HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » iverglas » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 38,549

Journal Archives

oh dear, now you'll have to find another one

Post #8

At Fri May 18, 2012, 09:58 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

No...My post was worse than that....


I hope my guess that this post has already been alerted on and approved will be wrong.

This individual replies to an OP (this post is explaining his first reply saying "who was he?" by asking the OP what caused "these women" -- obviously including the OP -- to "become raging misandrist". And he attributes women's views that he calls "misandrist" to being hurt by a man.

Kind of like asking an atheist whether they don't believe in a god because they were bitten by a Christian. Dismissive and rude. Contributes nothing to genuine discussion. Just rude.

Nothing said by the OP indicated that she is "raging misandrist". This is a foul insult and nothing more.

Just that simple, really. A personal attack, outside bounds.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri May 18, 2012, 10:17 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: People here are questioned about their motivations and influences all the time. i.e. "Why do you vote for Democrats?" "Are you influenced by political ads?" Sometimes scornfully, "Did you really believe what Obama said?" Big deal.

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Alerted post is just one of several in this thread by the poster which are clearly intended to be provocative and derail intelligent discussion.

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Name calling of any type cannot be tolerated. If you have questions about someones views, ask them but don't generalize and include an entire group of people just to deflect your ignorance. Now the thread has dissolved into nothing more than he said she said.It needs to be hidden.

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I thought the post went beyond the somewhat more relaxed standards of politeness in GD. It also seemed dismissive of women who may indeed have experienced hurt and rejection because of their looks. Not all of us are cat walk models.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This post doesn't seem inappropriate.

For Juror #1, and others who need basic lessons in civil discourse:


The post in question was NOT like asking "Why do you vote for Democrats?" "Are you influenced by political ads?" or "Did you really believe what Obama said?"

It was like asking "What intellectual disability of yours causes you to vote for Democrats?" or "Why are you so stupid that you believe political ads?" or "Which lie that Obama told did you believe?"

Does that help at all?

Go to Page: 1