If you are justifying use of the "C-word" because someone supports the candidate you support...

[stevenleser]

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

... you might have lost all perspective in your support of that candidate.

I find it additionally interesting that many who are doing this have accused me and other Obama supporters of being cult-like or worshippers in my/our support of the President.

It's probably also not coincidental that many of these same folks have criticized me for going on Fox News but have nothing to say about Greenwald, Sanders, and Warren going on Fox News. They tend to bring up my appearances on that network after several exchanges on a subject when they feel they are not getting the upper hand.
------------------------------
HYPOCRISY
hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity; More
antonyms: sincerity

[LostOne4Ever]

1. +infinity (nt)

[shenmue]

2. Indeed

[beam me up scottie]

3. Yep.

[Scootaloo]

4. Your martyrdom is noted n/t

[stevenleser]

5. I expect many folks who see themselves in what I wrote will have similar pathetic rejoinders. nt

[Scootaloo]

7. I'm sure

I mean when you make broad, vague accusations against an undefined, unspecified group of people who may or may not exist and may or may not be doing something that you may or may not be accurately alluding to, you're at a point where you can do whatever you want in "response" to them.

I was referring to how you went from your parental scolding of this undefined hazy mass of semi-persons who might have maybe did something, to expound upon how beleaguered and put-upon you are.

Poor thing.

[polly7]

11. I know, right?

[stevenleser]

15. Not too broad or unspecified for you to become upset. It's clearly spot on.

You're the poor thing. The OP obviously hit too close to home.

[Scootaloo]

31. Not upset at all. i think it's silly

How you start off with a talking-to about "these people" whoever they are doing whatever they do, and then immediately turn towards talking about yourself and how hard you have it.

Save yourself some typing and just post a rofl smiley or a 'u mad bro" image.

[stevenleser]

88. Yep, so silly you just had to post multiple replies including a somewhat lengthy one.

That's OK. It's pretty clear to everyone who matters that you saw yourself in my OP and got upset.

[Scootaloo]

103. Well, when you moved from "silly" into "jerk" I figured what the hell.

I mean hey, you're here telling LittleBlue that they're lying about what's on their mind. You're harassing Polly7. You are - without a smidge of irony - rallying around your post about how absolutely hypersensitive "hillbots" (your term) are about the use of 'bitch' as pejorative.

You obviously want replies, so hey, why not.

And no, sadly for your assumption, your OP has nothing in common with me. NYC_SKP was riding the edge anyway and teetered off of it with a shitty post. My only problem is that it seems very selective, as I have seen worse get free passes on more than a few occasions.

But hey, keep telling yourself that everyone can see your imagination, Steve. Like that kid from the Twilight zone movie.

[stevenleser]

110. Thanks for kicking my OP and again showing how much it hit close to home for you. nt

[Scootaloo]

111. Sure thing. Let's have some music to go with it! How about some of the late, great Eduard Khil?

[Kalidurga]

124. OMG that is my favorite protest song.

You might like these songs too!!

&list=RDxNtRpJ5n7sY#t=70

I can't understand any of the words of course. But, I love how expressive his voice is.

[cherokeeprogressive]

165. I know you are but what am I?

I so love that about you.

[Purveyor]

52. Whew! I got dizzy reading the first paragraph. Well done. eom

[JI7]

6. i don't even think these people are really pro sanders

it could have been anyone other than sanders. also i don't see much on sanders from them as much as anti hillary or some other anti dem things.

[stevenleser]

8. Maybe. I seem to see a lot of the same names pushing Bernie arguing that NYC_SKP did nothing wrong

Of course, if I post screennames or links, I will be alerted on again. Yes some folks PM'ed me to tell me this OP was alerted on.

[LittleBlue]

9. Or we just like Skip and think he should have a second chance

He had a lot of friends, hence the outpouring. Turns out when one person likes another person in a friendly manner, they can get sad when forcibly separated.

The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[stevenleser]

12. The simpler explanation is mine. It also is the one that fits. nt

[polly7]

16. No, LittleBlue's reply was much better.

Compassion, empathy, appreciation for years of informative posts.

But how did this turn into all about you?

[stevenleser]

18. Of course someone who would send me nasty expletive filled PMs would think that.

Would it be OK to share what you sent so that people could see where you are coming from?

[Agschmid]

22. Please do.

[stevenleser]

32. So is it ok or not to post your nastygrams?

And this subthread became about me because you made it about me. And everyone would understand why if they saw the PM's you sent me.

[polly7]

45. Post them. I'll post your hypocritacl, lying, pig-piling bullshit too.

Go for it. You were so brave on a thread you knew I couldn't reply to - go for it.

[stevenleser]

47. You could post both. I am sure your nastygrams are in your sent folder.

I'm less than eager to be set up for an alert as another poster noted.

[polly7]

49. You started it. You asked about posting them.

Do it!!!!

Scared to?

[KMOD]

62. scared to?

LMAO

Wow!

[polly7]

64. It definitely appears that way! nt.

[KMOD]

76. I'm laughing at you,

not with you.

[polly7]

87. I laugh at you all the time!

[Hekate]

119. How old are you? 10?

Ridiculous

[Bonobo]

56. Steven, you must know on some level it is cowardly to allude to an underserved, nasty PM

and threaten to post it --and then NOT do so.

You have made an accusation.

Either withdraw it like an adult, or post the offending evidence.

This doesn't look good for you with what you are doing.

[polly7]

59. We all know what he's trying for. nt.

[polly7]

67. Where in his post was he advocating violence?

I'll wait.

[Bonobo]

68. Why don't you go post some more empty propaganda filler with all caps? nt

[Agschmid]

74. Meh, I'm over it.

[Scootaloo]

73. Well, the whole premise of this thread is cowardly

He doesn't actually have the guts to stand up and say anything back to these terrible, awful, unnamed and unspecified people. So he starts an OP to whine in what might be their general direction. While at the same time trying to self-promote about his gig on FOX. Which apparently puts him in the same league as elected legislators. or something.

So his harass-and-duck nonsense at Polly is not unexpected.

If we were on a fishing trip, there would be a specific name for this sort of endeavor.

[BeanMusical]

136. So he's on Fux as a regular?

I didn't know that Greenwald, Sanders, and Warren were going there all the time.

[stevenleser]

71. Here is one of the PM's you sent me and my response. Now post the link

Polly Feb 2015
______
Really, you fucking Fox sniveler?
I watched a six y/o die last night, came home to sit for a bit with some coffee, saw yet another of my stalker's call-outs and replied. Got a problem with that? You have no idea of my personal life so go fuck yourself. Creep.

My response:
Yes, really. I was concerned. No snark about it. It's pretty obvious something is going on with you considering how nasty and angry you have been.
___________________________________________________
Now, let's see the link so people can see what prompted this.

[stevenleser]

89. I can't wait for people to see.

[polly7]

91. Me either.

Sickening.

[Agschmid]

97. We will be waiting a while...

At least on this thread.

[stevenleser]

99. Again? Whoever alerted, I appreciate you defending me, but couldn't you have waited until she posted

the link? I was about to win that argument!!

Now I am going to have to find it myself and I don't have time tonight.

[stevenleser]

105. Here is the link for anyone who cares...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6287243

You can see contributions by me and her throughout comments to that OP including the fact that she sent similar nastygrams to about half a dozen people.

and for anyone who might alert, Polly was going to post this herself before she got a hidden post under this OP.

[Prism]

115. I see a lot of bullies in that thread

I'd say I'm disappointed, but glancing at the names involved, I'm not. Been swarming for years. But that thread was pure, unfiltered bullying towards a poster people knew couldn't respond. C'mon, man. You're adults, for the love of pete.

And laughing after Polly mentioned the dead child and her own?

That is . . . unkind.

I think a lot of people need to step back from DU a bit. Some people are losing their humanity in their partisanship.

You included, Steve.

Really not ok.

[Bonobo]

117. Prism, you are a voice that I have learned to always pay attention to.

Even if I don't agree at first, your opinions never fail to get me to reappraise.

I'm very happy that quality people like yourself are still here.

[Bonobo]

116. Wait. what? This is stuff that happened 3-4 months ago and you are still gnawing on it?

Damn, some people need to check themselves out as you suggest in the OP, but you failed to mention you may need a bit of repair work yourself.

[BeanMusical]

134. I totally agree.

[Bonobo]

102. Wow, laughing after she JUST fucking told you about her son dying.

Yer a piece of work, son.

[LittleBlue]

127. That one baits Polly constantly, hoping for a hide

Seems to have been hoisted by his own petard this time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782924

[BeanMusical]

135. That's sick.

[Bonobo]

90. Yep, sounds like you're being smarmy, passive aggressive and insincere to me.

On the other hand, Polly is being authentic and speaking frankly in a PM --the right place for that kind of thing as opposed to passive aggressive callouts in public.

[BeanMusical]

137. It sure sounds like it to me too.

And Polly always seemed to be a nice person.

[Bonobo]

138. Yes, passionate and sometimes hot-headed? Sure. But a wonderful human at the same time.

And she has been bullied in the linked thread and in others as well.

[BeanMusical]

140. Mr. Lesser seems a little creepy.

He sent me a PM saying that this was a lie: "102. Wow, laughing after she JUST fucking told you about her son dying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026782652#post102

I guess that he sent it to me because of my reply to you saying that what he did was sick.

[Bonobo]

141. No PM to me and as for it being a lie?

Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 05:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Well it's right there unless he edited it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782877

[polly7]

30. And ....... definitely, share!!!

I'll find the thread and share it also, so people can see what I was replying to.

Go ahead!

[stevenleser]

33. Oh I would love that. I said absolutely nothing to you to justify those PMs. nt

[Agschmid]

35. It appears you go the go ahead.

Just be prepared for the alert.

[Bonobo]

36. Stop barking and bite already.

If it's so bad, then we'll all agree, right? She already said post it. So go ahead and stop with the passive aggressiveness. It's unbecoming.

[polly7]

54. He's trying his hardest to get me to post them first so he can alert.

LMFAO. Seems to forget he's the one that brought it up. So tricky!!!

[polly7]

40. You were fucking treating me like a piece of shit on a thread you knew

I couldn't reply to you on!!! You were slopping around in a bully pig-pile so happy and proud of all your insulting, lying, ignorant crap!!!

Yes, you deserved waaaaay more than what you got, your 'concern' for me was so fucking pathetic it made me ill.

Post it!! I'll do the same.

[stevenleser]

42. Post the link. You will see. nt

[polly7]

46. I was there. I fucking saw.

Post what you said you were going to, or STFU.

[LittleBlue]

19. Wrong

You make the assumption that the candidate he supports is the motivating factor for the outpouring of grief. Yet there were numerous Hillary fans who said that they disagreed with him being banned.

The reason is quite simple. He was well-liked. Judging by the response, that is a much simpler explanation than your more complicated assumption that people are hiding their motives to mask a hypocritical belief cuz irrational Hillaryhate.

tl;dr- The Hillary fans (and the poll showing 90% of DU didn't want him banned) disprove your theory

[stevenleser]

23. Nope. I notice a general correlation. That does not mean every instance follows. nt

[LittleBlue]

34. How do you explain the poll and the Hillary fans who are sorry to see him gone?

90% of DU according to a poll don't want him banned. Unless you believe that 90% of DU hates Hillary and demonstrated loyalty to Skip for that reason, your argument isn't rational.

Or, ya know, after 68k posts, hosting and modding for 7 years, he made a lot of friends along the way. Is that too complicated?

[stevenleser]

78. You do understand what a general correlation means, right? nt

[LittleBlue]

118. Amusing

I wonder how many times I can mention Hillary fans wanting him to stay (thus disproving your imagined correlation) before you stop pretending you didn't see it

Do it again! Give me another nt reply and continue embarrassing yourself.

[Scootaloo]

44. Stevenleser knows your brain better than you do.

Who are you to question his awthorratay/

[Bonobo]

61. .

[Blue_In_AK]

66. Agreed.

SKP stopped by our home when he was up here for a conference a couple of years ago. He's a nice guy, active with progressive causes, and a good Democrat. His choice of words was unfortunate in this instance and maybe warranted a time-out, but a full-on ban seems excessive to many of us.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

168. I don't have a dog in this fight beside hating epithets and I too am a fan of Lord Occam so I...

I don't have a dog in this fight beside hating epithets and I too am a fan of Lord Occam so I googled cunning stunt:


https://www.google.com/search?q=cunning+stunt&oq=cunning+stunt&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j0l3.5428j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8


Oh, I would feel the same way if the slur was hurled at Ann Coulter. You know why, because it's demeaning to all women including the widow who raised me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. No. But, I'm not afraid of words.

[sheshe2]

13. Kick and Hell yes Recommend.

Boom!

HYPOCRISY
hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity; More
antonyms: sincerity

[Scootaloo]

50. synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk...

You mean stuff like this post?

[BeanMusical]

142. That's a good example.

[Bonobo]

14. Many people excuse all sorts of things for their candidate

I never thought I would see a defense of lots of inexcusable things from certain people that do so only because it is their candidate.

It is a phenomena that is happening on both sides, but MOSTLY on the Hillary side.

This site is replete with examples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6776610

[MattSh]

25. That goes the same for elected Dems too...

We're promised any number of things during the election season, but when they fail to deliver while in office, there's 10,000 excuses as to why it couldn't be done.

[BeanMusical]

143. Very true.

And depressing.

[polly7]

20. LOL. Great thread. nt.

[stevenleser]

21. I do too. I hope everyone reads the entirety of my responses under that OP for context.

That was about someone using the word "Pansy" which I found offensive.

[deurbano]

123. "It just goes to show you just how diversity sensitive those screaming 'Sexism' really are"

"Hillbots are going over the moon to be hypersensitive about any word that could possibly be construed as a slur against women."

"It just goes to show you just how diversity sensitive those screaming "Sexism" really are
Faux outrage screamers all of them"

"It is definitely the height of hypocrisy. For the sake of civility, I bought into not using bitch...
witch etc. Fine. Now Hillbots are totally cool with Pansy?"

For the "sake of civility" you "bought into not using bitch...witch, etc."?
That sounds like it was quite a sacrifice.

[Bobbie Jo]

160. Joined last week.

Busy, busy...

[Agschmid]

171. And gone today.

[Bobbie Jo]

173. Well there ya go... nt

[Agschmid]

26. It appears he was offended by that word, and was expressing that.

Sometime you must read what Google gives you...

[JI7]

37. that thread seems consistent with this OP , he is objecting to defense or use of certain terms

[stevenleser]

93. Really? Because this screen name joined in 2015. Who were you in 2008? nt

[Scootaloo]

38. Here, let me quote another of his posts...

HYPOCRISY
hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity; More
antonyms: sincerity

[LittleBlue]

58. Oh dear

Self-delete in 3 2 1....

[stevenleser]

80. Nope. I am happy for people to read all of my comments there. I am 100% consistent. nt

[daredtowork]

24. hmm

Mens Rights Activists pretty much get away with shimmying right up to the C word without crossing that line. THEY are the ones actually staking out misogynist enclaves on DU.

I didn't see NYC_SKP's remark, so I'm not sure whether he deserved to be banned or not. I would agree the line has to be drawn at the C word.

But EarlG's remark says something about "being clever" about using the C word...that makes the case more ambiguous.

So while you are posting on the hypocrisy of people defending an old member of DU, and a prior mod, because of their "political beliefs"...you might want to take into account some room for suspicion that the action taken could also have been informed by political stance. Skinner is a Hillary supporter. People were annoyed at NYC_SKP for the last 48 hours because of his Roosevelt Island Post. There is a particular theme of "Defense against Hillary Hating" that seems to be nothing more than an imitation of how other candidates were previously defending themselves from attacks by Hillary supporters - which I've always found surreal since Hillary is the strongest candidate, and does not seem to be a good fit as a "victim".

Would EarlG have had the same reaction if a Hillary supporter had made the same remark about another candidate?

Don't race to point political fingers because that finger might be pointed the wrong way.

[stevenleser]

29. Let me get this straight. EarlG banned SKP for use of the 'C' word because Skinner supports Hillary?

[daredtowork]

39. My confusion lies in the C word wasn't actually used. Some "interpretation" was involved. nt

[Egnever]

130. For clarity

The actual exchange is linked there. And no the C word wasn't actually used and NY skip didn't come up with it. he was repeating something someone else said which I can understand some finding offensive but was in my opinion a clever play on words given the circumstances of the situation being discussed in the thread.

Just for the record in spite of the silly premise of this OP I like both Hillary and Bernie I am quite content to let the primary process play out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6778538

[Agschmid]

28. Way too close...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Thu Jun 4, 2015, 10:29 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

If you are justifying use of the "C-word" because someone supports the candidate you support...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026782652

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 4, 2015, 10:46 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Both the Poster and the alerter are venting at this moment. Please all take a breath, stand back for a moment and transcend into calmness before this turns into a verbal food fight.

If this type of original posting continues, there will be nobody left here to post. The original poster would do well to self delete this post; we can disagree like the adults that we are, not pick fights at this moment.

It just does not bold well to flaunt our hostilities with each other, we are not enemies here!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Almost a hide vote because of the whining about DUers but the initial point made is valid and GD's been a free-for-all today.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hey Scootaloo, I won't be voting to hide. Sorry bro. -The Collective
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is not helpful, broadbrush attack on DUers
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Alert will probably fail--provide a comment next time! However, I agree that this post is disruptive, and the OP using this occasion to burnish his media cred is why I stopped myself from posting in this thread at the last second. I also think most people who are upset at this banning are upset because SKP was their friend, not because of partisan politics.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Really sick of the constant call out of other DUers. How does this do anything but cause more hard feelings?

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

[daredtowork]

48. Besides it looks like the general rule on meta was dropped in this case

I was mystified why someone almost made an exception by locking madflorian while allowing a number of metas to slip through already.

What's another one matter? Meh.

It's not like we're treating people differently according to which primary candidate they support, are we...?

[Agschmid]

53. You do understand the difference between a jury and hosts right?

And you also realize that unless people alert on a post as an SOP violation hosts don't usually take action. And we (hosts) aren't treating anyone differently based on who they support (coming from a Sanders supporter). A jury is a jury and I can't speak to that.

[daredtowork]

70. Yes I realize banning isn't conducted by juries

While I'm unsure of the NYC_SKP situation (I didn't see his comment), I have seen a lot of political bias in the cartload of (supposedly illegal) "disruptive meta" going on. So that was my sarcastic comment on threads such as this one.

Recapping my opinion:
1) NYC_SKP - I don't know.
2) The C word - bad.
3) Threads like these - underlying political currents that suck.

[Agschmid]

77. His comment and the comment he was responding to have been posted multiple times.

Check the big thread.

[daredtowork]

83. I'm referring to the whole OP, and all the similar ones. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. If I was on that jury, I would have voted to hide.

It's not speaking about a post, it's speaking about a poster/posters. I take jury service seriously. I wish the alerter had left commentary. It doesn't take that much time. There is also unhelpful rudeness in one of the juror's comments.

Case in point: I considered responding to Steve's post with the definition for myopic because I have seen several reasons why people have a problem with this... on both the yay and the nay side. I realized that would be just as bad as the original post, so I didn't.

[Agschmid]

57. This...

It's not speaking about a post, it's speaking about a poster/posters.

Sounds like an SOP violation not a TOS violation, maybe the post should be locked then?

[ScreamingMeemie]

65. It should and could be either meta + personal. I stopped really alerting on stuff a while ago.

I'll alert on the odd gun/religion/celebrity thread for SOP violations, but I've figured by now, what's the point?

Pretty sure the hosts will get around to it.

[Agschmid]

69. If no one alerts we don't do anything.

It's a system that relies on that alert to happen. I don't think the forum hosts go looking for things to lock, most of us don't really like locking anyways.

[ScreamingMeemie]

75. I know. I've been a host and a mod. I'm sure someone will alert on it.

[Agschmid]

79. And you'd be correct we just got one.

Except I have to abstain now.

[ScreamingMeemie]

81. :)

[Bonobo]

147. Good. Hosts should abstain to avoid conflict of interests. Isn't that right?

I was a host for awhile.

It was the practice then for hosts also to let another host open a thread when it was that hosts OP that was alerted on.

That is important too, don't you think?

I mean, otherwise they could just like go to bed and pretend that they were not available...thus gaming up the process.

I'm glad to hear you are such a good host!

[Agschmid]

172. Awww shucks, thanks.

[Jamaal510]

43. Something screwy is happening.

Back when I first joined 3 years ago, I would've expected more integrity and class from posters on a political site (especially self-proclaimed progressives). I thought everyone here had the same goal in mind. Now I'm thinking there are plenty of posters on here who are more busy wanting to be negative at all costs and engage in name-calling, even if it means spreading misinformation and/or resorting to ad hominem attacks (like you getting attacked just for appearing on FOX). It's unhealthy discourse for the forum. That's one reason why I mostly just lay back and watch what's going on here from the sidelines.

[KMOD]

85. Yup.

The inmates are running the asylum.

[Cha]

60. Double Standards.. they're prolific at it. If it had been Elizabeth Warren that it was directed at

the whole board would want that person banned.. me included.

[still_one]

72. Very astute observation Steve.

[Egnever]

82. Yea that would be bad

but if you think it is wildly hypocritical to instantly ban a long time person over one of colored post but leave another after calling potus a POS used car salesman what then?

[stevenleser]

84. Interestingly enough, the person who said "POS used car salesman" agrees with you. But there is...

... a difference. POS used car salesman, while nasty and over the top and hideworthy, IMHO, is not banworthy as a one time offense.

[Egnever]

92. Neither are ban worthy as a one time offense

IMHO

But then words don't really bother me.

God forbid the people so offended by NY's post ever travel to GB they would surely crumble from the vapors the minute they got off the plane.

[SunSeeker]

107. If he called a black man a n****r, would you think that was ban worthy?

Do you not get that calling a woman a c***t is like calling an African American person a n****r?

No one says objecting to the N word is over-sensitive pearl clutching or silly "vapors," yet you apparently think objecting to the C word is.

[Egnever]

112. Well as I see it

I think it is important to realize what you may find incredibly offensive here is common vernacular elsewhere in the world.

The n word not so much, it is pretty universally accepted to be offensive. The C word is every bit as popular in great Britain as fuck is here.

And actually saying the word as opposed to finding a way around saying it are not the same thing.

Seemingly by your standards I should be offended you said "the n word" even though you didn't actually say the word you refer to.

[SunSeeker]

120. This isn't the UK --we sure wouldn't use their slang for cigarettes.

And no, that is not my "standard." It is CALLING SOMEONE an n word or c word that is offensive, even if all the letters are not spelled out.

Consider if a DUer posted, "Obama is a n****r!"
Even if he posted it just like that, with the asterisks, do you have any doubt that person would and should be banned even though he didn't spell the word out?

[Egnever]

125. He didnt post what you suggest.

What he posted was was a play on words when taken in context with the post he was replying to was not the same as saying Hillary is a C***

Which you are pretending is what he posted.

I linked the whole thing elsewhere in this thread if you could point out where he posted Hillary is a C*** then we could be on the same page.
You aren't really comparing two like statements.

Given it was a discussion of Hillary refusing to take interviews and declaring that her speech would be the interview I think a cunning stunt is an apt description of the event.

It could also be taken as calling Hillary a C word. Which is why it was a play on words of course, and I am sure why NY who clearly does not like Hillary found it amusing and re-posted it.

I don't at all think it is the same as calling Hillary a C word or Obama a N...Maybe if it wasn't connected to a stunt Hillary pulled but it was.

I don't say this as a Hillary supporter or a Bernie supporter I think both have warts but also admire both in their own right and would be comfortable with either of them as our next candidate.

Either way I am tired of talking about it. I didn't see eye to eye with NY on a lot of things so having him gone doesn't really bother me other than in the sense that I find his banning over it to be very odd and demonstrably an uneven application of the rules.

A hide absolutely, though I have seen much worse stand. A banning is such an over reaction to that post that it leads me to believe it is personal and that worries me much more than one offensive post on a board chock full of them.

I leave the last word to you.

Night

[Cha]

132. Hey Aloha, SunSeeker.. you're absolutely right on.. good points you brought up about the *****

and it's really not relevant to mention what they say in the UK.. so many jumping through hoops to justify.

"Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

I say that to myself every day, over an over.

It can be a tongue twister!

Added "tongue twister" just to make sure everyone got it. He even "put it in his journal he was so proud of it". As I found out here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782293

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782326

[Egnever]

133. Jumping through hoops?

Strikes me as jumping through hoops to pretend he called Hillary a C***

As anyone can see he didn't even mention her.

He was tickled by a play on words that could certainly be taken as calling her a C word but also could be taken as her telling reporters that her speech would be the interview as a cunning stunt.

Certainly offensive to some but when you start going on crusades and trying to justify a banning of a long time poster over it you are way off the beaten path.

A hide certainly, banning is ridiculous.

The ones jumping through hoops are people trying to pretend he said something he didn't, or pretending in the world of the internet where we talk to people from across the globe daily, that a word used every bit as often as we use fuck here in other parts of the world is so offensive as to lead to anything other than a hide.

It's nonsense and the same mindset that tries to justify things like blowing up journalists over a cartoon.

[peecoolyour]

108. Should they happen to stumble into a Jimmy Carr set list...

Oh my.

[Egnever]

94. And just for the record

I like all of our candidates I think all of them bring things to the table.

[Cha]

151. But, he was banned at one time.. just not for that. It wasn't a misogynistic slur.. so many are

not seeing the difference. No surprise. They like to skip over pesky details to make their agenda.

[Cleita]

95. Huh?

Really, try to reason out what you just stated and admit the absurdity of it.

[stevenleser]

98. Which part? That Obama supporters get accused of being worshippers?

The criticism I get in some quarters here for going on Fox. The fact that I see several folks who have done both of the above and who are Bernie supporters saying that what SKP did wasn't wrong?

Which part exactly do you find absurd?

[Cleita]

104. I agree that no one should call any woman that word. However, to turn around and blame it on

Obama or Bernie supporters is absurd. Maybe a some small groups think it's all right but I don't believe it's because they support Obama or Bernie. It's maybe they don't like Hillary. But please painting all of us who don't support Hillary in the primaries with such a stained broad brush is absurd. As far as SKP. He actually didn't use the word. He used the word cunning and maybe meant just that. Others, have made the judgement that he probably meant the other word, but I don't think any supporters except maybe those who think Dick Cheney is a swell guy who would think the actual C word is fine.

[arcane1]

96. You're in luck! Nobody is "justifying" anything n/t

[BainsBane]

113. Claiming it's no different from using the word "dick"

amounts to justification in my book.

[Bonobo]

139. Can both be condemned? Or do you want to defend the use of one while decrying the use of the other?

I'm genuinely curious how you would choose to defend the right to use a male sex organ in a pejorative way against a person while saying that the use of a female sex organ in a pejorative way is vastly different...

This could be a great learning experience for me and others. I am all ears.

BTW, I am anticipating a PERSONAL attack in your response, so let it be noted that I offered you none.

[BainsBane]

176. I defend neither

and do my best to use neither, but they do not exist along the same plane, any more than the n word and honky are equivalent. The reason the n word and the c word are so offensive is they are the language of oppression. Note that there are a number of other words for female genitalia that are insults but none carry the level of insult the c word does. Language exists in the context of the society in which it is used.

If you "anticipate a personal attack," don't respond to my posts.

[SunSeeker]

109. Except he did.

He just thought he was being clever. He wasn't.

[Egnever]

114. Technically

He thought the poster he was responding to was clever. As it was almost a word for word repeat of what the person he was responding to said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6778538

Just for the record this is what the poster he was responding to said.

Feel the Bern.

If she's not ready to handle spontaneous exchanges,

she is not fit for the Presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors, IMO. Yes, I am voting for Bernie but just thinking of her even pulling such a cunning stunt is pretty shockingly appalling.

I'm not sayin'--I'm just sayin'...

And his post

Welcome to DU, Feel the Bern! And yes, it's a Cunning Stunt!

Taken in the context of the post he was replying to he wasn't very clever at all.

[SunSeeker]

122. You truncated his post, leaving off his "It's a real tongue twister" line.

Apparently he was afraid some of us would not get that he was referring to "c***t" so he just had to throw that tongue line in there. So clever.

[Egnever]

126. Fair enough

I was just trying to point out the word for word part and that he didn't come up with it.

I was not trying to trick anyone.

[MohRokTah]

153. Leaving out the most important part took the entire exchange out of context.

This can only serve to confuse and distract from the real reason the poster was banned.

[BainsBane]

121. Regardless of the candidate or individual in question

When people trivialize or justify bad behavior all because they favor one individual, I know they stand for nothing.
Politicians are public servants, nothing more. They are not better than the rest of us. I do not understand forming one's political consciousness in relation to support for or opposition to a politician. I look at the issues, consider their qualifications, strengths, weaknesses, and what they can expect to accomplish.

I believe the following:
Misogyny and racism are wrong, regardless of whom one supports for president.
War is wrong and should be used only as a last resort, regardless of whom one supports for president.
Gun violence is a plague on society, regardless of whom one supports as president.
Big money has far too much influence in politics, regardless of who one supports for president.
And bigoted insults are wrong, even when I like the person who made them, as I did in the case of NYCSkp.

None of those are negotiable. Those are core values. My values are not subsumed to or dependent on any politician. Presidential election cycles come and go, but who we are endures.

[JonLP24]

131. That would be a new one if that is the case

Don't know if it is or not, just logged in since reading the FYI on NYC Skip but just the OP and first dozen replies. I've seen Democrats slam Bush over and over on things & Republican ideas over and over but when a personality did they'd twist themselves into a pretzel and don't have any convictions that can easily be changed with "look over here". I wondered if the personality said dump the Democrats join behind this Republican guy (like Teddy Roosevelt with the Progressive Party) what would they do? I don't mean specific personalities but personality cults in general though I notice many just seem to like to people based on progressive positions on policy, they also tend to be the Democrats that the moderate wing has grudges on, bashes and I mean held to some ridiculously high standard that they aren't anti-racist or anything they propose or say is questioned as it can't pass as if every word the other politician says passes or their motives are questioned, ethics, mental health or something. I do understand there is a Sanders cult or percentage of the supporters that will trust & support everything where I'll say something if I feel if is wrong or incorrect on something (in most cases it shouldn't be a big deal and don't think he'd treat it as such. He is campaigning in an unusual ethical, honorable, and refreshing manner (says they're serious about the problems instead of playing an act in the show) where he is about the only person not to run an anti-whoever campaign, he handles Hillary bait questions in logical & reasonable answers but at-most, respectful.

However what you describe would be a new one as someone's convictions are easily swayed by what another supporter does but I must say it does change when it comes to friends & personal relationships. If you know someone that may have an impact in how the react to the issue. Personally, I understand perfectly if someone uses the word they're gone -- easily. I've seen it happen & with less or depending (too sexual, definitely). I seen one poster banned over a comment to another DUers and with many people that liked the poster defending him though IMO he crossed the line (though I wasn't a fan before the day but never one to associate such a comment with). I don't know who he supported or would support but he had his defenders.

Don't know this has too much to do with Bernie Sanders, though I haven't read the threads but am skeptic of your judgment of them but let's look at the other end. What about Clinton or others who didn't like Skip's opinions (really surprised as he seems nicer than me) because of policies or candidates he pushed are they a little too gleeful or "good riddance" wanted to see it happen no matter the reason? FTR I don't justify or condone the use and likely should have expected the result but whether the administrators want to work with or "review their account" for posters who cross lines daily but not the C-word. I rarely hear the word even in real life.

[JustAnotherGen]

144. I don't justify it

It is just unfortunate.

I promise - the rest of this time on MIRT - if someone reaches out to me re a shadow intruder - to make certain I raise the flag.

NYC_Skip was responding to someone who was zapped immediately.

If a member sees something and it survives jury - raise the alarm. Don't react. Don't post in anger. Raise the alarm and walk away.

[octoberlib]

145. Cunning Stunt is the

title of a Metallica documentary . It's a well known spoonerism for stunning c*nt. seeing as how NYC capitalized the phrase, I think he knew exactly what he was doing. It's vile and inexcusable. Should he have been banned for it or just given a time out? That's another discussion. I'm a Bernie supporter , btw .

[Bonobo]

148. "He said it again! He said it again!"

[deutsey]

167. More like this scene

[magical thyme]

146. on the topic of hypocrisy...

the phrase in question has been used at DU before, specifically in regards to a candidate that nobody here supported. Nobody was banned for it. The posts weren't even hidden.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cunning+stunt%22+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A6%2F4%2F2000%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F1%2F2015&tbm=

Just sayin'

[Cha]

150. No, what are you saying? you link to a google page.. Which candidate is being called that?

If you think there's "hypocrisy" going on then talk to Skinner in ATA.. I'm sure he'll be glad to address your "just sayin'".

[magical thyme]

152. a GOP candidate

The phrase has been used multiple times at DU, twice in reference to Palin and other times not in reference to any candidate.

Nobody was banned for it. The posts weren't hidden. Nobody even complained within the threads.

I do find this OP offensive, in its attempt to claim that "some" Bernie supporters are supporting SKP simply because he's a Bernie supporter, and suggesting that people who support Bernie and support SKP are hypocrites as a result.

[Cha]

155. There are some actual Bernie Supporters who aren't excusing his slur. It's refreshing..

There are others too..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782293

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6782326

As I said.. since you found other posts using that obvious slur.. you should take it to ATA and ask Skinner .. why the hypocrisy?

Who knows why that was missed against palin.. I certainly don't condone it.

[magical thyme]

156. I'm aware of that. I don't consider it refreshing or non-refreshing.

It does, however, narrow the OP's targeted slur to those who support Bernie *and* support SKP.

My post is addressed to the OP; not to you, not to Skinner. It is about the OP calling certain DUers hypocrites.

The OP brought up the topic of hypocrisy. I am responding to that. Had the OPer not called some DUers hypocrites, I would not have brought the subject up at all because it's not worth it.

[Cha]

157. It's very refreshing to have people who actually care that a misogynistic slur is being used against

another candidate no matter if they don't support that person.

This is a discussion board.. too bad you don't like others responding to your post even if it weren't addressed to them.

[magical thyme]

159. some people saw it as intended as a the lighthearted joke in response to a troll

I'm aware this is a discussion board.

But I don't like feeling stalked, and occasionally I feel that way about you and a couple other posters.

Have a nice day. I think I'm done with you here.

[Cha]

161. Yeah, I know you're done with me. I don't remember engaging you prior to this.. so no you're not

being "stalked".. not a very nice try at playing the victim card.

[cali]

149. Lots of false claims in your op. I've only seen two people justifying it, So your op is mystifying.

I support Sanders. I sure as hell haven't justified it. I also could care less if you go on Fox or anyplace else.

[ieoeja]

174. And at least one of them is a gungeoneer and MRA.

They are the most rabid packs that run on DU. I doubt support for Bernie has the slightest thing to do with his support of NYC_SKP.

[treestar]

154. +1

The Fox News accusation has always been bull shit.

[Orsino]

158. Post probably rubs me the wrong way be ause it's all about the OPer.

If I understood the context, perhaps it wouldn't seem petty.

Going on Fox is a gamble, and personally I won't condemn anyone without knowing that it was bollixed up.

[99Forever]

162. For the nth time...

... NYC_SKP did NOT "use the c-word." But then, FACTS don't seem to matter to you.

HYPOCRISY they name is Hillary Clinton supporter.

[ieoeja]

177. Ah, yes, the Rightwing gungeoneer brilliant debating tactic: pretend to be stupid.

I have no idea why you think pretending to be too stupid to understand that NYC_SKP was alluding to Hillary as a c*nt simply because he did not write out the exact word is a good debate tactic. Everyone reading your post is going to know you're obfuscating. So what is the point?

Worse yet, everyone may NOT think you are doing so. They may instead actually believe you are NOT capable of understanding what NYC_SKP was doing! Have you ever considered that possibility?

[NCTraveler]

163. Common sense as always. nt.

[Bobbie Jo]

164. The responses in this thread

The viciousness continues unabated.

Just look at it...

[truebrit71]

166. Actually the opposite is true. ..

Which I find highly ironic.... but nice try at smearing all Bernie Sanders supporters as misogynistic assholes because of the actions of one (banned) poster.

You're a class act as always....

[Dawgs]

169. Not surprised that you would make this about you. n/t

[Rex]

170. .

[joeybee12]

175. Absolutely...knr

Glad you said it, although it apparently isn't registering with most.