A thank you to Skinner

[lovemydog]

and DemocratSinceBirth. This is in Ask the Administrators:



from DemocratSinceBirth:

BLACK PEOPLE ARE GETTING DISRESPECTED LEFT AND RIGHT HERE

IT WOULD REALLY BEHOOVE YOU TO SAY SOMETHING AND SET A TONE!

PLEASE, IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS GOOD!

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE

DSB

Reply from Skinner:

I have been incredibly disappointed by some of the things that have been posted here recently especially some of the things posted in reference to African Americans.

That disappointment is compounded by the fact that too many DUers seem to be perfectly willing to justify or excuse the things that have been posted. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I can only assume that people are so caught up in the partisan fight that they can't bring themselves to take a step back, remove their candidate supporter hats, and look critically at some of the things that are being said.

I think that it would be a mistake for me to wade into the primaries and start overturning juries or doing anything that might look like a partisan power play, because then the discussion is about me rather than about the content of what is being posted. But I want to be clear that the admins are aware of what is going on, we do not like it, and we have a number of ideas -- in the medium-term and the long-term -- that we believe will make a difference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599671

[shenmue]

1. Bravo

[RiverNoord]

44. I'm a Sanders supporter and I'd be grateful for links to any posts denigrating African American Dems

Please reply with as many as you can find, because I'd like to... have a word or two... with anyone who claims to support the same candidate as I and is writing anything the least bit disrespectful of Democrats based on how long ago their ancestors left Africa compared to how long ago theirs did.

I'd be most grateful for anyone's help concerning this problem. A bit of direct... communication with any such party is, I think, in order.

[passiveporcupine]

48. Actually it's been pretty consistent

Instead of asking questions, Bernie supporters keep telling blacks they are voting against their best interests by choosing Hillary over Bernie. They assume that black voters are not properly informed and that being properly informed is all they need to do to win their votes. When in fact, it's white Bernie supporters who have not been properly informed about why blacks are voting for Hillary. I've been asking for a long time and not getting any answers. Recently I did get some answers.

I think it is a discussion that is finally opening up. I hope so anyway. But I would like to put this out there in defense of Bernie supporters. AAs, if you don't inform us of your reasons for choosing Hillary, how are we supposed to know and say...OK, I understand and respect your choice. This is a two-way street. We both need to be open to this discussion.

[fun n serious]

60. When people say they are voting against their own best interest...

It basically means all YOU white people know better than blacks what their best interest is. As if they somehow can not make their own decisions. They have given reasons for their vote for Hillary many many times but y'all dismiss it.

[passiveporcupine]

69. Actually, I have not seen the reasons they are voting for Hillary

In spite of my questions, until recently a DU member opened up to me in private and revealed information I knew nothing about. And that may be why you are still being put in this position. I will not expose what I was told in privacy, but I wish you all would start revealing your "reasons", to put this to rest.

Do I agree with all your reasons, no, but with some I do. And that should be enough for me to say OK, I respect your decision and I will no longer try to convince you why I think you are wrong. I would do the same for a white person. There are many white people who support Hillary, but I have yet to see them post reasons why she might be a better choice for our country than Bernie, except one, she's a woman, and two, she is establishment, and therefor can get more done, or can win the general when Bernie can't (and I think that has been dis-proven).

I don't buy either of those two reasons for electing her over Bernie, but I do accept some of the reasons AAs (mostly older AAs) have decided she is their choice. And if I were in their shoes, I might feel exactly the same way. I've not grown up in a country where I was consistently kicked down and have been waiting for signs of support. She has supported blacks for many years, in spite of her mistakes. I didn't know that. Maybe it's time someone educated these old (oblivious) white folk.

[fun n serious]

70. I have given my reason many times in a very respectful way

Only to be bombarded with hate. Anyway, I am not black.. I'm Mexican/American. I would never tell anyone they're voting against their own best interest if I were not in their shoes. That was my point. BTW, My reason was not because I thought she could win or that she was a woman. It was more about how she rolled her sleeves up and worked on legislation vs Bernie for the most part just voted on it. Thank you for being polite in your questions though. That has been rare as of late...

[passiveporcupine]

72. Thank you for addressing this calmly.

I have not seen your posts, so maybe what we need are more people talking about this. Like Bigtree is doing.

[fun n serious]

73. I agree.

I have said many times.. I will proudly vote for Bernie should he be the Nominee.

[Hortensis]

108. I'll just point out that none of us need give our

reasons to anyone else. If we choose to offer fine, but no one has a special duty to provide explanations. This is the Information Age, and all who want to know can always educate themselves on issues of importance to others and find discussion from various sources, without bothering any particular people.

Note that not infrequently ignorance itself can be offensive. The many problems that various minority groups feel particularly beset by, for instance, are hardly new; whole sections of libraries are filled with books on them, and any on-line search would pull up more reading material than could be gotten through in a month. And, of course, in that goes for material on black and other minority issues focusing specifically on the 2016 elections.

[hfojvt]

111. If I am in the bottom 20%

and they are in the bottom 20%, aren't we both in the same shoes to a large extent?

To a very large extent a lot of our tribe, or at least the spokespeople, are upper class white people, who constantly tell lower class white people that the lower class white people are voting against their own best interest.

[CoffeeCat]

102. I have not been a part of these discussions

because frankly, I find it so disheartening that our party has a rift like this.

One reason why I am a Democrat is because we treat everyone fairly. We fight racism. The Republicans don't. A central theme of our party is that we are on the same page when it comes to pushing our country forward on issues of equality, fairness and decency--when it comes to minorities.

Democrats are the champions of this decency.

I don't know what's going on here, with respect to all of this. I want to tune in and listen, because I don't want anyone believing that Bernie supporters do not respect and care about people of color or the specific issues that are important to them.

I think both candidates care tremendously about ALL Americans. I think both Bernie and HRC care about people of color, Hispanics, Native Americans and other minorities. If they didn't care, they'd be in the Republican party.

I don't know how this misunderstanding or argument happened or how it escalated. My hope is that we can resolve it and listen to each other--because this is not who we are. We've always been united on these issues and it's really tough for me to see this happening.

[Hortensis]

112. CoffeeCat, of course a large majority of Bernie supporters

are as reasonable and open to others as a person reasonably could hope of a crowd of Democrats. They are us.

The misunderstandings are coming from a small percentage of ardent farther-left souls. They have been angry, not because of race but because of lack of ideological agrement -- with them. Blacks chose Hillary over Bernie, and it is their nature to be upset with people who do not join their movement.

On the plus side, most people literally have no or virtually no idea this has been happening. We may have 300+ of the ardent ones gathered here, but that's drawn from 300,000,000+.

[CoffeeCat]

113. I have not seen 300 Bernie supporters

attacking black Clinton supporters for supporting Clinton. I mean, that would be quite noticeable, wouldn't it?

And I can't imagine that 99 percent of Bernie supporters would support such a thing.

As I said, I have not seen these discussions. So, maybe I've missed quite a bit.

As a Sanders supporter I believe that everyone has a right to support their candidate of choice.

[RiverNoord]

105. I don't think anyone should have to inform us about their reasons for supporting a candidate.

I don't understand why any member of any minority ethnic group in the United States would vote for a Republican, and, yes, when an African American is into Tea Party stuff I am absolutely baffled. However, such a person is under no obligation to anybody to explain why.

I am a little bit baffled as to why... African Americans - y'know, I don't believe that descriptions like that are meaningful or productive and I'm really uncomfortable using them - I've never, ever been called an European American, but that would be correct if I'm being defined by the continent my ancestors lived on just before they came to the US.... I'll just go with 'Americans who are defined as belonging to a group that is based primarily on a darker skin pigmentation than that of the current majority of Americans.' I just... feel as I'm just feeding racism by using terms like 'African Americans' that I don't believe in, at least as used by people who don't consider themselves a member of such a group as an aspect of heritage. I've never called my friends with darker skin than I anything but their names, and when I've asked if it's OK if I don't refer to them as 'black' or 'African Americans' I've got funny looks, then pauses, them generally something like 'um... you were really worried about how I/we might react to that?' Of course, two guys I'm pretty sure won't see this... um, now move away just a bit (and, I think, wear a sort of semi-embarrassed smile) when I'm with one or the other and hear a... muffled racist remark nearby. Always a nice opportunity for exercise, and, y'know, it's funny how quickly most racists transform into cowards when they are called upon to defend words they never expected to...

OK, I'm tired and off-topic, so I'll just say this: If we Bernie supporters would like to win support among ethnic groups that we might believe are 'voting against their interest,' the first thing not to do is say 'you're voting against your interest!' The next thing to do is lay out some facts about Sanders' civil rights' activities throughout his life. And then we need to let Sen. Sanders speak for himself. If someone decides, based on such information, that she/he might want to take a closer look at Bernie, well, that's a job pretty well done for a supporter of candidate.

And the overriding thing to avoid is declaring how Sec. Clinton's record shows how bad she is on civil rights. She's done some good stuff, she's definitely sat on the sidelines for a lot of stuff, and she's done some not-so-good stuff. But I know I'd rather do my own examination of a candidate's history than have a bunch of negative stuff pushed on my by supporters of an opposing candidate. So I don't expect anyone, of any background or ethnicity, to look at things like that any differently...

Oh - and porcupine - you're one of the good guys. I'll gladly have your back if you take a racist Bernie supporter to task.

[passiveporcupine]

106. Thanks Noord, but let me tell you why I think it should be explained

Apparently there is a lot of history about Hillary that is not well known to a lot of us...about her work with AAs especially, and for women and children. Yes her work for women's equality is well known, but not so much her other behind-the-scenes work that has helped POC for many years (at least 22 years...since Bill was POTUS). Her work for children helps minorities a lot too, an many poor communities most helped by programs like CHIP are POC. But she has also promoted the advancement of POC by helping to get them elected as judges and get jobs in Bill's administration. She has always tried to be inclusive of POC when hiring for any of her projects and committees. Bernie on the other hand has not, but I don't blame him so much for that as he lives in a predominantly white state and does not have the racial mix of potential employees to pick from. But that is something he should be trying to fix, regardless, and maybe this campaign will open his eyes to things like this. He's already doing that by bringing more POC into his campaign.

And because of that she has a loyal following the a lot of white people don't understand. Those white people tend to judge her solely on public knowledge, which is too often her negatives. So a lot of people think she is all bad, based on her slower social progress in many areas and especially on her foreign policies and trade policies.

We (Bernie supporters) want people to learn about Sanders, but I think we should also be willing to learn about Clinton. Not just the bad stuff that we can use against her, but her entire legacy. Then maybe we won't see so many nasty posts about her, and maybe we will be a little easier on people who choose her over Bernie. But, I also understand why, being in the minority here, people are afraid to open up and try to discuss Hillary's good points. There are too many people here who only want a one-sided conversation.


This is the primary season where we all have to decide and support and try to sell our candidate. but we should be open to hearing about all candidates, not just the one we have settled on.

[RiverNoord]

109. Thanks for that - I understand far better now what you were trying to get across.

I agree with pretty much everything you said and how you said it. Well put.

The one thing that I would add, though, is this:

Bernie Sanders is the only..., well I don't have time so I'll just live with the bogus description this time: 'white' sitting Senator of the United States who has been arrested at a civil rights demonstration (Chicago 1962 - against segregation of Chicago's schools.)

There's tons more to his civil rights record, but it's one thing to work for civil rights from a position of authority, strength, and wealth. It's quite another thing doing it on the street level when things are hot, and you're just a person who believes you've got to do something.

[passiveporcupine]

110. Yes, I agree with that

It's a fair point to bring up and if there were more open, less hateful exchange here for both candidates, we'd be able to get to the finer points of the debate. Many people from both sides have made biased decisions and have closed themselves off to anything that might shake up their stance...instead they are preaching or insulting or intimidating their opponent. Those biases can only be lost when people start to open up to real dialogue, intended to find a solution to a point of conflict.

[iandhr]

52. You can start with this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511355553

63 recs


Uses phrases like SC retains the Master/servant style of population.

[SCantiGOP]

61. Rivernoord:

Rivernoord: do you have any comment about the thread posted by iandhr above this one? That post, and that poster, are two of the most egregious examples of what is being discussed here.
If you want to take someone to task start there.

[iandhr]

62. I wasn't calling that person out to be clear.

The poster was asking for evidence of threads with a racist theme because he or she was unaware of them. (My understanding of the post) My intent was to inform not take someone to task.

[SCantiGOP]

63. I agree

I am familiar with Rivernoord and wanted to see his response if he reads the post you cited.

[iandhr]

66. Got it.

When having a discussion in an online comment section one can misunderstand one another easily.

[SCantiGOP]

77. Amen to that

I think we are on the same side on this one.

[RobertEarl]

79. Everything is just fine in SC

No problems.

[RiverNoord]

133. That was perfectly obvious to me, iandhr :-).

Thanks for providing me a very good example of what I was asking for.

As a follow-up - I responded directly to the post you pointed out, and the poster replied right back with a peculiar response, then immediately stopped comment on the whole... OP? I believe that's what it's called, as I'm learning... Or it was 'locked' as off-topic by someone else. I'm not entirely sure now.

Well, he accused me of a personal attack - which, I'd have to say, was not inaccurate. Well, I can live with that. I had pointed out that it was apparent to me that he did not have significant experience actually engaging in the work of fighting racism, and that he was simply using the cause that he claimed was motivating him opportunistically to denigrate others.

His response on that was... strange - 'One does what one can do to fight racism.' Then he seemed to suggest that I thought very highly of South Carolina, which was way off the point, and, amusingly, on the topic of racism, wrote that 'I look forward to reading what you say about it on DU.'

Well, he then deleted his original message, which showed some sense, but two other things happened:

1) A little bit below in this discussion, you can see 'Everything is just fine in SC - no problems.' So... a bit of a stalker...

2) He sent me a direct 'DU mail' message with the subject 'Just so I know you read this,' and the body was what I wrote above with the subject 'Yeah, it's pretty damn ugly.'

So... awfully strange behavior there.

I expect the guy will probably read this, so - to you, Mr. RobertEarl - I would suggest you drop this thing right now and move on. You're not doing yourself any good by following me around, and this would be an excellent opportunity for an exercise in good sense. In real life, and with real people, not just through typing words to anonymous people on the Internet, I do spend a very substantial amount of time and energy directly working against racism. I think you don't realize why what you wrote was, in its effect, really racist, and you could worse than to take a deep breath and think it over. Or not. Your choice. If you need vindication, you're not going to get it, and the stranger your behavior gets the less you're going to like yourself. And, at some point, I won't be so nice.

[iandhr]

137. Glad were on the same page.

[RiverNoord]

87. Yeah, it's pretty damn ugly.

And the poster is obviously extremely aggressive in the expression of what he's saying is his perspective on a particular state. And the perspective he claims to have says nothing about his 'subject' and everything about him.

I mean, well, I've spent some time in the state he refers to, the capital in particular, and I'd say that, from what I've seen, there is a far greater level of openly racist culture where I've been than, say, in Minnesota, where I live. North Dakota, where I grew up, perhaps... not so much of a difference, particularly in the western half of the state. Again, that's just what I've experienced as a business visitor to the state from Minnesota.

But a post like that one - ugly, extreme, and brutally ignorant. Even if there was some element of truth to an assertion he could have made such as 'there is, in my opinion, a disproportionately high level of racism in the state, compared to..' it's irrelevant to what he wrote. He was aggressively attacking the basic worth of essentially all the people of the state to apparently make a point about how its Democratic voters should be ignored. And it reads like the rantings of a guy ready to grab a gun and shoot up a movie theater.

I've been out of the DU... hostilities... for a little over 6 months. Is he new-ish? Seems really messed up to me. With someone who's messed up in the way I would speculate he might be, the best thing to do is flat-out ignore him. Reply at all with what most of us would consider a sane response to garbage like that and you give him the gratification he's trying to achieve. But... I'm willing to test that proposition...

[SCantiGOP]

88. Thanks for your answer

I live in that capital city of the state in question. My office's conference window looks out on the SC Statehouse so I used to have to see that god damned flag waving in the breeze.
I know the guy posting was really trying to spin things for his candidate but bigotry is bigotry and he went way over the line. What pissed me off was his post wasn't deleted and was given dozens of recs and he never backed down during the discussion.

[RiverNoord]

90. Ah - I understand.

I don't think I deserve any thanks for my answer - I asked for something and you're the one who deserves my thanks for responding. So, thank you .

There's no shortage of creeps in the world who manage to make themselves heard. A guy like that isn't worth a moment's bother, and he damn sure doesn't have a clue about the worth of Democrats like you. Can't mute them all, though, and I suppose in the grand scheme of things I'd rather let a few creeps have their say than see a lot of worthwhile, but maybe a bit ill-stated, perspectives have no place like DU to be heard.

Any Bernie supporters who 'rec'd' his post (me - IT director who still hasn't figured out how to do that on this site...) ought to take a very careful look at themselves and ask if doing so was a good thing to do. Cuz' it really wasn't. I've met Bernie Sanders 3 times over the years, and I expect he'd quite comfortably ask someone who wrote what that guy did to vote for someone else.

Take care and thanks for putting me on the spot - hope I passed .

[Skittles]

83. I think that post is utterly disgusting

[bettyellen]

85. Look at any and all replies to OPs started by Bigtree or Braveneck, for starters.

Then look up "stockholm syndrome + DU". That should keep you busy.

[yardwork]

97. Scan the first page or two of GD-P.

There are multiple OPs. This has been going on for a year and is worse than ever.

[sufrommich]

2. The jury system has turned this place into a trollish

cesspool. I hope the changes include getting rid of it.

[applegrove]

4. Maybe just get rid of it during the election. GOP troll money will

dry up after the election I'm sure.

[emulatorloo]

38. Nah, they work hard during midterms as well

Coming up with various reasons why Dems should sit home or vote third party to teach Dems a "lesson."

[blm]

5. It was OK till the primaries. Now you sometimes see blatant TEAMING UP, and,

as one of the old-timers here, it has made me sick to my stomach.

But, I also don't believe that the worst offenders here are real Dems - I think they are a team of seventhsons enjoying the dissension they are causing while collecting a paycheck from one of the heavily funded opposition groups targeting Dem sites.

[sufrommich]

8. What are seventhsons? nt

[blm]

11. The GOP troll who outed himself on election night 2004.

.

[sufrommich]

12. OK thanks. I thought it was some group

of 4Tran trolls I hadn't heard of.

[emulatorloo]

29. Big attack-Kerry-from-the-left person. High post count. Did a victory lap on election night

after Bush was declared the winner. In DU lore is know as "The Great Reveal".

If I remember correctly there were a coulpe or three other pretend Democrat pot-stirrers who gleefully out themselves that night.

[Raine1967]

40. Better Believe It...

[ScreamingMeemie]

67. He outed himself long before that.

He was nuked on his first night on DU, and another moderator (who shall remain nameless) reinstated him. Because that's what we used to be able to do. If one moderator dissented, the nuke could be reversed.

[QC]

84. Who could ever forget the Haitian manboobs?

Ah, memories.

[bobthedrummer]

18. You had to be here-there are always operatives and worse involved in all things political-Partywise.

9/11 changed everything except the truth.

Information Operations Task Force (SourceWatch)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Information_Operations_Task_Force

[ProfessorGAC]

9. I'm One Of The Old Timers

I've been on LOTS of juries lately, and i'm not teaming up with anybody. I take each jury opportunity as an individual event.

Apparently doing what i've always done as a juror is making this place a cesspool.

[blm]

10. I should have said SOME of the time. Sorry.

.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. No Worries

You and i have agreed on a lot of things for a long time.

[brer cat]

32. If they are not talking about you,

they are not talking about you.

[ProfessorGAC]

103. When The Brush Is So Broad. . .

. . .it's easy to get paint on everyone.

[mac56]

49. Same here, Prof.

I dislike the suggestion that what we're doing to try and make DU better is actually making it worse.

[Rex]

115. Same here. A persons name don't enter into it.

However I see a lot of posters basically saying their team is taking hits. So there are people here that are in factions. Pretty juvenile imo, but here we are.

[lovemydog]

24. Interesting.

Where did the seventhsons post? For a second I thought you were referring to a Willie Dixon or Iron Maiden song.

[blm]

47. GOP troll who outed himself as cruelly as possible election night 2004.

He posted here regularly throughout 2003-4, always posing as a lefty who couldn't be satisfied with anything Dems did.

[lovemydog]

68. Sounds familiar in the sense

that we have A LOT of posters like that now.

[Kip Humphrey]

25. make no mistake, Dirty Dicksters are afoot at DU. The RNC is still the RNC after all.

I would like to see the jury system suspended until the convention. It has, is, and will continue to be abused to tombstone authentic DUers

[FSogol]

28. The jury system cannot tombstone anyone. If a poster gets 5 hides, they

are given a vacation for 90 days. They are back 90 days after their 1st hide. Some people seem to be good at getting themselves put on vacation, but it has more to do with temperament than juries.

[PeaceNikki]

34. It can trip an auto ban on newb trolls

And/or alert MIRT for review when new posters get a hide.

[FSogol]

35. I'm serving my first ever term on MIRT and see no evidence of MIRT banning any

"authentic DUers"

[PeaceNikki]

39. Right, just the newb trolls

[FSogol]

27. +1 n/t

[wryter2000]

42. I'm sure you're right about that

I can't believe some of the crap I've seen here.

[lpbk2713]

7. You make a good point.

Some alerts sent to a jury vote are predictable even before the entire alert is read just because of the subject matter. Right or wrong does not seem to matter. Just wait a few more months and you will probably see an improvement. If for no other reason than the trolls see no further reason for being here.

[NYC Liberal]

13. Bring back the moderators and bring back unrec.

The nice thing about having Moderators is that they are accountable, and not just to the admins if they happen to look into it (as is the case with jurors). They are accountable to the community.

If we ARE going to keep the jury system, then I think:

1. Jurors should not be anonymous, and their jury votes should be viewable on their profile page like Recs are.
2. All jury results should be accessible by everyone. Have a dedicated page where jury results are posted and can be viewed. This includes both Hide and Leave Alone results.
3. Posters whose posts are alerted on should receive a notification even if the alert fails.
4. Hides should be appealable.

But really -- bring back the mods.

[Nye Bevan]

16. When we had mods, Skinner spent a huge amount of time addressing questions like

"why was my post hidden when this other one wasn't"? and dealing with complaints about "biased" mods. The jury system was a sheer stroke of genius. Now the answer to everything is you post something questionable, you take your chances with a jury.

[NYC Liberal]

17. Except there is no accountability with the current system.

If we keep the jury system, that needs to change.

Accountability comes in the form of removing anonymity for jurors and public posting of all jury results for anyone to view.

Also, if you have three failed alerts (whether 7-0 or 4-3) in the course of a defined time period - say, 72 hours - then you should not be allowed to alert for a week.

[treestar]

82. you also take your chances that a perfectly OK post will get hidden

by partisan jurors.

[wryter2000]

45. Agreed

Especially the unrec. I'd love to take some of the garbage I see off the greatest page.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. I disagree.

I think that

"is the proportion of people think this is an especially good post unusually high?"

is a better indicator of

"is this worth reading?"

than

"is the proportion of people who think this is an unusually good post unusually much higher than the proportion who think it is an unusually bad post?"

So I'd rather see posts with lots of likes, rather than posts with lots more like than dislikes.

[intheflow]

81. I miss the unrec button, too.

But if we're keeping the jury system, I like your suggestions that the juries not be anonymous. I'd also like to make it a requirement that jurors comment on their decisions. Under the moderator system, there was discussion among the mods. People had to give reasons, within the mod group, why they believed strongly one way or another that a post should be hidden. I sit on a lot of juries, and while some alerts are spurious, I try to comment on each alert. I think the alerter deserves to know why I agree or disagree with their alert. Really, it's just common courtesy. And it would add to transparency.

[Hortensis]

114. Agree with most, but not with removing anonymity.

That would definitely invite feuds, and a display of star power over others would invite resentment and new divisions.

I also normally comment because with all the faults and criticisms, including unfair, of the jury system I think people need to know the reasons for the votes, that there are reasons whether they agree or not.

[EV_Ares]

21. Agree, most of them are OK but some get a little smart-mouthed or sarcastic in their comments.

[NurseJackie]

26. Thank you.

I'd have posted that myself, but... well, you know.


Note to Jury: I'm just agreeing with someone. I didn't post it.

[Matrosov]

31. I love the jury system

I'm not a fan of the standard moderator system in other forums. People constantly expect them to explain every little moderating decision, especially if there a the perception of inconsistency or favoritism. Of course, some mods are inconsistent and/or biased toward certain posters, and that's a problem in itself.

The jury system generally does away with these issues. The only problem is that there is still the chance for favoritism, by seeing who created the post that's being alerted. Someone you like? Leave it. Someone you dislike? Hide it.

So one change I think that could work well is if jurors are presented only with the text of the post that's being alerted. You don't get to see who wrote it, where they wrote it, or what is in the rest of the thread.

A few have suggested over time to remove the anonymity of the jurors. I'd fear that would only lead to jurors being harassed for their decisions.

[Hortensis]

117. IMO, removing context would tend to lead to

bad decisiions. Since making an early mistake on a long thread, I almost always hold up juries until I feel I understand the context. I agree removing names would be desirable if it could be done.

And I also feel the jury system is the worst system except for all the others. I'm not sure how strong it is, but surely there is some benefit to the community from having the membership involved in these decisions?

[Lizzie Poppet]

89. We've not been agreeing on much...

...but you knocked that one out of the park.

[BlueMTexpat]

3. Glad to hear that some

solutions may be in the offing.

When DU effectively becomes a forum where one core Dem base of support is disrespected as blatantly as has been the case with AAs here, we are little better than Faux & Co.

Let us please let the primary "silly season" be over soon - or, if not that, at least let us be swept by a tsunami of courtesy and respect towards all those here who are staunch Democrats, whether we agree with their views or not.

[angrychair]

6. I think this is a seious issue

And everyone here should be treated fairly and equally here, regardless of race, sexual orientation, national origin or religious or non-religious beliefs.
Maybe someday people here will care enough to not use antisemitic and holocaust denial websites as the source site to smear Democratic Party presidential candidates because no one cared in December.

[HoosierRadical]

36. I have been unfairly treated by HRC supporters, because I'm AA

and I refused to be quiet while the Clinton machine manipulates my community.

[TM99]

53. We are not the 'right' kind of PoC.

I have seen it with regards to Asians, Hispanics, AA's, bi-racials, etc. We are told that we are the lunatic fringe. We are told that when PoC endorse Sanders they are light weights, irrelevants, or traitors.

Then there are a couple of AA's on these boards who don't give a shit about either candidate apparently but they love to just watch the results of some of their shit-stirring.

Then we watch our white allies get lectured day after day for being something they are not - racist. If anyone speaks out we are disrespecting icons, denying PoC autonomy, etc.

The irony is that most of this has been pushed by white Clinton supporters who don't give a shit that she ran a racist campaign in 2008. They don't care that Brock is a vile rat-fucker who will push any swift-boating meme he can find to get her elected. They don't care that Capeheart lied about photographic proof of Sanders in CORE in Chicago. They don't give a shit that John Lewis implied that Sanders was not involved with civil rights in the 1960's but somehow Bill & Hillary were. They don't give a shit when Huerta lies on Twitter and national TV and yet video and eye-witnesses completely proof that she did.

No they are the ones using PoC. And frankly I am fucking sick of it.

[HoosierRadical]

56. I'm sick of it as well, I asked to start a AA for Bernie group and

I have yet to get a reply, I was banned by the AA group because I passionately spoke my opposition to the sheep mentality that is running amok within the community, never in a million years did I expect other AAs to turned against their own over Hillary.

[Rilgin]

92. An expression of support

I had a lot of reservations about responding in this thread mostly because after a few conversations months ago I decided to just avoid threads which have race as the subtext of the thread. Not because I do not have opinions but because what you said is exactly right. Activists or Hillary supporters end up using disingenuous attacks that either someone can not understand or they are racist. These attacks are usually shit stirring or tactical to try to avoid the issue and have the thread devolve into motives of the posters. I end up realizing that none of them are productive since its really not designed to have an honest discussion of race, justice, or the problems in our society.

This is especially true of critical discussions of Hillary's history in areas that touch on criminal and social justice. The tactic used against white Bernie supporter is to claim either a white person can not understand or are racist and to deny that all races, genders, people have their own experiences and similar but not identical problems that might allow such understanding. Ultimately, it comes down to trying to a claim of racism where I think most Bernie supporters are for universal justice and for universal respect for all people.

I can only imagine what kind of labels you are getting. So support and appreciation for bucking the shit that must be thrown at you.

[TM99]

126. Well said.

Thank you.

[HoosierRadical]

127. Thank-you, I really appreciate your support

[Rilgin]

135. TY as well. Even more so.

I originally thought I was sending a private message of support and was going to send one to you as well so as to avoid the thread. When I realized I had actually posted, I decided to just leave it and just post to this thread.

In some ways I am lucky. I participate and have participated in playing poker and playing basketball (when I was much younger). Poker tables and basketball courts tend to allow races to mix and relate without much of the baggage that comes in the political realm. That and my upbringing in NY with an activist mother led to a desire for a humanist politics.

In any event, I had another fairly significant race experience going to school in the midwest (also many years ago). My best friend ended up being an older AA woman from NY. We shared both NY and some common people. We spent a lot of time together studying and just shooting the shit. Over time I learned a lot both about what she faced in both general society and within the AA community. It was not the same pressures but she told me she got a lot of early grief having a crazy white boy as her best friend although it moderated over time as we spent more time together and with both AA and white friends.

I expect you get some of the same grief as she did early from your identification in a group that is being labeled as a "white" group. Anyhow, I hope that it changes for you and you get others standing up behind you.

[malokvale77]

64. ^^^This^^^

Your voice is every bit as important as those who support Skinners preferred candidate.

[HoosierRadical]

128. Thank-You!

[msanthrope]

15. Ban some racist fuckers. nt

[giftedgirl77]

46. Hell yeah!!!

Idc if they're new or not the racist ass shit needs to go.

[joshcryer]

54. +1

[yardwork]

98. This.

[msanthrope]

99. 3 or 4 of the most egregious. They stick out like sore thumbs. nt

[yardwork]

100. Way past obvious and way past time to take action, imo.

It's insulting that the only way to get banned around here is to ask people to sign a particular type of pledge.

[msanthrope]

101. Well, bluntly, admin has allowed the blatantly racist to flourish here. While I appreciate

all that admin does, and I certainly do not expect them to get involved in petty internecine squabbles....enough is enough.

The utter racism of some OPs--and the continued impunity of said posters speaks volumes. While the jury system works as a check for the vast majority of posters who may post inappropriate or nasty things....it does NOT work for super trolls.

The super trolls need a judge and an executioner. It's way past time to clear the trash out. You Better Believe It.

[Hortensis]

118. I'm surprised banning is not used more and

actually suggested recently that it might be needed. One does not have to intend to be a troll to have a troll effect. Even if someone doesn't understand why repeated comments are offensive, the fact that they repeatedly considered so by an entire community should be grounds for considering if that person or persons should be allowed to stay.

I'd also like to see small group forums be safer from abusers. Is it really necessary to allow people who don't "belong" alert on posts in those forums?

[MisterP]

19. unless it's Cynthia McKinney being harassed by the cops: then Skinner will hang her out to dry on DU

[mcar]

20. K&R

[shireen]

22. you show amazing restraint

My first reaction would have been to ban those jerks.
But you and the other admins seem to be dealing with it thoughtfully. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Trust Buster]

23. Watching so many posts hidden based on political biases

rather than being actual DU infractions rips the VERY heart out of the word "Democratic" IMO.

[HoosierRadical]

33. Does that mean AAs who support Bernie will stop being persecuted for

speaking truth to power? Probably not. I don't like how my community is being manipulated by the Clinton machine, I will not be made to "heel".

[bvf]

43. Sadly, you're probably right.

[vdogg]

55. Where is this occurring?

I frequent the AA and Hillary group and haven't seen this occur. Generally I have seen nothing but respect shown towards Bernie supporters in the AA group.

[Arazi]

74. In GD and GDP. I've seen it too eom

[HoosierRadical]

130. I'm here to tell you, I have not been shown respect,

I was "warned" not to question the herd mentality taking place, when I continued to raised my objections, they accused me of being a white and racist towards Black people, when I pointed out to them that I'm AA, they than said I was being demeaning towards my own people. They only said that, because I refused to remain silent, AA who support Bernie are not welcomed in the AA group.

[vdogg]

134. Well you're welcomed by me.

I don't agree with you, but you're welcome. So long as you respect my views, I'll respect yours. I just know that there are other Bernie supporters in the group and so far I haven't seen any issues. Admittedly, I just started visiting the group a few weeks ago.

[HoosierRadical]

136. Thank-you, I'm not disrespectful, they labeled me as such

simply because I called foul on the Clinton machine.

[cwydro]

123. Sooo, you don't believe that "your community" can think for themselves?

I understand why you were banned from the AA forum if you have posted like this.

[HoosierRadical]

132. I was banned because I refused to be silent

why my community is being misled and manipulated by a corporatist candidate who will say anything to get elected, and have no qualms about betraying the very community who put her into office.

[nc4bo]

129. Our opinions and comments don't count neither do

Black Sanders surrogates like Nina Turner or online and other media personalities like Tim Black.

Black DU Sanders supporters voices are ignored or treated like the enemy. Black Clinton supporters rarely want to hear what we have to say.

That saying often used around here; black people are NOT a monolith goes both damn ways.

[HoosierRadical]

131. Right on!

What's really at the heart of this, is that AA HRC supporters, know we are right, I think they probably feel embarrassed or even ashamed, but, lack the wherewithal to stand up against the Clinton machine, even on a darn website. They rather settle for crumbs, instead of fighting for a loaf.

[erlewyne]

37. Who am I?

I am white and prejudiced. I cannot help it. I have
the prettiest grandchildren and when I compliment your
children, deep down I am lying. I am prejudiced.

I got a letter from home, I was going to Germany ...
infantry, artillery, forward observer .... deadly. Uncle Sam
sent me to Germany! My brother just talked to Herman
a few weeks ago, Herman, my good friend and full back
on the H.S. team, I blocked for him and we kicked ass.
Herman got drafted as a conscientious objector.

Herman is blacker than the ace of spades. And I told him
that. We were good friends. I was told that Herman was
drafted and was going to be a medic. This really happened,
the P.S. to the letter was Herman was killed, in Viet Nam.


I just cannot relate to this A.A. stuff. I am for BERNIE SANDERS.
And I am prejudiced and Herman will always be with me!

[SCantiGOP]

41. Thank you, Skinner

Long overdue.
I am not AA, but I have had posts hidden where it is obvious that the majority is using the system to stifle the opinions of anyone who resists the Sanders mania.
As a Southerner I have been appalled at some of the nasty comments aimed at Southern Democrats in general and the African American community in particular. Yes we live in red states, but there are thousands of sincere, dedicated liberals here - Clinton and Sanders supporters alike - and we do not appreciate the demeaning and condescending rhetoric that is all too common here.

[stonecutter357]

50. K&R!

[kristopher]

57. I think frivolous alerts are a big part of the problem

I'm serving on a lot of juries and the bulk of the alerts are patent nonsense. I'm pretty sure that creates a mindset that raises the bar for hiding the borderline posts.

How about a public history of alerts on everyone's profile - including a link to each post alerted on?

[Hortensis]

119. I wonder how that'd work. It would allow

people to better "consider the source" as reputations were developed and patterns of behavior revealed.

I don't like removing anonymity from jurors because I think it would cause resentments and divisions, but keeping records of alerts might act as a brake on bad behavior and as a community stabilizer.

[kristopher]

121. Well knock me over with a feather!

We finally agree 100% on something and it certainly feels good. I knew it had to happen eventually.

[Hortensis]

122. Yes, it does!

Thanks for the smile.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. Thank you. Whatever the "ideas", it can't happen a moment too soon. It's off the charts now.

[PatrynXX]

59. certainly not coming from the Sanders folks.

Black on Black critiques though.... thats their call

[cwydro]

65. K and r.

I know it's not every Bernie supporter doing this, but the ones that aren't doing it should shut down the ones that are.

[Hortensis]

120. They can't, Cwydro. We're really talking about

very different kinds of people here.

The instant sensible Bernie supporters (a large majority everywhere but on DU) revealed themselves as not aligned with the ones we're talking about, by even mild disapproval, they'd be tossed under the bus. At the very least they'd lose all power to influence. There is a very strong element of pack aggression going on, and like all packs you are either one of them or you are an outsider.

[cwydro]

124. Sadly, I think you are right.

I hadn't looked at it from that angle.

A shame.

[sheshe2]

71. K&R

Thanks for posting DSB and Skinners words, lovemydog.

[Arazi]

75. Kicked and recced!! eom

[Thinkingabout]

76. Thanks for posting, when I read disparaging remarks about John Lewis and Deloror Huerta,

I pause to think these great people who have been trailblazers in seeking equal rights, a very progressive position and it is very sad.

[different equation]

78. K AND R

[Scurrilous]

80. K & R

[Starry Messenger]

86. k&r

[alcibiades_mystery]

91. Hear hear!

I fear GD/P is only going to get worse in this regard in the near-term, too.

[betsuni]

93. K&R

[TBF]

94. I've said time and time again that this site

was better w/moderators. I found it in 2008 around the time I signed up locally to volunteer on the Obama campaign.

I spend a fair amount of time here looking for folks who are also seriously interested in socialism, along with supporting Bernie in this nominating process. I have viewed many obvious troll accounts - whether they are paid campaign accounts, Koch Bros/NRA/GMO etc. subject-specific trolling, etc., and regular old right wing shenanigans.

I'm sure the moderating took a lot more work, but it seemed to result in a better product.

[Blue_Tires]

95. K+R

[yardwork]

96. I would like to rec but I want the site owners to do more.

The open bigotry against African Americans on DU is appalling.

This does nothing good for the Democratic Party and only hurts Democrats running for office.

Time to stop the hand wringing and do something about it.

[MaggieD]

104. No kudos from me

That this stuff has been allowed here along with the smears on Obama, Clintons, John Lewis, PP, NARAL, HRC, Warren, et al is flat out embarrassing to Dems, liberals, and progressives everywhere. IMO. I cannot even fathom how this was allowed to become a place known for smearing Dems instead of supporting them.

And I am not talking about differences of opinion on policy. I'm talking about smears, baseless innuendo, sexism, racism - the whole gamut. The jury system here is beyond broken, IMO. There are no community standards. There is nothing but partisan mob rule.

If it was MY site I would not give a crap about looking like a "partisan power play." That shit would not be tolerated. It's a damn shame that it is. And I do not really want to hear about near and short term over and over again.

Again, IMO.

To potential jurors - this is MY opinion. And as someone who has been a member since the very first days of DU I think I should be allowed to express it.

[redstatebluegirl]

107. I really hope he does something.

Some of the things being said here are so nasty and borderline if not full racist. I agree with Skinner it is more worrisome that DU'ers don't seem to mind.

I would like to think that a lot of this is being done by trolls sent here to cause trouble, and they seem to be doing a good job of that, but in truth some of these people have been here a long time.

There is no place in America for racist talk or tone.

[lovemydog]

138. I hope they're reading this thread too!

It's an urgent issue. I've thought about writing Black Voices Matter in my signature line. Make this a national issue that black people and their friends and allies do not feel at all happy with or comfortable with even freely expressing our feelings at the nation's top liberal board. It's gotten so far out of hand that it's obscene.

Another thought is urging the owners of this site to either shut down the goddamn site or get these racist trolls the fuck out of here. They are harassing black people daily with their garbage. It's been going on for at least a year from my limited perspective (probably far longer for others).

Another is demanding that black moderators be appointed to screen for racism. Give people maybe one or two warnings and them boom! - ban them!

But I truly don't want to be speaking for my dear friends here. These are just some thoughts I'm expressing here to vent.

Heck, I don't even want to be a rabble rouser. I'm just an honest person who has seen enough bullshit trolling and patronizing racism here in one year to last a lifetime. It can and should end at this place. I want to continue posting here because I love my dear friends in this group. There is no excuse for it.

[Betty Karlson]

116. If only the same alacrity had been shown to LGBT in 2008/2009, we could have avoided a

lot of tombstones and a small exodus. Nice to see how some animals are more equal than others, as long as they groink praise for the Inevitable One.

[lovemydog]

139. I am sorry I was not here at that time.

I'm also sorry you went through that. I hope it is better for LGBT people here now. The rest of your comments I truly don't understand what you're trying to say or how it has to do with the subject of this thread.

[mfcorey1]

125. K&R!