from several men in my life, the men in my family, the local priest, that Women were goofy, didnt have much brains and were to be tolerated at best.

Later in life my own father realized his wife, my mother, was not just his intellectual superior, but his superior in every way.

I was happy to see my father learn this and accept it, he would even tell anyone who would listen that if they wanted to know something, to ask her, she would know the answer.

It is probably why Maya Angelou and my mother became instant friends when they met in a night club 45 yrs ago.

[Electric Monk]

205. Lovely post, but I don't see what it has to do with mine. Want to read a really interesting post?

Check out this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5212522

[randys1]

206. It has everything to do with it, seems to me you were demeaning Women

but arguing with me is pointless, I know people that talk like you and you cant win this argument

sorry

[Electric Monk]

207. Thanks for womansplaining that to me. I'm playing BainsBanes game back at her, is what I'm doing. nt

[RiffRandell]

261. Nice find!

Not surprised!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[1StrongBlackMan]

233. WOW ...

Really?

[Electric Monk]

238. Some people don't see the irony. Others can laugh at it. I prefer to laugh. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

247. And still others ...

make completely tone deaf statements and try and pass them off as "irony."

[bravenak]

249. So true.

It hurt my head.

[1StrongBlackMan]

250. Don't you like my display of restraint? ...

1StrongBlackMan, working hard to make DU Suck less since 2014.

[bravenak]

251. You are doing a fine job, a terrific job!

I also make DU suck. Any tips for me on how to make it suck less?

[1StrongBlackMan]

253. I WOULD tell you; but ...

I that would make us a gang, or maybe even, the SWARM.

[sheshe2]

254. Not an easy thing to do these days, is it, 1SBM?

Your restraint is so noted and definitely commended. Wish that others felt as you do!

[BainsBane]

24. really?

Because you never responded to my second comment to you in that thread. I would have thought if you would have had an argument on the merits, you would have made it.

[sheshe2]

37. I too asked for a response...

their response to the Op's LOL about WCGreen.

And you know what Bains... in all our anger, we never really addressed the Steubenville comment. The rapes...that was another that the OP finds boring. Meh~ don't bother me.

That pisses me way the hell off.

[BainsBane]

73. I saw that

And it didn't surprise me in the least. In fact, none of it surprised me.

[merrily]

26. Not the most important issue, but I've never seen the word "punctuations" before.

[pinboy3niner]

39. By their punctuations ye shall know them

Don't you know that that's how you identify a HoF "swarm"?

[merrily]

41. ? !

[Squinch]

51. We all have semicolons tattooed somewhere on our bodies. We got them in our initiation ceremony.

Oh, crap! Now I've blabbed!

[BainsBane]

21. yeah

Come to think of it, I had noticed before. It Just didn't stick with me.

[Warpy]

71. Sorry, Slick, but you'd better rethink this because you're dead wrong.

False equivalencies will get you nowhere.

[rbrnmw]

27. The thing is a woman gave birth to them.

I wish they would at least respect women for that reason alone

[Squinch]

66. "The thing is a woman gave birth to them." That was our first mistake.

[sheshe2]

255. Ouch, Squinch!

That may hurt a few fee fees here~

[Squinch]

311. .

[sheshe2]

316. .

They haz a

[L0oniX]

88. Obviously they have not tried to tell my wife she is wrong about something.

[TBF]

103. Yup, nailed it. K&R nt

[smirkymonkey]

214. +1000

Good explanation.

[kcr]

6. But the ones posting sexist crap and those who defend them and alert on those objecting to it

are never referred to as a swarm that makes DU suck. Funny how that happens.

[BainsBane]

7. isn't it?

Did you see I got a hide in that thread? The alerter blamed me for the whole rest of the thread.

[kcr]

10. I did see that. It's such bullshit.

Defending horrible behavior while turning around and smearing those who object to it. Classic DU nowadays.

[BainsBane]

11. one juror even went on

About comments others had made, stuff I didn't even know about, as justification for my hide.

If someone thought they were getting me back for other alerts in that thread, they were wrong because I didn't alert on anything in there.

[kcr]

14. Because, swarm

You obviously must have known about them and are responsible through the hivemind.

[BainsBane]

18. I must have summoned them

With my radfem sonar.

[pinboy3niner]

22. I KNEW IT WAS YOU!!!

[BainsBane]

28. if I weren't on my phone

I'd find a good image to suit the occasion. Sadly, I have no internet and haven't yet perfected the radfem sonar to summon someone to do it for me.

[TDale313]

29. I want that superpower!

[KittyWampus]

128. Nah, it's the "hive mind" (kidding). BTW, that particular poster has been getting away w/crap

for far too long.

And then there's the typical bully tactic- complaining others are picking on poor little innocent him.

[BainsBane]

133. When someone regularly takes positions

that dismiss the majority of people on the planet, one can hardly be surprised that some of that majority would develop resentments.

[smirkymonkey]

215. LOL!

[TDale313]

32. That hide was ridiculous. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

237. Wait ...

I was told that Bravenak and I made DU suck ... But then, again, we share, 2 of 3 demographics, that have been referred to as "the swarm."

[sheshe2]

263. OMG!

The BOG too has been accused of making DU suck.

So, let me get this straight....hmmmm, give me a moment I do believe I am a tad confused here. Okay I just checked the cover of my laptop. Phew! I am indeed on DU, but wait what?! So let's make a list here.

What makes DU suck?

#1 POC, a huge voting block for the Democratic Party, make DU suck. Or is it just you and bravenak. Nah! It's all of you.

#2 BOG (the Barack Obama Group) supports this first Black President of these United States on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We make DU suck too.

#3 HoF. Feminists yes indeed.Huge, I mean huge voting block for the Democratic party !!!! Women yes we all are. We too make DU suck!

BTW the list is I know that you got what I said, 1SBM. However the juries

That said, I do believe we have entered the twilight zone.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

[1StrongBlackMan]

268. You are completely ...

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 08:02 AM - Edit history (1)

wrong ... women, People of Color and supporters of President Obama can't ... just can't be the Democratic base; that designation is reserved for white men that care only about (their) individual freedoms and (their) income equality. That's the really, really true Democratic base. The stuff that PoC and Women care about is boring and makes DU suck.

[sheshe2]

272. Yikes!

I do believe you just described the GOP! Oh wait.

You will appreciate this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025213942

[pinboy3niner]

8. Someone suggested that the reaction to quinnox's latest thread was a gang

I attempted to point out that that the reaction was not one one of an organized "gang" but the honest reaction of individual members:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025208861#post338

When women here who are active in women's rights issues respond to flamebait MRA posts, "gang" is just another way of dismissing them.

[BainsBane]

9. Precisely

I also might add--in completely general terms and about no one in particular--that if someone regularly takes positions that exclude or diminish the majority of the population, it should not come as a surprise that members of that majority take exception.

[cyberswede]

12. Thanks for that post.

[merrily]

30. Thanks. There were comments, even threads, posted about

so many female DUers reacting to the Hobby Lobby and buffer zone decisions.

Um, duh?

[pinboy3niner]

33. And you had the vast majority of DU's male members with you

We may not always jump in. Partly because women can speak more authoritatively to the issue from their experience, and partly because, I think, of a fear of being perceived as someone trying to be a 'white knight.'

In any case, what's important is that ignorant statements get pushback and those discussions may be enlightening for some.

If we were to need a 'gang' I'd be happy to sign up to receive the batsignal.

[nomorenomore08]

35. I think to a certain extent, because I'm a straight white guy, I get to be just an individual

expressing my opinion. Rather than one of a "swarm" of strident activists, as some would have it. Perhaps this could be considered a relatively small example of "privilege."

[merrily]

74. I believe that. Hence posts of mine that express the opinion that

most of the anti-female posts come from DU's right wing moles.

What I "love" is when men instruct us about how we should feel about rape, unwanted pregnancies and related topics. Otherwise, I am generally happy to hear from all quarters.

[JustAnotherGen]

77. This - exactly

I referred to it this past weekend as a silent majority - and in terms of some discussions - there is simply a respect for our experiences/voices from men at DU. We know who you guys are!

[BainsBane]

89. I wish juries reflected that sentiment.

[Sheldon Cooper]

40. Wow. I missed all that, because I have the OP on ignore.

But seriously, lol'ing at a guy fighting for his life? Despicable.

[pinboy3niner]

42. His defense was that he "forgot" Chris's circumstances

In a reply to me in the thread he said that he couldn't possibly remember all the details posted by thousands of DUers.

He remembered the name but "forgot" the details? How does one forget a fellow member here who has undergone a double lung transplant, with many updates posted, including the sad news that he may be facing death?

Remembers only the username and forgets those inconsequential details about the person, like he may be dying. Just one of thousands here, can't remember them all.

[BainsBane]

90. I would think if one didn't remember

the prudent thing would be not to call the person out? Or at least to later apologize rather than accusing everyone of lying?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

140. not just prudent but, decent. The decent thing to have done was own it and apologize

for it and state that will try to do better going forward.

[stevenleser]

70. I have that OP on ignore as well and missed it all.

My opinion on that score is now reinforced.

The wcgreen comment may qualify them as worst DUer ever.

[bettyellen]

80. And after refusing to self delete- he PMd a host asking them to lock it for them despite other hosts

Voting to keep. That host went against the majority of hosts and locked it. That host also blamed the people reacting to the OP- and not the original poster. Because swarm. Some hosts keep lists of DUers they do not like- and admit that they'll ignore alerts if they are on that list. (I can post both threads if anyone wants to see it.)

It's bullshit.

[Sheldon Cooper]

81. Please post both threads, I want to see them.

I think all members should have read-only privileges to the hosting forum. It's amazing what goes on back there, and yet we're all supposed to believe that things are just peachy.

[bettyellen]

86. Gladly- here is the host's thread related to this topic:

GD - For guys, Have you ever cut your lip shaving? (LOCKED BY ROGUE HOST)

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:51 AM - Edit history (2)

General Discussion Author: quinnox
For guys, Have you ever cut your lip shaving?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025208861
Alerted by greyl: This post does not "Discuss politics, issues, and current events." Please look at this link and note the words Skinner chose to bold: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022542300 10:44 PM

Edited again at 9:48am to add the above in the subject line.

I'd like to hear other GDHost opinions on this if you have one, please.


Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
1. GDH - Leave

What is an issue? Issue to whom?

I think any man that cuts his lip while shaving is a complete dumbass but I guess it can be an issue for some.

(sigh)
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:00 AM
Star Member itsrobert (10,553 posts)
2. GDH - Leave

Going by "the too late to lock" rule, i say leave. Just too many replies. Alert should have been earlier. Damage has been done.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to itsrobert (Reply #2)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:38 AM
Star Member Agschmid (8,898 posts)
3. Yup. Unfortunate, the whole thing.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to itsrobert (Reply #2)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:39 AM
Star Member rhett o rick (37,295 posts)
5. GDH - I agree. nm

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:39 AM
Star Member Agschmid (8,898 posts)
4. GDH - LOCK*

I'm a lock but it's too late now. The OP really doesn't (IMO) meet the SOP but it's too late.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Agschmid (Reply #4)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:40 AM
Star Member rhett o rick (37,295 posts)
6. The thread became a disaster no fault of the OP but it wouldn't help anything

to lock now.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:41 AM
Star Member Agschmid (8,898 posts)
7. Agree.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Agschmid (Reply #4)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 01:24 AM
Star Member Hassin Bin Sober (11,201 posts)
9. Honestly, I wish the OP would delete it

And everybody who mentioned WCgreen's name would self delete.

The poor guy is fighting for his life and has been checking in to DU.

He doesn't need to see a 400 post flame extravaganza about himself.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #9)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 04:18 AM
Star Member Violet_Crumble (32,488 posts)
11. I couldn't agree with you more on that...

I found using WCgreen as a weapon in that thread really bad form...
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #11)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:57 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
20. If I were WCgreen I'd be glad DU found his post to be disgusting.

My offense would be to the one who wanted to trash OP's that had my name in them. You know the ones giving an update to my critical health issues.

That is where the offense took place.

Please unlock this thread you have just locked. You've had two objections to locking this from two GD hosts for nearly 1/2 hour now. Yet it still remains locked.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:48 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
8. Thanks all host that weighed in.

Marking as Leave.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 01:32 AM
Star Member quinnox (20,585 posts)
10. Hi, I am sorry for any problem, but I felt the need to defend myself from a gang attack

I have lodged an official complaint about this thread and the several members who disrupted my thread with the admins.

If hosts feel my thread needs to be locked, for the record, I have no objection. If they feel it is becoming a problem or distracting from the forum, or whatever.

Thanks, your fellow host.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to quinnox (Reply #10)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:58 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
21. You know as well an anyone, considering your posts about using DU tools and all.

If you want this thread gone, you self delete.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 05:51 AM
Star Member Violet_Crumble (32,488 posts)
12. GD host - I really think this should be locked...

I've just read through it and it's gotten incredibly nasty and vicious. People are digging up posts from over a year ago and using them to attack others in the thread, and WCgreen's being used as a weapon throughout it. This is a real ugly side of DU that erupts from time to time and it's as bad as anything that used to get posted in Meta.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #12)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:59 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
22. The ugly side was the original post trashing WC Green.

We do not lock threads on members requests when the self delete is at their disposal.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 05:53 AM
Star Member maddezmom (134,636 posts)
13. Not a GDH, but this is a vanity thread and not GD material...better for the lounge.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:27 AM
Star Member Warren Stupidity (37,913 posts)
14. GDH leave.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:30 AM
Star Member Violet_Crumble (32,488 posts)
15. Quinnox PM'd me and asked if I'd lock it...

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't, but seeing the big disruptive Meta pile-on it turned into, I'm guessing that if he self-deletes, he's going to get attacked by some who'll just travel to another thread with it. If anyone thinks this sort of Meta crap is so vitally important to the well-being of DU that it must stay open, then let me know...
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:39 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
16. I think its' important we do our jobs.

VC, if he wants it closed, he can delete it but we shouldn't be locking.

There is only one lock here.

Haven't seen you in awhile. Hope you're doing good.

EDITED: And let me add, I will finish this term as I just signed up and feel obligated to do so: but after this term my hosting GD is over. For a rogue host to do this after all damn night is the final straw for me.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:40 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
17. No, we do not do that. He can delete if he would like. I strongly object to you locking this

as a favor to him.

He can delete it. We do not do this for others, we should not be doing this for him. If he wants it gone, he can delete it.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:48 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
18. After that many replies, his participation in the thread,

and his participation in this forum; you were just played.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:50 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
19. You need to unlock this and let him self delete. That is how it works.

You've just locked a thread where it was voted on to leave it open.

He can take his lumps and lock up his shit thread himself, by self deleting.

You don't want to cause a shit storm do you. Locking this makes matters worse for the hosts here. I implore you to unlock this thread asap.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:06 AM
Star Member Warren Stupidity (37,913 posts)
34. Please unlock it. There was no consensus to lock and the OP can self delete.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:11 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
37. For the record, please share your correspondence

with the OP so we can see what convinced you to go all rogue and stir up this hornets nest.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:12 AM
Star Member cyberswede (16,540 posts)
38. I agree with SissyK - you were played...

quinnox said in the thread that he wouldn't self-delete, so now he's changed his mind - and asked you to lock it to save face.

Hosts shouldn't lock threads at the OP's request, when the self-delete feature is readily available.

If his self-deleting his OP spawns other threads about it, he made his bed. (And any such threads could be alerted as Meta, if they don't meet the SoP).

I'm not a GD host, but I respectfully request that you unlock the OP and let quinnox self-delete it.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:32 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
41. Violet, there have been many objections to your locking of this thread.

Two of them (GD HOSTS) within minutes of you taking this upon yourself and locking.

Where are you?? Please unlock this before it turns into a hosting shitstorm.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #15)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:09 AM
Star Member bettyellen (25,062 posts)
58. NGDH- Wow, you'll lock as a favor to a fellow host who won't self delete.

Amazing the little favors hosts will do for each other here, in order to preserve their image.
Can't wait to "discuss this discussion" with DU members- out in GD. They deserve to know how badly the system is gamed.
Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:11 AM
Star Member theHandpuppet (16,935 posts)
23. Not a GDH

How does this even remotely fall within the SOP?
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #23)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:02 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
32. Hi, theHandpuppet!

I see our job (normally, who the fuck knows now??) as looking for a reason not to lock. NOT looking for a reason to lock.

In your opinion, how does this OP (not the 500 plus replies) go against the SOP?
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #32)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:29 AM
Star Member theHandpuppet (16,935 posts)
67. What does the OP of this thread have to do with politics, issues and/or current events?

Hi Sissyk...

That's what's stated in the SOP: "Discuss politics, issues, and current events." Seems pretty clear to me. Doesn't make exceptions for threads the hosts might find amusing or posts from their pals or even flame wars between old enemies. Once hosts start creating their own parameters for the SOP then you can kiss objectivity goodbye. How can you possibly expect posters to follow a SOP when the goalposts keep moving, then try to explain to them what led to a decision about an alert? How does any poster on GD know when to alert if the SOP means nothing?

I'm not contending the thread could not be posted, just not in GD. It was Lounge material and that's where it belonged. I thought one of the jobs of the hosts was to enforce the SOP guidelines, not just shut the barn door after the cows have already run off.

I'm not a GD host so it's up to y'all to decide whether you wish to enforce the SOP, or how. I can tell you one thing -- if someone comes to Appalachian group to post a thread about pulling a tick off their ass, it won't take me a NYC minute to lock it.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:29 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
24. I strongly object to any locking of this thread at this time.

One host has taken it upon themselves to lock this thread based on a request from the author of the OP.

We do not do that here, there are tools available to members who don't want further replies to their threads. That option is the self delete.

Secondly, this thread does not violate the SOP and we don't consider replies, remember. We worry about the OP.

There is no consensus to lock this thread. I strongly vote to leave it and there is no consensus to lock it. Based on principles of fairness to all members of DU, if the author wants his post gone, we do what we have done for others. Suggest to them a self delete.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #24)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:38 AM
Star Member theHandpuppet (16,935 posts)
25. How does this thread meet the SOP criteria?

I ask that sincerely because to me, if an OP about cutting your lip while shaving is considered a legitimate thread about politics, issues or events then please explain to me what DOESN'T qualify for GD. I know I'm new to hosting and such, but this case seems clear to me -- the OP that started the thread does not even remotely meet the SOP criteria.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #25)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:41 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
26. Many posts about kitties, doggies, and personal stuff is posted in GD all the time.

We do not lock threads that don't fit nicely into a category of the SOP. Hell, racist POS threads don't get locked because it's not stated in the SOP that they aren't allowed..

We do not lock based upon replies to an OP. We do not lock based on a request from an OP who is now to embarrassed to use the tools at his disposal, a self delete.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #26)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:47 AM
Star Member theHandpuppet (16,935 posts)
27. Well that's a mighty big tent

In other words, pay no attention to the SOP because it's meaningless. Folks are free to junk up GD to their heart's desire. I guess that's why there's now a thread on GD about someone pulling a tick off their ass.

I'm not sure why you bolded the section about replies. I was basing my opinion solely upon the OP that started the whole thread.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #27)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:52 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
30. The were reasons upthread were based on the responses/replies.

And we do not lock threads based upon requests from authors to OP's. They can self delete.

There was no consensus to lock this thread.

Leaving a post about shaving is not going to hurt GD. Hell, some of these people ought to take their own advice. I can't believe the host that locked this took it upon themselves to do so, based upon a pm request from the OP.

That is not how it works in here. There is an option for this OP and that is for him to self delete, not request a host to do so with no consensus. We aren't here to play cover for our friends when they are getting their ass handed to them.

That by far makes GD suck more so than leaving his post open.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #30)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:09 AM
Star Member theHandpuppet (16,935 posts)
35. Okay, I do understand a bit more about what's going on with this discussion

So thanks for taking the time to explain.

I will disagree with you on one point, however, when you said, "Leaving a post about shaving is not going to hurt GD." I believe it does hurt GD because it's disrespectful to those who actually use the forum for legitimate discussions of politics, events and issues. Personally, I'm pretty sick of trying to keep track of some interesting, thought-provoking discussions that have scrolled off the front page because someone feels compelled to post about getting a cut lip from shaving or pulling a tick from their ass. No one's keeping these folks from posting about trivial or asinine subjects -- I thought that's what the Lounge is for. In addition, had the thread in question been immediately locked or moved for violating GD's SOP, there would have been no need for the debate we're now having. So yes, I do see a need for enforcing the SOP unless a free-for-all is what everyone has in mind. The SOP provides some objective guidelines by which to avoid these situations.

That said, I will bow out of further discussions on GD threads. There's apparently some parameters, however vague, for how the SOP of GD is enforced and I don't have the decoder ring.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #35)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:12 AM
Star Member bettyellen (25,062 posts)
60. The decoder ring says, if it's a friend- do whatever they want....

If you're not, or you ended up on some host's list- they'll judge you and not the content. Time and time again, that's how it works.
Awesome, right?
Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to bettyellen (Reply #60)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:36 AM
Star Member theHandpuppet (16,935 posts)
69. That's the appearance

I'm just trying to explain where that perception is coming from. Either enforce the SOP as it stands or change it.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #69)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:48 AM
Star Member bettyellen (25,062 posts)
77. I agree completely. You have hosts making the excuse it's too late....

When the thing is percolating on top of GD and causing a meta shit storm. You have hosts sneaking in and out and locking it without ANY agreement from other posts- as a personal favor. Because it's too embarrassing to self delete again, or they'd like everyone to see them as a martyr?
Whatever. I feel sorry for the hosts that actually do vote on content, instead of for and against DUers. But they're outnumbered by those playing games that make DU suck.
Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to theHandpuppet (Reply #25)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:48 AM
Star Member Cali_Democrat (20,903 posts)
28. Not a GDH, but I always thought threads were locked based on consensus

Am I wrong? I didn't see consensus here.

One host decided to lock because of a PM and their own opinion.

OP has the ability to self-delete. This isn't DU2 where people don't have the ability to self-delete.

Just my two cents.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #28)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:05 AM
Star Member Warren Stupidity (37,913 posts)
33. We have been having a bit of a confusion over "consensus".

it will sort itself out.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #28)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:09 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
36. That only works for "them".

You know, "those" that lock when I'm a leave. If I'm a lock, no consensus is needed. And, I'll just sit here and watch all of you complain about consensus.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #24)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:50 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
29. i can't do anything at this point except agree

with you.

I can't help but wonder though about the future hosting on DU. This is one more nail in the coffin.

If rogue host keep going out on their own in any main forum and locking OP's like this, the concept is trashed. If we can't even play well together, why in the hell should we expect other members of this forum to play well together.

I'd like all host to think about what would happen in their own safe havens, groups, etc. if hosting was deleted today and the decisions were left up to juries. I don't think you'd like the results. But, that's what I see happening if Admin. get so fed up that they say "The hell with it. If members don't care, I don't care. So, why would I let certain groups host and not others and waste my time sorting out the mess they create."

This has become a me me me forum. Let me stand out. Let me show my ass and see what I can stir up. In all forums.

That's sad.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #29)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:57 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
31. If this person who locked this comes back and says they went to bed

at 7:30pm (Australia time), that is just one more manipulation and we've all been played.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:26 AM
bravenak (5,129 posts)
39. NAGDH.

I did suggest to Quinnox that he self delete, he refused grandly, so i see no reason for a host to lock per his request. He said he wanted to use it as evidence to the admins that he is being ganged up on. It did not go the way he wanted, so i suggested self delete. I find it strange that after he refused to take it down, he asked for a lock. Strange game or whatever it is.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:31 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
40. GDH. Very ugly and I'm fine with this lock. It reminds me of Will's thread.

Leave locked, yes the OP could have deleted but had a host lock it for them, I'm good with that.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #40)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:34 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
42. Was the OP ugly and against the SOP?

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #42)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:36 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
43. A lot of OPs are ugly and fit the SOP. I have no problem with someone asking a host

to lock their thread and the host locking it I think it's been done a few other times.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #43)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:38 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
44. No, we do not do that. That is a re-writing of what is actually done here.

We do not lock posts based upon a member requesting so they don't have to be embarrassed.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #44)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:43 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
46. I have seen it done some time back I don't have a problem with VC locking the OP at their request.

What the poster did in that other thread was stupid and ugly and this one just seems stupid, again I'm fine with her locking it at their request.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #46)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:45 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
47. We don't lock threads to cover up the stupid, ok.

We lock based upon consensus, of which there was NONE.

If a poster does not want their OP responded to any longer, the response to that is self delete.

We've made others do that. We don't do that for fellow hosts or our friends.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #47)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:53 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
51. You are correct. Self delete is a tool that is useful, after reading the ugly mess I see

where you and others in the thread are coming from. I'm still fine with her locking it at the OPs request though and will not waste any more time on this.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #51)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:55 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
52. I will remember that. If a DU member PM's me and asks me to lock

because their thread turned ugly, and they are afraid if they self delete it will cause more ugly, I can do so without consensus and won't expect an objection from you.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #52)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:07 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
55. I hope you remember that I have always considered you to be a very fair and unbiased

host that I have always had a lot of respect for. In fact I don't think I have ever objected to any of your views on hosting, or Violets for that matter. You have a nice day.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #55)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:10 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
59. I'm aiming for fairness here, and we disagree as to what that is.

I'm a bit flabbergasted after all the "talk" about consensus that some here have no problem with this.

We don't need to be 100% consistent all the time, but consensus is the key and there was none here for this lock. I thought most would agree with that.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #59)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:32 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
68. I do agree there was no consensus to lock it. Had the OP written an OP that was

borderline SOP and it caused a shit fest like this one and the hosts voted to leave and she just up and locked it then yes that is so very wrong, and I would be pissed. That's not what happened in this case though. Quinonox stared an OP and that OP turned to shit based on a previous OP that had pissed people off. I don't know why he felt that he couldn't do a self delete, he should have done that by about a few posts in when he saw how it was going to go. He asked VC to delete it and for whatever reason, she did it for him. I don't know what he told her, I don't know what they discussed, I trust her judgement and I support her on that.

I'm beginning to think consensus is a bullshit unicorn anyway.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #68)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:38 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
71. He was in his thread stating he would never self delete.

So, he gets a host to act in which serves as no further responses.

He played her. We are being played, he is a host of GD, he knows about the tools.

We shouldn't not be acting on anything without consensus.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #71)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:46 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
75. Skinner needs to handle that and decide if he should have a host position.

IMO hosts should not be out there started OPs that they know will cause a shit storm, that's disruptive behavior.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #75)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:58 AM
Star Member cyberswede (16,540 posts)
81. And he did it twice...

First, the "helpful tip" (that was really trolling the Hobby Lobby decisuon), and then the "innocent" cut lip anecdote (that he was too embarrassed to self-delete).
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #43)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:40 AM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,455 posts)
45. I don't think so. There was NOT consensus to lock. The OP has the power to self-delete.

It's incredibly inappropriate to do so merely as a favor to the OP who is also a host.

I do not think this is anything done before. If you know of examples, that would be interesting, but I don't think there are any.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #45)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:48 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
48. I've seen it done before I can't remember who it was though and don't care.

I don't have a problem with her locking it at the OPs request and really can't bring myself to give a shit that the OP didn't self delete.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #48)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:50 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
49. So, to hell with consensus.... All that talk is just a bunch of bullshit.

I'll remember that I can for whatever reason I feel something is stupid and makes DU suck I can lock all by my lonesome. Maybe we all should just listen to others and when they ask us to lock, let's just do it.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #48)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:52 AM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,455 posts)
50. Well as long as it's cool with *YOU*, it must be ok to lock w/o consensus.

lol

You know good and well that if *I* had started a thread in GD that turned into a shitstorm and didn't want to delete for 'fear of being attacked' and PM'd you to lock when consensus was to leave, you'd tell me to get fucked and that I should self-delete if I didn't like the direction it took.

But, I wouldn't do that because it would be totally inappropriate and it would put you in a position to abuse your authority.

I strongly contend that you haven't seen it done because it's not how it's done.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #50)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:02 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
53. Here's the thing, I don't know what undercurrents there are between some of

the hosts in here and in that thread are, I stay out of all that stuff and just don't bother with it. No you are wrong I would not tell you to to get fucked, that's just not my way. Call me a liar if you wish, I don't care I have seen it done back when Meta was a forum. I am not going to get drawn into the drama and My opinion is that I have no problem with VC locking the OP. I stand by that.

quinox should have stood up on his own but for what ever reason whatever he discussed with VC it was enough to get her to do it for him. One thing for sure anything can and will turn into a shit storm on DU. I strongly hope you have a nice day.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #53)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:05 AM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,455 posts)
54. mmm hmm. you 'stay out of it'. lol

go with that.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #54)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:09 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
56. Yes I do stay out of it. There are some topics I just skip over completely.

And there are some posters that I skip over too. It makes DU much nicer for me.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #53)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:09 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
57. May I ask a follow up question, Autumn?

How do you feel as a GDHost when someone comes in here in the a.m. and locks a thread that had been overwhelming to leave it?

That's the issue for me.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #57)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:19 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
63. I think that it's wrong, but I do make the distinction that VC was asked to lock this one by the

poster. She just didn't up and lock it because she didn't like it. I don't know what her reasoning was or what the OP said to convince her to do it but she did it at his request and I back her on that. Our job as hosts is to make DU a better place for the members . The OP was a real chicken shit not to self delete IMO. But I will not fault her for locking this one at the posters request. Had she just up and locked it when the votes were an overwhelming leave I would be up in arms, but that's not what happened here.

When I chimed in I had not read the whole thread and had not read the one she locked. When I saw he had requested she lock it I decided in my mind I am fine with her locking it. I'm still fine with that. She locked it at his request and I'm sure when she gets up she will give us her explanation.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #63)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:21 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
64. We alerted her to our objections with in 10 minutes of her locking.

If someone is going to take the lone action of locking something up without consensus, I suggest they don't go straight to bed after locking.

She knows it can't be unlocked by anyone but her. That is completely disrespectful to other hosts.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #64)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:01 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
83. That is a problem right there, I can name a few other hosts who have done just that.

And those posts have remained locked. All hosts should have the ability to unlock a locked post.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #63)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:28 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
66. Thank you!

I think you give her a bit too much credit right now, though. It's not even "bedtime" over there. She's around.

I think she got played. And, we are now being played like a fine tuned guitar and we are watched with buttery popcorn in hand while trying to settle this issue. I gave this OP a chance until yesterday. I don't hold grudges, I don't have many "friends" here, and I don't make my decisions based on those things except once you show your ass like this (not you. ).

Again, thanks for answering me Autumn.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #66)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:41 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
72. We probably are being played. She did something that a DUer asked her to do

and I won't fault her for that. The poster though? That's a horse of a different color, he was out and out wrong and should have known what hell he was going to catch and should have stood up and done what needed to be done on his own.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Autumn (Reply #72)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:43 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
73. She knows not to lock without consensus and then leave and not respond further.

Come on now.

This thread will remain locked against hosts wishes until what 1am when she re-appears?

That sucks and it makes DU hosting suck.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Original post)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:12 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
61. PLEASE EVERYONE IF I MAY!!!

I appreciate the issues here and that we are all concerned.

But, please. Let the host now sort it out. We have your opinions and your thoughts on this issue but we can not resolve this as things are. Again, please let us (GD Host) handle this one.

If you feel a need to start an off topic OP to voice your concerns and opinions, I will be there to support you.

Thank you!
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #61)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:17 AM
Star Member boston bean (20,841 posts)
62. I applaud you in trying to keep this at the host level.

But the action a lone host took this am and has now gone MIA even after you and I objected quite quickly (within minutes), will be the cause of more angst here.

It is to be expected I suppose, you can't stop others from chiming in. The action taken here this morning is the issue and probably many opinions on how this effects DU are to be expected. If the locking host would re-appear and respect other hosts, this probably wouldn't happen.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to boston bean (Reply #62)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:37 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
70. Thanks, bean.

It's the actions of a lone host (rogue host in my book) that I'm trying to discuss. I really want to try to stop that action in the GD Forum because we not only look stupid and like puppets on a string, but it really makes DU suck.

When a thread goes off in several directions from the main point (which is still a rogue host acting on personnel feelings), and goes north into other GD Host' actions and why they don't agree 100% with us; I think we then lose our focus of what we are trying to accomplish.

I guess in this case I thought maybe everyone would see that we are indeed (at least you and I) trying to resolve this for the betterment of the community.

Maybe not, but I'm trying to be fair to all. If I get told to sthu, I'll take it.


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #70)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:57 AM
Star Member Autumn (16,607 posts)
80. You are right. I think that only the locking host can unlock creates problems.

If hosts decide an OP is locked against the consensus of the hosts then any host should be able to unlock it and avoid this nonsense. There have been other hosts who have locked something and then avoided the host forum and time passes and it's left locked. There should be a method of correcting this.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #61)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:22 AM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,455 posts)
65. A lot of people really want "NGDH's" to STFU. Well, tough.

Unless and until Skinner issues a mandate or removes access, you will get feedback from "NGDH's". Most of us have been GDH's and/or will be again. In addition, how DU operates affects us all. We are all longtime members, contributing and donating members who care deeply about this place.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #65)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:47 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
76. I don't think a lot of people do. Just me.

Doesn't hurt to ask and I'm fine with being told "Well, tough."

In addition, how DU operates affects us all. We are all longtime members, contributing and donating members who care deeply about this place.


PeaceNikki, I don't doubt that at all and I never have.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #76)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:49 AM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,455 posts)
78. Believe me, this sentiment has been stated by others... and in a MUCH nastier tone.

My reply wasn't even really about YOUR post, but the general idea that 5-6 GD hosts literally tell us to shut up and tell others to ignore us and our alerts.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #78)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:53 AM
Star Member Sissyk (4,324 posts)
79. Here's a good thing, PeaceNikki!

but the general idea that 5-6 GD hosts literally tell us to shut up and tell others to ignore us and our alerts


Those 5 or 6 rotate out after 90 days just like the rest of us. I like that policy.

for you!
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #79)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:58 AM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,455 posts)
82. thanks for that.



Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Sissyk (Reply #61)Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:44 AM
Star Member theHandpuppet (16,935 posts)
74. Very well.

Have at it.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Reply to this thread

[bettyellen]

91. and another one, wherein a host judges a "group" or swarm of DUers at about post 44 or so:

this was some meta thread, but started by someone who is popular with them- so you know, no can lock. It is notable that not one GD Host calls them on this abuse of the system- only other hosts do. It's becoming the norm in GD. As is angrily refusing to discuss your vote.




Agschmid (8,333 posts)

1. GDH - I posted in that thread so no vote from me.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:48 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

2. Kicking... open to NAGDH input since it seems to be a light GDH night.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:55 PM

greatauntoftriplets (139,682 posts)

4. Frankly, it's a question he should ask Skinner.







And that's all I'm going to say, just wanted to help out even a little bit. Good luck with this.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greatauntoftriplets (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:57 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

5. Thanks!










Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:58 PM

greatauntoftriplets (139,682 posts)

6. You're welcome!







Bedtime for me.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:52 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

3. Got a pass from a jury, just FYI not related to our decision.








AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Let's Keep Score Here... Grasswire Just Got A Second Strike...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025035784

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is ridiculous. Meta is dead and GD is not this person's individual forum to endlessly complain about any perceived "slights" he feels have been bestowed. Completely inappropriate for this forum

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:48 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I should hide because, META. but 50% of GD is META now it seems. I am not willing to hide this META unless all META gets hidden.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Baaaaaaaah!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: alerter can go suck eggs. turning alertds into meta is better.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:41 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

18. Whining about DU is an SOP violation and that is a host decision.







Juries are not responsible for hiding SOP violations. But we are responsible for locking them.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:59 PM

Warren Stupidity (37,298 posts)

7. gdh leave wsc









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:00 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

8. Thanks.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:58 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

34. Can can you provide a strong rationale for ignoring the GD SOP?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:49 AM

Warren Stupidity (37,298 posts)

121. Well I replied before I saw the nonsense that happened here.







Don't lock threads with no consensus. Doing so causes hosting to be painful. Please stop.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:05 PM

X_Digger (15,433 posts)

9. GDH- leaning lock, but WSC.







It is meta bullshit, but meta has been getting a pass recently.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to X_Digger (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:09 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

11. Thanks.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:05 PM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

10. GDH - Leave.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:09 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

12. Thanks.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:58 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

33. Can can you provide a strong rationale for ignoring the GD SOP?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:10 PM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

13. Leave. n/t









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Autumn (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:58 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

32. Can can you provide a strong rationale for ignoring the GD SOP?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:46 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

119. Is that required? A new rule perhaps?Can you provide a strong rationale







for locking posts you don't like and ignoring the votes of GD hosts to side with non GD hosts who just so happen to be the alerters?
Many hosts have put leave only in the subject line. And can you be anymore fucking rude? Since when do you get to put up new rules?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:31 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

14. Whining about jury decisions is not a jury issue, it's SOP and this should be locked.







GD hosts have a very narrowly defined jurisdiction and this is one of the few things is in it. There's no excuse for not locking. But considering the players I'm not going to waste the effort of going rogue and then dealing with the stupid shite that would inevitably follow. If GD hosts want to screw around instead of doing their rather elementary and easy job, fine, screw around.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:40 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

17. Not currently a GD host, but I agree with you







"Whining about DU" is clearly prohibited in the GD SoP.

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:37 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

15. Another alert:







Author: WillyT
Let's Keep Score Here... Grasswire Just Got A Second Strike...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025035784
Alerted by berni_mccoy: Whining about DU


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:39 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

16. Hoo boy. This one needed to be locked up an hour ago.







Thanks for bringing this alert in Rhiannon as I know you're not a GD host.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:42 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

19. No, I'm not at the moment, but GD alerts are the only ones on the list right now...







And most of them are about this particular thread.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:45 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

20. 5 in just over an hour.







I think we're creating a problem, not solving a problem.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:47 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

21. The way I look at this, DUers have spoken







Just my two-cents...


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:42 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

44. The DU'ers have spoken? Those DU'ers are not hosts. The hosts voted to leave.







All of the alerters are in the same Group. They can get 10 more alerts if they want. It isnt about how many alerts there are it's up to the hosts.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:45 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

47. Yup.







Last edited Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:45 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA: So I feel like I have to qualify my statement before I get called out on something I didn't mean. I just meant that regardless of the fact that there are "x" alerts it doesn't indicate whether the DU "community" feels a certain way about a thread, IMO. That is all.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:51 AM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

50. My point is that if there are more than one or two alerts







The hosts should take that into consideration and reevaluate. But it's up to you...


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:21 AM

Number23 (16,246 posts)

83. "All of the alerters are in the same Group."







And this, better than ANYTHING anyone else could have typed, is the crux of the host problem right here.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Number23 (Reply #83)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:46 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

88. you said it right there.







my jar dropped when I saw that. five alerts is nothing if you don't like the DUers, I guess. that would be the group right there.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #88)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:01 AM

Number23 (16,246 posts)

94. "five alerts is nothing if you don't like the DUers" You nailed it







As many times as you and I have bumped heads over the years, I guess we're in the "same group" because rhett o rick doesn't like us. Which is perfectly fine with me, in all honesty, but that certainly does make one question his "fitness for duty".

That person is far too preoccupied with keeping up with what "group" is doing what instead of enforcing the SOP of the forum. We all know he's by no means alone in that regard, but it's still pretty amazing to see out in the open.

Edit: And actually it was SIX alerts by long time DUers that all need to be ignored, apparently.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Number23 (Reply #94)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:09 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

97. I know, I just looked at the group and said WHUT?







I can't remember any agreeable conversations with any of them except for Nikki, actually. Wow. I feel like I've really neglected Zappaman now, ha ha.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #97)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:48 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

116. What should we call our "Group"? Pussy is already taken.







BTW, I'll play the triangle. I hope you can sing.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #88)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:49 AM

Whisp (23,770 posts)

120. Looks like List Making to me.










Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:50 AM

zappaman (11,770 posts)

90. What group is that Rick?







What group am I in?
Is there a "let's ignore their alerts" group as well as whatever group you are blathering about?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to zappaman (Reply #90)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:58 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

93. Have we ever spoken before?









Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:15 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

117. Are you suggesting that there was a coordinated effort to alert on this one stupid, meta OP?







Or any? That's both wrong and fucking ridiculous. It was a disruptive meta post. I stand by that. Alone or with a fucking "group".


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #117)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:08 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

142. Apparently we have hosts who believe alerting is so beyond the pale that







The imagine it must be personal? A bit if projecting there!


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #142)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:10 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

143. This place is a fucking joke. A few hosts are FREAKING THE FUCK OUT that they are being asked to







justify their decision, but completely ok with the fact that another LITERALLY said they should disregard the alerters.

I am really getting sick of one or two hosts treating non-(current GD)hosts like we're pieces of shit who should be ignored. Hey, newsflash, we're members of this community, too.




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #142)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:12 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

144. I'm really not comfortable with GD hosts being attacked like this....







I don't think it's helpful at all...


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #144)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:13 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

145. How about alerters being 'attacked', is that cool?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #145)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:15 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

147. Even if they had been, that doesn't justify attacking GD hosts n/t









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #147)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:18 AM

PeaceNikki (21,150 posts)

148. She's not 'attacking', she's voicing anger about being "grouped" and dismissed.







Follow the subthread you're in.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #148)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:19 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

149. Both of you are attacking the hosts and making things much harder in here than they need to be n/t









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #147)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:19 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

150. The alerters were attacked and accused of nefarious BS...







And if discussing it reads as an attack on any one- maybe it's because that was an incredibly shitty and biased thing to say.

No reflection on anyone acting in good faith here.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:52 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

23. Added it to the OP, thanks!









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:53 PM

Rhiannon12866 (61,576 posts)

25. No worries!







Slow evening... *fingers crossed*


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:50 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

22. Does anyone object to a lock, and if so, can you give a strong rationale why we should ignore SOP







not to mention Skinner's clear instructions and leave this thread open?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:52 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

24. You have two GDH that voted leave so you'd need to TB with them.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:54 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

27. I don't see any rationale for leaving this open.







Do you?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:55 PM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

28. As I said upthread I'm not going to vote on this one.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:57 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

30. I will politely ask all three leavers for their reasons.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:59 PM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

35. I have politely asked all three leavers for their reasons. nt









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #35)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:05 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

38. Wonderful.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:57 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

52. We dont have to get you to approve our reasons to leave. We are supposed to leave threads open







unless there is a CLEAR CONSENSUS TO LOCK. There is no such consensus. And dont let non-hosts "strongly encourage" you do lock something when there is not a consensus. You should not be locking threads unilaterally.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #52)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:02 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

56. Baloney. You should SHARE your reasons, but you all haven't.







You shouldn't be surprised that a Host's vote with no reasoning behind it has no sway. If you care so much about a particular vote, take the time and effort to share your reasoning. That's how the community of Hosts builds consensus, not by "phoned in", effortless votes.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:11 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

81. It isn't baloney by a long shot.







Group consensus is group consensus and when it is close, Skinner himself said to leave it.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:38 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

127. New rule? Made by who? Since when is that an issue?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:23 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

112. NaGDH, but I saw a good point made in the OP.







I lurk more than post these days, but I felt strongly enough about the discussion to participate in it. So did many others. I can understand why some hosts would vote to leave it.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:53 PM

greyl (16,995 posts)

26. Am I wrong, or







did the 3 Leave voters not include an ounce of reasoning behind their vote?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:57 PM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

31. Nope, "the 3 Leave voters not include an ounce of reasoning behind their vote", again.









Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:00 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

36. If it were up to me, I'd ignore their votes







and let them work on gathering the required reasoning needed for their complaint to Admin to be sympathized with.

(Not a GD Host)


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:04 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

37. yeah, I know they think racism and sexist crap is not in their purview, but this is clearly a







violation. I guess Willie is special. This is just making GD worse, Grassswire posted some real RW crap and we have a thread of people treating her like Joan of Arc or a little lost lamb. Can't wait to see what they'll be emboldened to post next.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:45 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

114. Whoa, whoa, whoa. What does the OP have to do with "racism & sexist crap"?







Or to the post to which you were responding? That's coming from left-field, as though some prior hurts of yours are coming into play where they shouldn't be.

That's some commentary about grasswire where it doesn't belong, too. Your commitment to "no Meta threads" isn't looking very strong.

It's sad to see the hosts forum becoming an offshoot of the Meta forum.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to pacalo (Reply #114)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:51 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

137. It's about inconsistency.







What did I say about Grasswire other than she posted RW crap? She/ he did that.
No speculation why on my part.

I commented on those around her/ him acting as if getting a thread locked made them a martyr for getting a locked post- w/ RW crap. No one is a martyr here for having a locked post, it happens. And it should happen if it's dodgy RW bullshit. That is why you all got so many alerts. I'm sure the RW crap got juried for the same reason, because of where we are.



Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:05 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

125. What disgusting smears against Willy and Grasswire.







Grasswire apologized, had no idea it was a RW site, you should be ashamed of yourself.

"yeah, I know they think racism and sexist crap is not in their purview, but this is clearly a violation. I guess Willie is special. This is just making GD worse, Grassswire posted some real RW crap and we have a thread of people treating her like Joan of Arc or a little lost lamb. Can't wait to see what they'll be emboldened to post next".

That is a personal attack against two DUers by a so called host in a forum where neither of them have the opportunity to defend themselves against your vile bullshit.





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Autumn (Reply #125)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:38 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

135. She did post RW crap, it's not a smear- it's reality.







Accidental or not- I didn't speculate. No insult there. It happened, was corrected and not the end of the world. I said the same thing to Grasswire's face. Know a bit about your sources. It's not hard.

Hosts speculating WHY many different DUers alerted are some kind of a group? That was a smear, unfounded, and shows bias against six good DUers. Do they not matter?

It is now clear that some hosts are looking at the people, and not the posts when deciding how to vote. They explain this here while avoiding discussion of the OP.
That explains a lot if the inconsistency here.

Poor Achshmid asking for other hosts to weigh in. They didn't realize that's only welcome theoretically.

I never did try and "vote", but said many times I thought it was a bad lock as handled. But it should have been a clear easy lock. It's pretty cut and dry.



Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #135)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:41 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

136. She didn't know, I wouldn't have known that was a RW site.







Talking trash about DUers in the host form is not cool. Look in a mirror lady you have been looking at the people for quite a while now when you want a post locked.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Autumn (Reply #136)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:55 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

138. Untrue. I am completely unfamiliar with Grass and never speculated- but clearly their post was a







Problem. That's not talking trash- it's exactly what hosts are supposed to be discussing- instead of talking trash about the alerters. Group my ass.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #138)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:56 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

139. She apologized but that's not good enough for you. We discuss alerted posts, not the posters.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Autumn (Reply #139)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:02 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

140. A lock is good enough for RW crap, and I hold no animus toward them.







But you seem okay with trashing the alerters as was done here. No comment on that bit of bias?


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #140)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:07 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

141. Then there should be a list of acceptable sites. Y'all ought to get right on that.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Autumn (Reply #141)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 10:14 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

146. News busters has an anti- liberal subheading under the name...







You can look at the "editors picks" to get a feel for it where a place is at, editorially.
It's a good lesson for Grasswire, anyway.

Are you really thinking any old RW crap should stay if it's an accident or was posted by someone the hosts like and want to protect? That seems to be the message I'm getting. After all this, I have no idea why anyone would leave that crap in GD. None.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:37 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

42. GDH - So you are not a GD Host and you are pushing a host to ignore other host's votes.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:04 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

58. That fact that you are pulling rank instead of offering reasoning,







leads me to believe you are occupying space in a Host slot rather than using it as it was intended.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:06 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

59. If claiming that non-hosts dont have a vote is "pulling rank" then I am guilty. I resent your







pressure to try to get me to see things your way.

I voted to leave and I dont owe you an explanation.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:13 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

63. Nobody is arguing that non-GD Hosts have a vote.







You are arguing that the opinion of non-GD Hosts offered here in this decision making discussion should be ignored.

I say good luck trying to get people to ignore good reasoning from other DU Hosts.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #63)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:19 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

65. I didn't try and vote, we just discussed our opinions calmly. for this I am accused of being part of







some group or another. LOL. Ridiculous.



" I try to lock those threads that violate the SOP, period. If one gets left inappropriately, we cant just let the retaliatory OP stand if it violates the SOP. " -


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #65)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:26 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

68. I've just lost my patience with Hosts who think all they're supposed to do is vote, not think.







When Hosting on DU3 was new, it was different. But after seeing a pattern of Hosts voting Leave while offering little reason for doing so, and when at least one of them goes so far as to say they'll usually vote Leave regardless of whether the Post violates the SOP, I think it's impossible for other Hosts not to learn from that and adjust their adjudicating appropriately.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #68)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:32 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

71. yeah, as one said- we usually leave everything, so why not leave everything, LOL.







And that's the best reason they have for this crap? It's pretty funny.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #71)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:50 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

73. You should sign up for GD if you feel you could make a positive impact.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #73)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:57 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

75. not sure how one could these days- with fellow hosts accusing others of bias, yet offering no







rationale for their decisions of allow the SOP to be explictly violated. I hosted before, and it was different. I think they'll always be one head poppin gin with a "leave!!- no consensus possible", now that people realize that is a thing they can do. Always had hosts who did not want to enforce the SOP, but they used to be expected to explain why.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #75)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:06 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

79. He busted a thread that had no concensus







And went off on his own to lock it. That's bullshit.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Aerows (Reply #79)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:14 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

82. I don't agree with that, nor do I agree on voting to totally disregard the SOP w/ no explaination







The thread was pretty clearly whining about DU, which is just about the only thing that actually does get locked around here, these days.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #82)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:28 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

86. You don't go off on your own







and lock a thread without consensus, and it was not established.

Good bad or indifferent, rules are in place for a reason.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Aerows (Reply #86)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:31 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

87. I already agreed with that?







But, rules are completely different for some posters than others, and it has always been that way to some extent.
I remember the first day I hosted, someone said they always ignore X persons alerts. And someone else said, oh they alwys have broken that rule, so we can't enforce it. It was terribly confusing!


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:05 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

110. "Pulling rank" belongs to the host who locked without consensus.







Skinner has stated that the hosts are, in effect, free to use their own judgment. Like the jury system, you get the luck of the draw in the different mindsets who serve as a team at any given phase DU is going through at the time.

You sound angry, to be frank.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 04:43 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

109. NaGDH: The hosts who voted to leave aren't the ones who need to address ATA.







The ones who are not able to get past opposing hosting opinions are the ones complaining here. There was no consensus to lock this thread.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:17 AM

Bobbie Jo (9,525 posts)

134. Well, one did







http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1243&pid=89569

I suspect this is why others didn't feel the to explain.

Seems pretty clear to me, apparently the wrong "group" alerted.

Nope, no bias at work here. Totally above board and a good faith effort.

The inadvertent honesty is kinda interesting, no?



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:57 PM

itsrobert (10,393 posts)

29. GDH - Lock







Meta - Whining about DU


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:08 AM

ucrdem (3,825 posts)

39. It is locked.







Here is the lock message:

Locking. Complaining about jury decisions violates the GD Statement of Purpose.

It's one of only a few things that does:


Statement of Purpose: Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


Thanks for understanding.
...........................................................
Agschmid, I recommend that you self-delete the OP. I will take full responsibility for this decision. Complaints should be made in ATA. Thanks all and good night.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:10 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

40. I'll leave it open, thanks for the recommendation but I imagine...







there will be some further discussion here.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:12 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

41. Good Leave. nt









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:39 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

43. GDH - I am respectfully requesting that you unlock this. Remember those here that







are not GD Hosts DONT GET TO VOTE. I am a strong leave. You and the non-hosts dont get to decide if my Leave is worthy.

Please unlock this now.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:42 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

45. I'm just popping in with a lock vote and a question







I thought whining about hidden posts was something skinner had told us we should be locking. So why wouldn't this one fall into that category?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:11 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

62. I dont see this as whining. Sometimes we dont all agree, but some here cant handle that.







I am not referring to you Violet.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #62)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:56 AM

Violet_Crumble (32,238 posts)

74. That's fair enough. Fwiw I don't see it as disruptive meta







Not like the ones where someone calls for the nuking of another DUer. I'm not going to die in a ditch over it so I'm changing my vote to WSC.......


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:03 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

77. It's a leave







he just hauled off and locked it.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:43 AM

Hassin Bin Sober (10,894 posts)

46. You need to unlock this. You had no consensus.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:46 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

48. Yup.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:04 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

78. Exactly.







I have no idea who he thinks he that he can just swing in and lock threads without consensus, but that was a horrible lock. He needs to get kicked.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:13 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

111. Agree.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to ucrdem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:02 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

76. You locked without consensus







That is a no no.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:50 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

49. GDH - I see a vote of three Leaves and two locks. There is no consensus to lock. This is crazy.







Non-hosts are in here telling a host what to do. No one appointed ucrdem as the decider. He does not have the power to review other hosts reasons for their votes and decide whether they are valid or not.

Of course there are a bunch of alerts. They are all in the same "Group".



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:54 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

51. I could honestly care less who the alerters are... this lock was without any consensus from GDH.









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #51)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:59 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

54. I only mentioned it because the number of alerters was being used as a reason to lock. It's not a







popularity contest. The non-hosts dont get to vote.

I agree that this was locked without a clear consensus.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:10 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

60. It's not a popularity contest- but you've given no one any reason to allow the SOP to be ignored







no one has. What is up with that?




Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:17 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

64. Is that a required portion of our job?









Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #64)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:22 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

66. I think if you want to leave something that CLEARLY violates the SOP, you owe your fellow hosts the







courtesy of why you want to make a special exemption for this violation.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #66)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:25 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

67. In this case I didn't actually vote, as I stated multiple times.







So no special exemption from me, I just am unhappy with how the lock happened. There were 3-ish leave votes and to me that does not mean we had arrived at consensus.

Anyways not going to beat a dead horse here. Hopefully this gets re-visited by the locking host, goodnight.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #67)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:30 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

69. I understand totally. Sad you invited other hosts opinions only to have us insulted and accused of







pushing anyone to do anything. You can't express an opinion these days without some pretending it's abusive or totolitarinism, LOL.
That no one could provide a rationale, is an interesting point.

(It was a those three you, and not a you you. - And NONE of it is personal)


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:31 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

70. Well they still might, who knows there is always tomorrow.







Reason or not I feel their voices were important.

Thanks, goodnight.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:07 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

80. It isn't a popularity contest







but some people want to make it one, and it is plain stupid to allow it to continue.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Aerows (Reply #80)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:22 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

84. It is about Willie being popular, yep. And maybe about people just hating any rules here at all.










Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #84)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:49 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

89. Locking a thread







without consensus is against the rules. Is that how you define "hating the rules"? Because I define them that way.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Aerows (Reply #89)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:54 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

91. I already agreed with you in that so many times, I moved on to discuss other rules







And how they don't see to apply to some posters, or matter to some hosts.

Not exactly a secret, and it appears it's always been that way.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #91)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:08 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

96. I didn't mean to run it into the ground







I do agree with you that it doesn't seem to apply to certain posters.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Aerows (Reply #96)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:18 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

99. I'm shocked I'm apparently in a group now?







What bullshit. Really embarrassing revelation about the "thinking" that goes on here.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to bettyellen (Reply #99)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:21 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

101. ?







I am clueless as to this response. Are you sure it was intended for me ?


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Aerows (Reply #101)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:24 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

102. I thought you'd have seen post 44. Apparently some DUers are better than others







According to hosts here.

Like I said, there have always been biased hosts.


Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:59 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

53. Some reasoning is persuasive.







Zero reasoning is not.

Zero reasoning is what the Leave votes offered.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:01 AM

Agschmid (8,333 posts)

55. Are they even here right now?







If there is mixed consensus is it the right thing to do to lock a thread and then walk away? It's 1:01AM EST potentially the leave votes are in bed, I don't see any reason this had to be a rushed lock which is what it turned out to be.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:36 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

72. Half are here, counting you.







How long to wait for all the Leave votes to reply with some reasoning and rebuttal to all the Lock reasons given in the Alerts and Host replies here is a judgement call with a very fuzzy target.

I do think it may have bought some more time if the first objectors here to the Lock offered good reasons for Leaving it.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:26 AM

Autumn (16,209 posts)

126. It was my Son in Laws birthday BBQ. I looked in a few times and saw this one and said I was a leave.







as I did on the taterguy alert. I was unaware we had new administrators who are making the rules now.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to greyl (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:03 AM

rhett o rick (36,391 posts)

57. I certainly agree that reasoning is persuasive. But there is no requirement for hosts to justify







their votes. Posts are to be left open unless there is a clear consensus to lock. If three host vote to leave, that's enough to indicate that there is not a clear consensus. To pretend that our votes dont count because you dont like our reasoning is crap. I was at dinner when ucrdem unilaterally decided to lock, based on pressure from non-hosts. That's bullcrap.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 01:10 AM

greyl (16,995 posts)

61. I said "some" reasoning,







implying that there is other reasoning that is not persuasive. I didn't mean to say "an amount of" reasoning is persuasive, because some reasoning out there is lousy. Just because it's offered as reasoning, doesn't mean it's worth a damn, iow.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to rhett o rick (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:35 AM

pacalo (23,252 posts)

113. Your post here is what moved me to join in on this thread to give it some balance.








Non-hosts are in here telling a host what to do.


I'm a non-host who believes there was no consensus to lock this OP.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Agschmid (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:26 AM

Behind the Aegis (32,910 posts)

85. This is fucking absurd!







On Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:00 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Locking. Complaining about jury decisions violates the GD Statement of Purpose.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5036606

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Abuse of host privileges, he did not get consensus.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:11 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: We're in for a rough ride
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good God Almighty, am I glad my GD hosting tour is over. - Lasher
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is one of the most pathetic uses of the alert system ever! If he is seen as abusing his hosting duties, take it up with Skinner, and for the record, your host privileges should also be revoked!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: An alert sent on a host's locking post???

This place is now officially nuts.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


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


I stick by my comments (#5)!


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #85)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 02:55 AM

bettyellen (24,490 posts)

92. OMG! Hilarious.









Self-delete Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink


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



Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #85)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:04 AM

Aerows (24,499 posts)

95. My word







we have entered a new era. We alert on alerts about alerts


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link herePermalink

[BainsBane]

95. "Nasty and vicious"

Didn't result in a lock of another Meta shit show (or any actually) when different people--you know, the swarm--were being targeted. That thread involved raising things from over two years ago. Yet this one results in a unilateral lock against host consensus in order to benefit someone who didn't want to lose face by self-deleting? Wow. GD hosts already had a bad reputation. I wouldn't think anyone would want to contribute further to an appearance of favoritism.

[opiate69]

148. So... No comment on dragging stuff out of administrative forums anymore?

I'll take "selective outrage" for $200, Alex.

[BainsBane]

155. You are the expert on that $200 question

[cyberswede]

179. I believe Skinner said there's no rule against it...

though he, personally, isn't in favor of it.

You could always alert, if it bothers you. Maybe it bothers enough other people that you could get a jury to agree?

[opiate69]

185. Nah... Just felt like pointing out some astonishing

- yet wholly predictable - hypocrisy.

[RiffRandell]

276. Yep. nt

[BainsBane]

284. Unlike yourself

Who never exercises selective outrage.

[BainsBane]

290. No, because he can't alert on an "absence of outrage"

and I'm the one he's fixated on. The disclosure is incidental.

[Sheldon Cooper]

101. Another wow.

It was a bit hard to follow that one, but I think I pieced it all together. Apparently if all of the alerters are from the same group, it's rubbish. Incredible.

[PeaceNikki]

107. Here's another one wherein hosts bash alerters

aikoaiko (18,866 posts)

[GD] LEAVE The hide of CK_John's tread re Obama possible impeachment if GOP wins 2014 was nut.

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:05 PM - Edit history (2)

General Discussion Author: mylye2222
The hide of CK_John's tread re Obama possible impeachment if GOP wins 2014 was nut.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025190047
Alerted by SidDithers: Disruptive meta. Complaining about a jury result. 1:13 PM

General Discussion Author: mylye2222
The hide of CK_John's tread re Obama possible impeachment if GOP wins 2014 was nut.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025190047
Alerted by aikoaiko: OPs in GD about jury hides are never good ideas. 12:49 PM

General Discussion Author: mylye2222
The hide of CK_John's tread re Obama possible impeachment if GOP wins 2014 was nut.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025190047
Alerted by tammywammy: Meta 12:44 PM

General Discussion Author: mylye2222
The hide of CK_John's tread re Obama possible impeachment if GOP wins 2014 was nut.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025190047
Alerted by PeaceNikki: Whining about jury decision 12:43 PM

General Discussion Author: CK_John
When the House moves to impeach would Obama be better served by resigning.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189612
Alerted by tenderfoot: Really?


NAGDH, but I thought I'd help out a little by posting this and then bow out.
Jason Carter, Jimmy's grandson, GA state senator, and gubernatorial candidate, is a NRA Democrat!
20 replies, 311 views
Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread
Reply to this thread
Back to top Alert abuse
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply [GD] LEAVE The hide of CK_John's tread re Obama possible impeachment if GOP wins 2014 was nut. (Original post)
aikoaiko Thursday OP
LineReply GDH leave. The op is having his ass handed to him.
Warren Stupidity Thursday #1
LineReply GDH - LOCK/WSC
Agschmid Thursday #2
LineReply nGDh, think all the alerts are trying to tell us something, looks like Meta to me
Rhiannon12866 Thursday #3
LineReply NAGDH, but this is plainly "whining about DU".... Obvious lock to me.
NYC_SKP Thursday #4
LineReply I vote leave. I don't think this qualifies as disruptive meta. (Current GD host)
quinnox Thursday #5
LineLineReply I abstained.
Hassin Bin Sober Thursday #13
LineLineLineReply There is actually a lot of that going on (bashing of hosts)
quinnox Thursday #14
LineLineLineLineReply Most of it from someone who was thrown out of hosting for disrupting in here.
Hassin Bin Sober Thursday #15
LineLineLineLineLineReply yep, agreed
quinnox Thursday #17
LineLineLineLineReply You poor thing. You should go protest naked somewhere over it.
PeaceNikki Thursday #16
LineLineLineLineLineReply To hell with that!
William769 Thursday #18
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply oh come on. that was funny.
PeaceNikki Thursday #19
LineReply Hidden by a jury! May as well update the subject line.
NYC_SKP Thursday #6
LineLineReply Is it hidden? It doesn't look hidden to me.
aikoaiko Thursday #8
LineLineLineReply My bad, I only clicked on the last link. What bettyellen said!
NYC_SKP Thursday #11
LineLineReply Actually, it's still open.
bettyellen Thursday #10
LineReply Aikoiko- this thread is NOT hidden- you have two threads in this OP, and only the last one is hidden
bettyellen Thursday #7
LineLineReply sorry, I just noticed and corrected. Although this is looking like a leave.
aikoaiko Thursday #9
LineLineLineReply of course! Yep, looks like another leave.
bettyellen Thursday #12
LineReply What's interesting is that those that whine that the OP is "disruptive meta" prove
rhett o rick Thursday #20
Response to aikoaiko (Original post)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:04 PM
Star Member Warren Stupidity (37,916 posts)
1. GDH leave. The op is having his ass handed to him.

I'm fine with allowing that to continue. DU has undisrupted this attempted disruption. I don't see a problem.
=== No, you may not hang Mr. Snowden, but thanks for asking. ===
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Original post)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:22 PM
Star Member Agschmid (8,898 posts)
2. GDH - LOCK/WSC

It's the same old scene You've been stuck at the screen for a lifetime You keep your mind sharp and clean With a fix of caffeine for the nighttime You got a page full of friends In a world without end, DIKU? But if push comes to shove You can do without them if they make you.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Original post)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:45 PM
Star Member Rhiannon12866 (63,018 posts)
3. nGDh, think all the alerts are trying to tell us something, looks like Meta to me


Better the occasional faults of a government that lives
in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference FDR -1936
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Original post)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:01 PM
Star Member NYC_SKP (59,568 posts)
4. NAGDH, but this is plainly "whining about DU".... Obvious lock to me.

Whining about a jury decision with a fresh OP is whining about DU, as juries are a part of how DU works.

Leaving threads in violation open so that other members can beat them up is unseemly and not how I think we want DU to work.

I hope this gets locked.
Visit the new DU Progressive Media Resources Group>
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Original post)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:13 PM
Star Member quinnox (20,585 posts)
5. I vote leave. I don't think this qualifies as disruptive meta. (Current GD host)

I think threads like this provide important feedback about what duers think about the jury system.
Freedom of thought and expression is the matrix, the indispensible condition, of nearly every other form of freedom - Benjamin Cardozo
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to quinnox (Reply #5)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:13 PM
Star Member Hassin Bin Sober (11,201 posts)
13. I abstained.

The whinny babies were having fun bashing hosts in the thread. So I was getting mixed messages - they wanted the thread shut down but were crying we were going to shut the thread down to stop the bashing.

Let them vent their spleens for all I care.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #13)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:24 PM
Star Member quinnox (20,585 posts)
14. There is actually a lot of that going on (bashing of hosts)

not just that thread either.
Freedom of thought and expression is the matrix, the indispensible condition, of nearly every other form of freedom - Benjamin Cardozo
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to quinnox (Reply #14)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:31 PM
Star Member Hassin Bin Sober (11,201 posts)
15. Most of it from someone who was thrown out of hosting for disrupting in here.

Another one had to resign once because he stalked a duer. The rest from a couple dead enders who have a supposed aversion to disruptive meta.. except their own disruptive meta -then they wallow in it.

Same old same old
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #15)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:44 PM
Star Member quinnox (20,585 posts)
17. yep, agreed

Best to ignore them.
Freedom of thought and expression is the matrix, the indispensible condition, of nearly every other form of freedom - Benjamin Cardozo
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to quinnox (Reply #14)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:21 PM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,455 posts)
16. You poor thing. You should go protest naked somewhere over it.

"Being gay is natural, hating people for being gay is a 'lifestyle choice'."- John Fugelsang
Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #16)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:47 PM
Star Member William769 (40,048 posts)
18. To hell with that!


Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to William769 (Reply #18)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:50 PM
Star Member PeaceNikki (21,455 posts)
19. oh come on. that was funny.

"Being gay is natural, hating people for being gay is a 'lifestyle choice'."- John Fugelsang
Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Original post)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:30 PM
Star Member NYC_SKP (59,568 posts)
6. Hidden by a jury! May as well update the subject line.

Sometimes the jury gets it right.
Visit the new DU Progressive Media Resources Group>
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #6)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:52 PM
Star Member aikoaiko (18,866 posts)
8. Is it hidden? It doesn't look hidden to me.

Jason Carter, Jimmy's grandson, GA state senator, and gubernatorial candidate, is a NRA Democrat!
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #8)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:54 PM
Star Member NYC_SKP (59,568 posts)
11. My bad, I only clicked on the last link. What bettyellen said!


Visit the new DU Progressive Media Resources Group>
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #6)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:53 PM
Star Member bettyellen (25,065 posts)
10. Actually, it's still open.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Original post)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:52 PM
Star Member bettyellen (25,065 posts)
7. Aikoiko- this thread is NOT hidden- you have two threads in this OP, and only the last one is hidden

and that was about 7 hours ago. The one that got 3-4 alerts (not that it matters, right?) is still open.
And it looks like you guys are split down the middle. Sorry!

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to bettyellen (Reply #7)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:53 PM
Star Member aikoaiko (18,866 posts)
9. sorry, I just noticed and corrected. Although this is looking like a leave.

Jason Carter, Jimmy's grandson, GA state senator, and gubernatorial candidate, is a NRA Democrat!
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Reply #9)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:55 PM
Star Member bettyellen (25,065 posts)
12. of course! Yep, looks like another leave.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to aikoaiko (Original post)Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:43 PM
Star Member rhett o rick (37,295 posts)
20. What's interesting is that those that whine that the OP is "disruptive meta" prove

it by being disruptive in the thread.
Don't forget to GOTV Support Progressive Democrats.
Reply to this post

[Sheldon Cooper]

130. The system looks pretty broken.

Although I don't fault those who act in good faith - it's probably not an easy job. I think the problem lies in the apparent fact that there is no mechanism to remove those who are so blatantly biased. Thanks for posting that - although I gotta say, that format makes it look like a post from free republic or something. Kinda hard to follow...lol

[PeaceNikki]

143. here's a screenshot of part of it.

I love hour they attack in the house forum where they don't have to be juried. At least the criticisms of them in GD can be alerted on, were in fact, and stood.

[Sheldon Cooper]

152. That is SO much easier to read!

Thanks.

[bettyellen]

111. There were 5-6 alerters on that - and instead of seeing that it was bothering more DUers, it was

used as evidence that the DUers were bad, and not the post. It was later explained to me that this host was upset we never post in NSA threads and MUST be third wayers. I think that's probably because I gave a DUers shit for making jokes about water melon jokes- you can't disagree with the hosts' sacred cows. But the sacred cows all seem to troll women and POC. So apparently hating the NSA means you need to look the other way when you see bigotry here. Othewise the people afarid of govt intrusion will put you on a "list", LOL. The irony is lost on them, and our speech is fine to squelch.

Funny there are still a few in the "group" I have never talked to once. I finally met zappaman, since he was targeted too. And number23 dislked me over something, but I think it's brought us closer- being put on n enemies list like that.

[bettyellen]

220. You want another WOW- the OP PMs a host asking them to lock - knowing it is against consensus....

they do- get criticized for it- and rightly so, and they do not respond.... But secretly open the thread, only to have the OP lock their own thread. I guess they really really did not want to self delete, or did want to make a total mockery of the hosting system via secret PMs.

Amazing!

This post (see link) was locked by GD Host Violet Crumble at 7:30am eastern this morning

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025208861

It now shows it has been locked by quinnox.

How the hell did that happen?




How indeed- we are still waiting for an explanation!

[Sheldon Cooper]

221. Whoa.

Oh my god - that is unbelievable. SMH

[bettyellen]

224. very sad to see him ensnare a host to game the system, but there it is.

the host is hiding, and rightfully so. Lots of unanswered questions- locking and unlocking at the Op's request like a fucking door man.

[sheshe2]

265. I have been reading there all day, bettyellen. OMG!

He sure boasted in those two OPs about gaming the system to make DU more to their liking. Guess that proved to be a fact.

And yet they are the victim.

[bettyellen]

267. yeah, he actually called it a lynching and a witch hunt- pretty funny imagery considering

the offensive shit he posts @ women and POC. He is a parody of himself at this point.

[sheshe2]

269. And sadly he laughs and gets away with it, bettyellen.

He treats this place as his own personal playground, he romps around pokes at the other kids and laughs out loud for his mischief. Then he falls and scraps his knee and boohoo
you pushed me you big meany!

[Bjorn Against]

231. That is a wow, making hosting decisions on his own post without consensus should be bannable

That is not the first bannable offense he has made in the last couple of days either. Something needs to be done, between his constant misogyny, his trashing of a DUer suffering health problems, and his gaming of the system through both his role as a host going against consensus to take action on his own thread and his malicious use of the edit feature to protect himself from hidden posts it is time to show the guy the door. He has gone way too far.

[bettyellen]

234. Tht is a pretty good summary of what has happened. Very sad he enlisted a fairly respected DUer

to help with his shenanigans. Because there is absolutely no excuse to sneak around and do this person's bidding while there was consensus the other way. Especially since they have been flouting the rules left and right.

[DURHAM D]

239. What I don't understand is why

the other GD Hosts are not asking him to resign.

[bettyellen]

244. well they also ignore the elephant in the room

all the sexist and racist crap. the many many self deletes and games played. all that disruptive stuff is routinely ignored, no matter what it smells lie when you add it up. some hosts are upset enough to report it to Skinner, but others are just ignoring it all. The usual.

[BainsBane]

289. Off topic

but I wanted to say how upset I was at the treatment you and your brother received a while back. I was flagged at the time and couldn't say anything. I found it very upsetting and understood completely why you were angry.

As for your post above, I agree.

[BainsBane]

182. The refusal to provide a reason

and clear use of hosting to support some members over others is shocking. There isn't even a pretense of trying to be fair.

[Sheldon Cooper]

93. Oh my god.

Wow. Thanks for posting that, it's even weirder than I thought.

[bettyellen]

126. Yep- we need transparency, so all of DU can see the hosts sitting in judgment of alerters-

and not the OPs themselves.

[zappaman]

141. "All of the alerters are in the same Group."

Never got an answer as to what group that is from the host who uttered this bullshit.
But, some hosts are better than others I guess.

[bettyellen]

149. Oh I finally got an answer- apparently they assumed I was posting pro NSA....

And then when they realized they were wrong about that- they said it was because "we" never post in those threads. I think the words they used were "you people".
Nice, eh? Discriminating against people who don't post (the way they want then too)

[zappaman]

154. "Pro NSA"???

Oh right, I forgot that anyone who questions ES or GG is obviously "Pro NSA".

Plus some hosts just host so they can make sure their buddies don't get locked.

Great system but I am proud to be in the "let's ignore their alerts" group with you and the other 4 members!

[bettyellen]

189. Yeah- it's pretty hilarious that people who go on about the NSA and spying are making secret lists!

I think I got on their wrong side by being bothered that someone was making light of racist jokes, and that person pretty much posts about nothing but ES and GG. I'd never posted anything else, but not liking watermelon jokes makes me one of "those people". So we travelled different routes, but got put in the "group" because we are no kissing the right asses here, apparently. I haven't met all of us yet, but I'm proud to be lumped in with you, Nikki, and Number23. I need to go back and find out who our other members are, plan a picnic or something! Solidarity people!!

[JI7]

177. Does the Host know that it was the OP which mentioned the Name of the DU Member they trashed

this didn't come out of nowhere .

[bettyellen]

190. Sorry J17, a bit confused over what host you are asking about....

and which thread. Sorry, try again?

[JI7]

196. i might be confused from the way i read that

but it looks like one of the hosts is upset that people responding to the threads brought up wcgreen. but it was the OP of the 2 threads who brought up wcgreen in one of his OPs .

people didn't just bring up another DUer out of nowhere. it was in response to what the OP himself had posted in his OPs.

[bettyellen]

198. It is yet another case of anger and blame misdirected at alerters, instead of the person who very

deliberately insulted feminists and then, poor Green. As Skinner said, if you post rude nonsense, be prepared to take the heat that goes with it. The hosts are not here to protect people from the fallout of their shitty OPs. They are not here to judge DUers instead of the posts alerted on, but that has become their standard.

Kudos to all the hosts in there protesting this show of favoritism via lock. They were solidly a leave, and need to take their lumps for not caring about the SOP, and let DUers talk about how they feel about it. But no, many are in there now, complaining this should be locked too, but because of the responses- and not the OP. Suddenly meta matters again. Meat against feminsts and POC doesn;t matter, but meta that is about hosts- that is what matters to too many of them.

[BainsBane]

92. Hey Bettyellen!

In my hide in that thread, a juror referenced YOU! Somehow I control you! I guess my radfem radar comes with remote control robotics?

[bettyellen]

94. OMG- please send me that! I got quite a few PMs from jurors who said I was being "swarmed" by alerts

and somehow survived them. I think that is what it was all about- a set up to piss off compassionate people who did not like seeing Green's health issues made into a joke.

Control me? I don't always agree with you, but then again- I never post in Snowden / NSA threads, and that makes me the devil herself here, according to some.

[bettyellen]

113. wow- crappy hide. Sorry that some judge the poster and not content here.....

and that is exactly why some get away with posting all sorts of RW bullshit. Amazing.

[JI7]

264. one of the worst things i have seen on DU

[CreekDog]

288. good observation

and you made many good points in quinnox's thread itself.

[rbrnmw]

31. k&r

[nomorenomore08]

34. It is a curious word choice, at the least. Almost implies insecurity or paranoia, to me.

[JoeyT]

38. If people are going to use gang and swarm as an insult,

when women disagree with them, they need to be willing to define the terms as precisely as possible.

We not only need to know how many women are allowed to disagree before they become a gang or a swarm, we need to know the penis to opinion ratio before they stop being one again.

If it's any comfort, and I'm sure it totally is, it isn't so much women expressing their views as women disagreeing. If you were agreeing with them, especially if it meant attacking other women, they'd act as if your opinion was gospel. Women's speech is worth less than men's, unless those women are agreeing with them. Wait a minute. Spell check in Firefox says "women's" is a word, but "men's" isn't. Proof of widespread misandry at last!

[pinboy3niner]

43. If anythng deserves an award, it's "penis to opinion ratio"

[Squinch]

64. This post is gold.

[myrna minx]

69. Thank you.

[In_The_Wind]

97. This post is a DUzy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

240. Kind of like ...

"What I just said can't be racist ... Bill Cosby, the Good Dr. Carson, Clarence Thomas, {insert RW Negro here} said the same thing!"

[pinboy3niner]

44. BREAKING NEWS: The hosts finally locked quinnox's thread

No further comment needed.

[PeaceNikki]

45. It was only at his request. He pm'd a host and asked them to lock it as a favor

Because he would get shit if he self-deleted. Clear consensus was to leave it.

[pinboy3niner]

47. Thanks for that report

That is reallly precious!

[DURHAM D]

52. ya' Better Believe It

[SidDithers]

53. More shenanigans from Hosts...

Hosts shouldn't be locking threads on request from DUers. The poster has the ability to shut down their own thread by self-deleting the OP.

I wondered why Hosts, who generally don't lock anything, would choose to shut down a thread with over 400 replies.

Sid

[PeaceNikki]

56. quinnox always gets special treatment from some of his host pals.

Rules don't apply to him/them.

[SidDithers]

58. Not surprising at all...

Some animals really are more equal than others.

Sid

[smirkymonkey]

226. Ugh!

Not at you, at him.

[Warren Stupidity]

123. hosts didn't, and you know that.

One host acted unilaterally, but thanks anyway for the smear.

[1StrongBlackMan]

242. So now we have a ...

"NotAllHosts" post?

[Starry Messenger]

67. Wow.

Some weird shit going on in the hosts forum. Again. X(

[MerryBlooms]

83. That's messed up.

[boston bean]

46. Oh no, one rogue host locked that thread with absolutly no consensus but based on

a request from quinnox himself.

Hosts are objecting to the host locking that. A member who doesn't want their post responded to any longer has an option. That option is to self delete. It's been the rule in GD hosting since forever that we don't lock OP's that aren't violating the SOP.

[DURHAM D]

48. I wish I was shocked by some GD Host's behavior.

At least two of them should be removed as Hosts because they are openly flaunting a "protected class" status for what some refer to as the Permanent Moderator Gang.

[boston bean]

49. I'm in there fighting my ass off being with no response from the one who locked it

with no consensus after it was voted upon to leave.

And after they stated that they would unlock if there were objections. Well, there are objections and now we will have another shit storm in the hosts forum.

[pinboy3niner]

55. To me,l ocking that thread was a no-brainer and I'm just surprised it took so long. nt

[PeaceNikki]

57. it's a quandary. it should have been locked right away.

But he's their pal so they voted no.... Until he wanted it locked so that he wouldn't get shit for self deleting.

[Warren Stupidity]

127. no it should not have been "locked right away".

Nothing ought to be locked right away. Everything has to be discussed and everything has to be agreed on and locking requires "consensus".

[PeaceNikki]

131. I should have clarified that IF it was going to be locked

I think you'll see that I support consensus in this thread and elsewhere.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. again, "right away" is not appropriate.

In fact in my opinion there was and is no reason to lock that thread. Or this one. Or the other one about ticks and dicks. But I'm just another rotten gd host who thinks we generally ought to let people discuss pretty much whatever they want to discuss and that the greatly offended should police themselves.

[PeaceNikki]

136. k

[Sheldon Cooper]

139. If your opinion is to let everyone discuss whatever the hell they want to discuss,

why have any rules at all? Why not just one great big free for all? Why are you hosting if you don't think there should be any restrictions? I don't get it.

[Warren Stupidity]

144. not what I wrote, was it?

we generally ought to let people discuss pretty much whatever they want to discuss

vs

let everyone discuss whatever the hell they want to discuss

Two different statements, one of them not by me. I'd be happy to discuss something I actually said.

[Sheldon Cooper]

147. So, if you don't care to enforce the SOP, why do you host?

[Warren Stupidity]

150. I actually read and understood the guidlines for hosting gd.

Which, contrary to your simplistic nonsense, are not "enforce the sop".

Have a nice day.

[bettyellen]

208. Funny- I have noticed Earl G stepping in with some mighty fine locks the last few months- as well as

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

hosts admitting later regrets over their inaction. Yet we see hosts who vote to lock using the same standards of decency as Earl G get bashed by other hosts. And hosts changing their mind (twice just today) because they see the discussion go in a way they really do not like. And loads of gossiping about the alerters. You seem to be more of the one consistent ones, but face it- Earl G has had to come in a clean up the messes more than a few times. Obvious trolling went on and some hosts were fine with it- even helped. Juries lock more OPs than you do these days.
It seems to be anything goes, till we don't like it.

[Warren Stupidity]

307. And exactly how often has that happened?

And have the admins revised their instructions to us as a consequence?

1. rarely. 2. no.

We have been told in no uncertain terms, to NOT strictly enforce the SOP and to ALWAYS act on consensus. Exactly what those instructions mean is ambiguous, the subject of many post from Skinner, and much debate within the hosts forum, however it is clear that what we are not supposed to do is just "enforce the SOP", or act unilaterally.

[bettyellen]

309. I think I saw three in a short span recently- all pretty awful OPS with many alerts

And another today. As well as a 3-4 hosts acting unilaterally in the same time span. You guys seem to be having a bad patch, and through no fault of your own.

It is what it is, sometimes enforcing the OP when you feel like it, sometimes not. Partly it is the vague and sometimes contradictory instructions from Skinnier, and part of it is hosts judging the alerters instead of the posts. It would be great of some didn't vote so very inconsistently based on who their friends are, or do favors locking and unlocking for their friends, but we both have seen those things happen plenty. Lately hosts refuse to discuss their reasoning at all, calling it an attack, when it's the very reason the forum exists at all. It's as dysfunctional, and completely random as it could possibly be.

Good to see that Earl G has taken care of the awful troll that other hosts ignored or helped. And that he agrees it's broken and needs some changes.

[DURHAM D]

59. First rule of GD Hosting...

Find a reason not to Lock other GD Host's OPs.

ETA: This only applies if they are a member of the "gang" and not perceived as a member of the "swarm".

[Warren Stupidity]

125. we are not moderators.

Last edited Thu Jul 10, 2014, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)

that is what juries are for. Hosts only lock ops and only for being off topic and we have been repeatedly told that for gd, the default position even for off topic posts is "leave it". If a thread is going badly for the op, the op can self delete. If you find a thread annoying: trash it. If you find a topic annoying: trash by keyword.

Police your own self. Hosts are not there to clean up the mess on aisle nine.

[Union Scribe]

312. Lol

So you vote to block the other GD hosts from locking this thread and so so many others like it, then you rush in to post in it. All in a day's work eh Warren? Yep that's what GD hosts are supposed to do alright, let everything slide no matter how disruptive and against SOP they are, just post "leave it" and to hell with whatever happens next. Then wonder aloud how GD gets so messed up.

[Warren Stupidity]

318. I voted to leave the op because there was no reason to lock it.

Oh and I "rushed into this thread" 11 hours after it started, and only to comment on the hosting issue. The original post remains, in my opinion, appropriate for gd.

In terms of what gd hosts are supposed to do, we are supposed to "look for reasons not to lock". We are supposed to only consider the original post, not what the thread has turned into, and we are supposed to act on consensus. We are not moderators and we do not enforce community standards or terms of service. That is what juries are for.

You have a trash function. You have an ignore function. Nobody is compelling you to read threads you find disagreeable or posts from people you dislike.

[Sheldon Cooper]

50. It's quite interesting to see which host locked that.

Quite interesting, indeed.

[LanternWaste]

159. Is this a correct summation...?

Is this a correct summation...(got pretty confusing for a less-than-clever guy like me to follow the trains)?

Poster P writes back-handed post in GD. Poster P is faced with numerous disagreement as to both form and intention of post (which Poster P conveniently perceives as "swarming&quot . During this period, it is addressed in the Mod Forum. Also during this period, Poster P defiantly refuses to hide his/her own thread yet requests that it be locked. Mods discuss locking. Locking is still being discussed when Mod M, a boon companion of Poster P, locks it without consensus.

Is this an accurate summation? If so, I can only feel slightly validated at my decision never to moderate any forum-- as it seems the children are running the playground)/

[BainsBane]

65. Jesus.

What do you even say to that? Unreal.

[BainsBane]

68. I can think of some other members

Who had threads turn into meta shit shows that might have liked similar personal hosting services, yet it seems once again some are more equal than others.

[bettyellen]

115. "personal hosting services" - yep , it's like their own concierge that they call when they take a

dump in GD "Clean that mess up for me, fellow host?"
It all seems rational if you judge the posters instead of the posts.

[Bobbie Jo]

75. Sounds like an abuse of privileges to me.

Gaming the jury system and the host system in one 24 hour period.



Geeze.

[Sheldon Cooper]

82. Wow - I just read through both of those threads.

The one that was self-deleted, and the one that his host "buddy" so conveniently locked for him, against the wishes of the other hosts. Talk about gaming the host system - wow. I didn't realize that was even possible.

And the gaming of the jury system, too. When he found out his OP survived a jury, he edited it to include even more odious drivel, knowing that he was now bullet proof. If that doesn't qualify for an instant termination from the site, I honestly can't imagine what would.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. breakinger news: no we didn't.

One host, acting at the request of quinnox, without any consensus from other hosts, did that.

[Union Scribe]

172. When will they lock this one? nt

[BainsBane]

195. I don't have that kind of pull

So not likely to happen

[Union Scribe]

212. Actually they're blocking for you

You can pretty much start whatever meta drama crap you want, because there are hosts who will refuse to let the others lock it.

While I'm replying to you, your thread is nonsense. Swarms are a real thing here. They aren't necessarily organized, and they certainly aren't gendered, but like a feeding frenzy when they start they're pretty damn obvious and very damn ugly. And, like I said, they're apparently fine in GD now.

[BainsBane]

213. Not sure why my Meta thread would be prohibited

When the rest are allowed. Rest assured if I want to pull the plug on a thread, I'll self delete rather than asking a host to lock a thread for me.

[BainsBane]

222. Say, I just remembered a feeding frenzy

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)

that you participated in not too long ago, and you were in fact pretty pissed off that I defended the person being targeted. You also didn't have any concern about that Meta thread or any of hundreds of other Meta threads that have appeared in GD.

[Union Scribe]

235. Link?

I don't recall it. Btw I don't deny getting caught up in drama here. It's easy to do. It's a bad habit of group dynamics that I've seen too much of at this point.

[BainsBane]

252. It was the thread on supposed ageism

I pointed out there was a back-story having to do with race, and you got very angry about it. I was not responding to you, BTW, but to the OP. The witchhunt that thread became pissed me off, also the fact the person in question never insulted the OP but made a point of graciously apologizing anyway.

You probably remember it. If I really have to I can hunt down the link. Also, why alert on my Meta post over the thousands of others? It's not like Meta isn't commonplace in GD? At least mine is about a subject and not a call out of a certain member or group of members.

[Union Scribe]

260. That's not my recollection.

Are you talking about this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5067681

A poster I respect a great deal started a thread about what her OP said was several threads that apparently made her feel unwelcome and we were encouraging her to ignore drama and keep posting. I don't see any witch-hunting in that thread, nor do I even know who the "witch" would be besides, as I posted, people who like stirring up shit in GD. That's consistent with what I've been saying this week. And how that can even remotely be called a feeding frenzy or a display like the "cut shaving" thread became is stretching the limits of credulity.

And let's not pretend this thread wasn't a call out okay?

[BainsBane]

273. This thread was not a call out

You are simply incorrect. Many, many posters have used the language in question, including, it turns out, even myself. My intent was exactly as I indicated, to explore language. The bulk of discussion in this thread is not about any particular poster but the subject of the OP, though certainly the disclosure about host discussions was unexpected yet fascinating

You may respect that poster, but she took offense where none was given. That thread was most certainly about a specific DUer. Unlike mine it was not about a pattern of comments but one specific reference, as you can tell if you read through it. It also prompted subsequent threads further pillorying that member, who is someone I happen to be quite fond of. You didn't know the back story and were openly hostile to hearing it. You blamed "Meta warriors, "when in fact the thread you were defending was the Meta one, not the comment that inspired it.

[Union Scribe]

314. This thread isn't about any particular poster???

I have no idea if you're even serious saying something like that, or if you just think I'm a complete idiot. Not like it matters, because all the meta crap worked. The poster that this thread totally isn't about despite their name being stated many times and you discussing them, is gone. But now whom does the tar boil for? Let me know, maybe I'll join the winning side for a change.

[BainsBane]

315. I don't know what to say about your reaction to this thread

I told you what the post was about. Your reaction to it is your problem.

If you want to know what prompted it, it was a jury alert on me and juror comments that used the word swarm or gang (perhaps both), once again. I have no idea who either poster is. I didn't have internet access until last night and could only access DU on my phone or at work, so I didn't even read most of the posts in Quinnox's thread, and read none after I got a post hidden.

He got PPR'd because of his behavior in the hosting forum (thought doubtless his long standing behavior played into it). I do not even have access to that group, and I did not force him to lock his own thread. This OP had nothing to do with his banning, but go ahead and make it all about me. That's a good way to avoid looking at the actual facts. You can blame me for whatever changes are coming in the host room too, because I must have forced all of you to fight about locks for the past few months, due to the radfem magic I have.

Or you could read thehandpuppet's very thoughtful post at the end of this thread engaging in some psychological analysis of the question in the OP.

There has already been one thread calling for my banning today. I've had enough of the scapegoating. Whatever you and your friends say is your own responsibility, not mine. Don't put that shit on me.

[smirkymonkey]

225. Good. Finally some sense has creeped into this post.

[PeaceNikki]

310. more breaking news: he's no longer with us

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~quinnox

[JustAnotherGen]

60. First things first

Update your thread title - use the space bar - go over about 10/15 spaces and type the word Woo.

Second things second - I figured it out - what a swarm or gang of women is . . .

It's when Mitt Romney couldn't find a tab for a few select women in one of his binders - so he put them in a pocket at the front of the binder.

If we ask Mitt how many women's names are in that pocket -that's when we can identify the correct number of women for there to be a gang or swarm.

[Squinch]

61. That particular thing has been going on forever. Seriously, it only shows how antiquated these guys'

attitudes are:

Lots of women used to gather to help with the birth of a child. It was one of the few times where women were alone with each other, without men around. These gatherings were originally called "gossips"and the word had no negative connotations. It was only because women talking was so frightening to the men that "gossip" took on a negative meaning. It was a society of women that men felt was un-pierce-able. Men were therefore frightened of it.

Apparently, men had a lot of issues with the gossips that Anne Hutchinson attended because the gals weren't towing the line when they got together. So they banished Anne to the wilderness, and limited the number of women subsequently allowed to attend gossips.

Our DU friends are just as enlightened as Puritan ministers from the early 1600's!

[William769]

62. I can't post right now heading out the door to the doctors.

Am hoping to revisit this thread and give my comments when I get back. But I did recommend id to help with visibility.

[JustAnotherGen]

63. For context

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025208861#post176

quinnox (20,585 posts)

176. When I see an attack gang swarm my thread with complete and utter lies and distortions, it makes me

very eager to point it out.

You can also reference post 131. On that thread I've linked to - the "attack - gang - swarm" words were used in two separate posts.

You know - it would help to know what that threshold is so we don't cause discomfort going forwards. I DID respond on that thread but it was a subthread 'topic' that I found interesting. Not the thread in and of itself.

Try waxing your bikini line and grabbing a chunk of skin. Yikes! Now that is pain. That's a topic I can relate to.

[elias7]

76. This thread is a perfect example of what is unfortunately referred to as the swarm

Not trying to insult, just describe...

I can try to elucidate if interested

[JustAnotherGen]

78. Please do

I posted upthread the reference/context of this op and what sparked it.

[bravenak]

79. Did you really need to go there?

Are you swarming now? Please elucidate.

[BainsBane]

98. Silly. He can't swarm

He's male.

[bravenak]

100. My bad.

Everyday, new strange rules.

[sheshe2]

119. As women we "swarm" collectively. No free thinking needed, just follow the leader.

Swarm behaviour, or swarming, is a collective behaviour exhibited by animals of similar size which aggregate together, perhaps milling about the same spot or perhaps moving en masse or migrating in some direction. As a term, swarming is applied particularly to insects, but can also be applied to any other animal that exhibits swarm behaviour. The term flocking is usually used to refer specifically to swarm behaviour in birds, herding to refer to swarm behaviour in quadrupeds, shoaling or schooling to refer to swarm behaviour in fish. Phytoplankton also gather in huge swarms called blooms, although these organisms are algae and are not self-propelled the way animals are. By extension, the term swarm is applied also to inanimate entities which exhibit parallel behaviours, as in a robot swarm, an earthquake swarm, or a swarm of stars.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour

As an Obama supporter we are "bots" following blindly, no need to have a brain of any kind.

Hmmmmm, now what about those that worship teen idol's like GG and ES?

Strange rules indeed, bravenak.

[BainsBane]

87. Please do

[elias7]

138. This...

post 1: "Please do" (elucidate on what I mean)

post 2: “Did you really need to go there? Are you swarming now? Please elucidate.”
post 3: “Silly. He can’t swarm. He’s male.”
post 4: “My bad. Everyday, new strange rules”

post 5: Self–deleted post (presumably negative)

post 6: “please do” (elucidate on what I mean)

post 7: “and what is this thread an example of?” (with link to another thread)

Posts 2-4, however, is what people are mainly responding to.

[BainsBane]

163. Please answer the questions in the OP

Are women supposed to take numbers so that men don't have to be inconcenienced with the views of more than one of us? Perhaps you should talk to Skinner about limiting the number of women on the site, or reducing the number of posts were are allowed to make?

[bettyellen]

96. and what is this thread an example of?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5211122

[Union Scribe]

173. Yep. nt

[mercuryblues]

85. got me

when women agree with each other they are a swarm. When they don't 100% they can't get their shit together. I mean really? I laugh it off and remember this

http://jezebel.com/5936323/listen-up-ladies-heres-everything-real-men-think-is-wrong-with-you


Jeez, all this hair stuff is confusing! So...don't have wet hair, don't have dry hair, don't have natural hair, don't have fake hair. GOT IT.

[BainsBane]

99. Yes, there is one member

of shall we say a certain ideological persuasion, who loves to comment on how women can't agree on this or that. When I've asked him why he would expect a full half of the human race to agree on anything or if he could name a single subject all men agree on, he never responds.

[IronLionZion]

102. I'm still amazed that women can agree on something.

[bravenak]

104. Stahp it!!

I get surprised when my husband feeds himself.

[IronLionZion]

108. You should watch baby elephants use their trunks for the first time

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyrobertson/baby-elephants-learning-how-to-use-their-trunks

Its really cute.

[bravenak]

110. Good idea.nt

[BainsBane]

105. Now, now

I'm sure a few of your exes have agreed on something.

[IronLionZion]

106. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,

baffle them with bullshit!

[BainsBane]

109. I had a feeling we'd meet before

Now I know for sure!

[IronLionZion]

112. The dating situation in Minnesota was really good for me.

[Gormy Cuss]

114. I'm amused when someone here calls me part of a gang or swarm.

Yeah, I'm so much part of gangs here that I needed a new wallet to keep track of all the membership cards. Had to be careful to keep the Crips card in a different section from the Bloods card, for obvious reasons.


It's much easier to dismiss those who disagree with you if you can paint them as the aggressors, even better if you can paint them as unthinking group mentality aggressors.

[shanine]

117. I don't think anyone could accuse me of being part of any swarm

I saw "red" and didn't care if my post got hidden . . .

[bettyellen]

121. the hosts here lable people who alert as troublemakers- it's never the OP, unless it is by someone

they dislike. Now they are doing favors to provide cover for disruptive meta, and blaming you and me. It;s bullshit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. "Sewing circle" has a much more feminine ring to it. We should petition for

the "gang" and "swarm" to be re-labeled as "sewing circle." Embrace it, I say; turn it on its head.

[Gormy Cuss]

118. ...

[Rowdyboy]

120. Men are forceful and show leadership where women are dictatorial and bossy....

Men laugh out loud while women cackle
Men are steadfast, women are stubborn
Men show initiative, women are pushy

Get my drift? If you do it, its inappropriate and bad. If we do it, its proper and correct. That's easy to remember.....

[BainsBane]

135. So it seems

If we disagree, we engage in cat fights. If we do, it's a swarm. Our very existence is illegitimate, so it seems.

[Comrade Grumpy]

124. I wonder if anything is going on in the real world...

[BainsBane]

129. Nothing much

The Supreme Court just ruled it's legal to discriminate against groups of Americans based on an employer's religious preference. You know, all those women swarming Hobby Lobby and interrupting the rights of Americans to not give a fuck.

[Jamaal510]

142. LMAO

"...interrupting the rights of Americans to not give a fuck."

[Comrade Grumpy]

145. I am aware of the Hobby Lobby decision. It sucks pretty bad.

But this and related threads don't seem to actually be about the Hobby Lobby decision.

In the real world, I hear the Senate is scheduling a hearing on the decision shortly. What will come of that, I don't know.

I really don't know what the best fix is. Perhaps amending the RFPA?

Personally, I see this as all the more reason to push for nationalized health care, instead of this jerry-rigged World War II-era system that leaves us dependent on our employers and their whims for health care.

Hundreds of posts about "gangs" and "swarms" and bad, bad, bad DUers? Meh.

[BainsBane]

157. Yes, well you have to follow the dots backward

It started with telling people how the Hobby Lobby decision just wasn't important.

Additionally, the same double standard that propels some to refer to women, but rarely men, as a swarm empowers five male SCOTUS members to establish that an employer's religious preference trumps equal rights for women under the law.

[redqueen]

181. Wait, was the person saying it just wasn't important the same DUer who first suggested

that women should go topless to protest it? Username starts with a q?

[BainsBane]

194. Yes

[redqueen]

201. Interesting. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

243. Perfect Response! eom.

[LanternWaste]

132. I'd imagine were that a sincere query, you could rather easily find out.

"I wonder if anything is going on in the real world..."

I'd imagine were that a sincere query, you could rather easily find out without instruction.

[Comrade Grumpy]

146. You would imagine correctly. And guess what? There's lots going on.

I'll leave you folks to carry on this discussion, which appears to have little to do with any of it.

[LanternWaste]

153. One may only imagine the disconnect felt by the half-wit who is unable to extrapolate ideas

One may only imagine the disconnect felt by the half-wit who is unable to extrapolate ideas and concepts into sometimes broader, sometimes more narrow discussions.

Not that you're a half-wit by any means... but work on extrapolating those ideas-- critical thought has real world value too.

[Comrade Grumpy]

184. You can put your snark and insults where they belong.

Only the fear of being baited into a hide prevents from telling you exactly where that is.

Please don't bother to respond to me in the future. Thank you.

[Inkfreak]

210. That little ditty survived a jury 2-5

That little jury survived a jury 2-5. I'm sure they'll be happy to insert their rationalization, whatever it may be.

[myrna minx]

137. Yes - the rights of women are under assault from 5 unelected SC justices.

[Kingofalldems]

151. Sorry but I coined the term 'gunswarmers' a couple years ago.

As far as I know none of them are women. You are wrong on this one.

[BainsBane]

156. Really? I've never seen it

Your recollection of something once a couple of years ago hardly refutes that swarm is regularly used to describe women but not men.

[Kingofalldems]

158. So are you saying that I am lying?

It wasn't 'once' it was many times. Way to dismiss.

[BainsBane]

160. I'm saying that I haven't seen it

despite having been in many gun threads, and I have repeatedly been called part of a swarm on other subjects, even when I was the only one adopting a positon.

[muriel_volestrangler]

161. Are you really trying to play the victim here?

You're saying that you have whined about a 'swarm' many times, and you now feel hurt that another DUer hasn't noticed you whining?

[Kingofalldems]

165. What in the hell are you talking about?

Nobody's whining about anything. I said and reiterate I used the term 'swarm' many times. And not in reference to women. Period.

[muriel_volestrangler]

166. Using the term "swarm" was whining

And "are you saying that I'm lying?" and "way to dismiss" are whining again.

[Kingofalldems]

167. That's a question and a statement. Not whining

You're whining about my post.

Suggest you put me on ignore.

[bettyellen]

193. It's whining when they disagree with your point. Much the way this thread is meta only because

they do not like the discussion it caused. Other awful discussions, bashing women and POC, are just dandy here if they get heated. But bash a host, oh noooo.
Too bad one of the few things they consistently agree on, is not locking because of anything but the OP. But that hasn't stopped a lot of hosts from wanting to lock this, despite the "rules".

[Vattel]

162. You are wrong.

The term "swarm" is used a lot on DU to apply to various groups of posters regardless of gender. Nice shit-stirring, though.

[BainsBane]

164. Please, provide examples

links would be nice.

[Vattel]

169. Seriously? Maybe you should have checked yourself before you irresponsibly created this thread.

Here is one example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3143341

Let me guess, now you will say that I only found one example. They are not hard to find. Really.

[BainsBane]

170. Is your claim there is no gendered use of the term whatsoever

Or that its ocassional general use nullifies the more frequent references to women?

[Vattel]

175. You haven't shown that the term is more frequently used to refer to groups of women.

My guess would be that the term is most frequently used to refer to a well-known group of Obama loyalists who show up to attack anyone who criticizes Obama. I have also seen it used to refer to Greenwald and Snowden loyalists. Fair or not, it tends to be applied to groups of like-minded posters who consistently show up in certain kinds of threads to defend their point of view (especially if they are very aggressive in their defense.)

You haven't provided evidence that any DUer has ever used it because the group in question was a group of women. I am not denying that some sexist Duers might have done so, but you provide no evidence of even a single case of that sort.

[BainsBane]

176. I have seen it to refer to feminists

and women particularly, with great frequency. In fact, it is close to synonymous with HOF--ironic considering there are supposedly only a handful of posters who care about such issues, so we are told.

JustAnotherGen just provided evidence for you. You might also refer to the now locked thread about a shaving cut.

[KittyWampus]

180. I will also post to you, because you carry the banner for feminists to a large extent-

there is a nexus between the misogynists and Snowden fans. Apparently from what was revealed about GD Hosts, as long as you are on the "correct" side of defending Snowden and seen as being zealous against all NSA activity you can get away with anything.

The fact that Vattel pulled up the only other example and it has to do with Snowden just reinforces what is going on.

It's eye opening and interesting psychological dynamics.

So many of these ideologues throw around the term "authoritarian". It's almost as if they are projecting their own unconscious paternalistic impulses. And it also explains the extreme zeal in their attacks on the NSA and defense of Snowden and Greenwald.

AND included that they decided to become GD Hosts and rule accordingly.

[bettyellen]

219. yes, a host confirmed to me - they ignore people who are not perceived as being concerned enough

about the NSA. That is the "group" they thought they were seeing. And yeah- the list making is pretty ironic- as were the false charges leveled against me. They assumed I had posted anti-ES or GG but they were totally fucking wrong about it.

Didn't know you needed to "Heil Snowden!" around here. Or reassure people you hate Hillary, but that's how it adds up.
And that's pretty fucking weird.

[KittyWampus]

178. Interesting nexus of misogynists and Snowden fans. Apparently it carries over into the GD Hosts.

[JustAnotherGen]

168. Used by quinnox yesterday

I posted the link/quote up above.

And that quote is why we can't have nice things around here.

If you read through this thread you will see where a member has been getting all kinds of special snowflake treatment around here by a General Discussion Host or two.

And a lot of us have questions about that. And this thread by BainsBane is giving us the opportunity to understand why that special snowflake "exalted one" gets away with stuff that no on else at DU gets away with.


Let us have the discussion.


Pssst - I'm the one who suggested to quinnox this weekend he should put words like Obama and hobby etc. etc. on his trash list so he would have a better experience at DU. As I said to him - NSA, Snowden, Greenwald being on my trashed key word list made it a better experience for me.

ETA:
Here's my response/suggestion to him:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5191039
He was explaining above the words that bothered him.

[BainsBane]

171. People are free to trash any word they want

They don't typically create OPs about it, however.

[JustAnotherGen]

174. Exactly!

I made a suggestion to him because he was obviously frustrated (per that link) to have to see the words Obama or Rape - if they bother him - I don't see what the problem would be with trashing those keywords. I shared with him my (see what I did there???) list so he could see how it works.

[LadyHawkAZ]

183. Advanced search is fun

You might want to have a word with this person:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125526624
A recent, reactionary thread has led to a swarm of people claiming "all feminists aren't like that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3031330
I was way too overwhelmed by the gunner swarm to read more than a handful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3050387
I can't keep up with the swarm of gunners descending on me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3052156
I'm responding to accusations that I somehow forced you all to swarm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=125992
Then there is the fact when I post one thing, you all swarm and leave dozens and dozens of replies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3900671
The flies remark was about the swarm in this thread.

And these two gems:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=4816
Yet I also posted in GD
and got anything but crickets in both forum. It was more like a swarm of locusts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4835829
yes, you are over sensitive
Anyone who takes an unpopular position is subject to being disagreed with. It happens to me most days here, yet I have never described those who disagree with me as a swarm because I don't see people as insects.

[BainsBane]

187. Thanks. I hadn't realized I'd used the word in that context

You've obviously succeeeded in proving sexism doesn't exist. Congratulations.

Care to share with us your views on the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision? Or are the superior members of the site right that we little wimenz are just oversensitive and that a cut on the lip is far more important than our reproductive rights?

[Tetris_Iguana]

200. Speaking as a nonpartisan observer

You just got busted, Baines.

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[BainsBane]

202. I realize that.

Not going to deny it.

I still think I'm right that some use it as a perjorative against women and feminists in particular.

[Tetris_Iguana]

204. No doubt some do.

I've observed it frequently and I think its misogynistic use is endemic to DU.

[BainsBane]

209. That was my point

but truth be told I wasn't not aware that I had used it myself. That only confirms my view that I should not be arguing with pro-gun folk.

[kcr]

218. You are right.

The fact that the term is also used for gun nuts doesn't change things for me. I'd like to think that most on DU don't equate feminism with the NRA crowd. You'd think it would be obvious that both shouldn't be treated the same.

[BainsBane]

223. I certainly shouldn't be using a word that I'm critical of

and I will take greater care not to in the future.

[JI7]

266. this is a democratic board, it reminds me of people excusing saying nasty things about Democratic

politicians by bringing up how bad things were said about BUsh on DU.

and trying to claim hypocrisy.

this is a democratic board so certain positions should get more support . things like women's rights are not on same level as gun rights. it shouldn't be equated.

[bettyellen]

270. false equivalence indeed. i peeped at the old Mortos thread and saw all these great women who

were trolled off this place, and it is sad. I think there are quite a few people who really want to destroy this place, and they are in a position to do so now. They sense Skinner has abandoned the place, and are going for it.

[BainsBane]

294. Which thread is that, bettyellen?

I'm not familiar with it.

[likesmountains 52]

188. Thank you for doing the leg work! Sometimes the arguments here kill me...

Seems like someone is arguing with herself!

[Harmony Blue]

259. Well this thread seems kind of meta

at this point.

[BainsBane]

192. Does that prove to you the word has no gendered usage?

Or does that not matter compared to the more important mission of proving me wrong?

[LadyHawkAZ]

197. If you're complaining about what I think you're complaining about

it has nothing to do with gender and you are quite well aware of that fact.

[BainsBane]

199. I asked you a question

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

It was not a complaint. Have you run a statistical program to determine it does in fact have nothing to do with gender? Or have you undertaken semiotic analysis? How does the fact I used it against gunners mean there is no possibility the term is used to denote groups of women?

And Hobby Lobby? Or is that not consequential enough for you to comment on?

[LadyHawkAZ]

257. Have you run a statistical program to show that it IS a gender slur?

You're the one that uses it regularly, you tell me. Were you in fact knowingly using a gender slur? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

No, "swarm" is not gendered, generally speaking. And you know this. You use it yourself.

Soooo.... tell me and save me the search, who in your group got the hide/vacation last night? I'm thinking not long prior to this OP being posted, maybe an hour or two?
ETA: never mind. It was you.

My posts on HL can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5178892
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5172312
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5179765
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5191288
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5191813
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5207386

[RiffRandell]

280. Hmmm.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[BainsBane]

291. Not very observant are you?

The crickets are all hers.

Edit, Oh I see. I didn't respond to her last post with a time frame sufficient to satisfy you: 1:16 minutes compared to several hours between her responses. Funny, one of your fellow group members insisted that when I made a similar comment to him two years ago it was the single worst thing anyone had ever said to him on DU. I guess we'll file that under double standards, along with the extensive list of others you have developed particular mastery of.

I must say your commitment to "feminist" solidarity truly is impressive. You couldn't last a week. I guess the joy of cultivating enmity with complete strangers was just too irresistible for you. Keep it up if you must, but I can't be bothered to give more than a few seconds thought to any of it.

[RiffRandell]

298. Lmao!

I, along with MANY others on this board don't take you seriously and haven't for a long time.

I wouldn't last a week? I've been on here a lot longer than you have, gotten way less hides and never created a sock.

Night-nights! Enjoy that marg!

[BainsBane]

292. Oh yes, I remember

take our tops off for the benefit of men who would deprive women of equal rights.

You found six references out of 26,000 posts. That is what you call regularly? Have you done a similar search under anyone else's name?

No, I did not run any quantitative program, but I did undertake some discursive analysis. I realize that pales in comparison to the far more important goal of personal animus, but we can't all live up to your exalted standards.

[LadyHawkAZ]

302. Seven posts

and well, English is a Lay's potato chip language. With so many insults to choose from, and so many many posts to put them in, why stick with just one?

You wrote the OP. Your complaint was that the term was a gender slur. Therefore you are the one that got the search. Obviously it is not a gender slur even in your own mind. You were perfectly OK with using it right up until my post hit the board and embarrassed you.

Other searches are irrelevant, you were the one that posted your "concern" about the term. I will tell you how many times one person used it in the same one-year timeframe I searched on you:

LadyHawkAZ had zero results outside this thread.

Have a nice night.

[RiffRandell]

262. Ouch!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Kingofalldems]

274. Well well then.

[NaturalHigh]

293. Thanks for those.

It seems to me that the OP is projecting a bit when she objects to the term "swarms." Of course it's fine when she uses the term, but if anyone else does, it's some sort of dastardly conspiracy.

[BainsBane]

295. How about reading what i actually wrote

rather than inventing a claim that I think it's "fine."

[NaturalHigh]

296. Actually, I did read what you wrote.

"The use of those terms suggest to me that some members see something illegitimate about women expressing their views."

Some members - who are these members and why is it different when they use the terms that you use frequently?

[BainsBane]

297. You do know I wrote that before the member did the search on my own use of the word

And that afterward I responded that I should not use language I was critical of and that I needed to be more aware of it. So while her intent was not to do me any favors, she in fact did in helping me realize I too need to think more carefully about the language I use.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5214289

[NaturalHigh]

299. Yes, I do know that you wrote that before she did the search on your use of the word.

[BainsBane]

300. Then it is factually false

to claim I think it is "fine" when I use the word, as my link makes clear. Your statement was clearly inaccurate.

[NaturalHigh]

301. What I see is that you continue to imply...

that the use of the term "swarm" is somehow a gender slur.

[BainsBane]

304. I don't imply it

I say it directly. Actually I say the term is gendered and used to pathologize women's speech. Many others here agree. That is not the same as a slur. Take, as an extreme example, the N word. That is it used by African Americans doesn't mean the word isn't racist.
That, however, is a separate point from insisting I think it's "fine" when I use the word, as you falsely insisted.

[NaturalHigh]

305. Seriously? "Swarm" is like the N-word?

Even if "many others here agree," that doesn't make it true. "Many others here agree" that it's sexist to hold doors open for women too, but that doesn't make the concept any truer.

As for whether you think it's fine when you used the word, it seems that it was fine until you were called out for it.

[BainsBane]

317. No, it is not like the N word

but it signals a racial meaning, even though it is also used by African Americans. Did you miss the phrase "extreme example"? Other examples would be "hysterical" or "gangbanger."

You may have never been exposed to the idea of gendered language, but there are decades of academic research on the subject. One poster below even quotes from an analysis of the word swarm in particular. There are even studies of gendered music--not lyrics--but musical composition.

Quite clearly I was not aware I had used the word. That you feel compelled to deliberately distort what I have said only highlights what this is about for you, and it's clear you have no interest in the subject itself.

[LadyHawkAZ]

303. Flamebait with a touch of smokescreen

These threads pop up now and then after one of the independent thinkers gets a post hid, or otherwise embarrassed. Obviously even the OP didn't think it's a gendered term.

[NaturalHigh]

306. You have to admit that it's effective flamebait, though.

Over 300 replies. She does know how to stir a pot.

[AverageJoe90]

186. .....Wait. Are you serious?

I dunno about anyone else, I've never seen women being attacked just for being women who agree on any old thing, whether it's about the weather, or pop music, etc.; of course, I don't doubt there's a few individual trolls out there who do shit on a thread or two every once in a while, but this is honestly quite ridiculous to suggest that it's a regular thing(and no, the heated disagreements that may occur over "privilege" or "rape culture", etc., from time to time really don't count).

OTOH, if you at least have some proof of these types of attacks on such mundane occasions, I'd like to see it. But until then, all I can say is, I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Gormy Cuss]

228. With due respect, if you've never seen it here

you're not looking.

[AverageJoe90]

236. I think I've seen a few occasional examples.

Speck Tater is one sexist troll I definitely remember......Screwed up guy, he certainly was.

So, TBH, as I said, it does happen occasionally, but I've never seen any evidence that this was a widespread problem.

[XemaSab]

241. "Occasional examples"

like posts you rec on the regular.

[bettyellen]

245. TBH, I have noticed that also.....

[XemaSab]

246. Augh, you're talking like him now!

TBH, every time I see someone use TBH, I'm like, "What, you weren't being honest before?"

[bettyellen]

248. "I'm a mocker!" - Ringo "birthday boy" Starr. ;-D

[betsuni]

256. I started mocking and became addicted.

I can't seem to stop, to be honest. See! Help! I need to go to another MRA meeting (Mockers and Radfems Anonymous). It's too late for me, but you can save yourself.

[AverageJoe90]

258. Have you *actually* done research on what I've recced, by the way?

If you'd have bothered to look, you would know that I've even recced some stuff from E & E and HoF from time to time, not to mention plenty of other things that could hardly be considered objectionable by the standards of this site(quite the opposite in fact!).

[XemaSab]

271. I did a search for your interactions with speck tater

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22democratic+underground%22+averagejoe90+%22speck+tater%22+site:www.democraticunderground.com&safe=off&biw=1362&bih=646#q=averagejoe90+%22speck+tater%22+site:www.democraticunderground.com&safe=off

Fascinating reading, really.

[XemaSab]

275. And when you google AverageJoe90 and sexism this is the second thing that comes up:

AverageJoe90 (8,666 posts)
70. Reply whining about how racism or sexism, etc. is supposedly widespread on DU.

Makes snarky comment about those who disagree with me. Then proceeds to tell people that anyone who disagrees is automatically "devaluing" my experience simply for disagreeing.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4937385

[AverageJoe90]

277. And that actually *has* happened, unfortunately.

I'm sure you may not want to believe it, but the evidence is out there if you look long enough.

[XemaSab]

278. Yeah, bull-fucking-shit

While you're looking for an example of that, I'll be over here reading what you think about misogyny, sexism, racism, rape, and white privilege.

It's really interesting.

[AverageJoe90]

279. Sure, sure. But will you actually read what I've written *in context*?

Okay, here's a few things I've written.

On rape:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4156284
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024973516#post14
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670913#post9
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024719502#post5

On sexism/misogyny:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5015819
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5036784
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024891217#post9
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4231933
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4914751
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024306343#post295

Racism & sexism: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=28218

Racism:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024016149#post90
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024366247#post217

[XemaSab]

281. I'm finding much more interesting reading than that

You draw a fascinating line between GENUINE racism/sexism and shit that women and POC are just whining about.

Sorry, you don't get a blue ribbon for being against rape and the KKK.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5036653

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4924842

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4916135

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4921125

(really, this whole thread)

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5004699

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10024577556#post116

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10024577556#post119

I could do this all night.

[AverageJoe90]

283. Sorry to say, but none of these are really hurting my position, though, TBH.

For one link you provided, it actually does the opposite.

Feminism, however, absolutely *should not* be controversial. It isn't about tearing down men.....it's about building & maintaining equality for BOTH genders. And as for this:

.

What it *doesn't* mean to me?

That I (or other Feminists) hate men (I certainly don't)

That I am responsible for every idea every other woman (or Feminist, or RadFem) ever had or spoke out loud. I support their (and every man's) right to their opinion. I don't have to agree. I don't have to shy away from criticizing them because they're also female. I am not responsible for every fringe idea out there. I will call out women who are spouting MRA or RW talking points that are hurtful. I will disagree with RadFem ideas that I think are hurtful. I will also point out that IMO, neither are mainstream or typical.

I agree with this 100%.

So, really, thanks for digging that up. You've actually helped me on this one, believe it or not.

[XemaSab]

285. What color is the sky on your planet?

n/t

[AverageJoe90]

286. Regardless, you could keep trying all night if you wanted to.

But I'm afraid you probably won't find the evidence you're looking for.

[Armstead]

191. Strange, when I saw your OP title I thoght of.....

Male Gangs and swarms that had nothing to do with gender.

[awoke_in_2003]

216. Weak men...

uncomfortable about strong women.

[smirkymonkey]

227. "It's not a gang, it's a club"

Ok, lame SNL reference. But WTF, we are not a gang when we all agree upon a point. Grow up people. Some of us are just offended by things that are offensive. It's that simple. I really don't see anything wrong with that.

[BainsBane]

229. If we disagree, we hear about how women can't all agree on anything

How could half the human race agree on anything, and why should they be expected to? Either we are swarming or engaging in cat fighting. It's like we can never get it right, no matter what.

[Electric Monk]

282. Gangs and swarms on DU: Exhibit A, it's self-referemtial, and we're posting in it

I was prescient with my posts last night

[BainsBane]

287. Did you know what would transpire in the hosts room?

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 02:32 AM - Edit history (2)

Ahead of time? How is that possible? Did the other member tell you what he planned on doing?

If he had not orchestrated his own personal locking service, none of this would have been discussed. Are you suggesting that I am responsible for what he did after I posted my OP and for what people posted in here about the hosts discussion?

[theHandpuppet]

308. I've been a sideline observer of this thread until now

The topic of gender and language fascinates me and though there has been some interesting (not to mention contentious) back and forth about why a word such as "swarm" is perceived as having negative gender connotations and use, I still wondered about why particular words find their way into the lexicon of gender wars. How might an otherwise innocuous word such as "swarm" evolve to represent the female threat to a fearful, misogynic mind?

I've been doing a bit of research on the topic and would like to pass along a study that was done regarding the nightmares of men and women and how these fears manifest themselves. I think the reason I'm passing this along will be clear without any explanation from me.

http://www.ravishly.com/2014/05/17/nightmares-gender-earthquakes-vs-arguments
Jane Jones on 06/02/2014
Nightmares by Gender: Earthquakes vs. Arguments

Sweet dreams are made of these, but what are nightmares made of? Turns out that depending on your naughty bits—surprise, surprise—men and women differ in what they dream about. According to the most comprehensive study of nightmares to date—has anybody watched The Cell recently? That sh*t is terrifying dream fodder—researchers have discovered that while some demons creep in the shadows of all our minds (like fear of failure, fear of assault and being chased), gender creates fascinating patterns in what torments our psyches. The study collected close to 10,000 reports from 572 men and women over several weeks, with conclusions that men are more likely to have nightmares about physical harm via natural disasters and chases/pursuits (including specifically being chased by swarms of insects). Sounds awful. In contrast, women more often reported feeling emotional peril through interpersonal conflicts—what did that b*tch just say?!—in addition to feelings of inadequacy, frustration or humiliation. Ugh, that sounds awful too. In addition, women’s dreams more often included a helping character, while men more often faced their harrowing journeys alone. Slate’s Katy Waldman points out—cleverly—the possibility of reporting bias in the study (i.e. men might be eager to report epic action scenes and be more reluctant to admit nightmares about touchy-feely stuff). Another possible issue: Of the 9,796 reports, only 253 qualified as nightmares by the study’s definition (apparently nightmares were defined only as dreams so intense and disturbing they woke your ass up) and that represents a relatively small sample size from which to draw conclusions. Hey! We’ve got an idea: let’s encourage women to handle the wasp infestation in the yard, and encourage men to break the news to ornery extended relatives that their nuclear family will be opting out of the Johnson Clan Jamboree this year. Scary stuff.


So... just how many of our subconscious fears work their way into our language without any waking recognition of how they got there and why? The image of misogynists being beset by a swarm of women is something that does crop up in internet discussions such as this one:

"I'm talking laws that benefit women more, how men are instantly seen as guilty when sued by a woman ( see man hitting woman in self defence getting flamed endlessly, this is rather common), but also stuff that benefits men more (I'm unaware of anything like that, but in order to avoid feminazis swarming me I will assume there is such a thing )."


Here again, in another blog in which the writer reacts defensively to what he perceives as his mistreatment by minorities for being a "white, straight guy":

If I am against sexism, and I am, how am I supposed to react to someone who regularly insults men as a gender, laughs off misandry as not existing and undermines genuine men’s issues?
If I am against the persecution of LGBT people, and I am, how am I supposed to react to someone who derisively refers to heterosexuals as ‘breeders’ or ‘cis’ in a sneering tone?
If I don’t think people should be judged for being poor, and I am, how am I suppose to react to someone who dismisses me (wrongly) for being affluent middle class?
Yet I find myself, more often than not, letting these things pass. Not because I don’t find them as objectionable as I do in other contexts, but because of the hypocrisy, the vitriol, the denial, the insults, the swarming pack tactics, the lies and misrepresentations are incredibly stressful and hurtful and aggravating.


I know this post is barely touching upon the topic of the OP's subject and there's no way to do it justice without a great deal more research on my part. I'm neither a linguist nor a psychologist but in even such a short time it became apparent to me that certain words do have particular and negative connotations when they are used as gender insults, even if the person employing such language is unaware of why this is so. Further, I failed to find an example of "woman swarm" that could be in any way deemed a positive image.

Lastly, whether or not you might think what I've provided in this post amounts to linguistic woo, the fact that some women here perceive certain words as gender insults cannot be dismissed. It is very real to them, whether or not it is real in your universe. Rather than play the "Gas Light" game on their heads -- and I'm referring to the classic film in which Charles Boyer rather successfully convinces his young wife that she's the one who's crazy -- why not examine the subject with a dispassionate view? Is it because the topic and these words involve women's feelings? Is there anything scarier than women's feelings, that hysterical, irrational lens through which women view the world? (I'm assuming I don't need the sarcasm tag here.)

That's all I've to say for this morning. Time for another cup of coffee.

[BainsBane]

313. Thanks very much for your thoughtful and fascinating post

Discourse and semiotic analysis has been common place in academic circles for decades. People here are naturally unfamiliar with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have relevance. The dream, psychological angel is an interesting one. Note that in my own use of the word swarm, I did so in reference to gunners. I've previously noted that such discussions bring out the worst in me, so I may have subconsciously been using female gendered references myself.