This message was self-deleted by its author

[Gormy Cuss]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Gormy Cuss) on Sun Mar 10, 2013, 11:42 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. agreed

i think explicitly addressing misogyny would be super helpful

[obamanut2012]

2. Agreed -- and I also agree with LLP's suggestion downthread

Having LT posters claim TOS doesn't include sexism so sexism is okay is just ridiculous.

[Starry Messenger]

3. Thank you and yes.

[Democracyinkind]

4. I agree. I now know that it is absolutely needed.

The last couple of days have made that abundantly clear.

[hedgehog]

5. Agreed

[seabeyond]

6. thank you. i too support the proposal of adding more clarity to this issue in TOS. nt

[kestrel91316]

7. Agreed. IMHO the folks who are posting sexist

and rape apologist nonsense need to GO, and if that means changing TOS so they can be PPR-d I am all for it.

[HonEur12]

163. Yeppp n/t

[rrneck]

8. I'd like to see the language before I endorse it. nt

[peacebird]

10. As would I. Because even as a rape survivor I think a lot of the complaints here have been over the

top.

I guess I could be tombstoned for that opinion.

[rrneck]

13. Nah, you won't be PPR'd.

You may have to listen to a certain amount of static, but that's about it.

[obamanut2012]

19. Do you think sexism and misogyny should be in the TOS?

That is the "language."

Very straightforward.

[rrneck]

21. I don't know. It depends on how you put it in there.

Hence the request for the language. If you want to change the TOS that's fine, but the least you could do is a little cut and paste work. Is that too much to ask?

[obamanut2012]

22. So, you are ambivalent that sexism and misogyny should be TOS offenses

Got it.

[DRoseDARs]

27. Strawman arguments should have some sort of repercussions too... n/t

[rrneck]

32. Im ambivalent about endorsing a change in the TOS sight unseen.

Why are you ambivalent about candor?

[seabeyond]

43. it really would have nothing to do with us. skinner would decide and word it. i trust him

to figure it out.

this is more about one feels there should be mention of sexism/misogyny in TOS. no more

[rrneck]

59. I can understand that.

I find it fascinating that so many obviously intelligent educated people who have spent years in the study of the subject at hand would so consistently become obtuse when a few simple details are requested.

How can it be that y'all will dissect a single term to the Nth degree but a change in the TOS is "well, whatever".

Has none of you given any consideration to how these changes would be written? Would you approve of a change in the constitution sight unseen?

[seabeyond]

66. he has it on du2. he can transfer it over. go find that. nt

[rrneck]

75. Cool. Why dont you copy and paste it here. nt

[seabeyond]

85. no. go find it. dont. i dont care. i am so fuckin tired of these fuckin games. nt

[rrneck]

95. Well, if it's not worth a right click on your mouse

it must not be that important.

[Make7]

147. What language from DU2 would you like transferred? Here are links to the rules:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html
 

[Gormy Cuss]

161. IMHO, a subset of that second link.

Do not post anything bigoted/insensitive.
When discussing certain topics -- especially those relating to each human being's unique personal identity -- DU members have a responsibility to show greater understanding and sensitivity. To help promote a welcoming atmosphere for all of our members, the moderators are empowered to remove any post that they deem insensitive. Such topics include, but are not limited to: race or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, religious believers or non-believers, Jews or Judaism, Muslims or Islam, geographic region or place of origin, disability (mental or physical), weight or other physical characteristics, or age. Moderators may also remove any post using insensitive terminology (eg: 'cocksucker,' 'pink tutu,' 'bitch,' 'whore,' 'retard,' etc.).

Obviously, the language about moderators no longer applies. This list of examples is much better than the ones in the current TOS. In addition to supplying more examples, this makes a statement that members have a RESPONSIBILITY (not a choice) to show greater understanding and sensitivity. This language supports the notion that we are a community rather than a random set of people posting whatever we want without thinking, as if we're just competitors in some war of words.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. how would YOU word it ??

Take a Stand, Man!!

Where do you Stand ??

[rrneck]

63. I'd like to see what I'm endorsing first.

Would you approve of a change in the second amendment sight unseen?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. Pretend you have been given the chance to word it. Write it into the Tos just like you are Skinner -

[rrneck]

74. I don't have an opinion yet.

But I'm up to my ass in experts who suddenly become cagey when I ask for theirs.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

79. ? you want I should word it for your approval ?

[rrneck]

94. Yes. That is why the OP was posted.

If you ask people to endorse a change in the TOS it's only fair to show them what you propose. I'm not going to go look, but I think I was the only one who demanded a statement from rDigital in the gungeon before he got unblocked. I think he owed it to the people who would be voting. If people want to change the rules they should be clear about their intent.

We have four(?) hosts who are petitioning the admins for a change in the TOS and one of them should have already prepared the language they would like to see for when somebody like me asked for it. Instead I get resistance. That makes me wonder what's going in.

This process deserves more transparency.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

103. refresh my memory - when did we get to vote on the ToS first go round? --

You want transparency, fine. I understand.

You are part of the process.

How do you suggest it be reworded?

that is all I am asking.

Looks to me like You are the One resisting.

Your input has been asked for.

How hard is that to understand?

[rrneck]

110. I don't know that it needs to be reworded

but I'm open to suggestion. So far the responses of those to whom I have asked for more information have been less than forthcoming.

In answer to the OP, no I don't think this is the right place for this discussion. It should be in Meta.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

121. ok. understood and agreed the discussion should take place in Meta. There is a thread over there.

link to a post with suggestions made --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240176358#post14

and here is how it was worded on DU2:
When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.

[rrneck]

133. Thanks.

Not trying to give you a hard time here. Well, not intentionally anyway. As I said downthtead, I don't like banning specific words. I think such literalism is counterproductive and unnecessary. To my mind, liberals aren't supposed to think that way.

The interesting thing is not the details of the TOS, but the attitude of the people advocating its change. If you want to ask for a rule change, you fucking ask. You don't just demand it like you're ordering a steak. "Make it so" don't work around these parts.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

136. I agree with you. It really never was about the words HH used. It was his attitude -

I thought it sucked. YMMV.

Also, I am not demanding but, I would like to see the wording changed to read more like DU2. I would ask that Admin consider some phrasing alternatives.

I was OK with it like it was but, after this past week and ALL the discussion generated, it seems some members feel the need for a more specific guideline to assist those who are having trouble understanding.

After reading, I tend to agree that some clarification in the ToS may be helpful.

[countryjake]

151. +1000

"It really never was about the words HH used. It was his attitude - I thought it sucked."


That's exactly what I think...it was HH's attitude that got him kicked out (and why Skinner's reason was "misogyny&quot

[one_voice]

33. I agree I'd like to see how it's worded and it's not too much to ask..

As I read the TOS now... it covers bigotry based on gender I think that works. But I want people to be happy. I think listing sexism is fine. But if you're going to list sexism and misogyny I think misandry should be listed as well.

That's my .02

[seabeyond]

39. skinner would decide on the phrasin and doubt he would be asking us, if he chose to adjust TOS.

i pretty much trust him to do it. he had it on du2

[one_voice]

51. Oh, I misunderstood...

I thought the suggestion would be given to him..


That's how I read this:

obamanut2012

Do you think sexism and misogyny should be in the TOS?
That is the "language."

Very straightforward.

Post #19


My mistake.

[seabeyond]

54. oh gosh, well, i do not know. i think we all have an idea that we would have influence in the

wording and i am pretty sure that would not be the case. nor it would be necessary.

so, i am really not paying attention to what else is going on. a secret (i have not had even a puff of cig all day and i am in a fuzzy, odd, tight, controlled, lol lol, place). not gonna try to think things thru for a couple days.

[obamanut2012]

62. That would be the language

Just as bigotry against LGBT, race, etc. is mentioned in the TOS. Some posters seem to think it wouldn't just say sexism and misogyny is bigotry that is a TOS violation.

[Chan790]

106. Then that's easy.

The model language of the proposal is something like: (added text in underline)

Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians or contains sexist or misogynistic language; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

If that's acceptable and there is consensus, I think it's time to make a request to the admins.

(If I seem nitpicky, I apologize. I've done a lot of work with start-up NPOs including bylaw writing. It's never just as easy as saying "that would be the language" because 10 people would have 11 ideas what was actually proposed to be written until you put actual language on the table.)

[seabeyond]

111. works for me.... nt

[Little Star]

164. The admins will be the ones deciding how to word their own TOS...

We can suggest wording but the choice of wording will ultimately be theirs alone to make.

Personally, I like the old DU2 wording better than any tweaking of the newer DU3 TOS wording. But I'm not a owner of this site.

The admins are fair and I believe they will do the right thing. Maybe they just need some time to listen to more in the community, who knows.

[CTyankee]

167. This is good. We need to have those two words "sexism and misogyny" in the text.

It needs to be clear. We have seen in post after post on the rape issue here is that there must be a strong statement in the TOS to avoid some posters feeling that they won't be held accountable for violating the rules. Clearly, just the reference to "gender" hasn't gotten us very far with some individuals. For them, we need the absolute clarity in the language that will stop them and make them think before they get on a roll because the more that they do it, the more they feel entitled to do it.

[Chan790]

88. My expectation would be the inverse actually...

that if members want to amend the TOS to clarify something he seems to believe is already covered, that Skinner's going to expect in return that someone draft model language and community-validate it. It's in line with Admin course of action thus far on DU3 to shift to increasingly community-guided forms of moderation.

If he writes it, then he has to field concerns or complaints that it is insufficient whereas if it's model-language which has been community-sourced before it came to him...all concerned parties have had a chance to speak to its satisfactory content. He just has to approve it and add it to the TOS.

[DURHAM D]

56. I see the use of the word gender as the basic problem.

Here is the dictionary entry -

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

I have no idea what it means as regards bigotry.

[one_voice]

83. If someone were to say...

You must be on your monthly look at how you're acting.

That would be gender bigotry and sexism. covered by TOS...imo. That's how I read it.

If someone says:

A man doesn't care about romance he'd put it in a hole in the fence. that would be gender bigotry and sexist. Covered by TOS..imo.


I understand everyone else doesn't read like that, and that's why clarification is being requested. I have no problem with that.

I believe I said that.

[DURHAM D]

86. So you are against clarifying language?

Let me put it another way - in practical terms "gender" means nothing.

[one_voice]

93. No, I said I wasn't against it in my last comment....

I understand everyone else doesn't read like that, and that's why clarification is being requested. I have no problem with that.

edited to add: the only thing I said was:

If no misogyny was added then I think no misandry should be too. Fair is fair.

No sexism is good too.

[DURHAM D]

96. okay. got it. thanks

[Little Star]

36. No member will decide the language. If the admins agree with proposal they will decide the language.

And they will also be the ones who decide who violates TOS if it's added.

This is just a request for them to consider.

[rrneck]

70. How would you like for it to read? nt

[Little Star]

135. Personally, just adding the two words would be fine by me. Then like with all TOS..

the admins would determine any violations. I'd be comfortable with that.

[rrneck]

139. I'd have to go the other way.

I Just don't have any patience for literalism. I don't think that's how liberals ought to think. Also, if you start banning certain words, even the obvious examples, where does it end? That's just plain old censorship. Telling people what they can't say, even for good reason, is a bad idea. Better to hold them to account for what they say.

Also, why didn't the admins just C&P that part of the old TOS into the new TOS? I bet I can guess. Policing words is a micromanaging nightmare. I bet they anticipate never ending requests to add to that list.

[CTyankee]

168. But we already DO ban words. We don't allow "n****r" or "f*g".

Why is adding "sexism and misogyny" policing words?

[rrneck]

169. Actually, for some reason I thought Little Star

was talking about different words there. I wasn't paying enough attention. I posted a bit longer reply at #158 that might make more sense.

If we use certain terms like the ones you suggested, the common understanding of them leaves little doubt (but still some) about how we feel about the person at whom they are directed. Some words are more culturally powerful than others, and their power is open to interpretation dependeng on how they are used, who is using them, and why. While you kindly added stars to your examples, I know what words you are talking about. They are in my head, but I'm not offended.

Misogyny is hate for women. So the addition of the term misogyny is an effort to control feelings through the use of language. Do you really think that's possible? Do you think it's possible to judge someone's feelings toward an entire gender and effectively change those feelings by forcing people to use different words? Hate speech and hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute in real life. It won't be any easier here. You just can't tell people how they feel.

Should we have to listen to expressions of ill will toward us? Of course not. But again, are those expressions directed at us (or another) specifically or because of our gender? It's not always easy to tell. And if directed at another, can we legitamely claim injury? Hence the never ending controversy.

And that's just the feelings of the speaker. The feelings of the listener also come into play. There is no objective standard for umbrage. Just because someone says they're offended doesn't mean they have a right to be so. But it's a fine way to manipulate others either by keeping them constantly on the defensive, or by leveraging the feelings of groups of people to dominate discourse. Social dominators come in all political colors, shapes and sizes.

[CTyankee]

170. But I am wondering if we set such a high standards when it comes to race? Isn't the use of

the "n" word enough to just automatically axe the post?

Why the higher bar for sexism? Feminists have come to this thread offering all of these helpful additions to our DU lexicon of objectionable phrases, and I am wondering, did any of the other people who were obviously being prejudiced against in our society, have to "prove" the "prejudice"
against them? Did you quiz them so rigorously? Did they have such a high bar to "prove" their case?

Look at this from that standpoint, please. Tell me what you see.

[rrneck]

171. About the best answer i can give you is little more than a policy statement

which is in itself a little bit rude.

I think you can say anything to anybody under the right conditions. The operational envelope for some of those utterances is extremely narrow, but it's there. I don't believe in telling people what kind of images to make, what kind music to play, or what kind of stories to tell. Literalism in terminology is about as authoritarian as you can get, and I don't believe that's how liberals are supposed to think.

I don't agree with banning the words that are already banned. And I can say that without advocating their use. Neverthess, they're banned and since I never use them anyway I don't notice their loss from my vocabulary.

Why set a bar at all? Who will set it? What is the criteria? Why does one type of vulagrity merit more opprobrium than another? Because a group of people clamor for it. And their criteria is based on emotional responses for which they are not held responsible. And of course, such a critical mass of emotion creates an opportunity for some people who simply want to tell others what to do to "lead from the rear". Is that kind of eventuality befitting the attitude of a group of people who consider themselves liberals?

Why is it necessary to carve out a special class of vulgarities for each group that demands it? Vulgar is vulgar. Rude is rude. Hate is hate. I don't like the idea of people carving up basic human decency like a consumer product. It's divisive.

[CTyankee]

172. but why is it so difficult to do this for sexist speech when it isn't for racist speech?

why is one accepted easily and the other uneasily, if at all?

"Just because someone says they're offended doesn't mean they have a right to be so." I am old enough to remember when that could have been said when blacks objected to speech they thought was offensive to them, since I went to segregated schools and rode on segregated buses in Texas as a kid. And we eventually came to agree with them that it WAS offensive speech. And we don't say n****r here at all, do we? And rightly so. And I stress the word "rightly." Social justice triumphed because people knew the right thing to do.

I am not trying to drive a wedge between oppressed groups, but I am saying that if you can accept this for one oppressed group you have to accept it for another also. No?

Why is this so hard? Why is the bar so high? Why do we get disbelief and questioning and doubt and equivocating on this very fundamental issue of human rights? I don't understand it.

I am old. And I have granddaughters. Imagine this: some of the statements that have stood unchallenged about females being said to my three granddaughters who are 17, 14 and 11.
Now imagine if they were YOUR children or grandchildren. What would you say to them? Would you say it's OK, maybe because you see it isn't that clear and besides, we can't ban speech, etc. And that's OK with you, right? I really don't think so.

As I said, I am old. I have lived through some decades of this. It is nothing new, believe me. I was there, in Washington, D.C. when a lot of dreams died with the defeat of the ERA in 1980. We still don't rate a simple declaration of equality in our Constitution. Oh, but there were "reasons." Of course. There were always "reasons." It would cause LOTS and LOTS of litigation. Horrors. It would destroy families. Well...I could go on and on but I won't.

I tell you all of this so you can get the perspective of an old progressive woman who has seen a lot of sexism and misogyny in her lifetime. I hope you can learn from this. It is important that you do.

[rrneck]

173. I see no difference.

I don't support banning any words. If somebody wants to use a racist insult, the offended party is entitled to pick up a large rhetorical shalalie pole and thrash the daylights out of them. And if the shit gets too thick, post hides all around. Maybe it's the Scots Irish in me, but I'm perfectly willing to mix it up with anybody if they wrong me or mine. Its a damn shame we have to let the management shield us from bad words. God forbid we should stand up and fight for ourselves.

And on a side note, are you aware that SalmonEnchantedEvening is leaving because someone called femrap(sp?) gave him a hard time about a cartoon? That, quite frankly, pisses me off. SCE is one of the nicest DUers here, and somebody who seems to lack a sense of humor has fucked it up for everybody.

Ideology run amuck makes DU suck.

[CTyankee]

176. Two things: I am not familiar with what transpired with SalmonEnchantedEvening, so I don't

know how this example applies to what I wrote. I wasn't involved in that issue. I only saw his post about leaving and I don't recall commenting. So I can't speak to the underlying issue.

I will try to be clearer. I am defending the addition of the words "sexism and misogyny" to the TOS as suggested by another poster. That isn't the same thing as "banning words." It DOES clarify what we are talking about and does so by using words we all know the meaning of, just as we know the meaning of "racism" and "homophobia." I don't see that there is any difference. As you aptly say "God forbid we should stand up and fight for ourselves." Um, isn't that what I am advocating?

[rrneck]

179. Well, like i said in #158

the inclusion of those terms would not be out of place.

But what would including them actually do? The TOS forbids porn as well. The debate about recognizing porn has raged on and off for decades, and it all depends on whether or not those who would eliminate it are able to accurately judge the emotional responses of others to certain images.

Yes, we know what what the words misogyny and sexism mean. Do we know it when we see it? If we want to recognize misogyny in the speech of others, we have to evaluate their intent. If we decide someone is using misogynistic language, we are evaluating how they feel about women. We are telling other people how they feel. Sometimes their feelings are easy to discern, other times it is not. And on an anonymous internet message board when two hundred words is a Russian novel, fine emotional distinctions are especially problematic.

The only way you can really understand someone is to actually interact with them. Creating increasingly specific restrictions on what may or may not be said is merely outsourcing the evaluative process to others. That's not fighting for yourself, it's demanding others winnow down who you interact with to avoid differences of opinion. Remember, the more you allow others to define the feelings of others for you, the more you allow them to define your own feelings.

[CTyankee]

180. Is this any different from the evaluation process we already do here, with regard to racist and

homophobic speech? Don't we evaluate posts based on what we are trying to determine is their underlying intent? We already do this regularly!

The value to including sexist and misogynist to the TOS is to have people think more and harder about what they are saying, just as having the other language in the TOS does. We are already regulated here as to what we can say and what is out of bounds. Clearly, there are some here who lack the "guard rails" in their speech that others have learned in their upbringing and education. There will continue to be some disturbed individuals for whatever reason and we can all deal with them.

Also, let me just say that it has been amply demonstrated that Feminists have been told that since the words sexism and misogyny don't appear in the TOS language, we have no recourse as we would with other types of bigoted speech here. That is just a glaring omission.

I'm glad to hear you agree with adding the terms. I wouldn't get too upset with its implications going forward, though. We sort this out every day here on DU. And there is a value to DU having such a strong Feminist stand. More women will feel better about their status here, more comfortable in the give and take of opinion. I think it will clear some air for folks and be what the business world calls "added value."

[rrneck]

181. I don't necessarily agree with the inclusion of those terms.

I just don't disagree. I said they would not be out of place and I questioned the efficacy if their inclusion. I questioned that efficacy because of the lack of an objective standard for recognizing misogyny and sexism. That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Crude, vulgar behavior is just that, and that's enough to get you banned. Why is it necessary to carve out a special class of crude, vulgar behaivor for certain people?

Who are those here that qualify as trustworthy arbiters of women's sensibilities?

Is it possible to be a Democrat and not be a feminist?

[CTyankee]

182. Well, as to your first point: is it any harder to discern sexism than it is racism or homophobia?

As I said, we do this all the time with posts that get alerted on. By your reasoning we would have to get rid of ANY standards on racism and homophobia because not everyone is going to agree. I haven't seen that option being considered, however, and I find that curious.

It just seems inconsistent to me to carve out classes for SOME sensibilities but strangely not for women's. And may I hasten to add that plenty of male Feminists would side with the women in identifying and calling out sexist or misogynistic behavior here.

"Who are those here that qualify as trustworthy arbiters of women's sensibilities?" Well, if we don't have a problem with gay people and people of color being trustworthy arbiters, why deny women the same status? And even heterosexuals and white Duers can be "trustworthy" too if they are truly without prejudice.

I think it is possible to be a Democrat and not be a Feminist if said Democrat is on the far right of our party. I don't think you can be a Progressive Democrat or a Liberal and not be a Feminist.

And I also think it would be helpful if we had a "Feminist Manifesto" here at DU to clarify what we think that means.

[rrneck]

183. I've only been a member for four years

but I recall considerable controversy regarding the interpretation of homophobic attitudes here. But I don't recall any details about that one. And if there were anything approaching a consensus regarding misogyny and sexism why are there four feminist groups? That controversy is well documented. Nor has it abated it seems.

Why don't all the feminists get together and elect someone to be the gender zampolit for DU? Would you be up to the task? You seem quite willing to evaluate the feelings of others based on your evaluation of their dedication to the cause of feminism. Apparently you have to be a feminist to be a liberal. Prove it.

If we can claim the right to evaluate the way others feel about us, there has to be some remedy for those who disagree with that evaluation. Simply claiming offense is not enough. If that were the case, those claiming offense would have unlimited power to control discourse. If you want those words in the TOS, what limitation do you propose for those who make unwarranted claims of offense?

[CTyankee]

184. As we speak (type?) the discussion is on about Salmon's decision to leave and about HH's wife's

racist comments. I just read the thread. That is the kind of thing that takes place here. Different DUers evaluating and making their own judgments about the content of people's comments. It is happening now. And that is fine. I am no more an arbiter of that conversation than I would be about anyone's on sexism and misogyny, altho I have my own opinions. And, really, we do have a jury system, for better or worse, that decides a lot of this. sometimes it goes the way i agree with and sometimes it doesn't. What I am trying to say is that so what?

Just as an aside: I do a Friday Afternoon art quiz regularly (kinda like Salmon's LOL cats series) just for enjoyment of art. About a year and a half ago I did a Challenge entitled "The Male Gaze." It was a serious look at European male artists' nude works over the years. I self censored from my selection two famous paintings that I thought might offend some DUers sensibilities. One was by Francois Boucher, of the young mistress of Louis XV. I felt she looked like a child (which she probably was, given that era) and it bothered me that she looked like she could be my own grandchild. The other was a very graphic (and voyeuristic) painting by 19th century French artist Gustav Courbet entitled "The Origins of the World" which is exhibited in the Musee d"Orsay in Paris. It doesn't offend me but I could understand why it would someone else. And there is a John Currin work that I saw in the Franz Hals Museum in Haarlem, Netherlands that was probably too graphic for Americans but not for the Dutch (who seemed unfazed). Different cultures, different times, different audiences.

So we'll have to hash this kind of thing out and do our own self editing where necessary. I have no doubt this will work out. Not without controversy, but it will work out.

[rrneck]

185. I agree.

See? We had a nice chat. And I enjoy your weekly art challenges, although I'm a lousy iconographer.

As an artist not only am I very sensitive about ignoring the subtilities of expression. I know how hard it is to express one's self powerfully and not step on toes.

I doubt the admins will change the TOS. If they wanted that language in it they would have brought it over from DU2. I think they expect us to do exactly what we're doing right now - hash it out among ourselves.

The question in my mind is not what one person or another feels.I wonder when advocacy becomes self aggrandizement.

Good talking to you.

[CTyankee]

186. I love that you are an artist, but we do disagree about whether there will be a change to the TOS.

It will happen. The arc bends toward justice and all that. It's just a matter of time and our not giving up. We'll still have to hash things out, that won't change. Inclusion will change for the better.

Hey, we found some common ground!

[DURHAM D]

24. So glad to see everyone working together on this.

Absolutely, those two words must be added to the language.

I have seen a couple of comments in the various threads that it was clearly included at DU2. I wonder if anyone has a link and can bring it here.

Following is a link to the dictionary definition of gender. It is no damn wonder we have a problem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

[obamanut2012]

26. I agree

And, am also very glad of an united front.

[hlthe2b]

53. yes... I see this as a very positive opportunity....

[DURHAM D]

58. Glad to see you.

How is MIRTing going? I bet the past few days have been really fun.

[hlthe2b]

61. Back at ya....

We miss you there... but I think everyone is working on keeping things on an even keel. Fortunately, the "incomings" are down since the election. (really fortunate, given DU is going through one of its "cycles&quot

[boston bean]

35. Skinner makes the decision on TOS violations.

No one else, so there is no need to worry about any angry feminists limiting free speech on DU.

My GOD, what is the problem with adding the two terms to the TOS.

[rrneck]

73. How would you like for it to read?

Have you given it any thought?

[boston bean]

77. Why yes I have.

Sexist comments and misogyny are not tolerated on DU.

Others may have more they would like to add, but thems are my two cents.

[rrneck]

78. Thank you.

But you didn't put it -dare I use the word - in context.

[boston bean]

82. why the sarcastic remark.

Add the sentiment to the existing TOS. Is that enough context for you?

The admins are going to be the ones who make final decisions regarding this.

[rrneck]

104. Hmmmmm. More resistance.

Why is this so difficult? You're not ordering a steak here. Are You trying to tell me you haven't considered how your changes will affect the TOS? Or do you just not care?

Do you think you can just demand Skinner plug some more words in the TOS and expect him to "work out the details". That's pretty arrogant.

[seabeyond]

108. this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12565203#post97

[boston bean]

115. OMG, leave me alone please. this is becoming harassment.

I have answered all of your questions. Every. single. one. of. them. Read all of my responses to you. Go back to my original response for the answer to your supposedly new question.

and then Leave me alone. Please. I am asking nicely. Don't respond to me again in this thread please.

[graham4anything]

9. I agree.

are we also suppose to agree on the pinned thread too?

Thee should be a specific reference to sexism.
It should go without saying, but it needs to be said.

[redqueen]

12. "It should go without saying, but it needs to be said."

And doesn't that just say it all?

Thanks.

[redqueen]

11. Agreed. nt

[d_r]

14. Honestly I've been avoiding these threads

but what the heck, I'll throw in .02.

I am a middle aqe, white, southern male.

Here's what I think about some of the threads and issues I've seen the last few days that I think relate to this sort of amendment:

1. The idea of not understanding rape is BS. Flat out denial. I grew up in the 70s and 80s in the south and never did I ever not understand that taking advantage of a woman that was too drunk was not rape. That is flat out BS. Also, I can understand how that type of thinking reflects a rapish culture and how it can be hurtful to women, I think it is a good thing that women and men called the posters on it.

2. The thing that HopeHoop said to Kimi was freakish and pervy. He may have been trying to make some sort of not understood joke but it was pervy and unacceptable and he should have realized it and apologized immediately. Flat out.

3. The "P" word. OK. I am one of the men who have used that word and it has always seemed like a crass word to me but I never meant it in a misogynist way. I was of the "coward like a pussy cat" realm, and a few months ago I posted that on meta. A lot of women replied about how offended they were about it, and explained why. Look, I didn't mean it that way, but if people are hurt and offended and bothered by it, fine, I won't use it. I learned something. That's what we do in this life. Knowing that people are offended by it and using it just to tweak them is boorish. Period.

4. I am for freedom of speech and thought and expression. But this is a forum used by real people with real lives and real stories and real feelings. It is supposed to represent progressive people. It seems to me that people ought to get it. Words have power, words have meaning. People in a progressive community should be able to learn from their mistakes and not use words that others tell them are hurtful.

Clarity in the TOS through an amendment with an explicit reference to sexism could only improve that, imho, and so I am all for it.

Frankly we shouldn't need it but apparently we do.

That's just my opinion and I'm not going to get into internet arguments about it.

[Little Star]

17. Thanks for speaking out d_r.

[redqueen]

18. Beautifully said.

Thank you.

[freshwest]

23. Thanks, d_r. Well said.

[sufrommich]

25. Wonderful post.Thank you. nt

[boston bean]

37. Thank you so much for posting.

It's a great post!

[seabeyond]

38. can i record please, lol. i guess what i see is that for so many of us it is progression

of growing as a person and learning and realizing. none of us has it down. but, the least in listening and learning.

thanks.

[Skittles]

45. you are too cool, d_r

yes INDEED

[gollygee]

64. Awesome post

Thank you!

[salin]

65. IMO, your post is right-on-the-spot.

Right down to "we shouldn't need it, but apparently we do."

[Tsiyu]

107. No argument here

Sometimes it's just easier not to say anything, but thank you for throwing your thoughts out there.

One of the best posts I've read on the entire issue

[Gormy Cuss]

124. d_r, thank you for laying it out so clearly.

I'm asking for more clarity.

[Starry Messenger]

145. Thanks friend.

There have been many awesome posts by male allies, one side effect of this conversation. It's great to see a progressive coalition come together.

[auntAgonist]

156. This should be an OP for EVERYONE to read. Well said d_r. Thank you. n/t

[FSogol]

165. +1. Well said. n/t

[myrna minx]

166. Thank you!

[sufrommich]

15. Agree. Would love to see the women of DU make this so.nt

[Little Star]

16. The last few days make it pretty obvious that DU needs...

an explicit reference to sexism in TOS. Thanks for proposing this.

[MadrasT]

20. I also support this effort and believe it is needed. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. K&R. thanks.

[Ohio Joe]

29. I agree

It sadly, becomes more and more apparent each day something needs to be done.

[Kaleva]

30. Yes

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I agree that misogyny and sexism need to be added to the TOS...

I think someone needs to send Skinner a PM and say there's a whole bunch of us that want it doen and explain why just in case he hasn't seen those many threads that have caused issues.

I totally support any approaches made to Skinner on this, btw

[boston bean]

40. I am in 100% total support of this.

It's a shame its been missing for so long.

The admins make the decisions on TOS violations. They will decide when it has been violated, just like they do for all the other TOS violations.

Are there really Duers out there who would find a problem with this?

[obamanut2012]

57. yes

up thread

[Whisp]

41. thanks for opening this topic, we need input from Admin on this.

The silence is disturbing.

[irisblue]

42. yes

Sexism is NOT a progressive, Democratic value. It should be specific, clearly explained in the TOS that sexism is not acceptable on DU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. No, it's not the best place; Meta would be better.

This is neither about welcoming people, or helping them.

[Hatchling]

188. But it is about helping people.

It's about helping all of DU wrt the rampant sexism and misogyny here. I also think misandry should be added as well.

Many of the more mysogynist posters here are also enablers of misandry. The use of derogotory attitudes toward either sex should be heavily considered. And male posters saying "that's just the way men are, so deal with it" are denigrating their own sex as well.

[Skittles]

46. sad that it is needed

but if it shuts up the guys who still have mommy issues then so be it

[Scootaloo]

47. I support the idea, but I'm not sure it will help

After all, whether or not something is a violation is judged first by our Three Stooges system... a system which has frequently rallied to the defense of racism and ethnic bigotry which are clearly barred i nthe TOS.

[boston bean]

50. It will help with those who don't see it spelled out clearly, understand

it's a TOS violation.

This is a progressive website. I can't believe that there would be any objection to adding it, or caveats to adding it.

Not directed at you, just a general observation in response to some responses I've seen around DU.

[jeff47]

130. The problem is language is not static

The dynamic nature of language means we're going to have edge cases that need clarification.

&quot name) is a pussy". Meaning coward. That rouse out of the "cat" definition of pussy. However, language moves on and it's generally considered sexist now. But it could reasonably be used by someone meaning the "cat" definition. Should they be tombstoned for it? At the moment, the language is sexist but the intent may not be bigotry. so the context would determine a PPR or not.

Also, "dickhead" comes up with about 10,000 hits. Yet there's not a lot of people railing against that as sexist. "Pussy" has about 14,000 hits (Not linking because the Google ads on that search are NSFW). So the frequency of use is not terribly different. Should 'dickhead' be allowed? If so, what's the criteria for allowed and not-allowed sexist terms?

Also, what's the threshold for "sexist" language? Imagine a picture of a "well-endowed" woman holding two jugs of wine. Would a comment only saying "She's got great jugs" be a ToS violation?

IMO, the current situation is not ideal, but just adding "sexism" isn't a complete solution because of the edge cases. At the moment, a poster would have to show explicit bigotry to get PPRed, leaving some "wiggle room" for context. But each person's limit on that wiggle room is going to cause problems.

[greatauntoftriplets]

48. Yes. It needs to be clarified.

[LiberalLoner]

49. Agreed

[DevonRex]

52. Absolutely. It must be in the TOS since the absence

has apparently led some DUers to believe anything goes. Not that I believe that for a second. It's just excuse #whatever for their inexcusable behavior.

[Major Nikon]

55. I've already posted my thoughts on the subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=176022

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. some clarifications could be things like

blaming victims of rape and domestic violence: not ok

must support equal pay for equal work

using sexist language (pussy, cunt etc) should be done at your own risk. (for instance if you posted that pussy riots is arrested in moscow, that's ok. if you post "xyz is a pussy" may not be ok.

things like that i think would help explain what is and is not ok.

[obamanut2012]

68. +1 this -- great ideas

[boston bean]

81. those are very good ideas

I also think something of the sort, that sexist comment and misogyny are not tolerated on DU.

It can't be left at gender bigotry.... I mean that is just not clear enough.

[Major Nikon]

90. Sounds pretty complicated

Clarifications often simply muddy up the water, more than they ever clear it.

My vote (as if myself or anyone else has one) would be to use clear, concise terms that can't be easily muddied up and convey unambiguous instructions on expectations.

Something like....

No sexist slurs

Sexism is already defined by the dictionary as is slur.

"My pussy shat in the litterbox."... OK

Reducing any woman or man to their genitals regardless of who they are... Not OK.

Seems simple enough.

[gollygee]

67. Agreed n/t

[Gman]

69. So a subjective judgement will deem a violation of TOS?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. being against marriage equality may seem subjective to some

but is a violation of TOS

[Gman]

89. Well, unfortunately a lot of people here see some kind of slight in just about anything

and that doesn't make it a TOS violation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

119. yet some do. as should this one

[obamanut2012]

80. Isn't that the same with all the mentioned bigotries?

Some people, even on here, don't think racial "jokes" are racist, for example.

[boston bean]

84. just look at the hh wife thread, how many defended

that obvious bigotry, of a racist story, where they were the participants in the whole sordid affair.

[seabeyond]

92. adminstration decide the tos. that simple. regardless of how they clarify the tos, they are the

ones that decide and take all into consideration.

this would not change anything, but give duers more clarity what administration can tos them with.

someone was recently tos'ed for misogyny. administration made the decision.

[Gman]

99. Point well taken

the admins take all the posts as a whole from a DU'er before determining if TOS'g is deserved.

[seabeyond]

102. absolutely. and they do not rush. they take the time. and a person gets plenty of rope

that is for sure. none of that will change. all it is, is throwing no sexism, along with no racism and homphobia. it is assumed in gender.... but, this is making the word seen.

[ismnotwasm]

71. There should be

I hope such an amendment can be worked out.


It's not that difficult.

When in doubt of 'what is sexist' simply remain--or become--courteous. Courtesy goes a long way toward eliminating sexist language. It won't eliminate it entirely, but the effort will do some folks good and its a very good start. It will also open up dialogue so we can talk to one another, instead of at one another.

[michigandem58]

87. Somebody got a primer on the reason for this?

Links? You can pm me if that's more comfortable.

[s-cubed]

91. Sexism has no place on DU. nt

[NYC Liberal]

97. All for it. Here's the language from DU 2 that is pretty damn clear:

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.

I like that "grossly insensitive" posts are prohibited, not just "bigoted" ones (which allows for bullshit quibbling not just over the meaning of "gender" but also the meaning of "bigotry&quot

[seabeyond]

105. this. nt

[NYC Liberal]

109. I find it disgusting that many people apparently need to have this spelled out for them.

The fact that this is even necessary saddens me.

[seabeyond]

114. yup. nt

[DURHAM D]

113. Thank you.

Much better than our current TOS.

I would like to see the addition of ageism but that is for another day.

[NYC Liberal]

132. Same here re: ageism. I noticed a good amount of it in 2008.

I dislike McCain as much as anyone else here, but some of the generalizations about age and older folks I witnessed here were pretty ugly. And I'm seeing some of it now in discussions about Hillary running in 2016.

[Little Star]

154. Me too.

[rrneck]

118. I like the first two paragraphs. I dont like banning specific words.

Such literalism has authoritarian underpinnings which I believe run counter to liberal ideals.

[DURHAM D]

122. I assume you are aware that the admin wrote it.

Perhaps you should take it up with them.

[rrneck]

129. That's what this thread is about.

Why isn't it in the TOS now? I assume they changed it for a reason.

[MadrasT]

125. Yes, this.

This was good. (Why did it go away when we moved to DU3)?

[maddezmom]

98. I support a change in the TOS

it should be obvious within the bigotry clause but as we've seen it sadly isn't.

[WheelWalker]

100. I am in favor of addressing these issues with specificity in the TOS. Juries will fine tune

application of the refined TOS and create the community standard in practical terms.

[Behind the Aegis]

101. No bigoted hate speech.

Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes sexism, misogyny, misandry, and mocking gender identification, it further includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

[Spazito]

120. Your suggested changes look to me to be just what is needed...

and I would certainly support such a change.

[rrneck]

126. This one looks good. nt

[seabeyond]

131. that works also. nt

[one_voice]

140. yeah, this works.

[hrmjustin]

112. K&R!

[Tsiyu]

116. I think Meta is the place you want to be

but great idea.

Although I think it's going to create a lot of upheaval until everyone understands the rules.

misandry and misogyny should be TOS violations.

However, there are many posts - even some I have made - that might skirt the edges, or have common wording that we've come to accept but that would in effect be a violation.

So I would propose a 30 day trial run, where we can sort out what defines these kinds of comments, so that we don't lose a lot of otherwise good DUers.

Some comments are obvious and blatant, but there are also some I am not offended by that others find completely repulsive and vise versa.

So I would support additional rules WITH a trial probationary period where we could all sort out what is and is not a violation.

[Gormy Cuss]

141. Thanks, Tsiyu.

I came here because I was looking for a public place to ask the admin rather than having yet another Meta thread where we all debate with each other and admin doesn't weigh in.

Like all other guidelines there will be posts within the gray area, but certainly admin can address the obvious, unambiguously sexist or misogynistic/misandrist comments. Juries aren't doing this now and I suspect that part of the problem is the lack of guidance in the TOS.

[niyad]

117. it is depressing that, on what is supposed to be a progressive, democratic board, we actually have

to be having this discussion. however, having seen the last week or so of posts, it is quite clear that something needs to be done.

[Spazito]

123. I agree, clarity is needed in the TOS beyond using "gender"...

what is currently in the TOS on this is far too obtuse, imo.

[caraher]

127. An explicit statement will help everyone

Let's get it done!

[yardwork]

128. I support an amendment to the TOS to make a prohibition against misogyny clear.

[leveymg]

134. Absolutely not. Words, alone, devoid of meaning should not be banned. Messages of hatred may be.

You can do whatever you want within your own discussion groups, but I will not support use of a word, with no other offense, as a TOS violation on DU.

You can not eliminate bigotry by banning words.

[DURHAM D]

138. not following ...

Do you not like the word sexist or sexism?

[obamanut2012]

146. So, a;; s;urs shuld eb allowed then?

Racial, LGBT, etc.

[leveymg]

152. It all depends upon the context, what is the meaning and message.

[msanthrope]

137. You know, I hate the word wars, and am often on the side of those who post silly and juvenile

crap, but enough is enough....

It's time to take the DU2 list of gender insults and add it in. I can't frackin' believe I had to tell someone not to us the word p***y.

[JoeyT]

142. Agreed.

The misogyny of some is kind of getting out of hand.

[JustJoe]

143. Aye.

Sickening that it's necessary.

[LadyHawkAZ]

144. Agreed,

and as I said elsewhere, there really needs to be a solid policy on bullying and harassment.

It would be nice to be able to say that a gathering place for ADULTS didn't need this spelled out.

[bettyellen]

148. great idea!

[Permanut]

149. Cross posting from Starry Messenger's thread..

The world of DU has a synergy that I hold very valuable, because of the wealth of information found here, the general thread of sanity that runs through the community, and more important, the GENERAL value of respect that I see among members and our communications. There are exceptions, of course, and we have some very effective tools to deal with them.

Your proposal rings entirely coherent with the existing TOS and with our collective worldview. I base that statement on just the simple definitions of sexism and misogyny (I'll add misandry as a rider). If we say that sexism is the words or actions of a poster who fosters negative gender stereotypes, or that argues for superiority of one gender over another, and that misogyny/misandry consists of behavior or speech that displays or encourages hatred, dislike or mistrust of one gender by another, then your proposal serves to clarify one of the values we hold in this little community.

I would say that this clarification doesn't run counter to our current intent, but WOULD serve to help, say, a jury, in making a decision about a specific post/alert.

Just my two cents.

[patrice]

150. I understand the functionality of preventing people from using the absence of that specific language

in TOS to get away with saying certain disrespectful things with enough ambiguity to make charges of misogyny plausibly deniable and, thus, to have their bigot-cake and to eat it too.

However, there's no ending that particular kind of power struggle and the alternative of just trying to avoid it, by not playing that game, allows it to proliferate around this community amongst subsets who may be interested in cultivating that sort of thing for whatever reason and that sets not only a bad public example of what DU is, but also propagates, in a rather subversive way, the very prejudices and bigotry and ignorance that opposition to which is very heart of this community and many of our relationships to it.

So, I agree with the usefulness of including that kind of specification in TOS; I just don't understand where we draw the line on those kinds of inclusions, nor how we avoid, then, creating this potentially kind of long list of kinds of language that are against TOS, a list that could subsequently then be manipulated against anyone who could become a target of certain kinds of efforts here, i.e., e.g. failing to constitute one case for a certain TOS violation, how about another, or another, or another serial nuisance accusations for however many anyone, who would want to do such a thing against DU or against another DU -er, would like to select from that longish list of prohibited language.

Personally, I have always found the TOS language to be rather too ambiguous to always be meaningful, but often useful in a generals sense anyway, so I get your point here, I'm just not sure how a list of prohibited semantics actually solves that and avoids just being a broader arena for what we have going on in the status quo now, which threads look pretty much like dogs chasing their own tails most of the time anyway.

All of which adds up to: how do you keep the inclusion of such TOS specific language from becoming long lists of prohibitions which list can then in turn become part of the problem?

- AND -

In light of these problems, shouldn't we be considering not whether TOS language needs inclusion of prohibited topic specific references, but, rather, instead TOS needs fine tuning of the current general TOS language to more precisely state the general value principles by means of which all such bigoted and prejudiced semantics can be identified no matter what their specific topic content consists of.

[countryjake]

153. Don't know where it's best to propose it...

but I think that much of the trouble we've seen on the new DU stems from the failure to carry over those old rules from DU2, which laid things out much more clearly than these new TOS do.

I'm pretty damned sick of seeing people ask, "But what's wrong with that?", or "How have I offended?". The way things are set up now gives intentional disruptors a vast amount of leeway and the perfect freedom to incite, insult, and divide us all, to their heart's content.

[wildflower]

155. I support this! n/t

[The Doctor.]

157. What constitutes 'sexism' here?

"Oh, you know... it's everywhere, just look!"

Ummm.... right.

[rrneck]

158. Having thought about this TOS thing

it seems to me that all of this:

No bigoted hate speech.

Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

could be replaced with three words.

Don't be rude

The bulk of that portion of the TOS deals specifically with not being rude to a particular group of people. The selection of that group has a great deal to do with current political issues and public policy. So, the inclusion of the terms sexism and misogyny do not seem to be out of place here. In the interest of parity the term misandry should also be included.

But after we tell people to not be rude, and to not be rude to certain people, is it really a good idea to tell them to not be rude to certain people in a certain way or with certain terms. That, I think, is a degree of specificity that reaches beyond any hope of parity for the membership in general. If we start telling people exactly what they should not do, we will open a micromanagement can of worms that will never be closed.

[One_Life_To_Give]

159. Unfortunatly it appears to be needed

I would of thought it a given. However there appears to be sufficient examples that spelling it out would be beneficial.

[stevenleser]

160. I support this! nt

[Tumbulu]

162. It is a fine place, but not the only place

It needs to be posted all over the place, it seems. Yikes!

[justiceischeap]

174. One could argue this is already covered by the TOS in several places

It could also be argued that the admins and people serving on juries aren't following the TOS when evaluating alerted posts.

I'm all for specific language that clearly outlines that sexism/misogyny is a TOS however, I do have a question.

There's a dust-up over a comic in the Sunday LOL cats thread, and now, SalmonEnchantedEvening is leaving DU. Nice guy, always positive and he's been run off over a comic deemed by one person as sexist. Is this really where we want to go with this? Because sexism/misogyny is subjective in some cases. That means, technically, no more posts about Bill Maher should be allowed. Technically, you could be TS'd over posting about Republicans and their "War on Women." We need to be really careful about how this is proposed, IMO. I'm sure some will disagree or accuse me of not being Feminist enough but this really is something that can lead to much more issues than we're clearly anticipating.

[CTyankee]

177. I can't speak to the instance you reference about this poster who is leaving since I have not

read what he posted and what the issue was. I gather that he is voluntarily leaving, so there is no issue with banning anybody on the basis of his language. But HopeHoops was PPR'd for, in Skinner's word, "misogyny." Which is the word (along with "sexism&quot that several posters here, including myself, are advocating to be added to the TOS.

I am puzzled by the examples of problem language you give ---Republicans War on Women and Bill Maher-- since I don't see any context that would apply to what is being discussed here. We are talking about adding two very commonly used terms already in our lexicon to the TOS language: sexism and misogyny. We have no problem using "racism" and "homophobia" so it baffles me that we get such pushback on "sexism" and "misogyny." Perhaps you can explain the difference to me.

[Zorra]

175. Looks like it is, GC. Nice idea, thanks. nt

[ellisonz]

178. I think it already very much does...

...and I would be reluctant to go back to the DU2 terminology because it would only stoke the sort of nitpicking that is supposed to be "word wars."

I like the current categorical ban on "bigoted hate speech."

[misschicken]

187. I think clarifying that sexism and misogny are unacceptable can only benefit discussion.

[Hatchling]

189. Great idea.

Thank you

[Whisp]

190. has Skinner said Anything about this to anyone?

on possibly rewording the TOS or on what he thinks about the 'rape weekend' we had here? Or what can be done to not repeat that?

or are we just talking to ourselves?

I know it embarrasses him that people talk about chemtrails (Skyhawk (?) was banned for that slight offense, imho) but posts like what we saw Should embarrass him a lot more!

what gives? anyone know, have any guesses?

[Gormy Cuss]

194. No comment AFAIK

No public comment from admin and no reply to my direct message to Skinner.

[Whisp]

195. I hope he realizes how insulting that is.

Let's see what crisis he decides to weigh in on next. And he will, he does.

But ours he ignores.

[Waiting For Everyman]

191. No it's fine as it is.

From what I have seen of those who want this most fervently, an inch given will result in a mile taken. It's already overbearing in Meta, this is like squirting lighter fluid on a fire to put it out.

My advice would be to leave well enough alone. But whatever is done, or not done, is ok by me.

[wryter2000]

192. Agreed

[Squinch]

193. Yes. I think it's time our terms of service included a prohibition on denigrating 51% of the

population. This place is becoming like the gross frat's keg party.

[MineralMan]

196. I support this 100%.

Sexism should be on the same list as racism, AFAIAC.

[Vanje]

197. Kick'n Reck'n

[seabeyond]

198. if nothing else, i would like to hear if this has been the administrations expectation and they

expect no less from this board. we sit in wait and hope... but for how long?

[olddots]

199. Its worse than it was 10 years ago here

It should be added along with ageism ,wish it would go away but cyberdisinhibtion may be a factor in these comments .
On line we are un afraid to attack and some attention can be had by being a total fool .This must be worded by someone really versed in
English or we will never progress.

[Rhiannon12866]

200. Are you talking about DU.2 or DU.1?

I agree with you about that. The rules were spelled out on previous DUs, but now juries decide "community standards."

You were here 10 years ago? Me, too! I remember the awful lead up to the Iraq War. Did you have a different user name then? I've kept the same one through three elections.

[Gormy Cuss]

202. Yes, unfortunately we have the answer.

I'm going to lock this thread now because it's pointless. Skinner confirmed that sexism is against the TOS.
The fact that our "community standards" allow juries to ignore that is not a problem.


Text of original message:

Is this the best place to propose an amendment to the TOS? [View all]



The lack of an explicit reference to sexism is apparently interpreted by some DUers as a sign that it's not prohibited.