This message was self-deleted by its author

[WillyT]

This message was self-deleted by its author (WillyT) on Wed Feb 3, 2016, 12:25 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[840high]

1. I like you but

I love your Mom.

[WillyT]

2. Me Too...

[bigwillq]

3. Bye, Felicia.

[merrily]

326. Classy! And not at all trollish! Good for you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. You've been mean

I accept your apology.

[Chitown Kev]

5. lol

Frankly, I don't give a fuck about your intentions...you could have googled "Stockholm Syndrome" in the same way you could have googled Queen Latifah's of Sister Souljah's names.

You didn't cause grief all that much, actually...if it were personal, I probably wouldn't have minded all that much but you slandered two entire groups of people...

And I apologize if I caused grief

That's not an apology.

[zappaman]

6. Bullshit.

[WillyT]

9. And Your Over-Riding Reason For Voting For Hillary Is ???

[zappaman]

273. I haven't decided who I'm voting for.

Why do you assume everyone who calls you out on a rancid, doubling down of a reprehensible post is voting for Clinton?

[bravenak]

27. Mmmm hmmm

[Rose Siding]

7. Wait- did you just say we all have Stockholm?

Is that what you meant to say?

[WillyT]

10. Oh C'Mon Rose... We Now Think That FDR Proposals Are "Fringe"...

We have become used to shortening our horizons.

We are already betting that we cannot take back the Senate... let alone the House.

We are about to step up our war efforts in the Middle-East, spending further Trillions, all the time telling ourselves that we have to cut food stamps.

I could go on, but...

[Rose Siding]

13. Yes, do just have a cocktail

I'm not feeling the drama. If you think Hillary Clinton would cut food stamps, I don't know what to tell ya.

[dflprincess]

14. She supported Bill's "welfare reform"

Given her track record there's no reason to think she wouldn't support further destruction of what passes for a safety net in the U.S. if she thought it was politically expedient.

[Chitown Kev]

17. uhm, blacks are affected by more than welfare reform

to solely bring that issue up with regard to black people is deeply racist.

But who gives a fuck about what a black LGBT says ot thinks about the post, right?

[dflprincess]

18. Huh?

I was responding to a poster who said "If you think Hillary Clinton would cut food stamps, I don't know what to tell ya."
by pointing out Hillary supported Bill's "reform" and yes, I do think she would cut food stamps if she thought it would help her politically.

You'll have to explain to me how that is racist and where I said anything about Black people.

[Chitown Kev]

19. The entire premise that black people (as a group)

have to justify their votes (or anything else) to anyone (especially if they are white) is deeply racist.

The entire premise of this ENTIRE discussion is racist, homophobic, sexist, the whole nine yards.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

24. If you're concerned with the OP, maybe you should be responding to the OP.

[Chitown Kev]

25. actually, you NEED to not tell me what the fuck to do.

[Cha]

32. Jury results from the Alert that was sent on your post.

actually, you NEED to not tell me what the fuck to do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7368190

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

DisgustipatedinCA was quite civil with his suggestion, then Kev went jerk with this comment. If the reply to this post should be hidden, so should this.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 21, 2015, 04:53 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Quitcher whining alerter.. I agree with ChiTown. DCA does not need to be telling him WTF to do.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This one crossed the line just by a hair, and at some point, one has to measure what the line is. Since the response was completely not in the spirit of the comment it was responding to, and jumped to an angry and disruptive tone, I'd have to say the post is disruptive, insensitive, over-the-top or otherwise inappropriate.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't tell me what to do is not a personal attack.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Obnoxious hateful poster got a richly deserved hide. End of story.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think by inserting the word "fuck" that it makes it hide worthy. If the post had written.. don't tell me what to do, then it would meet with the approval of the alerter, I guess. They added the curse word for emphasis. I see no problem with it.

[Number23]

169. Juror #5!!!

[Cha]

248. Exactly.

[Number23]

259. Were you the creator of that magnificent little gem, my sweet Cha??

[Cha]

261. No, but I liked it a lot because it rang so true.

I was #1

[cheapdate]

407. That seemed to come from nowhere.

Is everyone participating in this discussion racist, homophobic, and misogynistic? Or just some?

[lumberjack_jeff]

186. I'm glad your op wasn't hidden. It gives me hope that we still tolerate dissent.

And yes, I think Stockholm Syndrome is a great analogy. A significant proportion of democrats refuse to support a progressive candidate because we're afraid that wall street won't approve.

[delrem]

8. You got push-back from supporters of investment bankers and

war profiteers, for that post, WillyT.

You were unfairly accused of racism and worse, for touching on that idea.
Quite some vitriol.

There are some things that captors don't want captives to dwell upon.

Thanks for this post, which shows that you thought about it quite a bit because it caused me to rethink and start clarifying the idea.

The idea 'Stockholm Syndrome' is much wider and more general than the particular case that came to name it.

[KittyWampus]

12. quite a few Sanders supporters distanced themselves from that offensive post

and the OP's non-apology shows WillyT still doesn't get it and apparently you don't either.

[delrem]

15. You haven't explain the offense.

You've just reiterated the charge, that WillyT is offensively racist, anti-LGBT, anathema maranatha.

Repetition doesn't make it true. In fact, lacking further explanation, interaction, discussion, it just boils down to slander.

[lovemydog]

23. No. You're confusing someone saying something is racist

with saying someone is a racist.

[delrem]

30. No. You offer nothing but slander.

You make no argument at all.

[lovemydog]

31. I'm making a distinction.

Not an argument or a slander.

[delrem]

34. A distinction without a difference.

Like the "love the sinner but hate the sin" bullshit distinction thrown out by some religious nuts, who're really engaged in broadbrush slander and using their ridiculous distinction to paint themselves as of pure motive, as being a better person than the ones they're attacking.

I call bullshit.

[lovemydog]

38. No difference to you. n/t

[rhett o rick]

56. Some have no concept of a "politically liberal" message board. Some want to censor everything

that doesn't meet their ideology. I think they try to shout down or censor, not only what they don't agree with, or can't refute, but also that which they don't understand. This is very common in conservatives. We need to stick to the Senator Sanders and/or Populist Reform Groups.

[zappaman]

89. Hey Rick, as a host, why are you in this thread that is under discussion by the hosts?

[Orrex]

97. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Juror #1 checking in:[hr]Mail Message
On Sat Nov 21, 2015, 12:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hey Rick, as a host, why are you in this thread that is under discussion by the hosts?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7369087

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I don't think we should be attacking volunteer hosts when they post. Take it to admins.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 21, 2015, 12:50 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is one of the easiest and most obvious "leave it" votes I've ever cast. Honestly I can't even imagine how someone could think it hide-worthy.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dosen't look like an attack to me, looks like a question!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[zappaman]

105. Uh oh.

Looks like someone is upset.
I wonder who?

[yardwork]

90. As a DU host, do you ever vote to lock any threads?

I know that you declined to lock some highly disruptive Meta threads in GD recently, but other Meta-type threads were quickly locked. Did you vote to lock them?

[rhett o rick]

91. "I know that you declined to lock some highly disruptive Meta threads in GD recently"

Really, how do you know that? Rhetorical, I am not surprised that you know my host voting history.

[yardwork]

94. Hosts I trust posted that you and another host refused to lock.

When you get a dozen alerts on an OP that is the definition of "disruptive meta," and all but two hosts vote to hide, you can't be surprised that word gets out.

I assume you have nothing to hide, correct? Host votes aren't secret.

My question is - have you voted to hide other threads? If so, why? You say you are opposed to censorship.

[pintobean]

95. He rarely actually votes

He just tries to lecture the other hosts on his definition of consensus. Basically, some hosts think they should have veto power, regardless of how many hosts vote to lock.

[rhett o rick]

103. Hey pintobean. I miss you in the hosts forum. What happened may I ask?

And I am flattered that you take such interest in how I vote.

[bettyellen]

221. Are they still trying to pretend that consensus has to be unanimous? I recall that was the BS when

I hosted and there were a couple of people who would only ever show up if it looked like a majority wanted to lock something, they would prevent it from being locked. Otherwise, they would never be around. Usually the post they defended was something of a sexist or racist nature. It was totally bizarre.

[pintobean]

224. Yup.

It's just jaw dropping to see the process, and the crap like that that some get away with.

[bettyellen]

228. that is ridiculous. You might as well not have hosts then. Plus they would suddenly change their

story and want to let opinions they did not like be locked. It's amazing how 3-4 people hold all the other hosts hostage like that. I would have hoped that with a bigger group they would have put an end to it.

[cyberswede]

267. Actually, no.

I hope no hosts are claiming that & giving you incorrect information.

[pintobean]

309. Actually, yes.

I base that on my own observations.

[yardwork]

311. I'm glad you're here to explain.

Why didn't the hosts lock an obvious "disruptive meta" thread in GD? I alerted on it for SOP, and I saw a post saying that the hosts received at least a dozen alerts on it. Why wasn't it locked?

[cyberswede]

322. Consensus wasn't reached on that OP

The vote was 9-6.

I can't speak for others, but here's my reason for voting to leave it:

Star Member cyberswede (23,139 posts)
9. Leave...

What happens on other websites isn't our concern. We don't lock threads about FR or CC.

(I know people will disagree with my vote, but I'm only posting this to be transparent. I'm not going to discuss my vote here; the matter is resolved in the Hosts group. I hope you understand).

[yardwork]

323. Did you vote to lock Nance Gregg's follow up thread?

To me, it looks like some hosts will never lock OPs made by their friends, but they quickly lock threads they disagree with.

I'm on the waiting list to become a host, so I guess I'll see for myself soon.

[seaglass]

327. Keep asking those questions yardwork, I'm glad you're going to be a host. I hope we are not talking

about the OS thread because that was clearly a case of disruptive meta.

DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION

Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

[yardwork]

339. Thank you, and yes, my question is why wasn't OS's thread locked.

[Rex]

347. Why is this thread still open?

Good thing I don't own this site, there would not be a single meta thread in GD. Ever.

[yardwork]

360. I've given up sending SOP alerts. Waste of time.

[Rex]

367. At least you've tried over the years yardwork.

I know you and I feel about the same on meta. Some don't seem to give a shit at all. Thanks for trying, I wish more would follow your lead.

This is why I completely gave up on hosting.

[yardwork]

371. Thank you for those kind words. I respect you, Rex.

[Rex]

374. You are a good host yardwork.

I've known since this place opened up for business, you guys have DUs best intentions at heart. Even if I agree or vehemently disagree with some of the older member, I still know they love this place and hate the backstage bickering and fighting. It's so much more fun when we harp on the lame GOP together or share pics of LOL cats in funny outfits.

Plus I don't care what the appearance might be, I KNOW the majority of DUers are going to vote for the primary candidate. The ones making the most noise about not doing so are having a sadz that nobody will join them. Kinda what my sigline is about.

[cyberswede]

328. I didn't see Nance's follow up thread

...and if it was alerted, I missed that. (If you want to PM me a link, I'll go see if there's a Hosts thread on it - maybe I did vote on it, but forgot. lol)

Hosts can't really quickly lock without reaching consensus. Some OPs are obvious, with consensus reached right away (and quickly locked), and some are subjective, with differences of opinion on whether they meet the SoP, so they are left due to lack of consensus.

Thanks for signing up to host! I hope it goes well for you; I'm done in a week.

[cyberswede]

266. Actually, no hosts are saying consensus has to be unanimous.

The two most controversial OPs had votes of 9-6 and 8-8.

[bettyellen]

387. back when I hosted it was a thing that only a couple of hosts insisted on- but they were also the

ones who would drop in to vote no lock when there was consensus already happening to lock. Same 2-3 people would pop up all the time, and yes it was personal. Admittedly on the part of at least one host. Who alerted was a more popular topic with those hosts than the OP the alert was on. That was common.

[cyberswede]

405. I haven't really seen that this term

Just depends on who's hosting, I guess. Oh well, I'm done in a week.

[rhett o rick]

98. I don't understand why you have to ask the question. You seem to know all about my

voting habits in the Hosts Forum. Somehow I am not surprised to be targeted. I am curious, is there an actual list as some are saying?

[yardwork]

100. I've seen no lists, no PMs, no screenshots. Posts in this forum.

Posts for anybody to see. Transparency. You're all in favor of transparency, correct?

[rhett o rick]

109. As far as transparency, I am all in favor. But I wouldn't discuss host decisions out side

the host forum. I think it's inappropriate, but I guess that's the difference between our ideologies.

[zappaman]

110. Sure Rick, sure.

[BainsBane]

151. What happened to your commitment to the liberal values prohibiting censorship?

You seem to think yourself exempt from that.

[rhett o rick]

152. You replied to the wrong post. nm

[BainsBane]

155. No, I didn't

You insisted enforcing the SOP of the forums by locking disruptive meta threads calling out entire groups of people amounted to censorship. Yet when you were reminded of your own behavior as a host, you insisted the information was private and should not be disclosed. Apparently liberalism requires announcing that African Americans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome and thereby lack the intellectual capacity to think rationally, but it does not allow for any criticism of you, who apparently should not be subject to criticism because you're a "host."

I wouldn't discuss host decisions out side

the host forum. I think it's inappropriate, but I guess that's the difference between our ideologies.

Indeed it is a noticable difference, and that difference is not because you are more "liberal."

[rhett o rick]

157. I am sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. nm

[BainsBane]

158. Read it again

I included the text of your own post. Your "ideology" revolves protecting your own speech and behavior from scrutiny, while speech denigrating entire races of people must be protected. You don't begin to hold yourself to the standards you claim to uphold.

Explain why locking a post calling out African Americans as suffering from Stockholm Syndrome violates "liberalism," whereas liberalism requires that your own speech not be made public, be hidden, like a shadow government official operating behind the scenes? Why should the way you wield power be kept from the people, and how is that insistence on secrecy in keeping with liberalism?

[Cha]

303. Damn Crickets. mr innocent.. no idea what you're talking about. Sooner or later it gets exposed.

It's not a secret anymore.

[yardwork]

315. Excellent questions.

[sheshe2]

424. You crack me up~

[rhett o rick]

426. I side with the 50 million Americans living in poverty. I want a president that doesn't owe

allegiance to the billionaires. I guess you are more comfortable siding with the Big Money. I hate to tell you but they don't really love you. They don't really care about your social justice issues. They want more and more profits at the expense of the 99%.

But you've made your choice in this class war. Progressive want social justice and conservatives don't. Why you choose the Conservative Wing of our Party is beyond me.

[kath]

461. This.

says it all.

[zappaman]

106. Because anyone who has ever hosted knows how you host, Rick.

You really think people wouldn't notice?

[X_Digger]

116. Jury Results:

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Seriously? We are attacking people who volunteer to help out around here? This poster can keep their nose clean for 90 days and mybe pitch in to help. Nah. Too much to ask. Just attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:59 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is just the answer to a question that was asked
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hosts' names are publicly listed in About this Forum and what happens in the Host Forum can be discussed publicly by hosts or any other DUer. This alert is frivolous and the post doesn't meet the criteria for hiding it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As a former host, I have to say.. truth sting a bit, eh?

[zappaman]

121. Wow.

Thanks for posting!

[Cha]

293. thank for telling it like it is.

Boom!

[pintobean]

138. That's hilarious.

[Sheepshank]

275. Oh snap...no alert stalking going on, no sireeee

at least one alerter will have to wait a while for another shot.

[Rex]

115. Was is all this you are babbling about?

Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2015, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

So now you are a target too huh?

[rhett o rick]

156. The poster told me that other hosts were discussing that I was voting

contrary to what they liked. Where do these discussions take place and to what end?

Also, I was addressing one poster and bingo-bango three more of you show up.

[bettyellen]

222. I seem to recall you posted more about who alerted or who was alerted on- rather than the content

of the post in question. That was discussed openly in the hosts forum and also in GD. You had a list of people whose alerts you said should be ignored- remember?

[rhett o rick]

227. Good to see you again. No your memory has it mixed up just a bit. You guys do the lists,

I've never had a list and I doubt that any progressive keeps a list. It's the conservative side of the party that keeps lists and alerts, locks, hides, censors and bans. Progressives are more than willing to argue on issues. Seems it's the conservatives that want to lock and hide. But I understand that they have no issues to champion. Or if they do it turns out that their stands parallel the Republicons. Like fracking, the TPP, Arctic drilling, etc.

If you want to discuss issues, you are more than welcome. If you want to talk about lists or secret handshakes, I am not interested.

[bettyellen]

230. Bullshit- you absolutely had a list, and advised other hosts to ignore us all if we alerted.

apparently racism and sexism weren't big enough issues for anyone to "champion" on your watch.
Not shocked other people have caught on to that and discuss it. You were pretty brazen about it- naming names as you did.

[rhett o rick]

234. Oh wow. We've sunk to "bullshit"? Your memory needs some help. But since you've decided

to get nasty, good bye.

[TexasTowelie]

256. Let me guess.

You can't alert for the next 24 hours?

[rhett o rick]

258. First let's point out that I originally started this discussion with yardwork. And then the bat

signal must have gone out and now you are number 5. Can you spell swarm?? No wait, tag team.

I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Is this something the "group" is discussing? I haven't even alerted for over a day.

[TexasTowelie]

264. Rhett,

You are well acquainted with the rules of being a forum host. Individual hosts are permitted to discuss any topic in PMs and we are also permitted to discuss any topic with members outside the host forum. There is no expectation of privacy as a forum host. We have even exchanged PMs between ourselves from time to time.

While discussing votes outside the forum is unprofessional, there also is not a loyalty oath that members take when they volunteer to be a forum host that they will not discuss decisions made within the group after they retire or even while they are serving.

I will be the first to admit that I'm not perfect myself and that I've made mistakes during my service as a host, but you are accusing other hosts of being more conservative or not being open to transparency which is an attack in itself because they disagree with you when making decisions.

I could elaborate on your comment, "Some want to censor everything that doesn't meet their ideology" and provide an example of a completely different stance that you exercised in the hosts forum recently. You even double-downed and complained about a host decision in a safe haven group which was disrespectful and irritated many other hosts.

Stated simply, you don't get to play coy and innocent in open forums because you are far from it. You are criticizing other hosts in an open forum and in this instance you are the person that started it. Quite frankly, you owe the rest of the hosts an apology for making such an unprofessional comment like you did in post #56.

[zappaman]

272. Oops.

[rhett o rick]

276. There is no truth in what you've posted. You've exagerated everything for some strange

reason. I think it very weird. Link to a criticism of another host in an open forum. I have never done that and it's pure projection. Why are you stalking me? You had nothing to do with this discussion.

[TexasTowelie]

286. So you are getting paranoid that I am stalking you?

If you feel that you are being stalked by anyone on DU then you should report it to the administrators and/or resign as a forum host. You have obviously served too long if you are so defensive.

No, I came to this thread because there is an alert in the forum hosts folder and I was reviewing the entire thread. I also have the prerogative to join in this discussion because you are referring to other members as not meeting your liberal "purity test" whether they serve as hosts or as jurors on other threads and decide to either lock or hide threads.

As far as you being critical of the other hosts, I will remind you of this thread which a lot of the other hosts viewed as a complaint about the decision made within the group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128071313

Now that I have clarified the situation do you understand that I'm not projecting anything, but stating a fact?

[BainsBane]

331. I think those of us who have witnessed

the double standard that you demonstrate as a poster in the public forums have no problem believing Texas Towelie. As for your assertion that he is part of some nefarious "group," the only group I'm aware that he belongs to is the hosts group. We also see which meta threads are locked and which are allowed to continue in full disruptive mode. There is a clear and obvious pattern.

[pintobean]

334. Texas Towelie is what every host should strive to be

hard working and honest. For rick to try to slander him is laughable.

[Bobbie Jo]

335. Agreed.

I've stayed away from this thread up to this point, but I want to second your thoughts here.

Absolutely right on all counts...

[mcar]

345. I third those thoughts

[Rex]

353. Have to agree with that.

One of the best hosts here.

[Spazito]

357. Well said...

I completely agree.

[randys1]

382. +1000000000000000000000

[Cha]

394. Thank you!

[rhett o rick]

341. You will have to find someone else to gang up on. I am putting you on ignore. nm

[BainsBane]

342. LOL

Okay, Rhett. That's one way to avoid difficult questions.

[yardwork]

310. I didn't mention this to anybody else.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm discussing this in PMs or offsite. I'm not. I am reading and responding to posts here on DU.

You are welcome to quiz the others responding to your posts here - people you refer to as a "swarm." Ask them if I've exchanged PMs or know them offsite. Go ahead.

[pintobean]

312. I didn't send or receive any "bat signals"

That host's antics are obviously very well known.

[yardwork]

314. Evidently. I was interested to see how many people have noticed the same issues.

The people responding to Rick represent a wide cross-section of DUers.

[SidDithers]

321. Very well known...

Hosting is a hot fucking mess. It should be done away with altogether.

Sid

[yardwork]

324. It seems that might be best. Why have any moderating if it is going to be so biased?

I'm seeing rank hypocrisy in the rationalization given for leaving some OPs open while locking others.

This thread, for instance, should have been locked from the get-go, but I'm glad it wasn't. It's been very illuminating.

[SidDithers]

337. Juries could easily handle the function of Hosts, and would be a million times more impartial...

Give juries a clear cut set of principles to judge against - the SOP is pretty clear - and a let the jury decide whether the thread should be locked. The locking threshold wouldn't even need to be 4-3. It could be 5-2 if Admins wanted to make sure more, rather than fewer, threads were left

Might take some coding, but I'm sure Elad is up to the task

Sid

[yardwork]

340. Sounds like a good idea.

[one_voice]

354. I don't know Sid there are some...

pretty crappy hides down thread. Multiple hides. I know there's a difference between locking & hiding--different standards and such, but some have said they'd never vote to hide I bet they'd do the same for locking. Then you have those that can't set their preferences aside & friendships...

Since one of the other hosts posted their vote on this thread I'll do the same: I deleted some discussion (I won't get into what is was) but this was my final vote.

one_voice (15,761 posts)
9.

I'm a lock

[JTFrog]

268. .

[Cha]

295. ..

Snap.

[Rex]

299. Snap!

I think paranoia did something to rick...

[zappaman]

232. No, her memory is fine, Rick.

Nice try though.
Bonus points for trying to change the subject.

[bettyellen]

236. They had already admitted it, and others have seen it- not going along with this bullshit now.

[zappaman]

242. I find it ironically authoritarian myself.

Don't you?

[bettyellen]

262. yep, both those things, to the max. Plus fucking funny.

[BainsBane]

332. Absolutely

[WillyT]

415. + 1,000,000,000 - What You Said !!!

EXACTLY !!!

[rhett o rick]

419. Thanks WillyT. They just don't understand. I was having a discussion with one of them and bingo-

bango 4 more showed up to jump in. They must put a call out for help. Never discussions on issued but boy do they love their ad hominem attacks.

[WillyT]

420. They Swarm... It's What They Do...

[Cha]

435. Yeah, people who disagree with your OP and the actions of that host are going to get on your

thread.

Just like Bernie fans do when they disagree.

Don't pretend you don't know why.

[zappaman]

422. Oh Rick...

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=

[yardwork]

313. Again, I am not involved in any discussions other than right here.

I am not discussing this with anybody other than right here, out in the open.

Maybe people are asking these questions because they want to know the answer, like me.

I'm annoyed that SOP alerts on obvious "disruptive meta" threads are ignored by hosts, apparently based on your personal biases about whose alerts and threads are worthy and whose are not. Again, I've learned that info right here, in this thread.

If there is another explanation for why you didn't lock the OS thread, but lock lots of other benign threads, I'm waiting to hear it.

[rhett o rick]

427. I will tell you but I doubt that you will understand. I rarely voted to lock any threads.

I will vote to lock threads that attack people like the thread that showed a huge picture of Sen Sanders that wasn't very nice. The OP was about his "bug eyes". That OP was voted to be left, by the way. I voted to lock a thread that called Hillary "Hitlery". But I vote mostly to leave posts that are people's opinions. Those threads can be refuted by posters in the thread. And if it offends you, you can ignore it. But I bet that's where we differ. Progressives and liberals believe in open discussion. It's the Conservatives among us that do all the alerting, locking, hiding, ridiculing, those posts that they don't like. Banning people that have different opinions and grave dancing when a progressive gets banned. Not very Democratic behavior.

I started this conversation with you and bingo-bango 4 or 5 of your friends showed up to gang up on me. I find this sadly typical. Not one of these people would engage in a discussion of issues. Their goal is clearly to badger me in the hopes that I will lash back and get a hide or a ban. How very, very sad.

[zappaman]

433. No, Rick.

You have stated many times you don't lock threads because "this is a democratic board and anything should be discussed" even when the threads violate the SOP of this board that you, and everyone else, signed up for.

Add to that, the only times you do vote to lock "just happen" to be those DUers you don't like, which include the ones you yourself stated, such as myself, that you will ignore alerts from.

Your hypocrisy showed itself a long time ago and just because many former, as well as current hosts have noticed your behavior, does not mean you're being "ganged up" on.

That's what's very, very sad, Rick.

[bettyellen]

470. You nailed it.

[bettyellen]

126. You had a list- or "group" you referred to in the hosts forum, if I recall.....

of people who's alerts weren't worthy. I remember it clearly.

[George II]

146. Well, I know some "hosts" do have lists.

[zappaman]

150. I remember that!

Weren't you and I part of that group?

[bettyellen]

195. Yep, they literally listed out DUers who should be ignored and are pissed others put them on a list?

Hilarious. I forget who else was on it besides us, Nikki and Number23? There was another guy's name. I forget!

[JustAnotherGen]

200. Seriously?

[bettyellen]

219. Yep, me Peace Nikki, Number23 and Zappaman were among those that this poster advised others

to ignore our alerts. I usually alerted on racist and sexist stuff and think that was mostly the case with the others. The host thought this was proof of some sort of conspiracy- instead of standards. Yep.

[zappaman]

233. That's how I remember it.

And I have a very good memory.

[JustAnotherGen]

239. Holy shit!

If you can't do it fair and square don't do it at all!

[bettyellen]

241. Completely hypocritical- whining about lists and personalities over issues. LOL.

Not fooled one bit.

[George II]

270. And here is a PM from the recently and dearly departed Terminix man, L0oniX....

....and I quote:

"We won't take action on your alerts."

[bettyellen]

384. Another "boss of the hosts" who cowed them all into locking nothing all the time.

[George II]

404. Just an example of "hosts" who have lists and who either bully other hosts or collaborate....

....to circumvent the proper function of hosts.

Why would a single person acting as a host dictate how those hosts should vote, especially on a "Democratic" website?

[lovemydog]

434. Some of the best posters here.

That's really sad.

[bettyellen]

471. Thank you- I agree they are good people. Most of the alerts I saw were on racist and sexist crap....

and it didn't seem to matter when there were tons of alerts offending many people. If the wrong people alerted then he would urge others to ignore them. He mad it personal, instead of realizing some people actually want to go by the standards in the TOS. That host did not agree with the standards they agreed to uphold. It really is that simple.

[lovemydog]

475. Thanks for bringing it to light.

This is eye-opening. My eyes are bugging out like Beetlejuice.

[bettyellen]

481. the sad thing was, since they argued for a unanimous decision, it only took one showing up

vigorously disagreeing with all the other hosts, to prevent a lock at that time. Skinner had posted that it should not be an easy thoughtless decision to vote for a lock, but you should consider the effort that went into posting it when thinking of locking. Somewhere in that posts were the words "lock nothing" Even though he said he didn't mean that,(in the same post) but to err on the side of keeping a post up, a few people would quote him as lock nothing. There was more discussion on what Skinner meant and what consensus meant, than there was about standards. It was obvious a few people wanted no standards that smelled of being "PC". There was a real libertarian "anti censorship" bend to the whole thing.
But, when people were voting to lock stuff of people they didn't like, the very same people would never ever appear to complain about "censorship" or the lock. It was, for a few of the hosts, all about their friends and who they perceived as enemies. Incredibly petty stuff.

[lovemydog]

483. Libertarian for their friends but

'go ahead and lock the thread' toward people they don't like. Some who talk loudest about being left wing act like petty dictators when they get some authority.

That may explain in part why (in my opinion) it feels hostile toward people of color. I'm interested in your thoughts.

[bettyellen]

485. Many who put financial issues (Wall ST and "The Oligarchy") first subscribe to the "Third Way"

conspiracy theory, that "Neo Libs" use social justice (aka "wedge" issues) issues only to manipulate us voters, and that it is all phony. (Much as we say Republicans do not want to end abortion and do stoke racism to keep their base happy).

They believe the only thing these politicians want is to serve Wall Street and make money for themselves, and that they are basically exactly the same- from a economic point of view- as the Republicans, sell outs to corporate America. It kind of blows my mind that they see no differences, but generally they do not. These people are usually middle class, white, and more often men- whose first priority is their own pocketbook, but they do not control the Dem party, as they would like to. You do the math.

This leads them to have distain for people who are interested in social justice- aka "SJWs" because they think they are being "used" by... pretty much ALL the politicians except for Bernie and Elizabeth, they have "Stockholm Syndrome" and identify with the wealthy oligarchs or some such nonsense.

Sanders thinks voters are too much about wedge issues on both sides, and I agree with him to a certain extent. And Bernie has said "he doesn't do wedge issues" and Warren was a Republican during the Reagan revolution and AIDs crises, which makes it easier to understand why some of us worry we are not a priority. Sanders doesn't get a lot about what has been going on- he has been pressured to get up to speed just recently. One has to wonder if that is because he has always courted cross over voters- those that are turned off by SJ issues. He has admitted as much when it comes to abortion- talking of "setting it aside".

The thing is women and POC make up the majority of Dems, so the "wedge" issues are really central to being a Dem, but that is frustrating to those people who already have their social justice (not us) and want Sanders. They are trying not to come off as insensitive... but strategically, they feel like we are in the way of progress for them, specifically financial gains against corporations. It;s hard for them not to be condescending- and often they are not well versed in social issues and the progress made too.

It's funny that their whole argument is we are manipulated by people who care only about money, but their whole rabid interest is about money too. Manny here have argued we just have to wait till after their great "revolution" reaps us benefits, and then after we will gain the social benefits. Because every one earning more is somehow going to make the world fairer. That part makes me laugh. LOL.

[lovemydog]

488. Thanks.

[bettyellen]

493. TLDR: So yes, it can feel hostile....

because they can't respect anyone with different priorities, not because they hate us. I'm not sure they even understand how disinterested in the issues we face they appear to be. It's a blind spot.

[lovemydog]

495. Yes, got it.

I appreciate your perspective.

[bettyellen]

498. no problem. tks for listening!

[sheshe2]

263. Oh please.

Tell me more.

[uppityperson]

283. When was that? I never saw anything about such a list when I was hosting.

[BainsBane]

333. I remember its being discussed around the time

that Quinnox pulled his final act in the hosts group.

[bettyellen]

383. Gosh, I would have to look back... but I was hosting either Good Reads or Video and I saw it myself

in the GD host firm... I remember there being some really shitty sexist and racist OPs getting left up, and I was curious as to exactly how it was happening, and saw that one suggest our alerts be ignored. And much of it had to do with 2-3 hosts who basically contended that one objection to a lock was enough to destroy "consensus".
When I saw the list of people, I knew that objections to racism or sexism was the only thing I had in common with the others listed by that host. Not hard to figure out what is going on with the whole thing. Pretty ugly. I think I did post copies of it back then, and it was discussed in depth.

[rhett o rick]

428. I am curious. Do you ever post about issues? nm

[tishaLA]

446. perhaps it'dbe better for you to respond to the chargers against you

and they are pretty serious IMO. try not deflecting

[Hekate]

447. +1 This sub thread has been QUITE educational! Kind of like lifting a rock...

....to see what's underneath, if you know what I mean.

[rhett o rick]

452. Do you guys call this tactic "tag team"? You are number 5 or 6 to jump into this nonsense.

But I've been pushed around a lot in my life and won't be part of your game.

If I don't respond further it's because I've put you on ignore.

Here is an article you might be interested in: http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710250

[pintobean]

456. You're not the victim here, rick.

And, I don't think it's a good idea for a main forums host to be putting people on ignore. Between that, your Bernie banner, and your list, you're undermining the confidence that DUers should be able to have in the hosting system. This community deserves better.

[zappaman]

457. +1000

It's ridiculous.

[rhett o rick]

460. That's a hoot coming from you.

I am putting a lot of people on ignore. Those people that are here, not to discuss issues, but to try to disparage those of us here that want a government that answers to the People and not to Goldman-Sachs.

[zappaman]

466. Hypocrisy.

: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

Own it, Rick.

[sheshe2]

484. Actually she is now.

Sad you missed that.

[rhett o rick]

486. Is this more of the tag team tactic? I ask one of you a question and 5 more show up.

Well I am flattered but should waste my time with those here that are afraid to discuss issues.

[ucrdem]

491. That's the beauty of letting meta primary threads fester in GD. Hint:

[rhett o rick]

487. This is what Killer Mike said about the upcoming election.

"I have no time... to relive the Reagan Years.

I have no desire to see us elect our own Margaret Thatcher.

I am here as a propenent for a political revolution that says health care is a right of every citizen.

I am here because working class and poor people deserve a chance at economic freedom."

He nailed it.

[BainsBane]

149. By definition

No thread from a Sanders supporter can be defined as Meta, which applies exclusively to those who refuse to vote as told.

[JustAnotherGen]

358. This explains a lot

Truth be told at last.

[ucrdem]

362. The Prosperity Gospel according to Marx:

"Anything that appeals to me is progressive, populist, and anti-authoritarian; anything that doesn't flatter my prejudices is conservative, authoritarian, and third way." Makes life awfully simple.

[ucrdem]

359. Bingo.

Anyone who would vote to leave this meta trifecta open deserves what they get and they're getting the truth.

[delrem]

436. True Democratic and progressive ideas belong on the main board.

They'll get a lot of flack.

Some will try to exterminate them. Like, they'll actually contend against a single payer health care system. They'll actually contend against $15/hr in favor of $12/hr.
Just because.

Hey, they own the Democratic Party.

[lovemydog]

28. That theory starts with a flawed, illiberal premise.

One that denies groups of people the individual agency to think rationally. In my opinion.

[etherealtruth]

36. + infinity n/t

[Starry Messenger]

78. Exactly.

[BainsBane]

153. And assumes that the only view or experience

that could possibly matter is the one proclaiming the others victims of Stockholm Syndrome. It's premised on lack of respect for one's fellow citizens and the notion that their views are absolute truth.

[MisterP]

194. ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is an offensive and hateful post toward a number of DUers who are African American. To claim they are supporters of investment bankers is ignorant and it vilifies Democrats, which this supporter is not, since he is Canadian.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 21, 2015, 01:22 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: That whole thread is disruptive but it's to be expected from the board drama hound.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: oh God when I said that Clinton would go all "Canadian Bacon" with no countries left to invade I was kidding, but the Maple-Baiting's starting already
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[delrem]

432. I expect to be alerted on, now.

But I've learned certain lessons after posting a lot to DU and having posts hidden, having to go through time-outs where I took the time to re-think how I express myself.

My rules are:
1. be honest.
2. be unafraid to say the truth.
3. be diplomatic, but defend free speech, the free discussion of ideas, and push back against censorship however it is being pushed.

WillyT's point was entirely about politics. It wasn't "anti-LGBT" or "anti-" any identifiable group.

WillyT's post implicitly as well as explicitly criticizes HRC's so-called "evolution" from the HRC evidenced in her 2004 speeches (when she was 57 yrs old, so set in her moral compass), which proudly proclaim a faith-based Methodist absolutist moral judgment w.r.t. (in the words I grew up learning go together in perfect synchronicity) "the sanctity of marriage", to being a "progressive" who supports "marriage equality" in 2013.

Remember, HRC was 57 years old in 2004. When a person is considering retirement plans and whose moral compass is set by a long life. Then from 2009-13 she was Secretary of State, planning the future of the middle east with the "Friends of Libya" and "Friends of Syria", and doing other important things having nothing much to do with LGBT rights. When did HRC have time to undergo such a profound "evolution" with respect to her foundation principles of morality and ethics?

While claiming a leadership role regarding "progressive social values", HRC's campaign disparages a focus on "economic justice" and attacks "socialists" who want ponies, like single payer, a $15/hr minimum wage for federal workers, reasonable access to the kind of generic pharmaceuticals, at the bulk prices of a universal pharmaceutical plan coupled with single payer health logistics - as exists in other countries. However, HRC's only "reality based" argument against these public goods is that it'll raise taxes.

HRC and her husband took in $140 million, approximately, in speeches.
That is to be beholden, to be "compromised", in a way that's never before been seen in the history of western democracies.

I think WillyT's mention of the idea "Stockholm syndrome" is perfectly fine.

[Android3.14]

11. Totally on the mark

If it were nonsense, the thread would have sunk. The push-back is a clue you are onto something. I'll bet that one prompts a few minds to reconsider their support of HRC.

[Chitown Kev]

16. I actually said on that thread

that I don't support HRC...and I still don't, so what is there for me to reconsider?

The post assumes that blacks and LGBT's support Clinton (by and large) because of it. I'm black and LGBT and I don't support Clinton...or Sanders, for that matter...

[Scootaloo]

33. You sure? 'Cause anoter poster was saying that you were "owned" by clinton, on both counts

Said poster did so to praise Clinton, of course, so i guess it doesn't fall on your radar. Sort of like the Clinton supporters shouting that gay people "have enough rights already" or snarling and spitting about traffic getting stalled by Ferguson protestors. Or announcing that President Obama is an "exotic who talks of barbershops." Or asserting that he's maybe qualified to be a bellhop. Or linking to white supremacist websites to make their points.

Why is it that so many seem to eager to give free passes to the WASP candidate and her - mostly - white supporters? Evidently no stoop is low enough from her or her fanclub, she's always this godlike savioress, a flawless, beatific wonder descending from heaven...

But on the other hand, everything about Sanders is a negative. He's a skulking, usurious, tight-fisted, sneaky... oh... OOOOOOH. I get it

So basically if our primary season were held at comicon, Clinton supporters would see it as

^V^S

[artislife]

83. ^^ this nt

[Orrex]

99. Which candidate do you think each of those pictures represents?

And please tell us why.

[bravenak]

123. I can see me and you probably should not speak anymore.

[BainsBane]

160. "Clinton supporters shouting that gay people have enough rights already."

That's quite a statement. Can we see links of that? And any of the other charges you made, about traffic in Ferguson, Obama as a bellhop, etc? A number of former Obama supporters now favor Clinton, and those who have been most critical of him (to put it mildly), support Sanders. I'm not seeing what you assert. I think you should provide some evidence.

I'm guessing you didn't the Twitter links provided in the other thread since you're pointing fingers the wrong way.

[Scootaloo]

176. Sure, since the poster is in this thread...

Follow this subthread

The person who was complaining about Ferguson protesters blocking traffic isn't in this thread, so I'm not going ot call-out.

The bellhop thing is from Bill clinton, his quip to Ted Kennedy back on the 2008 campaign trail. About how a few years ago Obama "would be carrying our bags." It was enough to keep kenndy from endorsing Hillary clinton, apparently.

The reference to Obama as an "exotic who speaks of barbershops" is from Froma Harrop who i'll grant, might be the stupidest person to gain a degree in journalism. She was real popular around here not too long ago because she penned some real nasty bullshit about Sanders.

Same as with the the Ferguson guy, the person who posted links to stormfront is not on this thread. You might find htem by searching "this message hidden stormfront" on a Du search. There was also a person on HCS who was citing numbers from stormfront - maybe the same person, as the arguments were similar.

And yes, I know that a few former Obama supporters now support Clinton. I've seen links from back in the day where these people denounced her as "too stupid to be president" and "totally devoid of ethics or values" and all sorts of other stuff. Man, i can only imagine if a sanders supporter said such things about her!

[BainsBane]

188. I'm not aware of that linked poster

being a Clinton supporter. Perhaps they are, but I haven't seen any such proclamation. Casting that as Clinton supporters in the plural, however, is not accurate. It's one poster. The majority of LGBT Americans actually support Clinton.

Bill Clinton was an ass in 08. I do worry that he'll repeat some of his crap. It made me wonder if he really wanted his wife to be president. I myself did not support Clinton in 08.

As for Stormfront, I recall some discussion that there was a group of supporters for a certain candidate there. How else would one provide evidence for the point? I believe the post was hidden, as have also been a number of posts pointing to a certain candidate's voting record.

Fan club? Beatification? Seriously? Do you see how Bernie is treated around here? That's not even credible in comparison.

You are cherry picking statements to make a claim that some view is predominant, when it clearly isn't. Clinton supporters are not the ones who insisted AAs were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome for failing to support the candidate they were told to. It wasn't Clinton supporters who targeted, and continue to target, Black Lives Matter, whose harassment of black activists was so noticeable it generated a series of articles in the press.

There are certain posters who, as long as I've been on DU, have posted about equal rights, racism, feminism, LGBT rights, etc.... Many of them are Clinton supporters, several are undecided but are friendly with Clinton supporters. There are also posters who are known to take contrary views on those positions. Of the ones who have always stood out to me, all but one are Sanders supporters.

There are people committed to social justice who support Sanders, Clinton, and O'Malley. There are also plenty of people less evolved in their approach to diversity, and no shortage of jerks supporting any number of candidates. To claim that Clinton supporters in general are bigots, which is the implication of your post, is clearly false. The overwhelming number of women, people of color, and LGBT Americans support her as opposed to other candidates. Some who initially supported Sanders have switched allegiances in direct response to the BLM controversy. A few examples do not make a pattern.

[Scootaloo]

191. Pffft!

You are cherry picking statements to make a claim that some view is predominant

Clinton supporters are not the ones who insisted AAs were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome for failing to support the candidate they were told to

And hte whole while? You're handwaving and excusing what I'm talking about... just like I said.

[Bluenorthwest]

320. Linked poster is 'for Hillary' but also very 'anti Bernie' another of the 'anti Bernie' and anti gay

DUers got PPR'd this week, Kelliekat44. Finally. After the Nov 2014 election she blamed LGBT:
"The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803#post45

November 16, 2015 after Paris she got PPR'd :
"Posted an OP claiming that the terrorist attacks in Paris were an effort to distract the public from the crimes of Jewish bankers. Posted link to disgusting antisemitic website to support this theory."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=292436&sub=trans

Constant swipes at Bernie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027274894
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251621184#post6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251681040#post7
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251797439#post9
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021887318#post4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026704750#post27
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10027037636#post14
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251695633


So. Let's keep pretending that the aggressive attacks on Bernie are all 100% free of antisemitism! Even in the face of the facts, let's keep pretending.

It's stunning to me how many on DU assisted Kelliekat44 in lecturing on bigotry and tolerance even after her own biases were well established for all to see. Took a year for DU to get rid of her and her own cohort never took any action at all.
So pat yourself on the back and pretend it's all good, clean fun.

[Chitown Kev]

168. Uh, I commented on that post that you refer to

and I have posted my own OP's in GDP criticizing Clinton...what the heck are you talking about?

[Scootaloo]

178. You're right, Chitown. I had forgotten that you did comment on there.

I haven't seen too much of you taking the stick to Clinton supporters, but I suppose as with Bainsbane's inability to see Clinton supporters acting up, it may be confirmation bias on my part. My apologies.

The rest of my post O maintain as valid, though. There's some nasty shit and deep double standards going on around here, and I'm now pretty damn certain that at least for one side, it has nothing to do with conflict of policy.

[Chitown Kev]

204. It's very simple

1) This isn't the primary place I post at; I mostly post at DK, so I am usually late on various drama here.

2) Clinton supporters tend to act as if they are trying to win my vtoe. Sanders supporters tend to act as if they are entitled to my vote.

The difference is not lost on me...I'm still undecided, though...

[Scootaloo]

214. Seems to me they think they already have your vote. Thus that portion of my post

In fact they're so confident that you are "owned" by Clinton that they let their nasty sacks hang out like you shouldn't care. And for the most part, they're getting a pass.

As for Sanders supporters, there's genuine puzzlement over how someone can say "I like sanders and agree with him on just about everything, but I'm going to support the worse option." "God, why?!" might not be the most polite phrasing I suppose, but it's not taking anyone for granted, either.

[Chitown Kev]

237. I don't care what "they" think

Personally, I think that it is sad that Clinton might be the best that the Dems can do and they don't have a real "bench" of candidates that has Clinton's star power to run with.

The 2008 Democratic field was far far better than the field we have now.

So they have my vote in the general, yes, of course. But I am very very disappointed that the Dems seems to have been unwilling to create a bench here (Jennifer Granholm, Kirsten Gillibrand, Deval Patrick, Martin O'Malley)...Patrick, O'Malley, and Booker may be able to run in the future but...really, Hillary Clinton...that's really the essence of my complaint right now...

[Scootaloo]

271. I think it's sad, but not surprising

The stretch of time between 1980 and 1996, the Democratic party was constantly on the ropes. Three presidential campaigns down the drain, one barely won, with the 1992 winning candidate having to resort to "Southern strategy"-style dog whistles... and then losing congress two years alter in a massive sweep. It didn't last, but it was damaging. Starting in the mid-80's, some Democrats started going "if you can't beat them, join them." They started taking up the flags of "small government" and "welfare reform" and "tough foreign policy," basically starting the republican-lite, semicrat movement. This was reinforced in 1988 and 1994.

And as ever with conservative policy, these ideas found great support from moneyed interests. Flush with cash and influence, this movement began sweeping the party and there started a move to only support candidates who toed the line - a movement that with the concentration of money and muscle on its side, made maintaining any remnant of the FDR-to-Carter era liberalism next to impossible. The clintons - both - were absolutely a part of this endeavor. Their position was cemented by Bill's two terms running on this platform. They're not the only ones, nor are they the points of origin, but they're currently the most influential peddlers of the ideology.

Since the late 80's, our party has been doing this thing where it treats liberals as captive while only considering the desires of conservatives. This is managed by following the republican party eternally rightward, but lagging a few steps so they can still say "we're better than the Republicans!" Sure. only just though. sometimes they don't even bother, especially in off-years. Alison Grimes ran as a moderate republican against a right-of-(their)-center Republican. Unsurprisingly, she lost. And as unsurprisingly, the left was blamed for her loss. How dare we not march out and vote for a Republican running on the Democratic ticket?! Didn't we know she was (just barely) better than her republican-for-Republicans opponent. THE NERVE! Joe Lieberman lost a primary, ran as an independent against democratic (and more liberal) victor Ned Lamont... guess who got the party's support? it wasn't Lamont.

This is one of a few core reasons I'm for Sanders. I think we're at a crossroads for the soul of the democratic party. A sort of "last chance" to start reeling it back towards the left, away from its current trajectory of tagging along with the republicans. A Clinton nomination will be a death knell for liberalism in the democratic party - and it doesn't matter if she wins or loses. If she wins, the party decides it doesn't need the left or liberals. If she loses, it's decided we're the ones who are to blame, and hte party structures lurch away from us anyway. Unfortunately we're almost as fragile with a sanders nomination - he has to win. If he loses, again the party decides liberalism is a failed movement and continues its snuggling with conservativism.

This is why a lot of sanders supporters are angry. it's not that we're bad people, or that we hate people, or what-have-you. It's because we've seen two generations of our party playing copycat with people who very literally want to watch the world burn., and then turning around to treat us like we owe the party for its hostility towards us. And yes, sometimes that anger does get pointed in the wrong direction, as anger often does. For that, I apologize, as much as I can for other people.

We've got a tightrope walk ahead of us. And the people claiming to be on our team are focused only on cutting the wire from under us.

[Chitown Kev]

274. If we don't get what we want...then the world is doomed

and Hillary and her minions take over the universe...that's how that sounds.

Remember, Sanders only recently even became a Democrat...if this is the way you feel then maybe you need to relook at strategy and rather than going for the gold (the presidency) do it from the ground up.

[Scootaloo]

277. It is how it is

It's not about Clinton. she's just a part of a whole, really. But she is the part of that whole that is running for president.

I agree, we can't be "just Sanders." You can call it putting the cart before the horse, and maybe you're right. But it's the situation we have, and frankly the party has worked to cock-block any effort towards lower offices (again, they'd rather have a conservative independent than a liberal democrat, in at least one case.)

[Enthusiast]

281. That is it, exactly.

That is why it is so distressing.

[Chitown Kev]

285. But I would think

that this would be what Bill De Blasio would be getting groomed for...well, since Paul Wellstone's death, in any case.

These things take time I you want to get them right. Having temper tantrums (even if justified) is not a good look.

[MannyGoldstein]

330. Deval Patrick?

My former governor?



Third Wayer, incompetent, now works for Bain.

[malokvale77]

223. Good analogy.

Although I'm not surprised by most of the Hillary supporters on this board, there are a handful that have really shocked me.

[Android3.14]

41. The conclusion is obvious

p = A member of a group has Stockholm Syndrome
q = The person shows support for candidates with a history of harming the group
~ = not

If p then q,
~q
Therefore ~p

You don't have Stockholm Syndrome and no one is saying you do. WillyT may be making observations about larger populations, but this doesn't mean he is calling everyone in that group as expressing Stockholm Syndrome.

[lovemydog]

21. I've never understood that line of thought.

By that line of thought, someone can post the most outrageous homophobic, racist post here. And if a lot of people respond to object, then hey the original post is totally on the mark.

[Android3.14]

44. Nope.

Your assertion just doesn't make sense. If you think that was "the most outrageous homophobic, racist post here" then you haven't been paying attention. The fact that it has survived the jury process tells you that enough people see it as within the TOS that your characterization is an opinion that a majority of the general population of DU tends to dismiss.

What his post did accomplish, however, is to stir up that minority group to such an extent that their outraged objections, lacking a coherent argument to refute the OP, seem to substantiate WillyT's conclusion.

I'm not saying he's right. I'm observing that his argument, so far, has withstood the the emotional rebuttal of those who disagree.

It has been interesting to watch.

[lovemydog]

48. Please re-read.

I said 'By that line of thought...' I did not make the assertion you claim.

[Android3.14]

50. Done. And?

[lovemydog]

51. I said 'By that line of thought...'

I did not make the assertion you claim.

[Android3.14]

52. In the immortal words of Texas Governor Rick Perry

"Oops".

I read those words to mean you agreed with the people upset with WillyT.

[lovemydog]

53. LOL!

Have a good day A314.

[Divernan]

282. And the jury says, (6 to 1), to leave it!

"What his post did accomplish, however, is to stir up that minority group to such an extent that their outraged objections, lacking a coherent argument to refute the OP, seem to substantiate WillyT's conclusion."

This is just as appalling as the original Stockholm post. These comments are incredibly bigoted.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:12 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I guess my vote is racist, too?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Clearly a bogus alert by a stalker hoping to get the poster his/her 5th hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Disagree. No hide here.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a great reply, well tempered, with thought, and appropriate. Perhaps the alert was meant for a different post.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "That minority group" - as the OP says, it includes "white males, the poor, and the Democratic Party".

[Android3.14]

307. Thanks Divernan

And thank you to the other jurists.

[kwassa]

20. Bernie is unelectable.

To think otherwise is fine, but unrealistic, in my opinion.

He is too far left to pull a majority of the voters. The Socialist tag is a kiss of death.

Many black people know and like the Clintons, even going so far as to call Bill the first black president. The Clintons have evolved with the times, as politics permit, on gay issues, as has Obama.

The idea at the core of your Stockholm Syndrome analysis is that Hillary has so abused liberals that they identify with her out of that terror. This is patently absurd. I think we see her quite clearly, but a bit differently than you.

I am not crazy about Hillary, but she can win the election and is tough enough to deal with the Republicans. That is as good as it gets. The candidate that I really want to vote for doesn't exist.

[Ed Suspicious]

29. Ok. Your wrong. He is electable.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

170. He is electable

[kwassa]

171. Nope.

I am aware this comes down to a matter of opinion.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

173. He is electable

voters will make that decision

[kwassa]

175. We will see at primary time.

I expect the current polls to hold.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

199. We will see

that polls will change

[malokvale77]

225. Nope...

it's Hillary who is unelectable. She will bring out the GOP in droves.

They may not be motivated much by their own candidates, but Hillary will make them fall in love with the worst of them.

[lovemydog]

22. You offended a lot of people.

I accept your apology. I can't speak for others.

I think you should read other groups here. Find out what people are thinking and feeling. Listen to them. They are very smart very thoughtful people.

Just my two cents.

[72DejaVu]

35. So, it's not just blacks that suffer from Stockholm Syndrome

it's anyone who disagrees with you.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. Catherina was not a very nice person though. She openly bashed liberals and the President on Twitter

https://twitter.com/pmsxa/status/462356204287950848


https://twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/471661414772654081


https://twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/476726362313859072


https://twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/481151844220403713


https://twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/468900201802264576


And yes, that was 100% her, as she herself publicized her Twitter feed on DU: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Catherina/718

There's no need to honor someone who doesn't respect us or the people we support.

[KittyWampus]

63. Odd how many DU'ers profess admiration and friendship f/someone who uses language

like 'f*cktard liberal'.

Sort of like how many DU'ers LOVED NYCSkip even though he trolled this forum with gun threads/posts several times after various tragedies involving dead children. The only thing that mattered is he apparently supported Bernie Sanders.

Present people w/evidence and they either just gloss right over it or hide the post.

[Sheepshank]

70. I honestly can't remember ever reading Catherine's musings until her fwcr

Fwcr she posted twice in one afternoon and then responded in that post often. Not much of a farewell imho. She was rude, nasty, insulted wide swaths of people. Frankly I was glad she never previously registered on my radar, because judging by her pathetic fwcr ramblings and insults, my life would have been poorer for the injection of such pitiful hate.

I hear that this farewell is likely short lived, she does this with some frequency, and is welcomed back and lavished with praise every time she returns. so I've heard.

[yardwork]

80. She changes her name, too. She used to be Eloriel.

Old time DUers will remember the drama.

[Cha]

88. I remember eloriel.. we both supported Dean. But, then I lost track of her. AFAIK she went from

Dean to Putin.

[yardwork]

93. I used to post with Catherina and I thought she was nice.

People can be anything in the Internet, and even when they are honest, we only see a tiny part of who they are, for good and bad.

[lovemydog]

437. Damn. That's like going from First Unitarian

to the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Cha]

440. I know, right. Praising putin and calling Pres Obama all kinds of names and calling his supporters

Nazis.

Something's not right there.

[Cali_Democrat]

451. "Dean to Putin"

quite the dramatic shift!

[Generic Other]

108. I remember her as one of DUs hardest working researchers

Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:22 AM - Edit history (1)

She dug up the links for people to follow to learn about issues. It is wrong to drive such members away from our site. It actually makes us a little less significant.

On edit: If she actually posted the kind of things some of you are accusing her of posting on Twitter, she should leave DU. Did she really have multiple accounts here?

[grasswire]

135. ^^^^

One of our hardest workers. Gone. A loss to DU.

[OilemFirchen]

147. She wasn't driven away.

She left of her own accord. She can return anytime she wants. She was not "targeted", she was not harassed and she had no hides.

Why on earth would anyone give a shit about such egomaniacal attention-seeking?

[geek tragedy]

190. Since you appreciate research, here's what we found on her new twitter account, where she's

pretending to be black so she can call black people voting for Clinton "fucking house ni@@ers and their Plantation mistresses."

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=catherina21215%20mistresses&src=typd

Money quote

Fuck those house ni**ers and their Plantation Mistresses.

Note: that word is spelled out at the Twitter post.



Previous Twitter account (Russian)

https://twitter.com/Catherina_News

And, yes, I have a screenshot.

[JustAnotherGen]

196. Why yes it is spelled out

Between you and Tommy C I'm not sure who's love more for what has been getting kicked around since this morning. . .

*sniff*. Looks like something everyone knows is out there.

[Digital Puppy]

287. Of course, no response to this...

...she's such the victim!!

Bless her little heart.

[Generic Other]

288. Well I apparently don't know much

And I have been on DU since 2001. All I remember is Eloriel was one of those posters who posted a ton of stuff about Bush and Co. I had no idea she had any other identities on DU. I still don't know this. I have no idea what Catherina has or hasn't said either. Or Tinoire. In fact I have no idea why I even posted in this thread.

[Cha]

249. WOW.. now that's what I call RESEARCH. Damn serious issues there

I haven't thanked you yet.. thanks geek.

[JTFrog]

278. Holy fucking shit.

I hope if she does return that she gets kicked off instantly. That is beyond vile.

[bravenak]

279. SMH

[brush]

425. I've heard before that she isn't Black.

Someone advised me during the back-and-forths I had with her about Sanders' ill-advised partnering with Cornell West.

She claimed to be black but didn't seem aware of the extreme dislike of West in the AA community, or maybe she was aware and agreed with West's nasty Obama bashings.

The Sanders campaign seems to have gotten the message though as West has not been doing any further surrogate work for Sanders.

[Alenne]

164. Many many moons ago she was Tinoire.

But she claims Tinoire was her sister.

[Generic Other]

290. Tinoire from Progressive Independent?

She's been gone forever. Are you saying these are all the same person?!? Eloriel, Tinoire, Catherina? Those posters span all the years of DU. Out of curiosity, how did others discover this? I am confused.

[Alenne]

343. Yes, that Tinoire.

Catherina came to du some months after tinoire stopped posting claiming to be her sister. Over the years, whenever Catherina drama happens, someone always outs her as tinoire. Apparently, on another website, she told some posters she was tinoire.

I'm not aware of her and Eloriel being the same. This thread is my first time reading that. But I wouldn't put it pass Catherina.

[tammywammy]

269. And then after Eloriel she was Remember Me. n/t

[Number23]

172. Slams every black thinker s/he can name unless they despise Obama as much as s/he does.

All while crowing about how "liberal" and "left" she is when she's not reminding everyone about the literal HUNDREDS of DUers she has on ignore (such a liberal quality, you know!) And this was looooong (as in years) before this primary season started so that's not even an excuse.

I could say alot more but I won't. This would all be funny if it wasn't so incredibly pointless and dumb.

[lovemydog]

439. Unreal.

I wonder if any of her friends and supporters have responded about any of this stuff.

I'm still looking. Haven't seen anything yet, except one person saying something about how they must not have known her very well.

[Number23]

472. No, a few folks have crawled out to actually support her calling black DUers house niggers

That her gutter trash name calling of people she doesn't know is all part of some black tradition, you see. Because them not being black themselves, they know what our traditions are. All while singing about how "articulate" "intelligent" and "multilingual" she is.

It's so funny. The same qualities that get the rest of us labled as house niggers are the same qualities that she's being lauded for even though she actually possesses none of those qualities. It's hysterical.

[lovemydog]

474. So they fight for the 'right' to harass black people because free speech.

While trying to shut down anyone who doesn't follow in lockstep with their liberal-trashing agenda. Reminds me more of doctrinaire Stalinism than of modern day progressivism. Yes, it's funny. I'd bet some are straight up trolls. The ones who aren't, well that's just sad & pitiful.

[zappaman]

477. That's the authoritarian mindset for you!

Funny how the ones who cry "authoritarian" the most, are the biggest "authoritarians"!

[lovemydog]

479. Indeed zappaman.

Similar thing with those who cry 'hypocrite' the most, too.

My dad calls them 'illiberal liberals.'

[bravenak]

482. One even sent me a pm reminding me she was black like I was supposed to care.

What was I supposed to say, "Well, pardon me. Did you say she was black? Well then, thats okay then, I guess if she said it and YOU SAY she's black, I must be a nigger then!"? Like it's just cool for her to call us that and laugh at us with her white friends. It's not cool.

I understand she is wealthier, well traveled, has plenty of europeans friends who think it's perfectly cool for her to call us that while they sing her praises on how smart and kind she is and call me troll. Makes so much sense. Yesterday I actually was wondering if it was because I am so dark and she is so light (they keep reminding me), perhaps she has issues relating and feels left out. Well, that is sure not a way to get IN.

I see black people do that on Fox News all the time. Trash the rest of us as living on a plantation while they are the enlightened blacks. Hmmm.

[Number23]

496. Well, I been called a redbone more than once and JAG is half white

and we'd never be classless or hateful enough to call another black person a house nigger. And damn sure not out loud where white folks could see. Especially when we have more money than they do.

But that's because we were raised right and are not fake as hell or crazy.

[bravenak]

497. I have never in my life met anybody in person or online who was ANY type of black who would do that.

My husband is what they call 'high yellow' and he has never. I have never met these people. I mean, my family has lightskin darkskin wars sometimes, but I get left out, brown. I only get to watch from the sidelines. Stupidest family in the entire world, tho, cannot possibly be any families that are just that dumb. Even they just call me stuck up or Hollywood, not that kinda shit.

[treestar]

72. Wow, obvious right wing troll

too bad you got a hide just for pointing to that in her GBCW thread.

[randys1]

386. calling Obama an asshole and butchering hypocrite, my god, that is amazing

And this person was revered around here?

REALLY!

[bravenak]

389. Much beloved

[geek tragedy]

39. People who worship Putin and call Obama supporters 'Nazis' are not a good fit

for a Democratic website.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/484479784228257792

[SunSeeker]

85. Indeed. nt

[randys1]

388. Oh fuck this...that is stunning, almost worse than anything i have seen on the right

boy was I right

[geek tragedy]

40. "I can not listen to Obama. It sends my entire soul into a dangerous rage."

https://mobile.twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/514883320107503616

[Cha]

64. Brawawaaaaaa! this post of mine a couple of days ago must have really sent her into one of those

"dangerous rages"..

Holy Shite.. this quote from President Obama


Andy Baio ?@waxpancake
Holy shit, this Obama quote. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/17/republicans-congress-syrian-refugees-us-paris-attacks …
11:00 AM - 18 Nov 2015
9,448 9,448 Retweets 9,048 9,048 likes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1102&pid=31685

[freshwest]

107. I dove into the tweets. She said she was a conservative. Plenty of other such treats there. n/t

[treestar]

74. That's right winger territory there

No Democrat would say that about a D President.

I know I could not stand to listen to Bush. But would never say that of any Democrat.

[zappaman]

111. Well, i can see why a few here loved her.

Not a surprise.

[geek tragedy]

114. Remember the "nobody at DU supports Putin" claims? nt

[geek tragedy]

42. Fundraising for the people who shot down MH17.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/514815119277436928/photo/2

[Number23]

174. Jesus everloving Christ... and these folks are screaming about BRAVENAK??!

If anyone can show me anything bravenak has done that's 1/40000th as foul and disgusting as this, I'll eat my hat.

Good God in Heaven... that is unreal!!!!

[stevenleser]

494. And screaming about me. Same ones who support her are the ones who attack me too.

It's mind blowing.

[Number23]

501. You're in excellent company.

[lovemydog]

438. Yeesh.

ugh

[bravenak]

443. See?

Just not a good idea to talk to some people.

[lovemydog]

444. Yup.

[geek tragedy]

43. "Rome is with Putin. Obama is not welcome."

https://mobile.twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/468225939982540800

[geek tragedy]

45. "Just love Putin's style"

https://mobile.twitter.com/catherina_news/status/489247988234346497

[Cha]

68. Yeah putin censors the internet, censors journalists, is homophobic.. what else could you ask for?

Oh.. a t shirt?

[freshwest]

112. Sarah Palin and Fox, etc. love Putin because Obama is... the ultimate evil.

Also it's been brought to my attention there is a *cough, cough* uh, *unfortunate* tweet regarding AA's.

Such stuff is not preferred reading material for me. But there it is for the whole internet to read.

[geek tragedy]

113. PM me? nt

[grasswire]

136. how about posting screen shots of these tweets...

...that you find abhorrent? I'll wait.

[bravenak]

137. Have you see my sigline?

[pintobean]

140. Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!

[bravenak]

141. Do you want a copy paste pm?

[Rex]

180. Oh it is all there just go look at the links.

Pretty eye opening.

[brush]

429. Photoshopped or a paid-for ad by a rightwing group in Rome.

Nothing more, and she crowed about it.

Nice!

[geek tragedy]

46. "I want a Putin t shirt with this on it. Cracks me up and annoys that thing Hillary"

https://mobile.twitter.com/Catherina_News/status/500034430661324800

[Agschmid]

62. Holy hell.

Wow.

This poster was NOT what they seemed.

[KittyWampus]

66. And it's been pointed out numerous times before this. Those posts are either hidden

or ignored.

Sort of like how NYCSkip's multiple gun-trollery episodes after horrible tragedies was ignored.

[Agschmid]

69. It's revealing to see how many people are here just to stir shit up.

I've been on MIRT before and I've seen the newbies here to troll, but I haven't ever seen this many long term trolls.

Frustrating indeed.

[freshwest]

117. Using the appropriate buzz words cover a lot of anti-democratic things.

One has to really *think* about the end result of what is being advocated. And why it is being put out for public incitement.

Without using CT memes where many feel the can safely stop thinking and imbue everything with a bogeyman as the answer. Thus taking a breather from thinking again, repeating CT as surely as MSM repeats the voices of its owners. I contend, they are the same owners in both cases.

Voices on the net often do nothing but repeat and fail to have any goal except to get high fives from those similarity fired up. And in the end, those who didn't fall for any of it, rule us all.

[Number23]

177. But none of this is new. A ton of folks were surprised that she ever came back

Because we'd all seen the pro-Putin, anti-Obama/USA stuff over and over again.

Personally, I suspect some are so forgiving of her because she's a woman of color which certainly makes her stand out. Ain't many of us on her side of any issue and I'm sure that makes her very useful.

[brush]

430. Is she really a woman of color? I was advised she was pretending to be black.

[Number23]

431. Considering how much she hated Obama and every single black thinker/pundit/academic

that didn't hate him as much as she did, it's really anyone's guess.

But she IDENTIFIED here as a woman of color. Which made her very valuable and ever so useful to a certain crew suffering from a well known and well discussed lack of melanin. It's really kind of pitiful.

[Autumn]

81. Check out this screen shot posted from another site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128075924

[bravenak]

120. You should see where she calls us house Ni66ers and our white friends the plantation mistresses.

I do not think many cap top that on the pure nastiness scale.

She left it up cause she wants all of du to see it. Such evil racist language. Sad to see so many here have NO ISSUE with any of that stuff. But I bet NOT mention the color of a crowd. I love how ridiculous this whole thing is.

[Autumn]

127. Nasty is nasty. No matter who is doing it. nt

[bravenak]

129. I am used to that racial language towards blacks from a certain group.

That and the crazy idea that white folks are being oppressed by me talking. You cannot make this shit up. I'm using that tweet to help Hillary get voters this week. There are so many gifts that keep on giving in a certain group. Funny enough, eveybody gets all super mad and think the candidate is the same as the poster, I try to make sure they know the candidate is not. He just does not notice.

[Autumn]

130. I have no desire to have a discussion with you.

You have a nice day and take care of yourself.

[bravenak]

132. Awwwww!

[Autumn]

133. I will not discuss Bernie Sanders, the candidate that I honestly support with you.

Have a nice day.

[bravenak]

134. I do not care. I will do my best to make sure he loses after this stuff around here.

You do not have to even view my posts. CYA in March!!!!

[Autumn]

142. Awesome. You are doing a wonderful job

"supporting" Hillary and I truly hope your "support" will get her where she should be.

[bravenak]

143. I am doing a good job making sure Bernie loses. I dislike him far more than I ever disliked her.

Everyday I like him less. She actually looks marvelous in comparison. She reminds me of myself, a fighter, gets trashed constantly but rises, rises, rises. A winner. Intuitive. Knows how people operate. I am one of the best people to have on ones side in a battle; I am the worst to go up against, just like her.

I sure did have to pretend to like her. I was biased cause I wanted her to be bold. Like me. Not fair really, I never did that with men. Kinda sexist I was. But after all of this? I do not even want to see him on screen, on stage, and definately not in the Whitehouse, he does not have the broad view or the diversity that I find imperative. Lets folks run wild and says nothing. Not a leader. Not on my side at all.

[Autumn]

144. Yes that was made clear in the hidden post by JackInGreen

in the Bernie Sanders group yesterday. Anyway good luck and take care.

Post #5 if I remember correctly.

[bravenak]

145. Heck! I made that clear back in AUGUST. And everyday since.

[JustAnotherGen]

209. So

You have not denounced the House N*ggers comment - is it that you agree? If this is the best you've got then your best isn't good enough.

BTW - down thread geektragedy received a hide for posting from another site.

You might want to consider deleting your post since the alert stalkers are out in full force tonight. They can't handle open and honest discussion, questions, and statements.

I'm assuming you can since you were tough enough to try and out someone for posting at another site/outlet as geek tragedy did.

[Autumn]

216. It's not my place to denounce anything I didn't say. I simply responded to a poster posting a link

to what a "DUer" posted off site with a post of a link to something another "DUer" posted off site. As to your comment that

the alert stalkers are out in full force tonight

I have been civil and my response was on topic to the post I responded to. Have a pleasant evening.

[JustAnotherGen]

220. I wiil

Going to get in my spa tub and get that dirt from rubbing shoulders with someone I wouldn't give the time of day in real life off of me.

Unfortunately we are perceived as the company we keep in this world - and I don't want to be associated with someone who looks down on successful black people and calls them house n*ggers. Shame, shame, shame.

It looks bad and I don't want to be associated with that - anymore than I want to be associated with the dis5u55ionist site.

[bravenak]

229. I also refuse to join a group like that.

Terrible! I would feel too much shame to hold my head up.

[JustAnotherGen]

240. Too many indie and repubs and libertarians there

You are the company you keep.

[bravenak]

243. And the Putin Lovers too.

[Autumn]

231. I agree, there are threads and people that make me feel filthy too.

So as a rule I stay away from them. Some people enjoy the Discussionest.

[lovemydog]

442. Don't you denounce other stuff

that you didn't say?

[geek tragedy]

47. "Keep fucking w Putin u murderous Nazi-supporting fucks"

Keep fucking w Putin u murderous Nazi-supporting fucks
He's got 20x more support than all ur hope & change baloney

https://mobile.twitter.com/catherina_news/status/484479784228257792

[SidDithers]

54. Holy fuck...

That's beyond awful.

Someone who holds those opinions should have no place on DU. Too bad she didn't have the courage of her convictions to express those opinions here. I wonder if she'd still have dozens fawning all over her in her GBCW thread, if they knew how she really felt about them.

Posting privileges before principles, I guess.


Sid

[geek tragedy]

57. She left DU in a snit after her love letter to Paul Craig Roberts post

got hidden.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4640081

[Cha]

65. Last year? that's some delayed reaction there.

[geek tragedy]

87. she came back again, with predictable results

and let's be perfectly honest. if Bernie is elected, she'll turn on him in a nanosecond the first time he has something unflattering to say about Russia or does something impure but necessary.

[freshwest]

118. She fails to add that he is known as 'The Father of Reaganomics' and still supports it. And that he

is a conservative who now gets his gigs on Alex Jones, etc. Yes, he pokes a few things of interest, and while people can be a confusing mix of conflicting views, he has done great harm to us.

[geek tragedy]

119. Also a white nationalist nt

[freshwest]

125. That goes without saying, but all those fancy words make it okay, huh? n/t

[geek tragedy]

128. He's popular with some on the residual USSR left because he hates the USA

the reason for his hate is that it's not white enough and not Christianist enough for him.

[freshwest]

198. He's on all sides, likely working on his own personal fortune to see him through. n/t

[KittyWampus]

67. Sure they still fawn over her. They hide the post informing DU'ers of her obvious extremism.

And of course she didn't express herself fully on DU. Easier to sow discord if you maintain a facade of reasonableness.

[SidDithers]

77. "Easier to sow discord if you maintain a facade of reasonableness"...

That's it exactly.

IMO, hiding your true feelings, because you're worried about losing your posting privileges on a freakin' website, is the very definition of moral cowardice.

Sid

[Blue_Tires]

453. Holy fucking damn... THAT is "Catherina"??????

Well that certainly explains a lot...

[yardwork]

49. This is not an apology, it's just an excuse to double down.

[sibelian]

59. Oh BULLSHIT.

"MEEEEEEH, HE SAID STOCKHOLM SYNDROOOOOOOOOME."

It's just GRUDGES. They're bullying him because he's WILLY.

[yardwork]

71. Lol lol

Who is bullying him?

This is hilarious.

[Cha]

76. It is hilarious.. they pull that victim card whenever someone has an opinion they don't like, and

get really really angry.

[yardwork]

79. Some people here are losing it.

They start meta threads to boss other people around and then have melt downs when people fail to comply.

And they seem genuinely puzzled that these tactics aren't working!

[bravenak]

124. Bullying?!?!

HAAAAAAA!!

[zappaman]

122. Yup.

Surprised it took so long.

[BainsBane]

162. Agreed. nt

[SidDithers]

55. Nope. Not buying it...nt

Sid

[MH1]

58. "Losing a pal" - wait did she die?

Last I saw she was saying she wasn't going to post at DU any more. If you are really "pals" then you know her in real life or at least other virtual avenues, and you haven't "lost a pal" at all. She's just decided to move to a different favorite hangout. So why not move with her? Or just spend a little more time hanging out with here over there.

As far as "Stockholm Syndrome" that phrase is as overused in pop psychology and the alleys of the internet as any other phrase that people can think they understand, pronounce, and spell.

Not a big fan of all the drama. I'm gonna go find a thread about issues, or wander over to some other site where issues are discussed, intelligently.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. You never addressed my questions in that thread about your posts lavishing praise on Reagan voters

and your posts advocating good relations with Republicans and how that compares and contrasts to your attacks on minority voters here. You know who opposed Reagan with great unity? LGBT and African Americans. And you, you defend the Reagan Democrats, right here on DU but you have great issue with those of us who demonstrated and protested that genocidal racist fuck and that, that's what makes me ill.

As a Bernie supporter, it is way easier for me to understand a vote for Hillary than a vote for Ronald Wilson Reagan, union busing bigot.
I mean Ronald Reagan? The man who ignored AIDS while tens of thousands of Americans died. That you understand and defend. That's the rot in your philosophy. It's a Reagan shaped rot you got.

[freshwest]

250. Ronnie, who laughed about gays dying, setting the stage for so much evil. PCR stinks. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

316. From WillyT's journal a lecture on getting along with Republicans....

"My old man, a Marine Bomber (B-25) pilot in WWII, was before and after that (plus Korea) a journalist. He wrote for a Chicago paper as a police reporter, then for the San Diego Union, the Copley News Service, Cox... and eventually was part of the California Highway Commission which built our state's freeway system. He knew, at least in the cosmos of California, all sorts of politicians, lobbyists, and movers and shakers. Hell, he'd hold cocktail parties, and I as a young tyke would spend my time stealing the onions out of the martinis of state senators and assemblymen.

Hell, when Reagan was running for re-election for governor of California, he invited the journalists covering the capitol, and their families, to the mansion for a huge BBQ complete with a cowboy on a horse doing rope tricks and such. Me and Skipper, now known as Ron Reagan, were the terrors of the dunk tank that day. And everybody, young old Republican or Democrat had a great time. My dad would not allow me to wear my Jesse Unruh button to the party, but he did get a kick out of the attempt.

My point is, from what I saw in the late sixties and into the seventies, from my youngish viewpoint, was that these guys, and they were almost always guys, seemed to actually get along no matter their party. They may have vociferously disagreed, defended their positions, their donors and their constituents, but they always seemed to like and respect each other at the end of the day."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=1874&page=1

Here's another thread attacking LGBT for not supporting Reagan:
Apparently, If One Voted For Reagan, They Were Anti-Gay...
"we're called Reagan Democrats...And IF you want to play this stupid game... Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026231263

[freshwest]

368. You kicked tail there. I knew of Reagan when he became Governor of CA, although I was far away.

The thought was horrible to me then. When he beat Carter with his Iran Contra plot, I thought the world was coming to an end. And I didn't buy his 'Morning in America' ads with music. In fact, I am predisposed to reject political soundtracks designed to effect feelings.

Reagan was and did every single thing you charge him with in those threads and in this one. We remember the same things. I argued with the soon to be Reagan Democrats as I saw their anger at affirmative action (in my corporation, it forbid discrimination in hiring and work by race, sex, religion or ethnicity, place of origin and what was then called, 'sexual orientation') as white, straight males were always complaining abou it. The televangelicals, even more than the Vatican, lied about gays and AIDS, even saying you could get it from mosquitoes. It 'justified' what Reagan did. Why he was so full of hate, IDK, but as he started out in the CP, jumped into the guild, then went far right, doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks for listing Reagan's crimes. Anyone that age should have known better than to support him. It makes me question their judgement. Whatever they say is noise, IMO.

[betsuni]

61. Always a martyr, never a bride.

[randome]

73. God, I hate you. I hate you ALL because...

[freshwest]

252. You both are cracking me up here! n/t

[lovemydog]

441. Often a dingbat, rarely a hide.

[Sheepshank]

75. A non apology, dedicated to the person sending the tweets up thread

Holy fucking slimy shit on a toilet seat.

I can't help but say that I'm not buying what you are selling.

[freshwest]

207. Oh, noes! That sig line! Not the SSSS!

[sheshe2]

82. Jaysus H Keyrist!

[Omaha Steve]

84. K&R

[Octafish]

86. Love ya, Brother WillyT!

“The key is to keep company only with people who uplift you, whose presence calls forth your best.” ― Epictetus

[NCTraveler]

96. Love the double down.

Mask removed.

[Rex]

101. She was posting here?

I thought she quit DU a long time ago.

[geek tragedy]

102. it's kind of like how birds have spring and fall migration, nt

[Rex]

104. Well ya know

now that you say that I have noticed a lot of names I haven't seen in a long time popping up like rain lillys...wait was I supposed to code that or something?

The Hen is in the Watchtower, I repeat the Hen is in the Watchtower.

[Tipperary]

131. You cannot "effect" people.

The word you were looking for is a verb "affect".

I thought that op was pure silliness however, so it had no effect on me.

I doubt it affected anyone except to make them think you had no idea what you were talking about.

[CreekDog]

139. i don't miss someone who rationalizes Russia's anti gay laws

but judge for yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3386895

[geek tragedy]

148. that was back when she would criticize Putin.

But then the war with Ukraine started, and she morphed into Zhironovsky.

[Rex]

159. Wow, she picked a brutal dictatorship to hang her hat on.

That is sad.

[geek tragedy]

163. Nationalism is a hell of a drug nt

[Rex]

165. She told me she lived in Guatemala. nt

[geek tragedy]

166. Lots Cyrillic alphabet in Twitter feed nt

[Rex]

167. I C

Thanks.

[Rex]

184. Wow.

And I noticed she is talking to Brother Ivan...I remember that poster and had to go look just to make sure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128040322

I wonder how far down the rabbit hole this one goes? I hate it when I am wrong about someone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

318. You were alerted on but I voted to LEAVE IT ALONE

I stayed out of this Catherina brouhaha but as a general rule misleading folks about your race to enhance your credibility on a method board is wrong.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>white guy!

[Rex]

344. I don't think it was her race but her nationality that was in question.

But since the hoard is out in alert mode, I will stop talking about it. Thanks for the heads up, I must have struck a nerve.

[JTFrog]

409. Double wow. n/t

[Number23]

185. How PRECIOUS!!! Wonder what that small group of pearl clutchers who wailed when she was called

a "self hating black woman" would say about this charming little turn of events????

Oh my goodness gracious me. That is too precious. Real black folks don't even spell the word that way which makes the 3rd grade, gutter level attempts at insults all the more unintentionally hilarious.

[JustAnotherGen]

215. Not a thing

They won't say a Thing.

She's special - so she gets to do and say whatever she wants.

[Number23]

217. I said in another post that she gets so much support because she identifies as a woman of color

fighting for a group that has a well noted and well DISCUSSED lack of melanin. They're obviously willing to overlook a hell of alot in order to wave her around.

[leftofcool]

154. Oh please.

[Rex]

161. It is a shame she decided to back Russia.

Last I talked with her she was helping women escape persecution in Central America. Why would she go with Putin after seeing such horrors...she has to know Russia is a brutal dictatorship. That just doesn't make any sense, but last time we talked was years ago. People change, but in her case it sounds not for the better.

As for YOU...keep on talking WillyT! Nobody else is shutting up or keeping it down...why should you be the first!?

[Number23]

179. Thanks to your transparent efforts to double down on previous insults, you have created

one of DU's easily most bookmarkable threads in recent memory.

So thanks for that! It's been one HELL of a colossal, eye opening read. Not for the reasons you were probably hoping for, but a hell of a read nonetheless.

[KittyWampus]

181. Yes, I am deeply disappointed in one DU'er whom I previously respected.

I do think almost all Hosts do their best but it's inevitable that some have issues.

[hifiguy]

183. Been gone for a couple of days.

She get PPR'd too?

Jebus.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

192. Nope.

She actually told admin to delete her account, but at least as of yet, she's still listed as active.

She just didn't want to use ignore, I guess, and kept seeing the slimy comments I haven't had to witness in months.

[geek tragedy]

193. slimy comments

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7370011

[Cha]

254. Shite! I just see they censored your post exposing the truth about the damn racist.

Sorry, geek.. thank you for getting that egregious crap exposed!

Oh fuck.. now there's two of them.

[JustAnotherGen]

197. Admin won't do that and she knew it

Shes been around a long time.

Slimy comments?

House N*ggers.

That's who she REALLY is.

You have to believe her. Good, bad, indifferent - Tommy Caracetti opened this flood gate last night - or rather when he linked to her twitter in her public profile at DU and received a hide for it . . . The alerter did.

Good, bad, indifferent - this is who we rub shoulders with. ALL of us - not just Sanders supporters.

[JustAnotherGen]

206. They can hide it all they want

They can't hide the screenshots emailed to me this morning.

No whoomp again.

[freshwest]

210. I deleted because geek can't answer anymore. That twitter feed. Wow. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

211. For geek tragedy

Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

You were open and honest and just put out there what everyone was whispering about here.

They couldn't handle the truth.

That's the only reason you received a hide.

They know that one is in the wrong but they are too heavily invested in their adoration of her - they can't turn back.


They don't understand that saying -


I was wrong.

It's actually a symbol of strength.

[Cha]

300. Thank you, Gen~ To Geek: for exposing the truth you got censored & punished, but the truth is still

out there for all to see. Too bad for them.. all you have to do is click on "show" and voila! the ugly truth.

[SidDithers]

350. The protectorate is hard at work...

Though, I can't figure why they'd want to have anything to do with that former DUer, after what's been exposed this weekend.

Sid

[JustAnotherGen]

356. They agree with her?

Just venturing to guess. . .

[randys1]

395. Geek's hides just shows again how insane the jury system is. I cant believe it still exists

True, good, honest liberals being hidden over and over and over.

woe

[Digital Puppy]

301. Why was that hidden???? I don't get this place.

The original author can post his garbage but someone points out Saint Cathy's true stripes and they get a hide???

[treestar]

319. a lot of hides on this thread and others

intersting, as there are jurors who don't want it exposed.

[Digital Puppy]

366. Looks like there are jurors (and a bunch of other DU'ers) who agree with this racist b.s. n/t

Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)

[randys1]

396. Hard to see it any other way. Known condition here for a long time.

[JustAnotherGen]

201. Well

I got enough love in my childhood so I don't need it from random Internet personas.

Thanks but no thanks.

[Chitown Kev]

203. House n*ggers

since Catherina loss is making you said, WillyT, I'll just assume that's how the fuck you feel...at least Catherina was blunt about it.

[JustAnotherGen]

205. I'm assuming that about lots of folks.

[bravenak]

208. My eyes are open

[JustAnotherGen]

212. Retreat - the alerters are out

Retreat.

[bravenak]

213. Retreating

[KittyWampus]

218. wonder why noone posted the alert results from those hides-

they been hiding all the posts that show right out what Catherina is/is not.

But not one person who voted to hide has the guts to post the results. LOL

They know it's wrong.

[bettyellen]

238. seriously. good riddance to that sort of garbage here.

[Digital Puppy]

302. No response from Saint Cathy's sponsors....

..I'm still waiting for her defenders to explain all of this away and why I need to light a candle for this girl's absence.

[JustAnotherGen]

355. Supposedly

She is a truth teller and a better person than The house n- bomb clique. None of what she wrote matters.

[bravenak]

376. Seriously

[randome]

226. Seriously, WillyT, stop posting from that tavern you're always talking about.

Come outside into the light. It only hurts for a minute.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cwydro]

235. You need a hobby.

Seriously.

What I see is someone intent upon causing disruption here on DU. It's just wrong.

I'm not affiliated with any candidate; I'm undecided.

But you seem to delight in causing trouble here. You should search your motives.

Is this for your candidate (and I don't even care who that is)? Is this because you have bad blood with other DUers?

Think about it.

I've been here more than ten years and never seen so much nonsense here.

[bravenak]

244. Honor? Really WillyT? I am glad you did this honor thread. I can see clearly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=835837

[KittyWampus]

245. whoa, two DU'ers call you a troll and the posts aren't hidden

and I bet those two feel sanctimonious about it too.

[bravenak]

246. They are VERY PROUD of themselves.

One told me to get professional help for being upset about being called such names. I oppressed them all.

[WillyT]

247. I Honor People Such As Yourelf... I'm Not Willing To Be Polite... I'm Not Wiling To Back Down...

I do not learn a thing from the Kumbaya Crowd.

Do you ???



I've seen many important posters here die of old age... or disease...

I've seen others chased off by the swarm.

I intend to be neither.

And BTW... when the swarm came for you, I stood by your side.

[KittyWampus]

251. you're not willing to back down from posting blatantly offensive garbage?

In fact, you double down on it and issue a non-apology?

And it's telling you use the words "important posters". LOL

[WillyT]

255. Then Let's Just Call It An Explanation... I Have Nothing To Apologize For...

Unless you can name it.

[kwassa]

325. You need to apologize for insulting people of color and LGBT as entire groups ...

Too mindless to rationally consider each candidate because they come to a different choice than you. This is both a projection on your part, and a bigoted belief.

Your belief is also completely irrational. Many millions of people are under mind control by someone who has no control over their lives?

[bravenak]

253. I am out of cheeks to slap.

But her comments were deplorable.

[randome]

338. "Not willing to be polite". You think OBNOXIOUS is a better behavioral tactic?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

257. Now they've censored geek on this thread.. they must be so proud of trying to snuff out the truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7370005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7370011

[bravenak]

260. Gotta hide the truth if they can.

It's obvious.

[herding cats]

291. Is that it?

I thought it was fine to be slinging mud if it wasn't someone they we're aligned with. As a person on the outside of this, that's what it looks like to me at least.

As I said below "sunlight is a great disinfectant" doesn't appear to be a two way street here. Hmm?




I didn't go to GD Primary, it was brought into GD and foisted upon me.

[bravenak]

292. Pretty much. I did not even know her.

Until yesterday. Then she got a hide calling me out in her gbcw thread and blamed me for her leaving. Then the tweets. At the same time, they pile on me for being mean to this lady who I do not know that calls me nwords. Yes. This is bizzarre. I still have no idea who she is. I do not think I interacted with her ever, if I did, I cannot remember her in the slightest.

[herding cats]

294. I saw the hide, and I saw you say you didn't know here.

I don't doubt you. I didn't know her either. I think I may have ran across her in one of her pro Putin threads, maybe once? I'm not sure of that though. She didn't peg my radar either, FWIW. The tweets are really bad though. It's nice to get a feel for her before she returns. Which from what I've read she will do.

I'm catching up, not stalking you, BTW. Just so you you don't think I'm weird or anything. Well, I am weird, but not stalker weird. I'm just behind and find myself in a position to have to do some serious catching up here. Which means following links where they lead and such.

Oh, and I'm offended by the horrific things said in that twitter feed. And, pissed off! It's not honest of me if I don't mention that I'm pissed off, too. I was deliberately trying to avoid all the DU Primary Wars 2015! Bullshit so I wouldn't lose respect for people I'm mostly ideologically the same with after this crap is over, and BOOM they get dropped in GD on my doorstep in all their full glory. I saw something a little bit ago that made made it clear that it was by the design of the OP to do that, which really seriously ticked me off. Respect gone.



I didn't go to GD Primary, it was brought into GD and foisted upon me.

[bravenak]

296. I cannot wait until this primary is over.

I also think this is by design. I saw another thread today that was very defiant, almost inviting clicks, so I think click bait is what it is. I don't think you're stalking me or weird. This is just bizarre. I'm scratching my head over it.

[herding cats]

297. As to the primary, you and me both!

I have seen way too much ugliness lately.

It's not like this in my local dealings with other Democrats at all. It's like the internet removes the entire layer of human decency from people, and when that's mixed in with politics it's not a pretty sight. People are saying some vile shit none of us would ever say in our real lives. At least I hope not, I'm not so sure of that anymore. I'm seeing things I can't unsee and I hate it.

[bravenak]

298. I cannot imagine any of these people speaking like this face to face.

Time to just start ignoring people until after Christmas. I want to be in a good mood this Holiday and finals are coming up, so maybe just lurk or only stay in groups. I should trash GDP. Everyone should.

[herding cats]

289. We're the posts about the Hillary forum hidden, too?

Disclaimer: I hate all this crap being brought out of GD Primary into GD. There's a designated place for the "DU Primary Wars 2015!" reality drama to be taking place, and it's not here in GD. However, since it's being brought to my doorstep, so be it.

Any of them I mean. I never saw any hidden, but my scope has been extremely limited I admit. Now that it's being brought out of GD Primary, I guess I'm going to have to start focusing here. If you could, please help me catch up, Cha, I'd really appreciate it.

Out of hand my thoughts are that "sunlight is a great disinfectant" as I read yesterday, it doesn't appear to be a two way street here. Which is really uncool. If we're going to be trashing people, we should at least be fair in admitting that sunlight might apply to those who people consider themselves aligned with as well. Catherina owns her words. Just like anyone else. Our actions have consequences and we all have to deal with that in life. Yes, even on the internet.

Hi, Cha! Sorry to jump in here all heated up and such, I hope you remember me for that matter. I know I've not seen you in ages and this probably seems off character for me. Which it is, but I'm really irritated by all this mess being dumped off in GD on those of us who have chosen not to engage in the local mud slinging taking place. If I can't avoid it I'm going to at least voice my displeasure!

[Cha]

308. There were several alerts to get this OP Locked, herdingcats. Sorry, it didn't happen. It has

backfired on the OP, though. And, brought to light some ugly musings that the alerter and jury wanted to hide. Too bad.. all you have to do is click on "Show" and voila!

Are you asking if the OPs whining about being blocked in Hillary's Group were hidden? Most of them were locked. I don't keep up with everything. I had this OP on Ignore but someone told me about the racist tweets so I un-ignored and also un-ignored the person who wrote them.. to see the goodbye calling out bravenak and joshcryer.

Of course I remember you.. good on you for speaking out. Hopefully it's the last time it happens.

[JTFrog]

265. Sorry you don't get a pass for your racist and homophobic post.

The fact that you are doing this again is beyond the pale.

[JTFrog]

280. You pal around with folks who spew the vilest of racist crap?

A long time pal?

Pretty sure you and a whole swarm of DUers got played and now here you are defending your pal.

And still you wonder why you aren't getting the benefit of the doubt from a lot of DUers?

O.K.

[Digital Puppy]

304. +1000!!!

Awfully, quiet from a fan base who are sooooo sad to see this person leave...I guess because she was so "nice" or because they think Willie's T is being picked on or that it's a "Meta thread"....whatever. Booo f'in Hoo

Bye Felecia, indeed.

[Cha]

390. ChiTownKev is another one who took one for the Team. Telling it like it is.

[bravenak]

391. Keeping it real. As always.

Love you, Kev!!!!

[Cha]

398. ..

[bravenak]

399. I love Kev and you too!

[Cha]

401. Oh sweetheart, the feeling is totally

reciprocated.

[bravenak]

403. I trashed GDP.

I was talking to Herding Cats and it came clear. Trash GDP the little voice said. It's a bad place. This look so nice without it. Just like old times.

What was that DTG (death threat guy) stuff about? I missed it. He likes to get enough posts to pm me threats every now and again. To my blogs too. I put my twitter on private a while back to prevent him from dtging me there, lol. Found my facebook and dtg'd me there too, lol. He is persistant. I refuse to take him seriously.

[Cha]

406. Trashing GDP does sound like a good idea right now.. and I did for quite awhile..

but, now I just go in to help out Hillary supporters who could use some support. the other stuff I just trash.

I have no clue about DTG.. he has serious issues though.. I take it it's not the same stalker who wrote the snail mail.

He didn't threaten your life.. just let you know when you came back to DU that you would be monitored and there were a "whole fucking bunch of them" to do it. No Shite Sherlock.

[bravenak]

410. Oh no.. DTG is not the snail mailer.

I think he has issues, but is not focused on one person so hard like snailmailer. I think she should put her Twitter and her Facebook on private. I still hav no clue who the heck he is, but it might be best to do as I did and get her profiles shored up. I have had no real life issues since. I am sure she is less scared than enraged that somebody sent that crap. Probably want a face to face to tell him off, lol! I know I would. But DTG? Pfffttt! He is lame.

But the 'group'? Yeah. That I believe.

[opiate69]

462. "I trashed GDP"

Riiiiight....
Sure you did...

[bravenak]

463. You can still see it in the menu. That way, only my own ops are seen by me.

That is how this website works!! I post a thread, then I only get my replies and do not have to see the stuff come up in my latest threads. Funny how I feel like I am being monitored.

[pintobean]

465. lol /nt

[randys1]

397. Oops, i discussed racism...delete, cant do that here

[lovemydog]

445. From what I'm seeing

it's not acceptable to talk about it coming from white people. Those posts get hidden. But accusations of it against black people, hey that's free speech.

[kath]

421. So referring to other DUers as "you fuckers", as ChitownKev did, isn't practically begging for a

hide? then receiving such hide elevates him to martyr status? Really?

[Cha]

423. Oh Please.. To ChiTown for telling it like is!

[kath]

464. Please clarify-if someone were to post a post calling the group of DUers that you hang out with "you

fuckers" (or calling any group or person here "you fucker(s)&quot , you would not alert on that post nor vote to hide it??

This is not about Willy T, Catherina or anyone else (which is what a poster below is trying to make it about) - it is about what tone of discourse is, or should be, permissible at DU.

[lovemydog]

476. If he had said instead 'My esteemed colleagues'

his point is still accurate.

I would have voted to keep Chitown Kev's post just the way it is. Because 'You fuckers' describes that point in a more succinct manner.

Just my opinion.

[Cha]

489. Again! to ChiTownKev!

For telling it like it freaking is!

[kath]

490. Sooo, again-- to clarify: if you or one of your cohorts posted something that really made me mad,

, and IF I responded with something like "You fuckers really give me a pain in the ass, blablablah..."you would not alert on the post nor vote to hide it , because what they had said to me had made me so so angry that it was perfectly fine for me to say "you fuckers"?

It's a legitimate question.

[Cha]

492. To Geek Tragedy, too, for getting censored for exposing the Truth! And Nuclear Dem!

[bravenak]

499. Oh, yes, and Tommy Carcetti.

[Cha]

500. Most definetly Tommy Carcetti on that locked thread.. thank you, Bravenak!

[Digital Puppy]

449. Still looking for the "WTF is wrong with you?" emoji

SMDH...

Looks like Willie's T and Saint Cathy's ignorance is contagious.

[bravenak]

450. Gets stranger around here every day

[Gormy Cuss]

467. "Fuckers" is a hide, but calling out A/A and LGBTers as Stockholm syndrome sufferers isn't?

Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2015, 06:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Prime example of why the jury system fails at setting community standards. Apparently, it's find to say racist or homophobic statements that have no place on a center-left discussion board so long as you don't use a four letter word. The tone of the discourse here should be secondary to the content.

Chitown's response was not out of line in the context of this ridiculous thread. The hides for geek tragedy and others WERE out of line.

[zappaman]

469. Yup.

[Cali_Democrat]

305. Well....

This thread backfired on the OP, BIG TIME.

LOL.

[KittyWampus]

336. Nah, poor WillyT is a victim here. Don't you see that?!

[Skidmore]

306. There's not too much that can be added to the information provided

on this thread--valuable information. You get to know people by the company they keep and by their words. This sort of vileness is what has actually driven people away from supporting your candidate. One is left to infer that, in the absence of denouncements, those who rush to explain Catherina's words and to cover for her, agree with her. When something is this blatant, it becomes impossible to poo-poo it by claiming those who are offended have misread or misunderstood. It is what it is on its face. You do yourselves and your candidate no favors.

[sufrommich]

317. I think it's hilarious that an OP you started to sing the praises

of Catherina ended up exposing her as an epic troll.

Also,Skinner needs to clean up the hosts forum.

[merrily]

329. Some DUers are much easier to love than others. I love you back, I do not wish anyone dead,

But I don't want to bake your bread, LOL!

I'll buy you some really great bread, though. What's your preference, Italian or French?

[Baitball Blogger]

346. Can someone who knows Catherina please PM me to let me know

what other progressive websites she belongs to. Thanks.

[SidDithers]

352. Seriously?...

Sid

[Baitball Blogger]

361. I don't agree with her on every point, but every opinion matters on a discussion board.

She didn't do anything wrong that I could see, except to have a strong voice.

[JTFrog]

370. Bullshit. Racist, homophobic, sexist "opinions" matter on a discussion board?

House n*ggers and plantation mistresses.

That's the kind of person you want to keep in touch with? If she is a member of "other progressive websites", she is playing them just like she played everyone here.

[randys1]

400. It is almost as if Catherina has brought out some honesty around here, whether she or her friends

meant for that to happen or not.

We can see things clearly now, cant we.

[JTFrog]

417. And another one sprouts up in GD.

Unfuckingbelievable.

[Baitball Blogger]

414. I didn't follow her that closely.

I didn't know she posted those remarks.

Interesting.

[snooper2]

458. Yes, because Putin and Maduro need SUPPORT!

[Digital Puppy]

364. SMFH.....

:: Looking for the "WTF is wrong with you?" emoji ::

[Zorra]

348. Stockholm Syndrome does not discriminate.

"Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat".

[ucrdem]

349. Willy, sometimes self-delete is the better part of valor

as you have admirably shown at least once in the past as I recall...

[Adrahil]

351. I have a hard time feeling any sympathy....

for someone who lobs a hearty fuck you to large numbers of members of a Democratic discussion board. I think she'd be happier elsewhere if that's how she feels.

[Beacool]

363. Your post was offensive and insulting to millions of people who support Hillary.

I'm neither AA nor gay, but to assume that people who support Hillary are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome is utterly insulting. This is a Democratic site, and whether some of you like it or not, Hillary is a Democrat. Furthermore, she's probably the candidate who will be the party's nominee.

How would you feel if someone insulted Sanders' supporters in a similar way?

Both candidates and their supporters deserve a lot more respect than some are giving to them.

You can do whatever you want with your previous post, I don't like censorship, but own up to the fact that it was offensive to many people.

[yardwork]

365. I want to thank geek tragedy for his posts here, especially the hidden ones.

Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 07:17 PM - Edit history (2)

I invite anybody to read his hidden posts. They are very illuminating. I am sorry that they were hidden.

[msanthrope]

375. GeekTragedy took some for the team. His hidden posts are the perfect

example of the Striesand Effect.

[Cha]

377. Yes, he did, ms.. but what is

the Striesand Effect?

[treestar]

378. wikipedia

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress numbers, files, and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2]

[Cha]

381. Ah, thank you, treestar! I didn't know it had a name but I knew it was definitely happening..

All you have to do is click on "Show" and Voila.. there it is.. what geek found and the fans of a certain tweeter are trying to suppress and Hide.

And why? Aren't they proud of who she Is?

[msanthrope]

379. Attempts to quell dissent magnify and bring more attention......

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist lettersto suppress numbers, files, and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[Cha]

385. Thank you! treestar just let me know, too. As I said.. I knew it was happening but didn't

didn't know it had a name.

to geek for taking a couple of hits for the truth team. They want to out everyone else but not if it makes them look bad.

[greatauntoftriplets]

380. A toast to geek tragedy.

[Cha]

408. to geek and ChiTownKev~

mahalo randy.. That candle is for not snuffing out the truth no matter how ugly.

[greatauntoftriplets]

411. And to ChitownKev.

[Cha]

412. To ChiTown~

[yardwork]

416. And to NuclearDem - see post #92.

To all three posters for posting truth. Thank you.

[Cha]

418. Thank you for that, yardwork.. I just got back and might have

missed it.

Wow! I missed reading that the first time around.. and glad I read it. The truth really does hurt!

Why in the hell are they trying to keep DU from the truth? And, I say "trying" because it ain't workin'.. sure the guys got hides but they took one for the TEAM! And, it's out there now. You can't unsee that shite.

geek, ChiTownKev, NuclearDem

[randys1]

402. Absolutely. I am still in AWE of the posts that are hidden and the ones that are not

when I look at the URL i am at.

fuck

just fuck

in awe at the LACK of liberal philosophy here...in awe of the LACK of support of minority communities here

[Starry Messenger]

369. Well, this was an eye-opening exercise.

[yardwork]

372. It was indeed!

[Starry Messenger]

373. Many revelations.

As always, a pleasure to see you, yardwork.

[tammywammy]

392. Agreed. n/t

[bravenak]

393. It so was...

[Bobbie Jo]

413. It certainly was...

WOW.

[joshcryer]

448. +1

[Blue_Tires]

454. I'll just repeat what I said before

If you're honestly trying to draw more potential voters to the Sanders camp, just stop trying to dig your way out of this hole...

[mmonk]

455. I've been away for a few days.

As usual during primaries, something always seems to happen.

[mmonk]

459. The whole nation suffers from it,

not a demographic or group. Deregulation caused an international economic collapse. US citizens bailed out the principals while suffering from that deregulation. Now the 2 major parties have candidates in the lead for their nominations that support that deregulation representing millions of votes with neither leading candidates wanting to fix the risks or injustices.

[LanternWaste]

468. I liked the bit where you blamed 'confounded' posters for accurately inferring your meaning...

"But what I should have done was widen the parameters of Stockholm Sydrome.."

In other words, redefine a word with a specific meaning to better conform to your narrative dramatically lacking in both evidence and supporting statements... regardless of the irrelevancy of your bread.

I especially liked the bit where you blamed 'confounded' posters for accurately inferring your meaning. It's eerily akin to Trump's own method of pretending he meant other than what he said.

[lovemydog]

480. LOL.

'I love the Mexicans. The Mexicans are friends of mine. I'm gonna get them to build a wall. Make them pay for it. To keep them out. So we don't have to be around them. They'll love me for it.'

[Sheepshank]

473. In honor of Catherina, everyone should read hidden posts by Geek Tragedy

and throw in post #37 for good measure


not sure exactly why we should honor, but each to his own I suppose.

[lovemydog]

478. I rescind my earlier

acceptance of your 'apology.' From reading this thread and your responses, I realize you never meant to apologize.

You clearly have no desire to learn anything.

[stevenleser]

502. Wow. Someone up thread used a word I like to use to describe the reason for a lot

Of this and what you see from the anti-Obama and pro-Putin crowd on DU. Nationalism, specifically the negative-Nationalism variety, when one group or country has been designated by a person as evil and the enemy and anyone or anything against that entity automatically becomes good no matter how horrendous they are.

For Catherina, and many who think like her here, the US is that enemy. That makes Putin good, Maduro good, etc. Obama as President of that hated entity automatically becomes bad as do all who support him hence the House-* comment.

I find it interesting also that posts have been hidden for writing only the unvarnished truth and they have no doubt been hidden by folks who elsewhere I have seen posting that the truth should be an absolute defense to hidden posts and who call other people authoritarian.

I join others here supporting Geek Tragedy, Chi-town Kev and NuclearDem.

It's very interesting to see who gets support here and who, ahem, receives condemnation and hidden posts.

[SidDithers]

503. Kick for posters in denial...nt

Sid

[Sheepshank]

504. This is what Sanders supporters do

Why not check out the hidden posts by Geek Tragedy

[ronnykmarshall]

505. I printed this out

and I tore right through it.

[stonecutter357]

506. Are you a true Bernie supporter ?