I am asking a question, curious if this too is unwelcome at DU.

[NM_Birder]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by MerryBlooms (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I started a thread asking if DU thought calling someone a "pussy" was sexist. Every poster responding agreed that it indeed was.

My thread was locked,........ but most interestingly ................ I've noticed that nobody calling Cheney a "pussy" has had posts removed.
So, is my conclusion correct ? You cannot ask if calling someone a "pussy" is sexist in the eyes of DU, your thread will be locked. But because there have been numerous posts, all over the place calling Cheney a "pussy", I assume it is both fine and dandy to call people "pussy" without concern it is a sexist remark ? "Pussy" is now a welcome expression to describe a person of undesirable character ? Nice.

I never thought calling people "pussy" would have been acceptable, now understand why nobody gets hidden for calling someone "pussy", it's OK. Not sliding down the slippery slope,....DU is surfing down it.

unless of course, "pussy" is simply an abbreviated expression of a Willow, which dies every winter, and the expression is meant to playfully describe the setting season on Dick Cheney's career. Or is a sexist remark Ok, so long as it's directed at someone we don't like ? again,....nice.

[stone space]

1. I would conclude that such posts will not be hidden unless...

...folks at DU decide to hide them.

I'm inclined to alert on such posts and vote to hide them any time I'm called to Jury Duty for it.

[NYC_SKP]

2. The new DU is broken, administrators please look at the truth about it. Juries suck.

They need to rethink this whole thing.

An excerpt of what Skinner wrote, Tue Mar-08-11:

There are no easy answers. As a human being, I can understand where you are coming from. But as the administrator of an active discussion forum with a wide range of people -- including critics and defenders of the president -- I'm not sure I can promise you much relief, at least not within the confines of Democratic Underground and how we currently run it. Yes, I can keep the forum clear of obvious bigotry -- that's not difficult. And I believe I can provide you with a community in which, when it comes to your civil rights, everyone expresses 100% support for full equality. But people's ideas on how we get to that point will inevitably -- and legitimately -- differ, and when that debate happens all these hurt feelings rise to the surface again and it becomes very difficult to have a conversation.

When that happens, the moderators try very hard to try to keep things on-track and relatively civil. I know that many people believe the moderators are a big part of the problems they perceive on DU, but I do not believe that is the case. First, because it is very difficult for any moderator to take action unilaterally without some other moderator noticing. But more importantly, because moderators are trying to do their job within the confines of the systems, procedures, and instructions that I give them. If it is not working, the responsibility lies squarely with me, not them.

I think this entire situation does illustrate one practical issue that we can agree on: The current approach to rules and enforcement on Democratic Underground is a failure. It worked well enough when we were all united by a common enemy in George W. Bush, but it is not adequate for DU 2011, where we often find ourselves with differing opinions on important and divisive topics. The DU Admins are convinced that we need to try a very different approach if we want this community to thrive for another 10 years and beyond. And we intend to try something new when we move into our new software later this year. I'm not going to go into details because I don't want this discussion to be about software. But I do want you to know that we know there is a problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x173419

IMO, the phrase, "The current approach to rules and enforcement on Democratic Underground is a failure." applies more today than it did when that was written.

[hlthe2b]

3. Your question needs to be asked of admins in ATA... Unfortunately, the SOP for GD is the catch 22

The big thread remained because a jury allowed it to remain and it was not a meta call out of DU, per se so hosts could not lock it. SOP is enforced by hosts who don't have a lot of latitude. So unfortunately, this will be considered a breach of SOP given it is calling out DU policies and DUers and thus, as your previous thread, will be locked.

That does not in any way suggest a majority of hosts or most of DU disagree with you, however.

Head over to ATA.

[Raine1967]

8. Agreed. Thanks for a succinct explanation.

[malthaussen]

4. I imagine this one will be locked, too.

Not because of the use of the word, but because the question falls under the classification of "meta." It is not much tolerated by the DU mods to question how DU operates.

-- Mal

[upaloopa]

5. I think a good rule of thumb is don't

let DUers do your thinking for you. There is way too much group think here.

[Phentex]

6. If you cut your lip while shaving, you can discuss it in GD...

most other discussions, such as the one you are suggesting, will be off topic.

[DawgHouse]

7. Makes no sense at all. JMHO n/t

[MerryBlooms]

9. Locking. Host concensus- does not meet General Discussion SoP

Statement of Purpose

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden. For more information, click here.