Mending fences.

[Skinner]

This is not an easy post to write. I've been aware for a long time that some LGBT DUers do not feel completely comfortable here, and I've been thinking about the issue for as long as I have been aware of it. It may or may not surprise you to hear that it actually bothers me very much. But I've felt utterly helpless to do anything about it. And it does not help that I feel hurt and angry by some of the things that have happened these last few years.

When I agreed to open up this discussion, I had no clue what I would say or what was going to happen. I've been doing a lot of soul-searching, by myself and with the other Admins, and that is not a pleasant thing to do. The moderators have been talking about this amongst themselves, too, and on Saturday night one of the LGBT moderators posted a really remarkable message which gently-but-firmly challenged everyone to think about our own behavior and try to figure out if we are somehow contributing to the problem. After I read his post, I immediately called EarlG. He had already read the post, too. And independently, we both had the same reaction, which was something kind of like relief. We knew what we had to do. We had to try to make it right.

The purpose of this post is not to tell you what you did wrong or to tell you what to think. The purpose of this post is not even to present "my side of the story" or explain why I'm not a bigot (which I said I wasn't going to do anyway). The purpose of this post is to try to lay a foundation for reconciliation. And to do that, I am going to try to explain how I feel, try to explain how I think we got here, try to understand how you feel, and own my share of the responsibility. In doing so, it may be necessary for me to explain how I perceived some things that happened over the last three years, but I want everyone to understand that my intention in doing so is not to point fingers. Assigning blame is not important for me any more.

Things have never been perfect here on DU. But I think it is apparent that the problems we're facing really got their start sometime during the 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries, and have continued through the transition to a Democratic administration until today. Going into the 2008 primaries, we (the Admins) felt like we knew what to expect because we had been through one presidential primary before, in 2004. Our approach in 2008 was, basically: "get out of the way and wait for it to be over."

But as everyone knows, it turned out to be a much longer and more hard-fought primary than 2004. We thought that we could just wait for a result and then move on, like we did in 2004. But what we did not understand was that the wounds were much more personal this time, especially for LGBT members. We knew that having a Democratic administration would be a big change for DU, but I think we obviously did not understand the enormity of that change, and we especially did not understand how events before and since the 2008 election took such an enormous emotional toll on some of our LGBT members. More than anything else, this is where we failed. We did not see what was happening right before our eyes.

EarlG sent me an email late Sunday night, in which he went back and tried to recreate a very basic sequence of events that happened before and after the election of Barack Obama which fed into the problems on Democratic Underground. I'm going to just copy his email here because I think this is a pretty good summation of what happened and the challenge we face:

... It's common knowledge that LGBTs favor Clinton over Obama during the Dem primaries.

... Two particularly significant events occur during the primaries which help set the stage for a fight between the LGBT community and the AA community. The Donnie McClurkin appearance at a Barack Obama campaign event (October 2007) and Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comments after Obama won the South Carolina primary (January 2008).

... Clinton loses Dem nomination to Obama. Most LGBT Clinton supporters are rightly wary of Obama but understand the stakes and vote for him in the general election (receiving little credit for doing so).

... Obama wins the presidential election on the same day that gay marriage is struck down in California. After the election disasters of 2000 and 2004, election night 2008 should be a massive celebration for everyone on DU -- but many in the LGBT community are pissed off, or at least have mixed feelings. For them, Prop 8 result is a giant shit sandwich.

... Exit polls reveal that a disproportionate number of AAs voted for Prop 8 leading to a further breakdown of relations between LGBTs and AAs on DU.

... Rick Warren. To many non-LGBT Obama supporters, this is a political move designed to assuage the concerns of independents and ambivalent/persuadable Christians who are still wary of the possibly-Muslim guy with a funny sounding name they'd just elected. In other words we see it as political theater that means nothing. But of course this "political theater that means nothing" is conducted at the expense of LGBTs -- to them Rick Warren is an extra layer of shit piled on top of the shit sandwich.

... Finger pointing on DU, ongoing to some degree since the end of the primaries, ratchets up to extreme levels. Many LGBT members unfairly conflate support for Obama with approval of Donnie McClurkin, Rick Warren, and Prop 8. Many Obama supporters unfairly suggest LGBTs are just acting like crybabies because their candidate was defeated in the primaries.

----

Result: Obama supporters became tarred as gay-hating bigots and LGBTs became tarred as pony-wanting sore-losers who should have been celebrating along with everyone else. Even if the majority of DUers didn't make such extreme characterizations, the people who did are mostly responsible for driving the wedge deeper and deeper. It's impossible to understate how hurtful those types of smears felt to everyone involved, on all sides of the discussion, from active participants to relatively quiet bystanders.

While relations on DU began to sour during the primaries they really blew up the day Obama won the presidency and Prop 8 passed. After looking at profiles of some long-term DUers who were been banned since Obama's election I noticed that many had very few posts deleted in the years before 2009. It was only after Obama's election that they started to break the rules and got their posts removed on a regular basis. (To be clear: not everyone had a squeaky clean record prior to the primaries.)

Bottom line: on election day 2008 I think most of us who were celebrating Obama's victory saw his election as a beginning. Despite the Prop 8 loss, Obama's victory -- a Democrat in the White House -- meant that maybe we could start winning some of these "culture war" battles. And we didn't understand why LGBTs were so pissed off -- wasn't this great news for everyone? In retrospect it seems obvious: The LGBT community had to place their chances for equality in the hands of a religious man who opposed gay marriage and who courted known homophobes during and after his campaign. As far as they were concerned, this was not a promising development.

As I watched events unfold, from the start of the Democratic primaries and through the beginning of the Obama administration, the ferocity of the disagreements seemed utterly nonsensical to me. For me, politics has never been about people or personalities or photo-ops or inauguration speakers. Those were all window dressing -- part of the show. Politicians and campaigns and speeches were merely a means to an end: Changing laws. To me, what mattered was what a candidate said he stood for, and whether he had any chance of actually doing what he said. When I looked at Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, I saw two extremely intelligent and talented politicians whose positions on the issues were virtually identical. On the issue of gay rights, there was no daylight between them. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the DC primary, but I had no qualms about Obama as the eventual Democratic nominee.

Based on my reading of candidate-then-President Obama, I just didn't see any reason for him to NOT keep his promises on gay rights. As I saw it, this was an issue where the morally correct thing and the politically expedient thing were one and the same. The application of emotionally detached, cold rationality pointed to (what seemed to me) the obvious conclusion: He would keep his promises. Of course, being able to make an emotionally detached evaluation of an issue like gay rights is one of the privileges of being a white, heterosexual male (which I am). When the big picture was laid out in EarlG's email, it was easier to understand why some LGBT DUers have been so skeptical of President Obama, and why it might feel like an attack when someone disagrees with your opinion of the President. To be clear, I don't agree with all of the things that are said about him either, but at least I feel like I understand where you're coming from.

I think that these differing perceptions of President Obama are at the core of the problems we face here. It took him two years of his presidency to deliver something concrete on gay rights, and during that time you became increasingly angry and frustrated. Meanwhile, those of us who saw him differently were wondering what the heck you were so angry about. And because this is a discussion forum, some people on both sides were making highly inflammatory and unfair attacks against each other, questioning each other's character and ascribing ugly ulterior motives. It was an enormous drag, with lots of hurt feelings on all sides. We lost lots of great people because of it, some of whom were banned, but many more who decided to leave on their own because it sucked to be here. My few attempts to try to foster a little mutual understanding between the two sides were at best fruitless, at worst unwelcome.

I know that the "gay purge" is often held up as the watershed moment here on DU. If we are honest, I think we know that things had gone off the rails long before then and we were all miserable. But what happened was incredibly sad and tragic. In hindsight, I do believe it could have turned out differently, especially if there had been some line of communication like the Ask the Admins forum. The precipitating event -- a group of people basically ganging up on a moderator -- was something that had never happened before on Democratic Underground. I made the (not unreasonable) decision to step in. But as soon as I told people that they needed to knock it off, or else, we were on the brink. I had no further room to maneuver and left myself no choice but to ban anyone who continued -- and people did continue. I regret that it happened, and I regret my role in it. I believe I could have handled it differently. But like so much else that has happened over these last three years, I did not do it entirely by myself.

...

There are no easy answers. As a human being, I can understand where you are coming from. But as the administrator of an active discussion forum with a wide range of people -- including critics and defenders of the president -- I'm not sure I can promise you much relief, at least not within the confines of Democratic Underground and how we currently run it. Yes, I can keep the forum clear of obvious bigotry -- that's not difficult. And I believe I can provide you with a community in which, when it comes to your civil rights, everyone expresses 100% support for full equality. But people's ideas on how we get to that point will inevitably -- and legitimately -- differ, and when that debate happens all these hurt feelings rise to the surface again and it becomes very difficult to have a conversation.

When that happens, the moderators try very hard to try to keep things on-track and relatively civil. I know that many people believe the moderators are a big part of the problems they perceive on DU, but I do not believe that is the case. First, because it is very difficult for any moderator to take action unilaterally without some other moderator noticing. But more importantly, because moderators are trying to do their job within the confines of the systems, procedures, and instructions that I give them. If it is not working, the responsibility lies squarely with me, not them.

I think this entire situation does illustrate one practical issue that we can agree on: The current approach to rules and enforcement on Democratic Underground is a failure. It worked well enough when we were all united by a common enemy in George W. Bush, but it is not adequate for DU 2011, where we often find ourselves with differing opinions on important and divisive topics. The DU Admins are convinced that we need to try a very different approach if we want this community to thrive for another 10 years and beyond. And we intend to try something new when we move into our new software later this year. I'm not going to go into details because I don't want this discussion to be about software. But I do want you to know that we know there is a problem.

I could write much more, but I think I have covered most of the issues that I wanted to mention. I hope that you will read it in the spirit it is intended. I know that many of you have been looking forward to this discussion, and have many things that you would like to add. For my part, I am going to listen, try to understand, and do my best to respond.

[xchrom]

1. thank you for trying to reach out to us.

those were indeed bitter times.

and many stalwarts are missed.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Thanks!

At least for me, I greatly appreciate your explanation of this situation. While I infrequently wade into the LGBT forum or discussions of topics relating to the forum, your post displays to me once again why I like DU and respect both you and EarlG immensely. It is obvious that you have a deep concern about the people here and an unrelenting drive to make DU a better community. Your post inspires me to be more civil in my interactions here on DU. Thank you for all that you guys do to make this possible!

Cheers!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

4. K&R - thanks, Skinner. Speaking as someone who is older than most members here,

I wish there'd been an internet when I was a teenager and in my 20's. There wasn't - no DU, no IBB's, no nothing - just horrible long bouts of utter loneliness.

So thank you, Skinner and Earl for DU, and for caring enough to try and make amends. For many GLBT people, DU is important. :hi:

[tavalon]

5. I'm not gay so I wasn't thrown under the bus right away,

but I was disappointed at prop hate because we polys are waiting for the gays to get their due rights so that we can start agitating for ours. We aren't going to do anything to get in their way. I've noticed an easing over the last few weeks because of what happened in Egypt, Libya and even in Wisconsin and Ohio. None of those issues had one whit to do with gay/not gay or even much to do with the other bugaboo religious vs. non. We're just for a time pulling together.

I guess because I'm not gay, I didn't realize there was a gay purge and I'm wondering if there is any concrete way to fix that.

As far as getting us to sing happy songs around the Obama campfire, my happy voice got wobblie when Rahm showed up and I'm so disgusted with our guy that I couldn't even manage rage today when I heard about him keeping open Guantanamo bay open - what a surprise, not.

We've got a really, really big problem going on right under our feet and we need our GLBT sistern and bethren to be side by side as we figure out what We The People and that includes We The Gay People are going to do now.

I believe it was Ben Franklin that quipped,"You have a Republic, if you can keep it.". I'm not sure anymore that we can. but I do know that we need everyone who truly believes in equality for all (but the oligarchs) to the barricades. Peacefully, peacefully. Ghandi was right. It is a force that cannot be broken except by violence.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

213. +1

I didn't realize there was a Gay/Lesbian purge either.

And I never thought of this community as being for HRC during the primaries. IRL, I saw this as young women for BO and older women for HRC. I don't know how that played out in the Lesbian/Gay community.

But why can't those who were banned be allowed to come back?

Wasn't Will Pitt banned and then allowed back in???

I like 'wild duck' troublemakers....they make people think outside of the box. They, at least, hold up the mirror and say, "LOOK AT YOURSELF....IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO BE?"

[Cherchez la Femme]

359. Gay rights & Women's rights

are linked at the hip. You can't find one without influence of the other. :fistbump:

[femrap]

383. Amen and Awomen!!!

:yourock:

[Cherchez la Femme]

460. Awoman & Amen! :P n/t

[femrap]

482. ..

:thumbsup: :applause: :yourock:

[Pab Sungenis]

6. Thank you for saying all this

although I'm going to say the same thing I kept saying about Barack Obama.

"Less talk, please, and more action."

Let's see how things can be improved, and see them improved, before we consider the problem anywhere near properly addressed. Okay?

[Skinner]

360. I think that's fair.

But I also think that we should think of this as a process, or a trust-building exercise, rather than a binary problem that is either addressed or not addressed. I also think that, even with all my powers as administrator, I cannot make things better by myself. We have a long way to go, together.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. Speaking of which....

I saw this thread just a little ways down the Latest page from this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x585939

This is an example of the kind of attitude that is causing the problems here. Not only toward GLBT, although we were an obvious first target, but toward everyone who has issues that are important to them that the "rah-rah squad" wants to downplay/ignore, or just doesn't care about.

I have to go searching through my old hard drive backup from my movie theater and see if I can find the essay I wrote the week before the 2004 election opining that the Democrats were not prepared for success. Some of us have seen this coming from a long way off; our greatest strength as a party (our diversity, especially of opinion) is also our greatest weakness.

[TZ]

8. May I make a suggestion?

This should be cross posted in GD so more people can see and discuss this. I think this is an issue that alot of DU'ers, including straight ones like me would like to participate in.

[Pab Sungenis]

9. I think that's premature.

Doing that is going to invite a flood of the homophobic and the rah-rah brigade to come crap on the whole process. Keep it personal and constructive.

[TZ]

13. Maybe at the moment

However so many of the problematic posters also like to claim that there ISN'T a problem with gay bashing or homophobia here and that people are just "imagining" things. If some of them have it rubbed in their faces that Skinner also beleives there are issues that need to be addressed in this area, they might not be so bold. It also could serve to draw out the problematic posters so it would be apparant WHERE the problem is. YMMV though. Again, I'm not gay but I think that more transparency on this issue is good, even if some troublemakers try to distract. Thats probably inevitable anyway.

[Pab Sungenis]

14. I agree with you.

But if we're supposed to have a constructive discussion about this issue, THIS is the place to do it, NOT in GD. Let Skinner take it to GD when there is a lot more concrete stuff to discuss.

[Lyric]

29. Ordinarily, I would agree that this thread should be X-posted to GD.

However, since Skinner has promised not to delete any posts or ban anyone for what they say in here, that would be like an open invitation to come bash the gays. Since the point is to get gay people talking to the Admins, that would pretty much kill the thread.

[Whisp]

236. there you go. I just don't know where these homophobic attacks are.

some think it's a hobby here - but I barely come across anything like that. I find far far more of that kind of verbal assault against women and blacks and minorities and poor people. those are waaaaaay more safer to be bigoted and sexist around here than to insult someone in a homophobic manner.

calling someone out on their rude behaviour or outright lieing is not being homophobic. It is the character of the person that gets the insults, not who you sleep with, fercripesakes.

[swimboy]

239. Some people are unable to see any. I don't understand that myself.

Some are recounted in Post 190.

[Whisp]

244. yes, I see McClurkan there...

that old bigot Obama had on stage with him during the primaries?

well, guilt by association!
that means Obama is a homophobe!!! that means I should hate Obama too, and call him a sexist pig enabler because he is pleasant to Bill Clinton!
or he actually TALKS to repugnant republicans instead of bust them in the chops - how I would like to deal with some of that scum.

Well I didn't read all of that thread, but this one thing stuck out like a sore thumb. You would have Obama move about in a bubble or Popemobile just not to be Near people that don't measure up.

[MNBrewer]

247. It's not McClurkan's views that were the true issue.

The problem was that Obama shared some of them! (See marriage equality).

In addition, it's not like they ran into each other in the food court at the mall and sat at adjacent tables.

[Kali]

248. talking to repukes is part of his job

using asshole props to pacify more assholes IS guilt by association

there is a difference between assholes you HAVE to associate with and those you CHOOSE to be around

[Bluenorthwest]

297. McClurkin was Obama's hand picked surrogate at events.

Your characterization of the relationship is hugely dishonest, hugely. He employed the man as his surrogate, at official campaign events. The spin you all put on it just makes is so much worse, what you are doing is spreading falsehoods and using them to tarnish others. Detestable, immoral bullshit.

[fishwax]

302. it's not "guilt by association" to be critical of selecting a bigot to headline a campaign event

[Bluenorthwest]

311. McClurkin is about Obama's age, Michelle says he's her favorite

singer! McClurkin calls for open war upon gay people. Says we kill children. Barack and Michelle picked him to speak for them, and that is the fact, a hate speaker was their choice, a vicious, invective monger.
And like so many of Obama's apologists, you tell absolute lies about that event. Lies. You should retract them. It is done intentionally, this defending and dismissing of elimiationist rhetoric of the very worst kind, done because Obama intends to do more of this pandering, no doubt.

[Danger Mouse]

289. See my post downthread.

[yardwork]

312. Some of us gay folk ARE "women and blacks and minorities and poor people."

You don't seem to understand that. Hazarding a guess, it looks like you have a stereotype in your mind that all gay people are affluent white men with a lot of economic and social privileges. But what about all the rest of us? As women, minorities, poor people, immigrants (documented and otherwise), people with chronic illnesses, people suffering bereavements, the unemployed, the underemployed, those struggling with no health insurance, and yes, even white men, all gay people have the extra burden of being denied rights, being verbally and physically abused all the time, being told that we are abominations in the eyes of the Lord, being at risk for being fired, being kicked out of housing, denied the right to see our loved ones when we're in the hospital, denied the right to adopt children, denied the right to enter into even civil contracts with the people we love. Yes, all these oppressions are real. They are enshrined in the constitutions of many states - Texas, Arkansas, many others - and they are enshrined in federal laws.

If you can't see the "homophobic attacks" all around you, then I don't think you want to see them.

[Cherchez la Femme]

384. We are within every single demographic

Race, Religion, economic status, etc.
Yet for some reason many people hold stereotypes of 'wealthy white men' as U.S. homosexuals. :shrug:

[yardwork]

412. Yes.

And, this kind of stereotyping does not help the diverse universe of LGBTQ address the issues within our community. We have issues of racism, sexism, ageism, classism, religious bigotry, anti-immigration bigotry, cultural and geographic bigotry, and so forth within our community. I believe that every community made up of millions of people has similar internal divisions.

[Cherchez la Femme]

459. I wish we could say

that because of what we've been through in our lives we would rise above that, even to some degree -- that we had a better perspective on the human condition, that we had more empathy towards our fellow wo/man because we've been there

but we're just people too,
it does take all kinds.

[Humansletstalkok]

458. Not any more

all the African American GLBT people left DU around that time, along with almost all the AA non-GLBT people.

DU is now pretty much the whitist political forum on the internet.

[yardwork]

461. There is at least one African American gay man posting in this thread.

And several non-white lesbians are here too.

[Bluebear]

480. LOL

[Skinner]

363. Respectfully,

One of the purposes of writing my OP here was to look at myself, to try to engage in self-reflection, and think about how my own emotions and actions may have contributed to the current atmosphere on Democratic Underground.

I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we did not think a little bit about how our own casual name-calling or off-the-cuff characterizations of other people might not be conducive to an atmosphere of healing.

[William769]

368. self delete.

Posted to the wrong response.

[ThomCat]

291. I think at some point that has to happen.

But we should all be wearing our kevlar underwear when it gets posted. It's going to get ugly very fast. All the latent hostilities are going to come out of hiding. From people who aren't homophobic, of course.

[swimboy]

337. I hear you but it's important to allow the "caucus" a chance first.

This is from my journal in a thread about the Congressional Black Caucus not admitting a white member.

Many years ago I was in Charleston SC for a conference on historic preservation and there was a group there to discuss minority issues in Hist. Pres. in SC. I was interested in hearing about their issues and wanted to attend. I went to the meeting room and before long I could tell there was a little bit of a stir. I was surprised at first that it had to do with my being there and my white entitlement subconscious was trying to override but as they asked me why I wanted to be there I told them I was interested in listening and learning and after a brief discussion, they let me stay. I'm happy I got to stay because I got to hear things I would not have heard in VA about issues I didn't have a window on but was interested and concerned about. I am also happy they had that discussion even though I was present. I also have a much better understanding now that it was an important forum--important enough to protect its sanctity so that the needed discussions could take place. In this instance, they balanced that sanctity with their discomfort at excluding an individual (and one of no account). I do understand the need for sanctuary for discussion of shared concerns and setting goals and agreeing on agendas. THEN, you go out and try to work with everybody.

[Skinner]

361. I'm not sure we're at that point yet.

This is going to be difficult enough without opening it up to the entire site.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. you should ts people when they behave like assholes repeatedly

i see people routinely allowed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and mean and i dont see why TS'ing is held off till there is a major crisis and everyone is upset. I dont see why the threshold to be tombstoned is so high, for some people. its like if you can get to 5000 posts, you can be an asshole for the following 15,000 posts. i honestly believe that is at the bottom of many of your problems. you let things go on for way too long. like this post. should have happened a while ago.

so my question is, will that change? in your new moderating policies will you address things before they become a crisis?

[Skinner]

366. Yes, we should tombstone people when they behave like assholes repeatedly.

I think we permitted some very rude people to stick around for far too long, and that has had a lot of bad consequences.

Over the last three months, we have been much more pro-active in getting rid of toxic personalities. During my 10-year tenure as DU administrator, I don't think I have ever tombstoned so many long-term DU members. And I am going to be honest, it is not fun to do. Yes, they represent some of the worst-of-the-worst, but somehow even they have friends and allies who believe they brought some value to this community. And, to be honest, when they weren't acting like complete jerks some of them could be good people. They were all real people, and whenever anyone gets tossed out it is a little bit sad. It is an admission of failure.

Despite the large number of people banned, there are still lots more people that could be tossed out. I have access to a list of who gets the most posts removed, and every time one person gets tossed out, it seems like someone else steps up to fill their place. It is very hard not to be affected by it. And yet, I keep doing it. But I can't help thinking "At what point does this end?"

I believe these bannings have made a big difference, but they have come at a cost. I believe there is a better way, and as I mentioned in my OP, we are going to try to completely change the way we run this place.

[Prism]

11. Part of it is the death of a thousand insults and hypocrisies.

I'm just waking up and will no doubt have more to say later in the day, but there is a very glaring example of the problem that occurred just recently.

I was a primary supporter of President Obama. Before and after his election, if you go through my posting history, you'll see I strained to dismiss McClurkin and Warren as necessary political posturing, that my real interest was in accomplishments and policies. My hostility to this administration and some of its more strenuous supporters did not happen until the DOMA briefs came to light in the summer of 2008.

Here is the position LGBTers were put into on DU. When the DOMA briefs occurred, and ever since, LGBTers were flamed for their reactions. Not criticized, not disagreed with - outright flamed to death. Poutrage, pony, all the usual denigrating little comments that said, rather loud and clear, "Your equality is not that important in the scheme of things. Deal with it." came fllying down in abundance. We were told the President had to defend the brief, that he's not a dictator, that the DOJ is sacrosanct, etc. etc.

Now, the President recently chose not to defend DOMA and many of those exact same people used the occasion to take yet another shot at LGBTers, mocking them for objecting to the President's behavior and noting that his attitudes on LGBT equality was less than amazing. Even though they themselves were wrong on the issue, wrong on the policy, and wrong on the President's attitudes and abilities, somehow LGBTers still deserved disdain, mockery, and open baiting.

It was a situation where heads privilege wins, tails LGBTers lose. No matter what the reality, LGBTers are never right and never worthy of any respect when it comes to our lives and issues. The substance didn't matter. The issue didn't matter. What mattered was that no matter how things shook out, whether LGBTers were right or wrong on their own issues, our community deserved nothing but disdain and mockery.

I mean, we were right about the DOMA brief. And we're still getting shit for it. From the same people, from the same posters who, for years, have very fluid stances and principles, but who somehow always manage to come down on the side of denigrating gay people and our issues.

If you're looking for a magic bullet, a poster to call gay people a bunch of faggots, it rarely happens. But DU is over-run with people who make us feel that way because they never miss an opportunity to let us know that our concerns are almost beneath consideration or serious support. Instead we get a bumper sticker "I support equality!" and then hundreds of offensive posts shitting all over our community and our efforts. I could give you a rather lengthy list of names of people who have spent years saying little nasty, subtle comments directed at LGBTers, no matter what the issue, who get away with it over and over and over because the comments are just soft enough not to warrant action individually. The individual posts dance just to the line of rule-breaking without being overt enough to warrant action.

But those posts accumulate in our memories, in our day to day reactions. No one posts in a vacuum or starts a fresh posting history every morning. And so people are allowed to perpetually, without cease, for years make little denigrating comments, without the alert function solving anything. The individual post might be just this side of ok, but the consistency and volume of them take their toll, and the mods and admins never seem to notice or care.

I honestly think, for a good faith dialogue, those purged should be given an amnesty. At least enough of one to participate in this conversation. I still remember logging in May, 2008 and going "Wait, where did DU's LGBT community go?" I am still pissed about that, hostile to a degree I have not been anywhere else after nearly 15 years of posting online. I've never seen something like that before.

If you mean what you say, that would be a good start in exhibiting good faith.

Skinner, you've offered words before. Remember the new civility? It never arrived. But it sounded good. At this point, if you really want to bridge the vast gap between DU and LGBTers, an amnesty would be a concrete act exhibiting that good faith.

[pecwae]

12. Thank you, Prism.

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. I would offer that amnesty might be a good course of action

I would also offer that if some of these same people that were previously banned continue to act in ways that are obviously counter to civil discussion and debate they get tombstoned AGAIN.

Also, it seems that some confuse legitimate disagreement, debate and critique with "denigrating comments" or "nasty, subtle little comments".

I take great exception to your phrase "If you mean what you say" in regard to Skinner. I find it mildly amusing that you write such a long post about snide, nasty little comments and the toll it takes on some posters and then toss a few in there yourself. What about Skinner? What about the effect of those types of comments on his psyche? You follow that up with "Skinner, you've offered words before" as if Skinner can wave a magic wand and solve all that vexes him and the DU community. That fact is that Skinner and DU are pioneers in the world of online political communities and the book is still being written. I think a bit of thanks to Skinner for this post and for even having this place is in order for all that care about it.

Lastly, it is always good for all of us to remember that simply because we join in discussion here that we are not the spokesperson for any group or community (unless we have that position with a reputable org. Our opinions are ours alone and these opinions are not the definitive statement for whole groups of people.

Cheers!

[Pab Sungenis]

16. Prism is MY spokesperson

as far as I'm concerned. And I think a lot of other GLBT'ers in this forum will say something similar. She's had a very good record of expressing what we've been feeling in our guts since this all began.

[Prism]

20. You're simply making my point for me.

You're insinuating that I'm not intelligent enough to separate genuine disagreement with disdainful hostility towards my community.

I very much know when someone has an earnest concern about constitutional issues and when someone's being nasty. It's a fairly bold line, easily interpreted and highlighted. It is especially easy to spot when those constitutional objections evaporated the moment the President reversed course. It says to me the actual principle wasn't really in play.

Skinner asked for our input and feelings on all of this. If we cannot speak even here, in very mild terms, without someone bouncing in to chide us about how we feel about our own issues and treatment, what's the point?

[Vinnie From Indy]

24. Please feel free to expound on your ideas and feelings

That is what makes a "discussion" board and online community worthwhile and interesting. I regret that my post gave you the idea that I was in any way trying to stifle your voice or even demean your concerns. My point was simply to remind all fair-minded DU'ers that this community that has been built by Skinner and EarlG is at the forefront of the paradigm shift in information and interaction brought about by the advent of the Internet. They are literally writing the early history of online communities and I think that Skinner's post above demonstrates his commitment to making DU an inclusive, progressive community worthy of at least recognition for his efforts and willingness to engage. The other point I was trying to make was that you nor I nor anyone else here speaks for entire communities or groups of people. Your posts are always interesting to read and I think your contributions to DU also deserve a thank you! Thanks!

Cheers!

[Prism]

30. The thing about the use of "us" and "we"

Many of us in DU's LGBT community talk amongst ourselves, have had conversations about the purge, and often share with one another those things on DU that bother us. The purge was nearly two years ago, and many of us have had a lot of dialogue about it in that time. So, in making my posts, I'm talking for myself, yes, but also putting forth ideas and feelings that I know are shared by many, many LGBT DUers. I don't speak for the entire community - no one does - but I'm trying to hit some broader points that I know are shared by many.

I agree conversation is useful and Skinner's willingness to have this conversation is a good start, but online and off, I've seen a lot of dialogue and conversations happen with LGBT issues and then forever remain waiting on a follow up. My concern is that we'll have a dialogue, and then it'll kind of never come to anything. Hence aiming for a concrete act right off the bat. I think it would go a great distance in ameliorating things and signal that this isn't just dialogue, that this is all going to go somewhere mutually beneficial.

[Vinnie From Indy]

32. Cheers to you!

:)

[Lyric]

28. Delete

Edit: this is not helpful, and I have decided to delete it.

[TriMera]

17. I see the same issues, Prism. Thank you. n/t

[Uta]

18. Yes, indeed

Thanks

[Lyric]

19. I'd like to participate here, if that's okay.

I agree with the problems that Prism pointed out, and I'd like to add a few comments of my own.

Although I do think an amnesty would be a positive gesture, I'm not sure how much of a tangible impact it would have. I'm not sure that many of those posters would even accept it at this point, because the situation was so mishandled that the pain, grief, and anger were never able to be resolved. It is my hope that *this* discussion can be the first step towards that resolution, but for some of us, it's already too late.

When you take all of the hurts and offenses that were listed in your OP's timeline, and combine them with the "purging" of the gay community, you can see that, at least from a gay perspective, the Admins appeared to be validating all of the horrible things that the other "side" was saying about us. To us, it was like you were saying "Yep, those people were right. You're all a bunch of worthless malcontents, and you are SO unimportant to our community that you're not even worth the effort of an attempt at reconciliation. You're worthy of nothing but the ban hammer." This was especially in evidence when sundog was tombstoned for posting the number "7".

Sundog is actually something we should talk about a little more thoroughly. Now, I hardly know sundog. He wasn't a close, personal friend. But I personally witnessed what happened on the boards that day. Gay DU'ers were being tombstoned--not only for attacking a moderator (which is how your OP makes it sound) but also for publicly grieving (like sundog) and/or protesting about the lack of an explanation for what was happening, and for the way it was being handled. Sundog didn't attack a moderator. He was tombstoned for posting the number "7" as a grief-stricken memorial to the number of posters we had lost at that point in the purge. Imagine how horrifying it is to see members of your minority community being banned, and then MORE of them being banned just for *talking* about the fact that the banning was taking place. We were all grieving, outraged, and horror-struck at what was going on. The enforced silence about the topic was more upsetting than I can even express.

For quite a while afterward, any mention of the gay purge was deleted. Not locked--*deleted*. Surely you can see how that decision contributed to the understandable paranoia, grief, and anger in our community over what happened? When we couldn't even talk about it, couldn't even acknowledge that it *happened*, how can anyone be surprised that people would assume the absolute worst of you?

And to add yet another wound, we couldn't even defend ourselves when the other "side" came around to laugh, mock, and belittle us. More than one of those people claimed that the "gay purge" never happened, and we weren't allowed to refute that, or even link to another site where explanation was permitted. It was like our friends and community members never existed. Some have referred to that phenomenon as people being "tossed down the memory hole" and "disappeared". Some of our community truly felt that the whole situation was an Orwellian level of creepy.

And again--this enforced silence was (and still is) probably the biggest contributing factor to the long-term problems we've had. To those of us who didn't even *see* the moderator-attacking posts (much less participate in them), all we knew is that our community had been gouged out, and we weren't even permitted to talk about it. That is NOT ordinary operating procedure here. We've had mass bannings before, but I've never seen another situation where discussion of the bannings was forbidden. Sometimes the mods will eventually lock a discussion thread like that after a while, but the thread is still *there*. It can be linked to. Other people can read it and gain some understanding of what happened. That was not the case with the purge.

People need to talk in order to grieve. Talk is necessary for misunderstandings to be corrected and for wounds to be healed. Beyond the purge itself, I think the worst mistake you made was to delete all discussion of it. If not for that, I think a lot of people who ended up banned would not have been. I think if the "purge" had been confined to the few people who were directly involved in the original offense, and the threads discussing it had been locked rather than deleted, we would not be here today having this discussion. People could have grieved, and then things could have gotten back to some semblance of normal. Instead, the pain of the whole situation got drawn-out for years--years in which it had time to fester, and for new grievances to be stacked on top of the unresolved old ones.

[Prism]

21. Yes, this. +1

It is the active, willful silencing of DU's LGBT community that turned what might have been originally seen as conflict and disagreement into a perception of outright malice on the part of the admins and mods.

[Uta]

26. Very well stated, Lyric nt

[Meldread]

31. This is a wonderful post.

I didn't even know about the purge until well after it happened. I simply saw the community going silent and the bitterness and resentment rising. I slacked off in posting because I didn't share in the bitterness and resentment; primarily because I had no idea of what was going on. I didn't even know the degree to which silence was enforced over the issue until I read your post. Reading your post, knowing the details - that does make me angry.

I feel the community should be informed why such drastic measures were taken to silence any discussion of what had happened. Maybe it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to Skinner and the other Admin's, but after reading your post and knowing the full depth of what had happened - a lot of things make more sense to me now... and the bitterness, anger, and resentment expressed by many (in varied ways) seems like a big "duh" moment.

I can certainly support any banning of people who openly attack moderators or the administrators of DU. The fact that they are LGBT means nothing in regard to that, but I find it hard to wrap my head around the line of thought that says it's a good idea to silence all discussion regarding the matter. It seems to me that the exact OPPOSITE course of action should have been taken. When the justified bannings happened (of those who had attacked the moderator), and people began to ask questions and show grief, the first thing on the minds of every moderator and administrator should have been to explain to the community what had happened and why.

Laying down the law, telling everyone that verbal assaults against the moderators won't be tolerated, saying that you're sorry the bannings had to happen and wish they hadn't been necessary, etc. Those were all the appropriate ways to handle it - at least in my opinion.

I'm actually somewhat shocked. I'm shocked that Skinner has allowed something like this to fester for years and is just now really trying to address it. To be bluntly honest, since I didn't really understand what was going on, my main response to the bitterness and resentment was mostly eye rolling and chocking things up to oversensitivity. Now that I'm armed with the full knowledge I'm a bit disappointed and appalled - and I really didn't know or associate with the folks who were banned!

Skinner can you please explain what happened from your perspective and why such drastic actions were taken?

[TygrBright]

38. I was a mod at the time many LGBT members were banned.

All I can give you is my perspective; and I wasn't the most active mod on the team, so I did not see everything. Actually, I think Skinner covered the meta-data pretty well in his OP when he said:

>>Meanwhile, those of us who saw him differently were wondering what the heck you were so angry about. And because this is a discussion forum, some people on both sides were making highly inflammatory and unfair attacks against each other, questioning each other's character and ascribing ugly ulterior motives. It was an enormous drag, with lots of hurt feelings on all sides. We lost lots of great people because of it, some of whom were banned, but many more who decided to leave on their own because it sucked to be here. My few attempts to try to foster a little mutual understanding between the two sides were at best fruitless, at worst unwelcome.

I know that the "gay purge" is often held up as the watershed moment here on DU. If we are honest, I think we know that things had gone off the rails long before then and we were all miserable. But what happened was incredibly sad and tragic. In hindsight, I do believe it could have turned out differently, especially if there had been some line of communication like the Ask the Admins forum. The precipitating event -- a group of people basically ganging up on a moderator -- was something that had never happened before on Democratic Underground. I made the (not unreasonable) decision to step in. But as soon as I told people that they needed to knock it off, or else, we were on the brink. I had no further room to maneuver and left myself no choice but to ban anyone who continued -- and people did continue. I regret that it happened, and I regret my role in it. I believe I could have handled it differently.<<

Here's what it was like from my POV. When I signed on for my first term, there was the usual orientation "conference call." In addition to covering the basics of moderation for us noobs, there was an extensive and very serious, thoughtful and sad discussion of the increasing rancor that was manifesting between some members of the DU LGBT community and some non-LGBT members of DU. Experienced mods expressed great frustration and anxiety over the difficulty of maintaining civil and meaningful discussion in any thread any time this conflict erupted within the thread. I didn't really 'get' it, since when I'm not modding I usually avoid conflict. But it was enough to make me aware of the issue. At that time, Skinner and EarlG pointed out that while making LGBT members of DU feel safe, wanted, and 'at home' on the site had always been a high priority, the level of conflict that was leaching into all of the "main" fora and many topic fora and groups from this issue was very challenging. At that time, they felt the best way to handle it was to be more consistent and pro-active in deleting inflammatory, highly-emotional, and/or confrontive posts that broke DU rules, from all 'sides,' all viewpoints, and all perspectives.

When I started modding it pretty much smacked me in the face. The mod forum would be ticking along relatively steadily with an average number of obvious trolls, off-topic or forum-inappropriate posts, the occasional Lounge blow-up, and a temper tantrum or PUI (posting under the influence) now and then. I'd check into the mod forum and there'd be three or four alerts to clear in my mod area, and I'd suggest a course of action and refer them to the forum. Then I'd run through the stuff in the forum referred by other mods and offer my input-- maybe another 10-12 posts under current discussion. They'd clear and new alerts would come up to replace them at a steady but manageable rate.

Then all hell would break loose. Suddenly the alerts would start piling up faster than the mods available could even review and move them into the mod forum. And it wouldn't stay confined to one thread or one forum. It was personal and nasty and it would draw more and more people from each opposing viewpoint in. People who hadn't seen the 'beginning' would get bewildered and offended by the level of rancor and the emotional temperature, and they'd wade in trying to 'calm things down,' which (not unnaturally) only made things worse. A thread would get locked and then the parties involved would pop up in other threads, and it would spread out from there and go on for hours or days. The mods would get so dizzy and exhausted trying to keep track of it all and trying to stay level-headed and objective and see the "hows and whys" so that we could make allowances or find the main sore point and deal with THAT, that we'd get to the point of deleting posts and locking threads just as a way of getting space to breathe and look for perspective.

There were, to be very honest, moments when I felt like "nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out." I'm sure other mods felt that way sometimes. We tried never to act on those feelings or let them overwhelm our good judgment but I'm sure it did happen occasionally.

And what it was hard for us to see at the time, and what EarlG put his finger on (see Skinner's post above) was how our attempts to be "evenhanded" had a disproportionate impact on the LGBT community. We all knew intellectually that DU's LGBT members are essentially a "community within the community" and a close-knit one, at that. Many LGBT members know each other IRL, not just online. There's much communication--phone, email, etc., amongst the DU LGBT members, outside the DU fora. And the LGBT community has a big "profile" on DU in relationship to its actual size. There's also what I call a "present consciousness" about the GLBT community right now. All oppressed groups have a group consciousness that relates to that oppression, it affects us in different ways and degrees depending on how active the political and social fight for rights is at any given time, and a number of other factors. What I call the "present consciousness" is the highest level of the phenomenon and it makes group members very vulnerable as well as very strong and active.

Please know that all of the moderators sincerely believed that we were sanctioning those who were antagonizing the LGBT community just as attentively as those within the LGBT community who were most actively participating in the conflicts. But we were misjudging the impact. And at the time, it was difficult to see alternatives, or other ways to handle the conflict. And the conflict was making DU a difficult and unpleasant place even for people who weren't conscious of the stress points and members involved.

There WERE attempts to discuss it with the LGBT community. Indeed, at least one mod that I can remember (and I think maybe more) was LGBT and tried to establish some dialogue on the issues in this forum. Other mods tried to address AA forum denizens who seemed to be strongly antagonistic, and still others tried to mediate some of the issues in GD-P where many of the explosions happened. We weren't very effective. And there were plenty of hurt feelings among mods as well when sincere but inept good intentions predictably backfired and flak came our way. And when some of us were legitimately questioned for poor judgment or hasty actions, it was easy to dismiss it as more of the same.

I was on and off during the mod term when the mass bannings took place. I remember signing on at one point and the bannings had happened since my last session in the mod forum. There was discussion in the mod forum of why they'd happened, and how to handle the anticipated backlash. And many moderators agreed with the decision to try and put a wall between past and future, in the hope that not allowing any further discussion of the bannings and what led up to the bannings would help the "whole DU community" recover faster.

I am sorry for that. Very sorry. It was a stupid, lousy decision and we mods should have known better. I should have known better. I did know better, but I was tired and frustrated and I hate conflict anyway and I just went along with it. And I know (and knew then) perfectly well that that is NOT how you deal with trauma, especially when you are complicit in inflicting that trauma. I should have spoken up, and made a case for trying to find a way to reach out more effectively to the LGBT community and allow you to process and discuss and ask for explanations and help and healing. And even to open things up to reconsideration within a fairly short time window. And I didn't speak up for that, and I apologize.

I don't know any easy ways to make things better for the future. I know that there aren't any "do overs." I'm not a mod anymore, but I am pretty sure from what I know of those who were mods then and still are, that while the mods regard the quality of the whole DU community as their job, they care deeply about each of the "communities within the community," and certainly about the LGBT community. I hope Skinner's OP provides an opening for a little more healing. I know it won't happen fast. I know there will be setbacks. As always, the larger community asks a much greater weight of tolerance and accommodation from those we oppress than those who are oppressed seek from the larger community. But that makes sense, if only because the hurts we inflict upon those we oppress are so much deeper than the oppressed can inflict upon the oppressors.

So please, where you can find it in you, continue to extend some tolerance, and accommodate the ignorant good intentions, ignore the indifference, and fight with principle and compassion the stupidity and intolerance that you find here. We love you. I love you. Your fight is mine and my family's even if I am not LGBT. You are important to DU in ways far beyond the wit and passion and righteous confrontation you bring to these fora. I'm proud that you share DU with me, and I hope I haven't made an ignorant ass of myself in your DU home.

respectfully,
Bright

[Prism]

40. Awesome, awesome post

And I really appreciate the insights into what happened. I think part of the frustration and hurt stems from the fact we weren't sure how everything happened, why various decisions were made, and what the justification for the imposed silence might have been. Those unknowns left a vacuum that was going to be filled by speculation based on perception.

Your post and Skinner's OP are filling in gaps that have needed filling to make productive dialogue possible.

Thanks so much, Bright.

[Lyric]

41. I think this is the first time I've seen an "authority" here so candidly address this topic.

And I'm grateful for it.

It's a lot to process, and I'll probably have more to say later, but I wanted to let you know that your post is very appreciated. This is *exactly* the kind of "opening-up" that I was hoping to see.

Thank you, TygrBright.

[Uta]

42. Thank you nt

[QC]

43. I am very touched by this. Thank you for posting it. n/t

[Meldread]

93. I want to thank you, TygrBright.

I find it always helps to know the full story before jumping to conclusions. I only knew bits and fragments of what had happened, and I was shocked by the scope of things as revealed up thread. I can understand how emotions run high and sometimes people just feel as if they've had enough. I made a lot of incorrect assumptions about those who had been complaining over the years, and I feel bad about not having PMed them to ask questions.

I think moving forward that it would be a good policy change to allow sub-communities within DU to discuss major happenings such as when multiple people within their community are banned. It seems to me that more harm was caused by an enforced silence than the actual bannings. By shutting down all discussion, and never giving an explanation, it only allowed rumors and speculation to circulate. Those rumors and speculation - whether they were right or wrong - became fact. It didn't just hurt the LGBT community, it hurt DU as a whole, and it undermined the moderators and administrators in the long run.

Hopefully this thread will provide some healing; I'm already seeing positive signs. I'm feeling hopeful.

My personal experience with the DU moderators and administrators have been very good. Whenever I've alerted an obviously bigoted post it's been promptly deleted (and virtually always the individual who made the remark tombstoned), and I've never had reason to complain. This was, at least in part, my reluctance to give people who were angry with the Admin and Mods much credence - my experience has been fundamentally different.

I really, truly hope that this thread lays the foundation for a reconciliation. Thank you again for your kind post TygrBright.

[ThomCat]

183. I remember some of the desisions you were personally

involved in, and I had a lot of animosity towards you because of the shitty way you handled it towards our community. You were NOT a good moderator as far as handling LGBT issues. :grr:

[Renew Deal]

252. This is a very insightful post.

Thanks for explaining your experience at the time. I'm also impressed with how thoughtful and professional some of the moderators are. :patriot:

[Skinner]

389. I am glad you posted this.

I feel very bad that I put you and the other moderators through this.

[Starry Messenger]

34. +1000

To both Lyric & Prism. I have very little to add to their (always) eloquent writing. I miss all of the voices here, which inspired and informed me as a straight person to see into issues more deeply and made me think how one could be supportive. I have contact with people who are gone from here, but the concert of voices acting together here was very vital, not only on LGBT threads, but about many things. I miss them very much.

I for one have always found the willingness to inform, and the patience to explain from the LGBT posters here to be exemplary.

[yardwork]

101. These are good points, Lyric. I talk about the supposed "moderator-attacking" downthread.

There used to be a rule on DU that moderators were not supposed to start threads on controversial subjects or take sides. If that rule had been followed on May 3, 2009 then none of this would have happened.

[Lyric]

154. As I mentioned, I didn't get here until after the first four had been banned.

At the time, all I knew was that I arrived in GLBT that day only to see my brothers and sisters being banned right and left, without any explanation, and without even the ability to ask why, discuss it, or simply grieve, like poor sundog was trying to do. It was traumatizing, frightening, and I've never forgotten that feeling. I was just helpless. I felt extreme guilt for still being here while so many others were gone. I felt grief. I felt anger. I felt paranoia, wondering when my turn would come.

Today has been cathartic, if nothing else. God in heaven, it feels good to at least be able to TALK about this now. And to see you and the others slowly coming back...the holes in my heart are already a little less empty. Not many people know this, but I have pretty severe social anxiety issues. I don't "get out" much. I'm not totally isolated, like poor Vanje was, but I'm not far from it.

I have missed you all so very, very much.

:loveya:

[Skinner]

386. This is absolutely true.

The reason why no discussion was permitted is because, as a rule, we did not and do not permit discussion of banned members.

But that does not change the obvious truth of your post: It was an enormous blunder for us to do that, for all the reasons you stated. And it was piled on top of plenty of other enormous blunders. The entire situation was mishandled. And it was mishandled entirely by me. Everything about how the situation was handled adds up to an enormous breach of faith.

I do not have any good excuse. I was coming from a place of hurt and anger, and I let those feelings get the best of me. I am deeply ashamed about it.

[swimboy]

390. Oh, man. Thank you.

Really. Thank you.

[yardwork]

417. That's a very clear and strong statement, and I appreciate it. It means a lot.

At some point we are going to need to talk about happened to cause you to feel such a depth of hurt and anger. Since my words seem to have been a part of that, I want you to know that I am genuinely interested in talking with you, David, about what I did to cause you hurt and anger. That was not my intention. In fact, I felt almost entirely powerless in the face of what I perceived to be months - no, years - of concerted bullying on this site. By the afternoon of May 3, 2009 I was feeling very hurt and angry myself.

It seems to me that there was a collision that day between a number of different people, each of whom felt hurt and anger. Angry, defensive people don't communicate well. I guess that is the purpose of this thread - to begin listening to one another.

This thread has exceeded my expectations. I've been reluctant to allow myself to feel hope that DU could ever become a home for me again. I'm starting to think that maybe it can if this level of improved communication, respect, and trust continues.

[Lyric]

452. Thank you for this.

I think this whole thread has been an enormous success. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I feel much better right now about DU than I've felt in years--literally. I feel like part of the "us" again, if that makes sense. And I am very grateful for the soul-baring posts by the mods who were brave enough to come here and talk to us in such a personal (and even vulnerable) way. It means a lot to me, and I'm sure that it means a lot to many of the others here as well.

Thank you, David.

[Cronus Protagonist]

572. I had no idea this happened

First time I'm hearing about it right here. The silence was literally deafening.

:grouphug:

[MuseRider]

22. Prism, that is an excellent post.

The things that have been said here have brought me to tears on many occasions. There is not a chance in the world that those that mention "the pony" lack so much knowledge that they do not understand what they are actually saying. There is no way they do not understand the issue is basic civil rights and what that means. To me that should have been a banning offense, first time - every time. It, and all the other slightly within the rules comments, are nothing more than bigotry, a snarky chance to say that the LGBT community does not matter as much as everyone else.....bigotry. The rest of the arguments over Obama could have been actually productive but once those comments come out it is game over. Because they were allowed to continue they took over every single issue. They either cause banning of those it was directed to who are bullied and became angry, upset post deletions, or people just leaving in sadness. That has to stop, there is no civility in those comments. It is plain and simple, not even simply insensitive, it is bigotry.

[ruggerson]

102. Dead on Prism

thank you.

[Betty Karlson]

199. I really hope that you also remember

the posts of all those who stand with you and who carry you and your well-deserved rights in their hearts and their prayers. And that the accumulation of those sentiments, however small, may give you some comfort.

[yardwork]

262. A very good point and one that can't be said often enough.

Allies tend to be the first to say that they didn't do enough, when in fact their support and strength was noticed and greatly appreciated. MANY straight allies have suffered just as much as the GLBTQ posters - they were banned, depersonalized, disappeared, and lied about right along with us.

Meanwhile, many straight allies have persisted here on DU, posting positive and helpful threads, and generally pushing along the cause of human rights. Just as they do in the outside world.

And, sad to say, there are self-described gay posters who are no particular allies of gay rights or human rights. They know who they are.

It's not a straight vs. gay issue. It's never been that. Those who seek to create those divisions are the enemies of everything that is good and positive and progressive.

[yardwork]

211. Thank you for this, Prism, and for your persistence and diplomacy.

You are a poster that I admire greatly. You got the ball rolling on this. We wouldn't be having this conversation if not for the efforts of and some others here.

I remember being told many times here on DU that Obama and the Democrats didn't need my vote.

[ThomCat]

293. Somehow, when those "deaths by a thousand cuts" start

and those veiled homophobic insults and slurs all come out, moderators have to be able to see it and have to be willing to take it seriously.

If they can't see it, then when we tell them it's happening they have to have some faith that our community knows what homophobia looks like. We know what it feels like. We know when it is happening. And if they can't see it is or feel it when it is happening, then we certainly know better than they do.

Instead of constantly ignoring us when we stay there is a problem, take it seriously!

[Skinner]

378. There are so many things we could talk about from this post.

I completely understand and sympathize that you feel disrespected. And I am sorry that you do. I am especially sorry that you feel disrespected as an LGBT person.

I would like to explore this idea of a thousand insults and hypocrisies a little bit. If I may, I am going to try to temporarily remove it from the context of discussion about LGBT issues, and instead consider it in a somewhat broader context.

As you know, this is a discussion forum, not very different from any other discussion forum going back into the early 1990s. As Internet technology goes, Democratic Underground is basically old school Web 1.0 stuff. Despite the name "discussion forum," trying to have a really "good" discussion on a discussion forum is surprisingly difficult. We can try to have a "good discussion," but the de-personalized nature of the interaction, the lack of face-to-face contact, the anonymity, and everything else are working against us. Even with rules and moderators, I would argue that the default mode of interaction is not pretty. At best: Point-scoring, word-twisting, subtle mocking (or worse), and low-level nastiness. At worst: Outright flaming, crude insults, contempt. No matter how hard you try, there is always someone who will show up and (deliberately or inadvertently) cause the interaction to escalate to something worse than it started. Here on Democratic Underground, our challenge is made worse by the topic we discuss: Politics.

But the really insidious part is that these behaviors come from otherwise "good people," who are perfectly capable of engaging in productive and respectful communication in their real-life interactions. In You Are Not A Gadget, Jaron Lanier argues that we all have an "inner troll":

"Troll" is a term for an anonymous person who is abusive in an online environment. It would be nice to believe that there is only a minute troll population living among us. But in fact, a great many people have experienced being drawn into nasty exchanges online. Everyone who has experienced that has been introduced to his or her inner troll.

I have tried to learn to be aware of the troll within myself. I notice that I can suddenly become relieved when someone else in an online exchange is getting pounded or humiliated, because that means I'm safe for the moment. If someone else's video is being ridiculed on YouTube, then mine is temporarily protected. But that also means I'm complicit in a mob dynamic. Have I ever planted a seed of mob-beckoning ridicule in order to guide the mob to a target other than myself? Yes, I have, though I shouldn't have. I observe others doing that very thing routinely in anonymous online meeting places.

This is what we are up against. And I'll be honest: We try very hard to moderate this place, but the end product of all that hard work is still garbage. Because it's damned near impossible to do.

So, given all that. Let's imagine a hypothetical discussion that is NOT about LGBT issues. It doesn't really matter what it's about. It could be about whether President Obama is ever going to get out of Iraq. Or it could be about whether Barack Obama is a corporatist warmonger. My point is that it doesn't really matter what the discussion is about. As long as there is the smallest potential for disagreement, the end result will not be pretty. At best: Point-scoring, word-twisting, subtle mocking (or worse), and low-level nastiness. At worst: Outright flaming, crude insults, contempt.

We all know it to be true. Despite our best efforts, we see it happen here all the time. Online discussion is not pretty.

Here's where I'm going with this: Can we possibly expect this familiar pattern to *not* show up when the discussion is, say, whether President Obama is a homophobe?

Of course it will.

Now, I want to be clear, I am not excusing or justifying this behavior. I'm just saying that it is what it is.

From The Blank Slate by by Steven Pinker:

Social psychologists have found that with divisive moral issues, especially those on which liberals and conservatives disagree, all combatants are intuitively certain they are correct and that their opponents have ugly ulterior motives. They argue out of respect for the social convention that one should always provide reasons for one's opinions, but when an argument is refuted, they don't change their minds but work harder to find a replacement argument. Moral debates, far from resolving hostilities, can escalate them, because when people on the other side don't immediately capitulate, it only proves they are impervious to reason.

Does that sound familiar?

So, given all that... My ultimate point is this:

1. If we have a discussion about whether President Obama is a warmonger, these behaviors come out.

2. If we have a discussion about whether President Obama is a homophobe, these behaviors come out.

In both cases, we feel that we have been disrespected. In the first case, we call these behaviors "human nature." In the second case, we call these behaviors "homophobia." But how do we know for sure that the second case is not also "human nature"?

And here is a related question: Let's just assume for the sake of discussion that we can actually compel people to NOT give in to their worst online behavioral impulses. If so, would it be okay to permit differing opinions on the question of whether President Obama is a homophobe? Or is the question itself off-limits?

[swimboy]

393. People conflate things too.

Thinking that Obama is a homophobe doesn't make you a racist.
and
Thinking he's not a homophobe doesn't make you a homophobe.

I fully expect to be exposed to people who think differently and hold different opinions. I hope my first response, especially on a LGBT topic, is to assume good intention and to try to explain why something may be offensive to me. It's up to the other person what happens next. If they assume hostile intent on my part, or I assume this on their part, things are likely to escalate.

The weirdest response though, is being told I shouldn't or can't possible be offended. I'm the only one who can know that and usually I can back it up with MY reasons. I try not to conflate other topics, but I will follow up with someone at times, more than is profitable.

I don't expect you to silence dissent, just markedly antagonistic behavior. I think we need to figure that out.

And having stuff simply vanish isn't always the best solution.

Similarly, putting someone on ignore is not the solution if you feel their statements deserve to be countered.

Thanks.

[yardwork]

419. All that is true, but it isn't a level playing field. One group does not have equal rights.

One of the big frustrations for me is to see "gay rights" treated like a football game for the entertainment of straight people who have no idea what it is like to be denied basic human rights.

On the one hand you have a diverse group of people - black, white, Latino, Asian, American Indian, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, west coasters, rural southerners, New Yorkers, midwesterners, union members, Wall St. brokers, teachers, firefighters, homeless, young, old, middle-aged, grandparents, childless, men, women, transgender, etc. etc. - all of whom are denied basic human rights because of who we love. Not allowed to get married. Having our right to marriage voted away by! Kicked out of the military not because of any behavior but just because of who we say we are. Kicked out of housing. Fired for being gay. Beat up - physically and verbally. Committing suicide out of despair. Besieged every single day by people who call us abominations to our faces.

On the other "side" - if you can call it that - are individuals who decide that today would be a fun day to pick on gay people on DU. Or maybe start a fight. Maybe accuse every gay poster on DU of being racist. That one always gets a rise out of people. Or another favorite chestnut - accuse gay people of being affluent white gay men who don't give a damn about anybody else. Or - a very common game on DU - let's blame gay people for Democrats losing elections.

It's not like anybody is pretending that there isn't racism, sexism, ageism, and a whole lot of other bigoted attitudes and behaviors in the "gay community." It would be foolish to claim that such a huge demographic was made of 100% kind, thoughtful, progressive people. We're all flawed human beings.

I would like to see more of an acknowledgement on DU that right now in the United States there is a human rights struggle going on - a deadly serious battle - and a whole entire demographic is still systematically denied basic human rights. This is not comparable to having one's feelings hurt by some anonymous poster on an internet board. Not comparable at all.

[Cronus Protagonist]

571. Got drama?

And I'm gay, by the way.

:toast:

And I agree on the amnesty. I noticed other, non gay, people on here who were banned come back quite frequently.

[Uta]

23. Thank you for this.

EarlG's email is spot on! Some of us though, were Obama supporters in the primaries. I donated, caucused and phoned for the campaign and was very moved and excited when he won. I overlooked the Donnie McClurkin thing,as a single vexing event but eventually, when a single event turned into a pattern of apparent disregard for his progressive "base", gay, or otherwise I became and remain quite disappointed in Obama.

I understand what you say about window dressing,and it may be window-dressing to you, but ....lets see, How can I put it.....If someone is displaying a Rebel flag , it is no longer just a curtain to some.

Theres a lot more I'd like to comment on. Perhaps later in the day.
I'm walking on eggshells here, and am careful to remain restrained.
I'm not supposed to be here. Right now I'm breaking DUs rules.




The Zombie, Uta aka Vanje aka Susan

[Divine Discontent]

27. ~ stirrings of a broken heart ~

Thank you for the OP, I hope it's accepted in the spirit it's meant.

What struck me the hardest was reading through EarlG's recount of events that helped shape things.

When Obama was elected, I was at the state capital in California (at the Obama Election Night Victory Party at the Radisson).

One of my most clear memories of that night, was when, just a few minutes after Keith Olbermann said, "Barack Obama is projected to be the next President of the United States of America", and the room had went from uncontrolled screaming and bouncing, to a slightly less loud pattern of dancing and laughter as the acceptance set in - amidst that joy - the image popped up on the screen - one that I was praying wouldn't happen - one that really pissed me off and made me have have feelings of divine discontent. Proposition 'H8' was winning soundly.

Here in the state that I had just moved to a few months prior - where it felt like there were large bastions of openness and acceptance - I had to see that Prop 8 was PASSING, my God, it was passing - despite the landslide of people coming out to reject McCain and Palin. How could that be?

That's when I knew that not everyone believed in equality, even in our own party.

But, here on DU, I believe a huge majority believe in equality. So, I guess we all need to think about then, our words. Because, even in jest, things can be a put-down for other people.

Thanks again Skinner, such an excellent letter to us.



(a side note - this is an example of the quips that we see done regularly at work, in the mall, with friends, etc, that get tiring, and yet, guys keep using the 'woh, come on now, I'm not Gay' as a joke for laughs, which to me implies that being Gay is not manly or is bad. This is Senators Biden and Obama in an early debate forum in mid-2007, 90 seconds - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZzWYCxjdnY
Barack didn't want it to appear like he and Biden were romantically linked, so he made a reply, that many felt that a mature guy wouldn't have to make. Just let Biden's slightly amusing gaffe past, don't draw attention and belittle Sen. Biden when he was in the midst of an impassioned and excellent comment, but also, don't make it look like you're embarrassed to have it even implied, when you know no one really thought it, that you're in a Gay romance.)

[Rowdyboy]

33. A good summary and I thank you for attempting to make sense out of all this.....

As a glbt Obama supporter I often felt out of place here. My participation has declined since then but not because of any bad feelings. I simply had other things that have preoccupied my time and now find this forum is a shadow of its former self. It's very sad.

[mitchtv]

35. thank you for the attempt, it is appreciated

I was "kind of" a Hillary supporter and voted for her in ths CA primary. As you can see I am an early member, and credit that for me not being TS;d a long time ago. I always , however, tried to think first before being mean or agressive, often I would adress my snark to an ally, rather than the offending poster.As for the purge, Just lucky I wasn't around I guess. I think a targeted amnesty might be a good first step in fencemending. The LGBT forum is a damn shame, once a lively, active place, it now langishes, because Gays started going elsewhere. I thank the stalwarts who have remained and newcomers who keep it going,but it could be much better. Thank you Skinner, for your excellent OP.also thank you Lyric and Prism

[Lyric]

37. ...

:hug:

:loveya:

[CreekDog]

36. Mending fences can't really happen without action regarding all the people TS'd

you lost a lot of people, especially in one community and now you recognize that the way the site was managed contributed to that.

if you have an entire dialogue but don't work to rectify what happened to those people, then people are going to be more upset than before you were willing to dialogue at all.

why? because you're raising expectations.

i keep hearing that people were TS'd for posting a numeric value. if that's so, and it's sounding like it is in some cases, is reinstating them or inviting them back a possibility?

it's just amazing to read such a long and thoughtful statement that doesn't address the elephant in the room --what of all those people that were once here?

[Bluenorthwest]

39. So this thread is a drive by?

I see just one poster gets a reply from Skinner. One straight poster. And there you have it. That sums it the fuck up. Says it all. Why bother trying to swim in a polluted pool?

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. it's way too soon to conclude that

And this thread already poses some interesting policy issues, so it might be all the better for Skinner to avoid half-baked responses.

[Smarmie Doofus]

51. I don't think so. I don't expect that.

>>>For my part, I am going to listen, try to understand, and do my best to respond.>>>

In an earlier thread... I think it was the "Prism" thread... I believe Skinner said he saw the dialogue taking place over several days once it got started.

[Vanje]

56. Yes

I've been waiting on this line of communication for , what, 3 months?......Hell! for 2 years!
I'm going give it a little time to unfold.

[Smarmie Doofus]

58. I'm ecstatic you're back with us.

Really strange feeling it must be for you. We we're talking in the earlier thread how being TSed was something very close to a literal DEATH for some folks. Including you.

This feels like a friggin' *resurrection* to me; at least symbolically.

[Vanje]

64. Yea verily,

I am born again!

Thanks for the welcome backs, y'all,

but dont let them divert the thread from the subject at hand.

[Duncan Grant]

90. Welcome back!

:hi:

[pinto]

45. Hi all. Just some background on the moderator set-up and process. Hope this helps the context .

A general overview of how we mods go about things, day-to-day. It's been alluded to in overview, but I thought some specifics may be useful.

This is solely my run down, if I miss some stuff I expect other mods will chime in.

There's about 30 mods or so this term. We're "on-duty" at varying times and schedules, depending on our on-line availability. There aren't any assigned times, or assigned forums, for that matter. (We used to have set teams for different forums, but that's been changed. In the current format we all see alerts from every forum and review them as a whole team.)

There's a moderator forum that's our format to review alerts, develop consensus on any actions, bounce around general moderator issues and get Admin feedback on any and all aspects of our job. The forum is set up like a typical DU page, except it has two columns.

On the left is the alert column. Every alert that comes in is posted as a topic in that column, with the poster's user name, the alerter's user name, a copy of the post, member's highlight for alerting and any comment the member may choose to make. And a time of the alert. Basically, each alert becomes a thread in the mod forum and our discussions are a part of each thread, like any other thread on DU.

We work on consensus for any and all actions. Some are simple, some take some time. So a "fuck you John Doe douchebag" post will go pretty quickly. Those are easy. Some may be more borderline, as has been mentioned. They can take some time and discussion. Eventually we get to consensus and take an action. Occasionally we don't get to consensus and move on.

Resolved alerts are cleared, i.e.the alert thread is cleared and drops off the current "open" alerts. Alerts that have no resolution are eventually dropped down and archived. Although, if a new alert comes in on the post, the thread gets kicked back up to the open alert list.

Every alert is read by the mods on duty at the time. And followed up as other mods come on-line.

It's not a foolproof system. And it has a number of inefficiencies, imho.

I think the new set-up - broader review of alerts from all forums by all moderators - has been a really good improvement. I think we've seen the benefit of it all around. Admin is designing more changes for how we moderate DU systematically and conceptually. Though I don't know the details, we've heard a number of comments about the goals. I think they're worth watching.

:hi:

[Meldread]

136. Thanks Pinto.

I noticed no one had responded to you yet; so I just wanted to say thank you. It helps to know how things actually work on the other side of things. I'm sure others appreciate your post here as well.

[pinto]

152. Thanks & you're welcome.Thought it might be good to offer some "How we do what we do" background.

:hi:

[Vanje]

155. So, its not really a hot tub? nt

[pinto]

158. LOL. No, it remains a digital concept. We're hoping the DU3 upgrade will change that.

In the mean time, there's always a kitchen dancing piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leohcvmf8kM&feature=related

:hi:

[Vanje]

351. Awesome! nt

[yardwork]

238. This process is not always followed. Skinner can and did ban people directly.

You do a disservice to truth and transparency when you insist that all decisions are made by consensus. You know that that is not always the case.

[Renew Deal]

245. Isn't the consensus approach cumbersome?

Do you really need consensus for some posts? Wouldn't it be easier to act and move on in the John Doe cases? One of my criticisms of moderation of DU in the past is the "consensus" system. It seems like it eats up too much time.

I also don't like the delete and amend system that's in the works, but whatever.

[QC]

283. I can't help but wonder if the concensus system explains the apparent bulletproof status

of some of the most relentless and long lasting personal attack artists here.

If all it takes is one steadfast friend in the mod forum to ensure that a disruptive member cannot be bounced, no matter what, then that would explain a lot.

[yardwork]

335. Downthread cbayer clarifies that mods never make a banning decision on long-term members.

According to cbayer downthread, only Admins ever ban long-time members. This matches the experience of those of us banned during Gay Purge 2009.

However, Pinto's posts here seem to suggest otherwise. I find it difficult to follow.

[Skinner]

392. Pinto's post was about how moderators are expected to do their job.

Admin is not constrained by a need to get consensus from the moderators. In the case of the so-called "gay purge," all the decisions (including your banning) were made entirely by administrators.

The final decision to ban any long-term member is always made by an administrator (often more than one administrator).

[yardwork]

413. Thank you very much for clarifying that, Skinner.

[Renew Deal]

358. I'm not as worried about that.

It seems like the real bad guys go away. But sometimes moderation is apparently non-existant. In reality it might be slow. I do think the mods do a good job getting the obvious stuff.

[Skinner]

394. Yes, the consensus approach is cumbersome.

The idea behind the consensus approach is that if one moderator has a differing opinion, he or she will be more willing to speak up and make their case if they know they can reasonably effect the outcome. Another idea behind it is that it's better to leave a potentially rule-violating post on the board, rather than remove it in haste and make a mistake.

Our overall approach to moderating the site has not changed much in eight or nine years. The emphasis was on caution rather than swift action. It is a luxury which was well worth it when DU was smaller. But the inefficiencies do exact a cost now that DU is much larger.

I said in my OP that we are completely changing the way the site is run, and I really mean it. I'm not talking about changing some rules. I'm talking about looking at all the assumptions that got us here and being willing to tear it up from the foundation and put something new in place. It may be a radical change, but it is a necessary change, as this entire discussion makes clear.

[Skinner]

46. Hello again everyone.

I just wanted to let you know that I've been reading this thread throughout the day and thinking about what everyone has had to say. I don't really have anything else to post just yet, mainly because there are still people out there who haven't had a chance to respond to the OP yet.

However I do think that the the idea of a targeted amnesty is probably a good idea at this point. I've already reached out to Vanje. If anyone else who was banned on May 3 or May 4, 2009, would like to return, all they have to do is send me an email asking for reinstatement -- no strings attached, no questions asked.

[e-mail]

[Prism]

47. Very sincere thanks

Reading that, a large portion of the hostility I've felt when reading and posting here over the past two years has evaporated. I'm very, very pleased to see this and very thankful that you're willing to reverse what happened. It feels like an exhalation.

Very cool and very appreciated.

(But you posted this thread on Mardi Gras! It's practically a national holiday for many in our community. Hopefully more will chime in and see this by tomorrow).

[Lyric]

68. I actually feel like crying, as weird as that might sound.

I guess it's an awfully big release of tension and hurt. Not a healing...not yet. But a beginning.

:hug: :loveya:

[Marrah_G]

710. GREAT BIG HUGS!!!

good to see you :)

[Vanje]

49. Thankyou!

I am jubilant!

[racaulk]

50. Yay!!!!

:woohoo:

So glad to see your (permanent) return, Vanje! :hi:

[Danger Mouse]

52. Welcome back.

[Bluebear]

60. Welcome back!

:hug:

[Lyric]

62. Welcome back!!!

So glad to see this.

:hug:

:loveya:

[Starry Messenger]

63. yay!!!

:hug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

104. Welcome back!

Cheers!

[Behind the Aegis]

113. Hey you!

Welcome back!

:hug:

[Jamastiene]

131. Welcome back!

:hug:

[Renew Deal]

246. Welcome back!

:pals:

[racaulk]

53. !!!

:wow:

I have to say I'm shocked to see this offer, but it is very much welcome and appreciated. Although I don't have direct communication with most of those folks that were banned during that time, I'm doing what I can to help spread the word. Here's hoping that those folks choose to return and that the sense of community here that has long been lost can begin to, at long last, be repaired.

Thank you for this.

[Lyric]

66. I hope we can figure out how to contact TechBear, sundog, and the others.

And I also hope that amnesty will be considered for the people who were banned due to the fallout bitterness and hurt of those days. The effects of what happened stretched far beyond the beginning two days.

That being said, I'm thrilled to have Vanje back so quickly, at least. Her post brought me to tears, literally.

:loveya: Vanje. And you too racaulk. :)

[terrya]

180. A couple more

misunderestimator and progmom. If this amnesty thing is serious, if it's genuine, then it should be extended to all former LGBT DUers who have been purged. No exceptions. And no bullshit excuses.

[meegbear]

264. +1

[Skinner]

399. I know that people do not like seeing anyone banned.

I don't like it either. Banning people is a blunt instrument, but unfortunately it's the only effective tool at our disposal under our current system.

Just to be clear, nobody is ever banned from Democratic Underground because of their sexual orientation.

What happened during the "gay purge" was unfair. I painted everyone into a corner, and left myself no way out. I am committed to make it right. That is why we have offered this targeted amnesty. But that does not mean we should let everyone back who was ever banned who happened to also be gay. I can't really think of any rational argument for doing so. If we did, we might as well just forget about trying to hold anyone accountable for their behavior and let everyone back who we ever banned.

[Renew Deal]

256. Someone sent me a list of names a while ago

I don't think some of these are part of the "gay purge", but I think KitchenWitch is and I liked her.

Sniffa
malta blue
kithenwitch
tetonik
Haruka
Pi Guy
malta blue
KitchenWitch
DS1
marrah_g
sundog
yardwork
runcible spoon
TechBearSeattle
Vanje
PelosiFan
Solon
dbackjon
Maven
LA Blue
leftchick
pale blue dot

[Kali]

282. some of those got banned because of some shit in the lounge

maybe there were some non-lounge reasons too, but I know some of it was for crap that was going on there.

and there are some more names associated with them that were GLBT/allies as well.

[Cherchez la Femme]

369. I'd like to add

Lost in VA!!!
IndianaGreen was a supporter
YoY I believe also was

There are tons others, if my memory serves I'll post again.
Now mind you, in most cases I don't know why they were banned; if it was for something truly egregious or outside this particular, but broad, category then I couldn't rightfully advocate for them.

[MuseRider]

376. I checked out of this place

mostly and ended up missing all of it, just heard about it when I came back to check in. I never really knew much about it so I do not even know who all was TSed.

jonnyblitz?

[Renew Deal]

381. I think he's still here

I'm pretty sure I saw something from him a couple days ago.

[QC]

397. No, he got tombstoned a month or so ago.

Of course, the relentlessly anti-gay poster who followed him around here attacking him night and day is still a member in good standing.

[MuseRider]

402. Nope he is gone.

I don't know why or when but I will certainly miss him.

EDIT to add: Also confirmed by message. :(

[Renew Deal]

414. Sucks!

I didn't know about that. I liked him. I guess I saw JohnnyLib.

[muffin1]

536. Two that I miss...

LostinVA and Toasterlad. :-(

[muffin1]

541. And how could I forget

my good friend TokenQueer?

[Very_Boring_Name]

540. I've got techbear's email

I will PM it to you if you'd like

[Smarmie Doofus]

54. Good gesture. Really, * really * good move.

>>>>However I do think that the the idea of a targeted amnesty is probably a good idea at this point. I've already reached out to Vanje. If anyone else who was banned on May 3 or May 4, 2009, would like to return, all they have to do is send me an email asking for reinstatement -- no strings attached, no questions asked.>>>>

I mean REALLY good.

[yardwork]

243. Thank you for your role in creating this dialogue, Smarmie Doofus.

[Smarmie Doofus]

342. A labor of love. But you're welcome. And welcome back. nt

[Pab Sungenis]

61. And those banned on other days?

The purge STARTED May 3, 2009, but has been continuing up until at least late last year.

[Duncan Grant]

76. Sincere thanks to you, Skinner.

A very generous thing to do. :thumbsup:

[LiberalAndProud]

77. To add my own quiet thank you.

Thank you.

:hug:

[Stinky The Clown]

92. I've had many occasions in my life to make amends for having done something wrong.

This includes actions and words that I have to own.

I always saw my doing the reaching out to the one(s) I've wronged as the correct place to start. Asking them to contact me somehow seems counter to a posture of contrition - or even of sincerity.

As a matter of curiosity, why limit amnesty to certain dates? Over time, the DU LGBTQ community has been disproportionately affected by bannings, some on the dates you cite, but far more on other dates before then, and more to the point, since then. Meanwhile the members who incited a fair bit of this remain, whole and active.

[mitchtv]

110. I tend to agree with you, Stinky

within reason of course

[ruggerson]

118. .

[CreekDog]

97. that was an important step

:hi:

[Ignis]

123. What a nice gesture.

:toast: :fistbump:

It's through small steps that we build consensus, and through consensus that we reach a common goal.

[Heidi]

159. :thumbsup:

This is an important step. :thumbsup:

[pecwae]

173. An important step

in the right direction. I hope everyone affected feels safe enough to take advantage of this offer.

[ThomCat]

187. That is the first really great idea.

:)

I hope the first of several. :)

Now I see progress. Cool.

[femrap]

219. Will you let some of the

Feminist Posters come back? I don't know if they were Lesbian...one name that comes to mind is omega minion....I believe that is correct. She had so much tact than I have....I just didn't understand why she got tossed.

I like strong women who stand up for themselves. Maybe certain mods don't. Patriarchy is a very deep-rooted cultural phenomenon.

[Betty Karlson]

223. Personally, I think the problem is more the

tendency toward (the illusion of) binary oppositions that we have in our culture. But maybe we should just take this discussion elsewhere...

[femrap]

228. Binary?

Haven't heard that since math/computer science class.

If your profile is correct, you're living in a great place on this planet. I mean, A GREAT PLACE....with tolerant people.

Lots of us here aren't that lucky. We're surrounded IRL w/ Bible-thumping fundies...American Taliban. It's very binary and it's not an illusion.

Yes...I want to be elsewhere.

[Betty Karlson]

234. Binary =

exclusive opposition.Like: man is exclusively opposed to woman, and vice versa. Derrida and Foucault have been outspokenly against the premise, so are historians like Walker Scott and Smith-Rosenberg in the USA.

I'm living where it USED to be great. The neo-cons and Reagonomics 2.0 crowd have taken over the place, with the tacid permission of the racists and the Bible-thumping mysogynists. I'm not thrilled by the prospect.

However, what I meant was: should we take the discussion about patriarchy/ binary oppositions elsewhere, on this forum?

[Wednesdays]

298. There are 10 types of people in this world...

those who know binary, and those who don't.

:hide:

[fishwax]

305. .

:woohoo:

I also, for what it's worth, would like to add my voice to those who would like to see the amnesty expanded to those who were banned at later times.

[Jamastiene]

331. Thank you. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

48. Once upon a time...

I was a very militant supporter of Barack Obama on DU. I fought with supporters of Hillary Clinton all the time, having many of my posts deleted as personal attacks.
I can see them, because as a moderator I can see the record of my own deleted posts.
I said a lot of things...mean things, hurtful things. I sneered about Donnie McLurkin. I scoffed at those upset with Rick Warren. I mocked and derided. Not because people were gay, but because I was happy that Barack Obama had won, and I didn't understand why people were upset with him. I didn't understand, didn't try to, and acted like an ass.
That was once upon a time. I realize a lot of the things I said then hurt people in this community. To any who are still here or are gone that I hurt back then, I truly apologize. I now see Rick Warren for the sleazebag he is and always was. I came to see over time why so many in this community here were so wary of President Obama and so frustrated. I can't take back things I did or said to people here. But I can try to do better...and try to understand. As a moderator AND a DU'er.
I hope down the road I can say as a mod that I did my best to be a friend to all on DU, and an enemy to those that propagate hatred.

[Vanje]

55. Very welcome sentiments

Thankyou

[mtnester]

57. I see you my dear

:hug:

[Danger Mouse]

59. You're welcome. It's been eating me for a long time, and I felt that this was...

the best venue to say something.

[Prism]

65. It's appreciated

I supported Obama in the primaries as well, and it's sort of funny to see how, back then, I got into it so heatedly with some of the LGBT members whom I now consider some of the best people I know online.

Which goes to show it's never too late to take a breath, reflect on things, and scavenge a useful way forward.

[Vanje]

67. me too

I supported Obama, but avoided like a plague the DU primaries fights. One of those candidates was going to win that primary, and I wanted to be able to support him or her unreservibly, with no holding back, in the General election.

[ruggerson]

115. I think some need to reflect on the fact that

there is no moral equivalence between an oppressed group of second class citizens lobbying, badgering, bashing a *political leader* to keep his promises versus a group of citizens bashing a minority group.

One is speaking truth to power, the other is sheer bigotry.

[Marrah_G]

82. wow.........

Thank you for posting that.

[mitchtv]

70. THANK YOU TOO

AND SKINNER THANKS FOR BEING MAGNANIMOUS

[yardwork]

105. I appreciate your posting this.

We noticed your comments and your ridicule. And we noticed that you were rewarded by being made a mod. Many of us were banned, and then referred to as disruptors, for saying milder things than you had said.

Why do you think that we were banned, but you were made a mod?

I don't mean to pick on somebody who had the courage to stand up and admit they were wrong. I honor you for doing that. However, I think that we can go even further if we take this opportunity to be really honest and look squarely at what has been happening here for a long time.

[Danger Mouse]

114. To be fair, I started out as a Lounge mod, so I had no say in alerts on the political forums.

Also, I don't think there was ever any malicious intent on the part of the administrators. I've been working with them long enough to know they are good people with their hearts 100% in the right place.

That's not to say that some mistakes haven't been made. Some pretty big ones.

I learned a lot from some awesome people. I hope to keep learning.

[ThomCat]

188. No, you can't take back things you did.

people aren't going to forget.

But at least you're finally apologizing.

[Danger Mouse]

286. I don't expect people to forget, or to forgive.

All I can do...is change what lies ahead.

[dbackjon]

555. This confession is at the heart of the DU LGBT issue

You personally attacked LGBT DU'ers. You had many posts deleted. And you were rewarded for those attacks by becoming a moderator.


This is the hypocracy of DU. Will it change? Only Skinner and EarlG can decide that.

[closeupready]

573. Over the last few months, I've come to fear that

things aren't really going to change here.

[ruggerson]

69. Skinner, thanks for this post

I can see it took a lot of time, effort and thought. Your words are greatly appreciated, as is the idea of a targeted amnesty.

Hopefully, this is not the end of this discussion, but merely the beginning of a dialogue that can better foster both mutual understanding and good will.

[Skinner]

404. Thank you for your post.

I also hope that we can foster greater mutual understanding and good will.

[Kurovski]

71. I think the best thing that can be done is to reinstate membership

to those longtime DUers who were tossed off in haste, or in the midst of heated discussion.


I do not blame the owners of DU or the mods for seeming or real bigotry about LGBT issues that some members may express. Some DUers (or trolls) may not yet understand, or never will, or just plain don't like one or more groups in the LGBT community.

My calamitous and embarrassing behavior last week around the SCOTUS decision regarding the Snyder family was in part due to perceptions of soft bigotry that I have absolutely no way of proving.

I hope you will consider amnesty to all sincere players who were dismissed.

Thank you.

(Besides, I had a crush on someone who was ousted, dammit.)

[ruggerson]

96. now wait a goddamned second

you had a crush on someone other than me?

[Kurovski]

100. Well, there is "soul mate"...

and then there are the wee crushes that create solidarity within the community. :rofl:

:loveya:

[Skinner]

405. If your idea of "calamitous and embarrassing behavior" is one post deleted...

...then I wish DU had more members who engaged in that kind of calamitous and embarrassing behavior. ;)

I appreciate the self-reflection you have displayed in this post. If all DUers on all sides of the issues did this, we would not need to mend any fences here.

[FreeState]

72. Popping in for a minute

Im very busy today and just wanted to say thanks for the thread and the opportunity. Hopefully this will continue for a few days so I will have time to take part. (I was laid off a month ago, trying to go freelance, and we are fostering a non-potty trained dog... needless to say today Im swamped.)

[swimboy]

73. TygrBright identifies the basis here:

As always, the larger community asks a much greater weight of tolerance and accommodation from those we oppress than those who are oppressed seek from the larger community.

And many in that community never apprehend that they are requiring that tolerance from those they are oppressing. In fact, many would vehemently deny that they play any part in oppressing.

I'm going to repost what I wrote in the earlier thread last night so it will appear here and will probably post at least a couple of times here.

You should know that I tend to think the best of people until they give me just cause to think otherwise. I have rarely understood what was going on behind the scenes although I've been here through a number of disappearances. In fact, I've never understood how the people who knew what was going on gained their knowledge. That said, there are many people I miss terribly and I have really dialed things back because I didn't understand what on earth happened.

There are some good posts in this thread. I've gone back and read some earlier threads that are examples of the general problem. The Snickers ad generated a lot of threads where one can find instances of LGBT members trying to explain why they found the ads offensive and some other members calling us crybabies, humorless, etc. There was another lengthy thread about marriage equality around Thanksgiving where some members tried to explain why civil unions were good enough and exactly the same as marriage in all but name with the earnest efforts of LGBT members to explain were discounted or ignored.

In the thread I posted here from four years ago, some of the posters seemed really wary that I was asking for special rights not to be mocked or criticized for my position. I admit that I am taken aback that my goal of equal rights and treatment would be mocked or criticized at Democratic Underground, but I don't expect to control speech in America. What I find completely odd is for posters to say I can't expect not to be criticized for wanting equality who then take exception to being criticized for their comments.

I know people won't always be persuaded to see things as I do, but a handful seem not to be content not to persuade me to their way of thinking. Any of us can be wrong from time to time (even me!) but generally, LGBT people have a more accurate perspective on our issues than non-LGBT people. I take an interest in sex discrimination and racial discrimination but I don't expect I will have the same understanding of that as those who have experienced it firsthand. I want to learn so there is less undesired prejudice inherent in my soul.

Some people haven't grasped the idea of the privilege in which they operate. Some don't realize that sometimes institutionalized prejudice results in scattershot personal reaction.

I have gotten angry before but it was focused enough that I rarely regretted it. There is a role for anger in stoking courage.

[Sonicwall]

74. Honestly, Skinner, if you want to start mending fences with the GBLT community

then there are two simple things to do:

Ban the GBLT disruptors, and there are many that can be named. I choose to follow the rules and not name names - but many of you guys know who they are, even Skinner knows who they are - because they're constantly being alerted. Or ban them from GBLT forum - literally kick them out for forum violations. Whatever. I don't care, just keep them out and give the GBLTQ a chance to breathe.

Full amnesty to those that were tombstoned by you or other admins during the 'gay purge' or the 7 well-known GBLTQ members that are TS'ed.

That's it. If you can do those two simple tasks, then you have my attention.

Thanks!

[Change has come]

146. Welcome to DU Sonicwall.

So far, three former DUers have returned! What an exciting day. :smile:

[Duncan Grant]

75. Is this paragraph the bottom line?

There are no easy answers. As a human being, I can understand where you are coming from. But as the administrator of an active discussion forum with a wide range of people -- including critics and defenders of the president -- I'm not sure I can promise you much relief, at least not within the confines of Democratic Underground and how we currently run it. Yes, I can keep the forum clear of obvious bigotry -- that's not difficult. And I believe I can provide you with a community in which, when it comes to your civil rights, everyone expresses 100% support for full equality. But people's ideas on how we get to that point will inevitably -- and legitimately -- differ, and when that debate happens all these hurt feelings rise to the surface again and it becomes very difficult to have a conversation.

I'm disappointed with this paragraph because it sounds similar to all that was said after the last dust-up in 2008. After my first read(s) of your OP, it seems we've simply come back to square one. That's just my own interpretation -- it's possible that I'm only seeing what I what to see. So, I intend to read this through many more times, have my reaction to it, wait a while longer, and then respond.

On a personal level, thank you for this:

Of course, being able to make an emotionally detached evaluation of an issue like gay rights is one of the privileges of being a white, heterosexual male (which I am). When the big picture was laid out in EarlG's email, it was easier to understand why some LGBT DUers have been so skeptical of President Obama, and why it might feel like an attack when someone disagrees with your opinion of the President. To be clear, I don't agree with all of the things that are said about him either, but at least I feel like I understand where you're coming from.

[Skinner]

512. Is it the bottom line? Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: I have come to this discussion with the intent of listening to your concerns and doing my best to understand and sympathize. But so far, I have not asked anyone to give any thought to how difficult it will be for me to make a significant difference -- especially if I am doing it entirely by myself.

I understand that many LGBT DUers feel hurt and angry. It bothers me very much that you feel that way, and I want to do what I can to help make things better. That is why I am here trying to mend fences, and to lay a foundation for reconciliation. Nobody should be made to feel unwelcome on Democratic Underground.

But I believe we will not make much progress unless everyone thinks a little bit about how complicated this problem is, and what will be necessary to fix it. I can promise you greater sensitivity from me and the moderators, and you will get it. But sensitivity alone is not going to be enough. I also need some concrete direction on how I am supposed to decide what or who is bigoted.

I posted http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=173419&mesg_id=174017">a reply to Prism higher up in this thread which, I think, gets to the heart of the matter. I am really hoping that someone here will be willing to engage with me on the merits of my post. Not because I am looking for an argument. But because I am looking for some clarity.

There needs to be a clear standard for us to make these decisions. I am stuck in the middle here. It may sound self-serving for me to say this, but I believe that you might feel a little bit better about this situation if you give some thought to the difficult position where I find myself. Not because you like seeing me in a difficult situation. But rather because you might better understand the choices made by the moderators and me.

In an effort to better illustrate the position I am in, let's consider a related issue that has come up in this thread: Whether some DUers who criticize President Obama are racists. Obviously, people do not like being accused of being racists, and rightly so. We are all good liberals here, and we each know better than anyone what is in our own heart. And yet, there are some African-American DUers who believe we have a racism problem here on DU. As the administrator, is it my responsibility to take their claim at face value, and ban any person that an African American DUer tells me is a racist? Or do I have a responsibility to give the accused person the benefit of the doubt and evaluate their posts on the merits to see if *I* think they are racist? These are not rhetorical questions -- they are real questions.

Further complicating matters is the fact that I am a straight, white male. I do not know what it is like to be gay. I also do not know what it is like to be African-American. Or a woman. Or Jewish. Or Latino. You see where this is going.

So, if anyone would like to engage with me in a discussion about practical changes we can make to address the problem, I am ready and willing to have that discussion. I would encourage everyone to think of me and the moderators as a partners to work with in this effort, rather than as obstacles to be knocked down.

Having said all that: I would like to point out that may statement, "I'm not sure I can promise you much relief," was qualified by saying, "at least not within the confines of Democratic Underground and how we currently run it." As I said in my OP, we are going to completely overhaul the way the site is run, so much of this may end up being moot six months from now.

[OnTheOtherHand]

517. just one thought: behaviors vs. motivations

You just posted: "...here on DU in 2011, if you express disagreement with the goal of full equal rights for LGBT Americans, you will get banned." That's a behavioral rule. Such people may protest that they aren't homophobes; it doesn't really matter, for the purpose of enforcing the rule.

Similarly, you might give someone the benefit of the doubt that s/he isn't a racist, but still ban his or her sorry hide for repeatedly making outrageous generalizations about "the black community."

My point isn't to suggest specific rules, or to argue against considering motivations. But I think the distinction between behaviors and motivations could be really helpful here.

[Laelth]

78. Interesting. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Marrah_G]

79. .

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

[Vanje]

80. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++!!

So happy to see you

[Duncan Grant]

83. Yea!

:hi:

[Lyric]

149. !!!

:hug: :loveya: :hug: :loveya:

[Renew Deal]

259. Hey

Welcome back! :pals:

[Kurovski]

81. There were also some very recent bannings around the DADT debates.

I hope those people would be allowed back as well.

[Maven]

84. Hello again, everyone.

Some of you may still remember me (especially those who were banned or left during that terrible time). I was most recently known as Maven, but before that I was Harvey Korman.

It's good to be back and see a lot of my old friends!

:grouphug:

[Duncan Grant]

85. Right on!

:D :hi:

[Maven]

86. Duncan!

Good to see you!!!

:hi: :hug:

[Duncan Grant]

88. So happy to see you!

:hug:

[Marrah_G]

87. woooo!

:hug:

[Maven]

89. Marrah!

Looking good ;)

Just like old times. :hug:

[Vanje]

94. Great!

I'm happy to see you!

[Maven]

125. THRILLED to see you too ST

Your reemergence on this thread and your story made me tear up a little. Truth be told I'm STILL a little sore from what went down, but once the "amnesty" was offered seeing you here forced my hand. ;)

:hug:

[ruggerson]

95. I was about to post

that I hope Harvey Korman sees this thread.

I am very glad to see you back here.

[Maven]

126. And I'm very glad to see you too my friend.

Always one of my favorite posters on DU, from the moment I signed up here.

Glad to be back in your company. Thanks for thinking of me!

:hug:

[Kurovski]

103. Heyheyhey!

I remember harve! :hi:

[Maven]

127. And I remember you too, sly boots :)

Oh hell, for old time's sake:



:hug:

[Kurovski]

225. Crazy-funny AND handsome, I don't ask for much.

:hug:

[swimboy]

124. OMG!

Welcome back, my friend!

:grouphug:

[Maven]

129. OMG OMG!

LOL.

Thank you swimboy! Glad you're here to welcome me, ol' pal. Now, what's that about a Snickers ad?!

;) :hug:

[Change has come]

148. Welcome back.

It's good to see you too. I'm not a friend per se, but a fan.

[Maven]

525. Wow, thanks!

And thank you for the welcome back. May I ask, did you have a different screen name before the election?

:hi:

[Lyric]

156. Of course I remember you.

You have been sorely, sorely missed.

:hug:

[Maven]

526. ...

I have missed you too. How are you and your other half doing?

:hug:

[racaulk]

181. Awesome!

Welcome back, Harvey Korman/Maven. I have missed talking with you, so I'm glad to see you here again!

:hi:

[Maven]

527. Roger that ;)

It's great to be back and get to talking again. I've missed chatting with you.

:hug:

[ThomCat]

190. Welcome back.

:hug:

[Maven]

528. Thanks, Thom

I hope you're well, friend. Great to see you :hug:

[Renew Deal]

260. Of course I remember you!

Welcome back! :pals:

[Maven]

529. Thank you kindly!

I remember you very well too. Glad you're part of this discussion ;)

:pals:

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Happy to see many old friends returned!

I take that as a sign of good will.

[yardwork]

98. Thank you for this OP, Skinner

and thank you for reinstating me and many other GLBTQ people and allies.

Since my name was prominently referenced in your recent post in the Ask the Administrators thread, I appreciate this opportunity to tell my side of some things.

I'd like to address the accusation that a lot of posters "ganged up" on a moderator, and that that was the reason that we had to be banned. I have a question. When did it become ok for DU moderators to start threads in which they take strong positions on controversial subjects?

Because during the two terms that I served as a volunteer mod for DU, there was a rule that mods were not to take positions on controversial subjects. We were asked not to post in such threads unless we were posting in our roles as mods, and we were strongly urged never to start threads.

Many of us became frustrated on the afternoon of May 3, 2009 because a senior mod started yet another thread that we perceived to be an attack on GLBTQ posters. The OP in question looks innocuous enough today. You can't tell by reading it now that it was posted on a week when an openly gay candidate was being considered for the Supreme Court,and that it was probable that this candidate would not be nominated, and that it was entirely possible that some GLBTQ posters were going to start some threads pointing out that Obama had nominated very few openly gay officials. Also, without ocntext you wouldn't know that the OP in question was a clear reference to previous OPs by the same mod-author that had taken GLBTQ posters to task. In fact, by that time that moderator had garnered quite a reputation in the GLBTQ forum for his outspoken statements. And you probably wouldn't have noticed the seemingly mild reference to "ponies" unless you had been on the receiving end for months of bullying in which every single time a poster said anything remotely hopeful about gay rights they were ridiculed for "not getting your pony." Even today I have a visceral reaction to that phrase.

If you had been on the receiving end of this kind of relentless bullying - that had gone on for months and months - then you might have reacted as some of us did on the afternoon of May 3, 2009. In my case, I posted in the moderator's thread that he was being a "jerk." Yes, I used that word. Jerk. I called a moderator a jerk to his face and I also said that he was taking advantage of his position as a moderator. Shocking, isn't it?

I also sent an email to you that afternoon, Skinner, in which I asked you why you were allowing a moderator to break this long-time rule about not posting OPs or taking sides on controversial subjects. Your response was to ban me.

In all my years posting on DU I received one mod warning. I believe it was in January 2009. The mods said that I was alerting too much. It was actually a very kindly worded message. They noted that I had been a long-time valuable member of DU and that I had a pretty clean record, but that lately I'd been alerting too much and could I stop that. That's it. I was never suspended.

The reasons for my ramped up alerting are detailed pretty well in the OP to this thread. The atmosphere on DU had become absolutely hostile to gay people and gay rights. And I got angry. I got angry with posters who were posting every day, with impunity, saying that all GLBTQ DUers were racist. (This especially irritated me because I supported Obama in the primary in my state and on DU. I sent him money. I was, needless to say, delighted when he was elected. So was my partner and every single other gay person I know in real life. However, none of this mattered on DU, where all gay people were automatically assumed to be racist Obama-haters by a very vocal and large group of bullies. Even EarlG seems to have believed that gay people were Hilary supporters, as you reference in your OP here. Not true. Not true at all, and just another stereotype that is unfairly pinned on GLBTQ posters.) I got angry with the people here who responded to any post about gay rights with a picture of a pink cartoon pony. I got angry with straight posters coming into the GLBTQ forum just to taunt and ridicule us. And I got angry with you, Skinner, for letting that happen and letting it go on and on and on.

I'm sure that I had more posts deleted in the six months before I was banned than I'd had deleted in all my previous years on DU. But even so, I know that the things I posted were not as bad as the things posted against me and every GLBTQ person and every GLBTQ ally on this board every single day. And, those posters who attacked us lasted months and sometimes years after we were banned. Some of them are still here.

We were banned and nobody was allowed to say our name on DU and nobody was allowed to even talk about it but the posters who had made careers out of attacking and taunting and ridiculing us remained members in good standing here on DU for years. Some of them were even made mods, as a mod in this very thread admits.

I appreciate this step that you are taking, Skinner, but I have to say that it is just the first of many steps that must be taken if your goal is to make DU a place where GLBTQ posters and GLBTQ issues are respected.

[closeupready]

108. Hi, welcome back! You've made some very excellent points.

I was not aware of most of them. Thanks! :hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

111. I'm glad to see you're back.

[Starry Messenger]

116. I am very glad you are here.

It is thrilling to see you and the others alive here again. Maven and Marrah too. :hug: I don't want to take up space in this important thread. I'm just happy and hope it opens doors to others who were also banned in the circumstances of the last couple of years. <3

[mitchtv]

120. great post

welcome back

[Maven]

yardwork!

I have missed you!!!

How have you been?

:hug:

[yardwork]

165. Missed you, too, Maven! I've been doing very well. I hope that you are too!

:pals:

[Maven]

130. .

[swimboy]

134. I'm so happy to see you back.

Thank you so much for telling your side of the story. I was not around for "that week" or I might very well have been banned. As it was, when I came back I didn't understand what on earth could have gone on and I was bewildered and sad and mostly reticent because it was disorienting and intimidating.

I have observed on numerous occasions the lack of understanding on the part of the "pony people" and interacted with them too to a certain extent.

What I would not do is put them on Ignore and let them carry on behind my back.

[yardwork]

170. I love your post in this thread, too, swimboy. It makes me so sad

to think of our community being silenced in this dreadful way, by a group of people who call themselves Democrats. The effect on the few GLBTQers left here on DU was as bad as it was on those of us banned without warning. What a terrible thing to do to a minority group that is struggling mightily for equal rights.

It has taken much too long for this to begin to be turned around here on DU.

[Marrah_G]

142. ~big smile~

:hug:

[Duncan Grant]

151. Welcome back! Great post (reference thread inside).

I've been reading bookmarked threads tonight and found this:

"Well how do you know there isn't already a gay person in the Cabinet/Supreme Court/etc.?"
Saturday, May 2, 2009 GLBT Forum OP with over 200 replies


You said today:

Many of us became frustrated on the afternoon of May 3, 2009 because a senior mod started yet another thread that we perceived to be an attack on GLBTQ posters. The OP in question looks innocuous enough today.

I'm offering the link above to support your post. On the day before the purge, the thread above was active. It eventually garnered over 200 posts. Without a doubt, our community was sensitive (rightly so) on this potential Supreme Court nominee.

Again, my intention isn't to reopen old wounds or argue with Skinner about the mods. I simply want to provide concrete evidence to support what you're saying.

It wonderful to have you back! You have my unconditional support and best wishes! :grouphug:


(Solon, are you still out there? :hi:)

[yardwork]

169. Thank you, Duncan. I really appreciate your posting this link to back up my post.

[racaulk]

184. Excellent post, yardwork.

I hope that you get a reply from Skinner, because you brought up some points that I think he needs to directly address.

Welcome back! I'm glad to see you again.

:hi:

[ThomCat]

191. Your post really shows a hell of a lot of the unresolved problems.

:(

Welcome back. :hug:

I hope something gets done so that the abuses by bigoted moderators can't happen again. I somehow doubt it. I think we'll see more hope than progress, and I think the purpose here is mostly so that people can say "well, I tried." But maybe, possibly, the history you talk about will be taken seriously and some real and serious corrections will be put in place.

You're not the only one to mention obvious bias among moderators. He can't claim he hasn't been warned that there was a problem.

[yardwork]

250. ThomCat, I've been thinking about this post and I don't entirely agree with it.

I agree that the owners of DU need to listen to what is being said here, take it seriously, and then do something systemic about it if they are serious about changing the atmosphere here.

I don't agree with blaming the mods. The mods didn't do this. Nor do I have any reason to think that any mod here on DU is a bigot. Yes, a mod contributed to what happened and some mods helped perpetuate lies and misinformation after it happened, but who was responsible for what took place? The owners of this site. The mods volunteer for them. I won't participate in piling on any mods.

Ironic, ain't it? Skinner claimed that he banned us for "ganging up on a mod" and here I am defending that mod. He's tried to redeem himself, I think, by posting some very positive threads about gay rights in the years since May 2009. I still don't think that a mod should be starting threads but hey at least the recent threads have been in the right direction.

[Renew Deal]

274. Welcome back!

I was sad when I heard you were gone. I'm glad you're back! :pals:

[thanks_imjustlurking]

301. Amen.

And thank you for including allies.

[MuseRider]

99. Big smile, a welcome tear or two

and a thank you for asking the IMO wrongly banned members back. It is good to see old friends again, they were sorely missed.

This is the best way to start working on the issue at hand. I don't think you could have done a better or more welcome thing.

It is not my place to be here now so I will stop posting and just read. Good luck all and welcome back to those who have been gone.

[ruggerson]

109. It is as much your place as anyone's

you are an invaluable brick in the foundation of both the LGBT DU community and nationwide.

:hug:

[MuseRider]

121. Ruggerson

:hug: as always thank you :hug: And a big :grouphug: to everyone here happily INCLUDING those who return.

[Maven]

132. MuseRider, you were always the best ally anyone could ask for

So glad to see you're still here. This is your place!

And, thank you for the welcome back. :hug:

[MuseRider]

137. :-)

I am so happy to see you here again :) Thank you.

I think I might actually come around here more now, it feels a lot better tonight and I do hope to see things become the way you would expect them to be on a website like this.

I have actually been surprised at how much I miss people I do not really know, I guess we learn to love people without ever meeting them.

[Jamastiene]

133. It SHOULD be your place to be here, IMO.

You have been a great ally to the GLBT community. I certainly love hearing from you. As far as I am concerned, you belong here. :hug:

[MuseRider]

139. Thank you Jamastiene!

It is the easiest thing in the world (but the work is the hardest sadly). Thanks, I do like it here.

[Shining Jack]

343. I second what Jama said.

You're doing a great job! :)

[Meldread]

138. Don't be silly. This is your home, too.

I agree with everyone else who has responded to you. Don't be modest - this is your home as much as anyone else's. You've done amazing things for LGBT people, and while I don't think anyone has to "earn" the right to post here - if there were a need to "earn" such a right, you've paid your due many times over.

[MuseRider]

143. I have not done enough

not lately anyway. However things are changing, we are losing and I am back in the mix.

I am here because I want to be however my perspective is not what is needed here now. I doubt I can actually keep my mouth shut but I do want to try :blush: not my best thing however.

Two posts from you today, I am honored. It has been a while since we have talked.

EDIT to change spelling error

[Meldread]

145. Yeah, I decided to pop out of hiding for this.

I actually feel bad that I didn't know what was going down. I only knew fragments of the story, and I had assumed that people were angry over something and leaving in protest... and everyone else was just kinda drifting away. I became a bit of a drifter / lurker as well. I didn't know so many people had been banned.

I hope that this forum picks back up again. I missed everyone. :(

I'm very glad to see that you're still around! :hug:

[Duncan Grant]

153. You're more than welcome here.

We all adore you! :D :hi:

[MuseRider]

182. You are simply awesome.

Always have been always will be. I have often found myself wishing you posted more because I miss the things that you talk about or show everyone. :hi: Good to see you again. :hug:

[LonePirate]

106. I appreciate the outreach but I remain wary

I don't post very often and I have not posted much in this forum. However I skim through the Latest threads two or three times a day. For the past two or three years, it seems like DU has been far less accepting and appreciative of its LGBT members than one would expect from a site such as this one. I had several posts deleted last year due to my passion during the days when the DADT repeal appeared dead and Obama's DOJ was aggressively defending DADT and DOMA in court. I simply could not comprehend how so many people on this site did not share the outrage of DU's LGBT members, not to mention the ridicule and scorn directed to anyone who expressed such outrage. Even worse, I regularly read and comment on some non-political, non-sexual forums that were and still are far more respectful and appreciative of its LGBT members than DU.

I am slowly becoming more comfortable in posting on DU again now that the Republicans have reminded us all of how destructive their policies and actions are. At the same time, I am trying to become more tolerant of my fellow DUers and Democrats who are not fully supportive of civil rights for LGBT Americans. The marriage equality debate in Maryland is a current reminder of how many elected Democrats do not truly support us. I live in a red city in a solidly red state without any employment or housing anti-discrimination protections. DU should be an oasis in the desert for me. Sadly, that has not been the case in the past couple of years. Hopefully Skinner and the other DU moderators have started us on a path towards a better environment. I will try to be optimistic but reality compels me to be cautious until I actually witness it firsthand.

[Skinner]

514. I would like to make clear that we expect DUers to support full equal rights for LGBT Americans.

It is true that there are plenty of Democrats out in the real world that do not support full equal rights. But here on DU in 2011, if you express disagreement with the goal of full equal rights for LGBT Americans, you will get banned.

Members are permitted to disagree on the political strategy to attain that goal. But they are not permitted to disagree with the goal.

[Jamastiene]

107. That is a good start.

And thank you EarlG for pointing out what many of us have been trying to say for the last couple years since the purge.

"After looking at profiles of some long-term DUers who were been banned since Obama's election I noticed that many had very few posts deleted in the years before 2009. It was only after Obama's election that they started to break the rules and got their posts removed on a regular basis. "

THAT was why many of us were so pissed off. No one is perfect and when an issue directly affects a portion of the community, yeah, we get pissed off. Naturally, tempers were going to get hot.

Thank you for this big step in trying to fix things. It is the best I have seen in about 3 years. I know we can never truly go back to the pre-2008 primaries atmosphere, but to at least acknowledge that none of us are perfect on either side can be a good start to something productive.

[Behind the Aegis]

112. My comments, concerns, and suggestions.

I will start with some basic background information about myself. I do this in order for you (and those reading) to understand I am approaching this situation from an educational standpoint, as well as personal one.

I have been a member of DU for 6 years. I was an advocate for GLBT rights in college. I served as an officer in GLBT student groups. I have presented on GLBT causes and concerns for 20 years to scores of universities/colleges. I have spoken publicly about the rights of GLBT persons on the steps of the capitols of GA, SC, NC, and DC. I served as a HIV/AIDS counselor/educator for 7 years. I worked as an advocate for GL and male rape survivors. I have studied GLBT identity acquisition issues/concerns, diversity in the GLBT community, women's issues as they pertain to GLBT concerns, and have spoken and presented on all of those topics on numerous occasions. While I am no longer as active as I once was, I still read and engage in learning about current events and topics which concern my community. source

I feel the past two and half years have been very trying for the GLBT community, both in real life and on DU. Many real life experiences pour onto DU, and in doing so, the frustrations and anger also are deposited here. For some, DU had been a refuge, It is important to remember not all our members live in areas where sexual orientation is accepted; others are isolated for various other reasons, family and friends not knowing; still others, have shared their coming to terms with their sexual/gender identity here! The GLBT sub-forum was a place to discuss events current to our community (not just politics), but to also come for support and compassion; and sometimes, advice. After the election, it changed. The change was not subtle, nor was it coming from a place of understanding. The change was harsh, mean-spirited, cruel, and, oftentimes, downright hate-filled! This "change" of which I speak is the attitudes of members of this site and the way GLBT topics, GLBT members, and this forum were treated. I am going to discuss each of those topics separately.

GLBT Topics

Prop 8 was a huge blow to us. Imagine, David, if you woke up one morning to discover your marriage had been dissolved; not by you or your wife, but rather by the voters of your STATE! The repercussions of such a decision would not only affect you and your wife, but your children, your finances, your medical decisions, and a number of other "luxuries" associated with marriage. How do you think you would feel? Imagine it was the marriage of a friend/family member in another state and the same thing occurred. It may not affect your marital status directly, but it would certainly have a chilling effect, nonetheless. Basically, the voters of California took away the civil rights of my brothers and sisters. We watched as a major barrier was shattered with the election of an African-American man to the highest office in the nation, only to be told the same day, essentially, "Fuck you! You are 2nd class citizens!" The resulting months of fighting on DU were horrific. We are accused of "blaming" Obama personally for the results of Prop 8, of being racist, of "bitching/whining about a pony," and being told "we need to be patient." How offended would you have been had you been told your civil liberties were "a pony" (the equivalent of wishful thinking or an outlandish desire) or told you need to "be patient and wait for" equality? I don't know about you, but I was pissed! The slings and arrows continued with the dragging out of the DADT battle, the Hate Crimes act (we were blamed for the additional defense spending bill to which it was attached), and a number of other things. People who had once claimed to be allies really showed their true colors when they started telling us we complained too much and things were better than under Bush or perhaps we secretly wanted McCain and Palin. Anger, sadness, and resentment grew for me, and I imagine others as well.

The GLBT sub-forum

What had been a safe space was now ground zero for baseless attacks and provocations. Cross posts to other forums just led people to this form to make the same hateful and idiotic comments they had made in the other forum to which the article had been cross-posted. Even seemingly benign topics became grist for the mill and devolved into flame-fests. It was no longer safe to express one's self. People stopped sharing and posting and we (at least me and a few others) went into a defensive posture. We all vary in personality, posting styles, and intensity, as did our remarks. After a year of this, I all but quit posting in this forum, except for a random thing here and there. The forum was no longer fun nor educational nor safe. Something which had been put in place by you and the administration to empower us and provide us a place to discuss issues close to our hearts turned into a toxic cesspool that placed a big ol' stinking bullseye on the backs of many of us.

The GLBT membership

I have already expressed some of how I and a few others felt in the two previous paragraphs. However, there is more to the story. Throughout the entire site, attacks began on GLBT members. Any disagreement with Obama, his decisions/actions, or the actions of other democrats were met with accusations or insinuations of racism, claims because we didn't get "our pony," we were being purposely disagreeable or disruptive. We were expected to be "thankful" for anything which others decided were "wins" for our community. If we were not properly praising, then the attacks began again. We were told what wasn't and was homophobia/ic by people who are not gay, nor seemingly had a tie to our community. We were talked to as if children, and scolded in the same manner if we did not comply with what was expected. I personally believe it was the constant scolding and holding up of various things to "prove" how much Obama was doing for the GLBT people and we better be grateful that finally broke the camel's back for a number of GLBT members and the quit posting at DU. I almost stopped and, remember, I used to post in one of the three most contentious sub-forums! The dismissive attitude toward of our feelings, concerns, desires, and goals has become over the top and, frankly, bigoted.

I won't speak to the "gay purge" to any great length because others have handled that topic well. I would add it was a great and humiliating blow to this forum. I felt this forum had become a street corner and fight after fight, I never knew who was going to be left standing, but was appalled when I saw one GLBT member (and I include our TRUE allies (we love you dearly)) after another fall (tombstoned); yet, bigots who started the fights, you kept picking and picking, who continued to wreak havoc on GLBT threads, were still posting with the same vile, hateful nature which had inspired many to attack. I am not sure when the "warning system" was discontinued, but I believe it was after the "purge," and I don't recall any chances being given to most of the ones who were axed in the first few days. I do recall of the most hateful posters, who has since been banned, DID get a warning. That really chapped my ass! I felt my alerts were falling on deaf ears, so I all but quit, only alerting on rare occasion.

My conclusion is this: this thread is a good starting place to, as you say, mend fences, but it cannot stop here! We must be able to express our concerns if we feel the community is under attack and not be shooed away like some annoying child screeching about a toy. The ATA is a good place for some of those things. I would also like to add some constructive criticism. The moderators, nor you, are perfect. None of us are. I am sure you are aware of this; however, when someone expresses concern about this site or a moderating decision, it would be helpful if you stood back and didn't take it as if we had just spit a loogy on your kid. Address the person's attitude if need be, but try not to read into a situation making into a personal attack on you or them. You (I am including the other admins) and the moderators are biased; all people are. Accept it, examine it, and determine if your (all inclusive) bias is preventing a solution, creating a problem, or hindering a situation.

Finally, as an educator, I feel I must point out homophobia is not limited to calling someone "faggot/dyke/switch-hitter/freak" and, though it does appear in that form here on occasion, it usually does not. It is more insidious and often veiled. Bigots, especially those left of center, learn how to couch their hate and bigotry in ways that seem palatable, sometimes, even acceptable, until the true nature is revealed. Defending homophobia is homophobic. Defending homophobes is homophobic. Equating homosexuality (especially among men) with pedophilia or deviance, is homophobic. The aforementioned are more the types of homophobia one will see here. I can gladly expand on homophobia, as well as heterosexism, if you wish. As a gay man, I ask the attacks stop immediately and our voices be heard. There will always be a difference of opinion, even within the gay community, but I ask, if enough people are expressing concern, take serious look into our complaints.

Thanks and I welcome any remarks, questions, or concerns.

[DURHAM D]

119. In short - the bullies won. nt

[ThomCat]

193. The bullied were Allowed to win. They were given every

advantage, while we were told to stand back and keep quiet and keep our hands behind our back and put up with the bullies.

The moderators made sure the bullies won, often because there were bullies among the moderators.

We'll see if that gets fixed.

[Duncan Grant]

345. There are a lot of insightful, thought-provoking posts in this thread. Yours is one of them.

I'm a little wiped out tonight (first day at at new job) but I wanted to acknowledge this post (and you).

We simply must find a way to convince DU to "spell it out" -- so to speak. Either DU Admin stands firm with LGBT people or they don't. No more "reasonable people can disagree" cowardice. No more putting the needs of the larger DU community before the fundamental human/civil rights of LGBT people (even if it does piss off Democratic party officials and the "poobahs" in DC).

Thanks again for your post!

[yardwork]

434. Awesome post, BTA. Awesome.

[Skinner]

519. About how we handled the GLBT forum.

Your post covered a lot of issues. I hope you do not mind if I respond to only one of them. I think I have discussed some of your other concerns in other posts in this thread.

It's clear in hindsight that we probably should have treated the GLBT forum differently than we did. First, let me explain how we handled it and why.

The GLBT forum was created at the same time we created a whole bunch of other forums on a range of issues. Like those other forums, its purpose was discussing issues, and we did not consider whether the scope of those discussions should be limited in some way, beyond the limitations imposed by the DU rules and the purpose of each forum.

So, in the case of the GLBT forum, the purpose was to discuss a broad range of GLBT issues. To be clear: On Democratic Underground, members are NOT permitted to argue against full equal rights for LGBT Americans, so that would not be permitted anywhere on DU, including the GLBT forum. So, the permissible scope of discussions in the GLBT forum did not include discussions against gay rights. But they could include, for example, discussions about strategy to achieve LGBT rights, or discussions about whether President Obama was going to keep his promises about gay rights. By our thinking, it seemed to follow that if the forum was going to host discussions like the examples I provided, then disagreement on those issues should be permitted. So, for example, if someone is arguing that President Obama is not going to keep his promises on gay rights, we should also permit someone to make the argument that they think he will.

So, this raised an obvious problem when regular visitors to the GLBT forum would come to me and ask me to block people out of the forum whom they felt did not belong there.

Many of the people who frequent the GLBT forum see it as a safe space, and the existence of these contentious disagreements was not at all conducive to a feeling that the space was safe. The fact that some of the people making these arguments were straight did not help matters at all.

I was very dumb. Rather than trying to split the baby in half, I should have just let go of my preconceived notions of what should be permitted. I should have just said to you all, "Tell me who you don't want here, and I'll block them out." (Of course, this begs the question, "Who in this forum gets to choose?" But hopefully that could be figured out.)

Another issue that has been a point of contention with regards to how we run the GLBT forum is that we don't permit you to post stuff in here to go after other DUers on other parts of the website. I honestly don't have a good answer for that one. What I want to do is just throw up my hands and say "Go for it." but that doesn't seem very fair to the people being attacked. If anyone has any thoughts on how this should be dealt with, I'd like to hear them.

[myrna minx]

117. This thread has made me cry. Welcome back everyone and I'm wistful

to see the return of some other dear friends. :grouphug:

[MannyGoldstein]

122. Is this an LGBT issue, or a more general issue?

I sure don't want to be insensitive, and I apologize if I am.

A lot of us, including folks like me who worked for Obama's nomination and election, are angry at his actions. Whether it's Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren, or endless extrajudicial imprisonment and attacks on Social Security, these are issues that people get very angry about. And sometimes we do stupid things.

I may be a little dense - it won't be the first time, not even the first time tonight - but what makes this an LGBT issue as opposed to a general one? I don't think this is about outright bigotry - at least I don't think that's what you're addressing here, there's no room for that. Seems to me that a lot of excellent people have been purged, not just LGBTers.

[swimboy]

140. Please believe me that this is a respectful request.

There is a large group of people here working very earnestly to work through the aspect of this that undoubtedly concerns LGBT issues. If you aren't up to speed on how this touches on LGBT issues, I'm asking you to step back and let us work on it. We're focusing on some specifics that are well-known to and experienced by many of us.

Thank you for wanting to understand and I appreciate your support of the LGBT members. I think if you read all of the thread you will get a better understanding of it.

Cheers.

[dsc]

128. thank you very much for posting this and for allowing Vanje and Yardwork back on

The fact is I am pretty sure the only thing that saved me from being banned was the fact I was traveling to Ohio when the bannings occured. It is nice to finally have a good explanation of what had occured.

I will likely post again tomorrow afternoon but I did just want to post a little now. As most people reading this know I am a teacher who is out at work. My school is quite large meaning that we have several distinct work rooms and not a single teachers lounge. This year my room moved from one floor to a different floor so I wound up in a workroom with a group of teachers I barely knew. As irrational as it turned out to be in retrospect I wondered what their reaction to me would be. It was the first time, as a teacher, that people knew I was gay before they knew me. The fact is, to be gay in this country, is to always wonder does the person I am talking with accept me as the same as them. Growing up many of us were told, in no uncertain terms, how unnormal for lack of a better word, we were. Gladly the workroom turned out OK.

I write the above because for many of us DU was becoming scarily close to the straight worlds we grew up in. We rapidly became the other on a website we felt we shouldn't have to be that. It is hard to know, sometime nearly impossible to know, to what extent we are judged by the people to whom we are attracted and not the content of our characters. The purge, coupled with the elevation of certain moderators, led to a siege mentality in our community. We wondered if we would be the next disappeared gay. I think this thread will help lift the siege.

[yardwork]

171. Thank you for initiating this conversation, dsc. I've read many of your threads over the past week

If not for you and Prism and a few others, we would not have this possibility of change today. You are a true leader.

[dsc]

315. thanks but Prism

and Smarmie deserve way more credit than I do.

[Vanje]

347. I'm joining all of your fan clubs! nt

[donheld]

135. All I can say is WOW

I certainly hope next time there is a sign that a purge, of any community of people, someone
takes a step back and ask themselves if it's necessary or wise to do such a thing.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

144. When do you plan on mending

fences with women who don't like being treated as Door Mats? As the Egyptian women today were treated like animals and violated, when does it end, Skinner?

When?

Lesbians are protected....why not ALL women?

[yardwork]

166. Lesbians are not protected. Please note how many of the GLBTQ people banned are women.

Homophobia and sexism go hand in hand, and in places were homophobia is tolerated I can guarantee that sexism is too.

[femrap]

205. Yes, you're right....

Let me try to communicate more effectively. Of late I have noticed much more posts on GLBTQ issues. I go to the Feminist Forum and it's now dead. I don't know if the women banned there were lesbians or not. Most of the names I knew were banned due to the Primary between HRC and the current president.

I don't know who is gay/lesbian. Lots of times, I don't know who is female/male unless the name is fairly obvious...like 'Tom' or 'Peggy.'

Maybe we should have a 'Banned Forum' so we'll know who is gone and why. The current system of banning seems very subjective to me.

I'm constantly amazed at the crap I read from dudes...their comments stand and mine are deleted because I point out the cruelty of patriarchy.

My Ignore list has to be the longest of anyone on DU. If they aren't going to be banned for their sexist language and/or outright misogyny, then all I can do is Ignore them.

As Shirley Chisholm said: "Men are men."

I'm sorry if I offended you....I was not aware of lesbians being banned. What do they post that gets them banned? I'm very interested. Because if it's dudes who only have Free Speech, there is something very wrong here.

[yardwork]

206. Most of the posters banned during this Gay Purge were women, lesbians and straight.

You did not offend me. I disagree with your statement that "lesbians are protected." Not only are we not and have not been protected, we are disproportionately silenced here.

[Vanje]

224. Not here. At least not now. Please.

Please.

Also. I am a lesbian .
I am not a man.

[femrap]

231. I

dislike Patriarchy. I was under the illusion that most GLBT weren't much fans of it either. Sorry for that illusion/assumption. I'll just head over to IBTP.

Good luck.

[ThomCat]

195. Yes, the feminist community is nearly non-existent for

pretty much the exact same reasons. Any time anyone could attack women's issues, anyone who argued from a politically feminist point of view got the harsher treatment. They're gone now. All gone.

The feminism forum used to be alive. Used to be lively. It's dead now. :(

It's the same problem. If you can keep your bigotry subtle enough so that it's within the level that straight, white, men consider acceptable then the people who complain are going to be labeled the troublemakers and get the warnings and tombstones, even if they are right.

So the message delivered is: Go ahead and attack women. Be persistent. Just use euphemisms, analogies, and semi-mainstream opinions to do it, and constantly call the women and their supporters the radicals and the trouble-makers. The moderators will believe you.

[laconicsax]

196. +1

[femrap]

207. I

:loveya: It's so rare to read such thoughtful words.

I miss the '70's when women were treated with a tad of respect. Of course, Raygun came along. Back to Door Mat Status.

:yourock: :pals: :woohoo: :applause:

[DURHAM D]

222. Re: your last paragraph.

Don't forget to label the women racist as well. That always works perfectly.

[Kurovski]

226. I miss Omega minimo, and have no idea why she's gone.

She was a remarkable contributor to DU.

[Renew Deal]

277. My perception of the treatment of womens issues on DU

is that there is a bit of misogyny. It isn't always subtle either which has surprised me. Of course, "this is a large diverse community" and I do recognize that.

[MNBrewer]

279. I hear you. Acknowledge what you've said, and am open to the possibility

of that being the case.

I'm willing to own up to my part in that and apologize for it if i've contributed to it.

[ThomCat]

281. Yes, and in a deverse community, being bluntly

sexist is tolerated, even accepted, and often appreciated if it's presented humorously.

If someone is just being "a typical guy" or presenting "a mainstream opinion," or even if someone is really being overly crude but doing it in a very traditional way that people accept, we're all supposed to accept it too and even find it funny.

And anyone that won't accept that crude sexism doesn't have a sense of humor. We are the ones being un-civil. We are the ones creating stress and trouble by refusing to accept sexism in a lighthearted way. Isn't it great that insults and veiled threats are always just a light-hearted joke? What's wrong with feminists that they just can't lighten up?

:sarcasm: of course.

But you nailed the reason why sexism is so allowable and prevalent, while feminism is not. Sexism is the predominant culture, even though a lot of people love to claim that they kinda, sorta support feminism. So unless people are prepared to really take a harsh look at the culture here, and their place in it, and accept that the culture needs to be challenged, and accept that this is a big part of what feminism is for, sexism Will always win by default.

[fishwax]

308. +1

[Cherchez la Femme]

486. I second Yardwork

Lesbians are not defended at all, right along with straight womyn -- perhaps even worse, but that's not to ameliorate non-LGBTQI womyn's experience.

But no, womyn are not offered a safe place here... I just saw in a thread today where a womyn posted a reasonable thread and some poster (sorry, don't esp. care for the traditional patriarchal term denoting a secondary gender)

someone who has a PFLAG icon, to my heartbreak

--also, this edit: I wanted to put in the first time but got sidetracked on one of many asides, that it was doubly say it was a womyn abusing another womyn...
the Patriarchy has taught many of our gender well--


anyhow, this responder was outright rude and downright abusive to her, calling her "a PUMA" and 'to go back to her PUMA site' and that she was derogatory and vicious towards 'President and Mrs. Obama' and the finale the not warning but demand for her: 'don't post here anymore' -- as if she owned the bloody site.
(this is all to the best of my recollection, is the gist if not the exact wording.)

It was truly awful.
But I didn't alert because I wanted that to stay up. Let her words prove her worth now and in the future.

And it did stay up, probably still IS up.
Nor did anyone confront this poster.


Back in 2007 I made a prediction, if it came down between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama that,
--this based on history which I *try* to learn from--

...the history that black men got the vote 50+ years before womyn of ANY color,

that it would be the black male who would win this election.

What a long way we've come, eh?
A million steps and it's if we're still where we started, as if we didn't even move. :crazy:


& possibly, very possibly, we didn't.

[robinlynne]

147. You lost me at "... It's common knowledge that LGBTs favor Clinton over Obama during the Dem primary

How can that be common knowledge? more of my friends are gay than straight and I knew one Hillary supporter out of literally hundreds of progressive people. exactly one. (She isn't gay.)
sorry, I didnt finish reading. that sentence shocks me. It simply is not true, much less "common knowledge". That is sort of like here in california when someone made up a story about how black people voted for the anti-marriage prop 8. It was not true. Black people, gay people, women, intellectuals, any group of people you want to choose, do not vote as a block. And I NEVER heard one gay group or person support Hillary over Obama.

[yardwork]

167. Thank you. I made that point in my response here too. This is a pervasive DU myth.

I am a lesbian, and I supported Obama in my state's primary. I sent him money. My partner and every single other GLBTQ person I know in real life supported Obama, most of them beginning early in the primaries.

I was a Hilary supporter for a short time but - ironically, given another pervasive myth about GLBTQ on DU - I switched my allegiance to Obama after the South Carolina primary. This is ironic for two reasons:

1. I switched my support from Hilary to Obama because I didn't like Bill Clinton's race-baiting during that primary. Pervasive DU myth #2 is that all GLBTQ people are vile racists. Obviously not true. Many of us were deeply offended by Bill Clinton's behavior and we said so right here.

2. I switched my support to Obama after the SC primary in spite of his cynical and calculated use of an entertainer - Donnie McClurkin - who runs a business purporting to "save" gays by helping them "find Jesus." McClurkin himself claims to be an "ex-gay," a gay man who was supposedly "cured" and now has a career making money by selling "pray away the gay" reeducation camps to the parents of young people who believe that torturing their children will somehow cure them of being gay. Donnie McClurkin is far worse than a homophobe. He is directly responsible for the misery of untold numbers of young gay people. Suicide rates are high among young people who are gay. People like Donnie McClurkin are a big reason for that.

Obama's use of McClurkin in the SC primary was atrocious, but I supported Obama in the primaries anyway. Why? Because contrary to Pervasive DU Myth #3, not all GLBTQ people are naive spoiled cry-babies who want pink ponies. We actually do understand politics and how it works. We have to understand it, after all. We don't have the same rights as everyone else. Our only hope is to work politics and politicians.

[robinlynne]

249. no way. you are gay and voted for Obama? how surprising...... (sarcasm thingie here)

I find it offensive that someone thinks they know how gay people vote or women vote or jews or muslims or atheists vote... What about people with diabetes? how do they vote?

That kind of talk bothers me. Last time I heard, votes are supposed to be secret, except to the ES&S/Diebold corporation who "counts" them all.

[Creideiki]

150. Time for an actual serious reply

No meaningless crap about innocuous subjects because frequently that seems to be all we're allowed to talk about here at DU.

One of the things that I think needs to be understood in this discussion is that this is not just a DU problem. Prop 8 fell in California while Obama was overwhelmingly supported. Colorado's Amendment I (the Civil Union Amendment) fell two years before, as our Democratic friends made huge strides in national, state and local races.

There is a belief that someone can claim to be progressive, and then turn around and offer excuses as to why they cannot support basic protections for the LGBT part of the Democratic Coalition.

This debate continues here in Colorado as our Civil Unions are up for legislative approval. David Sirota (the progressive radio morning show host in Denver) has covered this extensively, as well as having many, many discussions with "Democrats" in Colorado who believe that they can claim that they don't need to support us for whatever reason, but WE MUST SUPPORT THEM IN EVERY ENDEAVOR. (Check the Monday 7 March KKZN-AM podcasts for examples.)

This is not going to be solved in one discussion, and it won't be solved until the non-LGBT (non-ally, and we've got a bunch here whom I trust wholeheartedly) community grows some empathy and realizes what life is like for the other side. I've personally screwed up on issues relating to women (since I'm, well, a guy), but when my woman friends tell me that something's wrong with my attitude, I stop and assume that they're not just out to mess with my head. Every time I've found that in fact, it was me that was insensitive--not them. Right to choose, casual use of "rape", workplace protections--they're all valid concerns and if I value my woman friends, I value their concerns. (Insert ethnic, racial, and religious minorities (recent Colorado examples, the DREAM Act and the affirmative action amendment we fought in 2006) here, rinse and repeat.)

Where things go wrong, in my mind, is, for example, when the AA community assumes they should have my support on fighting anti-affirmative action amendments (and they get it and should get it because I value them), or when we fight off yet another Personhood amendment and the women assume they should have my support, and they get it and should get it because I value them. However, Civil Unions? Sorry, all of us upstanding Democrats are going to hide behind our religion and say that it's just too close to marriage.

That's betrayal that cuts deep and affects dialogue with the entire Democratic Coalition and Party.

This is the betrayal that we have faced many, many, many times over and over and over.

Our concerns are not important. Theirs are. We get no support from them. They get support from us. (And yes, there is overlap in communities, and I try to empathize with my friends who are in multiple communities because they're my friends and I value them.)

What we have not seen here at DU--from Admins, Moderators (although Pinto has been doing a bang up job in the last 3-4 months since I started showing up here occasionally again after the self-imposed hiatus), to fellow rank-and-file posters--is the true sense that we should be valued and we should be heard, and we should be protecting each other because the Republicants would sell us all out for 39 pieces of silver.

We do not come to DU to post without having not only often years of posting histories and patterns, but years of personal histories and patterns from "Democrats" and "progressives". It's impossible to not be defensive after being attacked for years--it's emotional abuse that's been happening for many of us for decades. It's completely unfair to assume that we'll be born anew when we post here and compartmentalize DU and only bring in what we have experienced here.

In the meantime, there are a few voices I look to to reform my personal views--Prism, Yardwork, Starry Messenger, BTA, David Sirota, Pam Spaulding and Autumn Sandeen from PHB among others. When I find myself differing from them, I immediately stop and check myself. I may not agree, but I had better come up with a damned good reason that isn't just a justification of my bias and bigotry.

[yardwork]

168. Creideiki, you are one of the posters whose example I seek for guidance.

You and several others carried the torch, stayed calm, and were persistent in your calls for dialogue. I honor you for that. Thank you.

[Starry Messenger]

178. That's a high honor Creideiki.

Your valiant posts are always a guidance and an inspiration for me as well. Solidarity. :hug:

[BillStein]

189. Thank you

I wish I could have said it half as well

[Behind the Aegis]

354. I am blushing.

I also feel the same of you. We may disagree, but I respect you and your opinion, and therefore, when we disagree, I must examine my beliefs. We learn from one another. Isn't that what community is?

:hug:

[Name removed]

157. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[helas girl]

160. Views from a lurker

Ive been lurking in these forums since the dark days of shrubbery II but haven't posted very much. Part of that is personal issues, ( I think its pretty much the norm for trans people to have social interaction problems giving everything we tend to go through in life.) However a bigger part has been the perception that DU isn't really a safe place.

Even if it was true that "there was no gay purge" as was stated much earlier in this thread, it doesn't really matter. What matters the most is that it appeared to be one to the community affected. With no discussion of it allowed the GLBTQ section practically died, and the dead GLBTQ section probably discourages others from getting involved.

I have no way of confirming this but I doubt I'm the only one who has ever lurked and thought twice about contributing to the discussions on this site because of the perceived aggression towards GLBTQ community members and our issues.

Hopefully this discussion and the return of former members who have been allowed back will reinvigorate this section and add to overall vibrancy of the whole site and its discussions.

[Behind the Aegis]

161. Let's hope things balance and posters like you join us more often.

:hi:

[The Philosopher]

162. You're definitely not the only one

who has kept the tongue silent for fear of what will be done. But the way this thread has gone, with all that has been said, I think the fear can weaken if not outright die. I find it amusing that despite the controversial subject of this thread and none of the posts being deleted, this thread has been a model of civility.

[closeupready]

176. I suspect the reason this thread is so civil is because 1) it's Skinner's, and 2) names will be note

noted if there is any trolling and flaming that goes on here - not for banning purposes, but just so that someone's record here is ... well, on record.

[femrap]

227. I hope you will feel

better about posting more often.

This is the first I have heard of the 'Gay Purge.' I knew we had a 'Feminist Purge.' There was probably some cross over, I'd imagine.

Don't let small-minded people/bullies bug you. Your best friend is that Ignore Button. I bet I have the longest Ignored List on DU. I think we endure crap IRL and shouldn't have to here. If the small-minded people/bullies are allowed to stay, then I will Ignore them.

It has really helped me.

And if one of those small-minded people/bullies bothers you, just PM me and we can discuss....that always helps me. OK?

And welcome to DU....even though you are a long time member.

[Sapphocrat]

163. Here goes.

I've been on the fence about speaking up -- I think the last time I posted anything of significance on DU was last summer -- but I was alerted to this discussion by a few friends, and asked to say something. As of a couple of days ago, while monitoring Smarmie's thread, I said the hell with it, after seeing the two moderator posts in that thread, which pissed me the off to no end. (Perhaps, by the end of this post, everyone might begin to understand why.)

Still, because of those friends who contacted me, and because many of the old-timers who have managed to hang on here hold a special place in my heart, and after my wife and I discussed that thread at length, I caved, so here I am.

(I warned one of my friends this will be an "epic" post -- but, using some good judgment, I decided not to call out specific names. I can do that, at any time, with links -- so, David, if you need more supporting evidence than I give you here, say the word, and I will be more than happy to oblige.)

I won't join the ongoing discussion; I'll just lay it all out in one post as I see it -- and as my wife (NMMNG, better known as BuffyTheFundySlayer) sees it; Buffy says I can speak for her here. (Now, this is trust: She's at work now, and won't see this 'til tomorrow morning -- but, yes, I can say with confidence: we are both so very much on the same page, I know she will more than approve -- which is why, in case anyone was wondering, she disappeared around the same time I did -- when we both finally realized that the best part of banging your skull into a brick wall over and over and over again is when you stop doing it.)

Brief background for those who don't know me:

I'm one of those "who decided to leave on their own because it sucked to be here" -- although I lasted longer than most who departed voluntarily.

I lurked on DU from Day One, 2001, and finally registered in 2002. At one time, I was an extremely active poster; there were also many times my frustration with the climate of homophobia on DU (both overt and "stealth," the latter being much harder to shrug off) grew so great, I took breaks of six months or more. I also wrote more than a couple of GBCW swan songs -- and I meant every word at the time, but I always came back. There just wasn't anything like DU out there for a politically-minded lesbian.

That's certainly changed in ten years; now, if my own blog doesn't satisfy my need to express myself, I'll cruise over to Prop 8 Trial Tracker, where I've found a genuine, compassionate, caring, highly intelligent LGBT community (and the discussion is not at all restricted to Prop H8) or Queerty, if I really want some high drama (and where I can say nearly anything I want to the trolls), or Box Turtle Bulletin or LGBTPOV or any number of sites where LGBT equality (often mixed with just plain fun) is the focus, and where LGBTs and our allies are in the majority, and always will be.

I'll still cruise through DU to check LBN, GLBT, and R/T from time to time, but in all honesty, DU just isn't that important to me anymore. (So why am I here? Because I was asked to weigh in, and this is probably the only chance I'll ever have to say everything I've been thinking for the past ten years -- even though I know I'll remember a lot of things I wanted to say as soon as I hit the post button.)

DU was very important to me at a time when there was nothing comparable to it, at least for LGBTs; now, while DU is, I readily admit, invaluable and irreplaceable as a meeting place for hardcore Democrats, it has, in my experience, been far surpassed as the best (or even a fair-to-middling) place for LGBTs (and not a very good place at all for those of us who place principle above party -- or even party above personality).

In other words, I've moved on. And while the events of any given day can (and do) make me very angry, my blood pressure is considerably lower now that I'm no longer a DU regular. I know where I can go for in-depth information and analysis of the latest wrinkle in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and where I can go to simply commiserate, and where I can go just to have fun. I know the unwritten rules of each site I frequent -- I would never cut loose with a string of profanity at BTB (although I feel free to call a hypocrite a hypocrite), while at Queerty I can say pretty much any damned thing I want. Wherever I am, I stay within boundaries. It's easy when 1) a site sets the tone for you (concentrating on content without laying down a new set of arbitrary rules every other week), and 2) there are so many flavors of sites out there, I know just where to go, whether I'm feeling introspective, analytical, argumentative, morose, or just silly.

DU was once the first site I would turn to for information and, often, solace. Now, I cannot imagine baring my soul here; that would serve simply as an open invitation for some to call me all sorts of names, and/or run back to their own little private forums to make fun of me. (As I once told one DUer who didn't think I knew about one of the many "private," "alt.DU" forums out there: There are no secrets.)

What I would suggest is that someone (David) needs to decide, once and for all, whether or not this is a a message board for dedicated Democrats, who put party above all else, or whether DU is going to spend the rest of its life trying (and failing) to herd all cats. If the purpose of DU is, above all else, to put Democrats into office, period, I think it would be kinder to make this understood now, and avoid giving LGBTers (and non-Dems and genuine liberals) the false hope that DU will ever be anything other than what it is: Democratic Party Central, and nothing else.

DU will always have LGBTs around -- but I truly believe that LGBT DUers who believe DU can sustain a vibrant LGBT community within the confines of a site that is devoted primarily to the Democratic Party are going to be deeply disappointed. I'm not trying to steer anyone away from DU -- DU serves its purpose for Democrats, and it's a fine source of news and discussion about non-LGBT topics.

To expect any more from DU may be placing an unfair burden on Skinner. He didn't create DU for us, and as much as he might like us to be here, and sing Kumbaya with everyone else, DU was not designed for us.

I think LGBT DUers would be better served to use DU only for (what I perceive to be) its intended purpose -- as an unofficial organ of the Democratic Party, and find LGBT-specific discussion elsewhere... where people openly hostile to LGBTs are the rare exception, and where we can speak freely, without looking over our shoulders all the time.

You can talk and you can talk, and this entire thread can end up in one big group hug. And that's fine. But if you think the real problem -- the people whose disdain for LGBTs is so thinly-veiled, you could read a book through it -- will ever go away... it won't.

And there's nothing Skinner can do to change that. No matter how much he understands, or wants to understand. He can't make anti-gay assholes go away. Well, he could, but, judging from the events of the past couple of years, it appears we have quite a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "toxic personality."

That said, I'll get to specifics.

David:

Re EarlG's email: I must protest the idea that "It's common knowledge that LGBTs favor(ed) Clinton over Obama during the Dem primaries." That's like saying, "It's common knowledge that black voters were responsible for passing Prop 8." It's a broadbrush generalization, and one cannot make that assumption across the board. Look at the posts in this thread, and in Smarmie's, to find LGBTers who admit they were hardcore Obama supporters -- and then, there are LGBTers like Buffy and me, who voted for HRC in the primaries because there were only two candidates left, and HRC seemed like the lesser of the two evils.

(Onlookers: Don't try to bait me with the old "Oh, you think HRC would have been better...?" It's a moot point now -- we'll never know, and you will never convince me that Obama is the bee's knees by trying to force me to speculate about what Hillary might or might not have done. She is not the president; Obama is.)

Otherwise, EarlG's timeline is generally accurate -- but flawed in that it is truncated... at the beginning. The 2008 primary wars were only the crescendo (or, more accurately, the nadir) of DU Hell for LGBTs. The problems began long before anyone reading this had ever heard of Barack Obama.

Before the 2008 primaries, the period that stands out in my mind as the most shameful in DU's history occurred in the fall of 2006.

A few reading this will know exactly what I'm referring to, while the majority are no doubt scratching their heads as they try to remember what big whoop came down in the fall of 2006 (besides the mid-terms themselves, of course).

I'll tell you in a moment. But first I want to tell you who are wracking your brains why you don't remember.

The other day, I read an article by David Mixner, which began thusly:

Throughout the history of the LGBT community geographic places have taken on meaning for us like military battles to history. We can go through the litany of names like Anita Bryant in Dade County, California and Proposition 8, Massachusetts ruling on marriage equality, Wyoming and Matthew Shepard and the White House fence. ...

At the same time I was nodding in agreement as I read this, I was wondering: How many straight people with little more than a passing interest in LGBT issues would be able to associate our other battles with other "battlefields"? Colorado? Texas? Arizona (2006 and 2008)? Arkansas? Maine?* As I said to a friend recently, some straight folks may know a fair bit about Stonewall, but how many have even heard of the Compton Cafeteria riot?

Why should most non-LGBT people know about these battles? They are our touchstones, and while I would be thrilled by the opportunity to educate any interested party on any of these places/events, I don't expect every person in the United States to be as up on LGBT history any more than I am up on the history of any other American minority group. I may be able to tell you all about the Chinese railroad builders and gold miners of the Old West, show you where the strawberry fields were that used to be near my home and tell you how the Japanese-American farmer who owned them had to abandon them for an internment camp, and recite the basics of Brown v. the Board of Education, but I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on anyone's history or culture but my own -- nor am I going to pretend I understand "The Black Experience" or "The Latino Experience" or "The Any Other Experience" that is not my own. I can relate in some ways -- draw striking parallels, even -- and cultivate some understanding, but it is an understanding at a distance. The distance isn't deliberate; it's just fact: I can never claim inherent understanding, because I will never be anyone or anything other than who I am.

David, I think this is what you mean when you say "being able to make an emotionally detached evaluation of an issue like gay rights is one of the privileges of being a white, heterosexual male." But I also think you still suffer from a big disconnect, pinning much of the blame on the 2008 primaries, and on the idea that "that having a Democratic administration would be a big change for DU."

I don't deny that losing a common enemy in Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress is accountable for much upheaval on DU, but I think you're overemphasizing the importance of that change as far as its impact on LGBT DUers. No, I don't speak for anyone but myself (and, in this case, Buffy), but the harsh reality is that Obama's win did not provoke, or even alter, the very problems viz. LGBTs on DU that continue to this day -- it merely intensified the same problems that have been going on since day one, and brought them into sharper focus.

If you truly believe "it is apparent that the problems we're facing really got their start sometime during the 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries," then you weren't listening for the first seven years -- and, apparently, the problems of DU's first seven years still haven't even begun to register with you yet.

You're right when you say: "We did not see what was happening right before our eyes" -- but there was an awful lot happening right before your eyes long before then.

And it's not as if we weren't telling you. When there was a problem that shouldn't have been shared publicly, I used to PM you directly. I know of others who PM'd you directly. We all used to get responses from you (which, I'm sure now, would be an unreasonable expectation, since the board has grown so big). We were telling you -- and if not in PMs, then in the 300-plus-post threads in which we killed ourselves trying to make others hear us -- but you weren't listening.

Next...

I think this is the most telling point of your OP:

"For me, politics has never been about people or personalities or photo-ops or inauguration speakers. Those were all window dressing -- part of the show."

Like Obama's cozying up to Donnie McClurkin (and Kirbyjon Caldwell, and T.D. Jakes, and Rick Warren, and yes, Jeremiah Wright, whose "garlic nose" remark, among other things, did not sit well with this Italian-American), you mean?

I think you're starting to get it -- that these moments were not "window dressing" at all; EarlG spells it out: "In retrospect it seems obvious: The LGBT community had to place their chances for equality in the hands of a religious man who opposed gay marriage and who courted known homophobes during and after his campaign. As far as they were concerned, this was not a promising development."

Exactly. These were not merely symbolic moments. These were hard slaps in the face -- delivered again (and again, and again) by Obama supporters who went ballistic on our asses and refused to accept that this cozying up to raging homophobes was a legitimate complaint, and not an excuse for racism by a bunch of some rich, white, privileged crybabies.

I think, from the rest of your post, you are beginning to realize that your earlier attitude was misguided, at best. You know what Tip O'Neill said: "All politics is local." Well, all politics is personal, too -- at least for those whom it impacts directly. As one who is indeed impacted directly by the decisions made 3,000 miles from my home, I understand that every decision means the dividing line between whether or not a person will go hungry, whether or not a senior citizen will get a COLA this year, or whether or not -- at the whim of a bigoted, ignorant populace -- my wife will get to decide whether or not to pull the plug on me if I end up in a coma with a brain as useful as overcooked cauliflower.

That politics would ever seem like "window dressing" (or a "show," or, as I read it, a game) to someone who is apparently so deeply involved in politics as you are, David... That disturbs me, a lot. It scares me -- because there are millions of people not nearly as intelligent as you are. What in the world must they see it as?

I think you know now this isn't a game, David. It's my life in the balance. If you could sit down with Buffy and me, see how we live, see what our worries are, see how we cope, see how we try to develop an impenetrable plan that will protect us, watch us try to figure out this "income-splitting" we are now mandated to do on our federal tax returns, watch me come to my choice to skip health insurance for yet another year (this will be Year Eleven) because it it would count as taxable income for Buffy (which we can't afford), plan out-of-state trips in order to avoid the places where we would be legal strangers to one another -- the things you never need to worry about, the things you and your wife and your child can take for granted by sole virtue of your plumbing -- you'd realize even more that every single decision made in Washington makes or breaks our very lives.

And we've spent a decade on a Web site where we're told to sit down and shut up about our "special rights" because we might "hurt" a goddamned political party? (Oh, yes, we have, repeatedly -- wait until you get to the quotes below.) What kind of stupid masochists have we been expected to be? How stupid have we been to put up with this for so many years?

As for being "skeptical" of the president... it goes far beyond that. I could write volumes on the subject (and have, in my blog), but I'll skip most of it and just say: Deciding not to defend DOMA is fine -- but it's going to take a hell of a lot more than that before I would ever dream of trusting a man who sways in the wind like a leaf.

He's got a lot to make up for, and his call on DOMA isn't the be-all and end-all -- especially after his DOJ pulled out every card from rape to incest when it was defending it. (If he's so het up on equality, why isn't he using all the muscle he has to push a DOMA repeal through Congress the way he strong-armed everyone right down to Kucinich to vote for his miserable excuse for a "healthcare" plan?)

And there are other things LGBT people care about, you know -- the economy, the wars, Gitmo detainment, et cetera, et cetera -- and so far, on every one of these issues, President Obama has run this country even further into the ground than I'd ever feared.

One declaration against DOMA doesn't make up for... much.

A couple of other things from your OP:

"I know that the 'gay purge' is often held up as the watershed moment here on DU. If we are honest, I think we know that things had gone off the rails long before then and we were all miserable. But what happened was incredibly sad and tragic. In hindsight, I do believe it could have turned out differently, especially if there had been some line of communication like the Ask the Admins forum. The precipitating event -- a group of people basically ganging up on a moderator -- "

Stop. To this day, I believe that particular moderator was way out of line -- and, IIRC, this was not the first time there was at least borderline similar behavior by that same moderator. I can't argue the point with you, because I cannot see what you can see, David -- I do not have access to deleted posts, deleted threads, deleted subthreads, or moderator discussions of same. I'm telling you my impression over some ten years of hanging around DU, which ought to amount to something.

I can't pinpoint every post, and every poster, who has contributed to the indelible impression built in my mind over a decade that DU is not gay-friendly -- that is the culmination of many, many incidents that probably went right past you, and I cannot pull every incident out of a Kray computer to back up my impression. But that is my impression.

And what happened during that thread was despicable. I too think sundog's banning was utterly inexcusable.

"But as soon as I told people that they needed to knock it off, or else, we were on the brink. I had no further room to maneuver and left myself no choice but to ban anyone who continued -- and people did continue. I regret that it happened, and I regret my role in it. I believe I could have handled it differently."

OK, that's cool.

"But like so much else that has happened over these last three years, I did not do it entirely by myself."

But: It is still your board, and every final decision is yours. You make the rules. You are -- and were then -- entirely capable of saying, "Whoa, I really fucked up!" and entirely capable of switching directions. You are never backed into a corner -- you have the last word, always. Nobody can ever ban you for fucking up before you have the opportunity to take something back.

You know, I once worked my ass off on a help-desk phone line... and these days, when I have to deal with somebody on a help desk, I often find reason to tell him: "You know, it's OK to say 'I don't know the answer to your question,' but I'll find out.'"

You are never backed into a corner that isn't of your own making. You can always say, "Whoa, I really fucked up!" -- and if you had, then, a lot of this damage might have been avoided.

That said...

So... What happened in the fall of 2006?

Answer: Lewis v. Harris.

Still doesn't ring a bell, folks? OK, then: On October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that denying same-sex couples all the same rights and benefits (or, as I like to call them, privileges) was unconstitutional. Chickening out on full-fledged marriage, the SCoNJ decided that NJ must provide civil unions -- marriage in all but name only -- within the state.

No, civil unions were not good enough -- not because we gays cannot be satisfied with all-or-nothing-at-all, but because -- despite all the good intentions of providing marriage-like "rights" -- the reality of civil unions fell (and still falls) far short of the "all rights and benefits" promise. Go ahead -- just ask any "civil-unioned" New Jersey couple who has ever applied for health benefits administered by a company headquartered in a state where there is no legal recognition of same-sex relationships, via marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. Just ask.

(And read: State Farm to Widower: "You Can Drop Dead, Too.", September 11, 2007; One More Time: Civil Unions Aren't As Good As Marriage. Period., September 27, 2007)

Four days after the New Jersey decision, on October 29, 2006, I launched the Lavender Liberal Forums. That's no secret now: I launched a private, by-invitation-only message board where those of us so distraught by the shit we were asked to swallow on DU in the wake of the New Jersey decision could let loose and vent. It was never set up as an "anti-DU" board -- it was a decompression chamber. We couldn't talk here about what was going on here, so we let it all loose there.

There was a need for it. And I would bet money that LLF, serving as a place to vent, kept 1/3 to 1/2 of our membership from being banned from DU during LLF's existence. (Not surprisingly, after LLF's demise, a good number of LLFers were TS'ed from DU. I honestly believe LLF postponed those tombstones -- mine included -- because we had somewhere else to go.)

LLF lasted about a year and a half, during which time there was a steady core of some 30 DUers (and another 30 or 40 who came and went), mostly LGBTs, along with some very loyal straight allies.

What killed LLF? Two (main) issues:

1) LLF was too "nice," so I was told. People craved conflict -- the kind of conflict found at DU (and not the sort -- then, at least -- that would have resulted in banning; in the "old days," everyone got away with far more than they do now. There was much more leeway than there was before The New Rules were implemented).

2) Obama. As admin, it never occurred to me that every LGBTer did not see what I saw. I was wrong. The percentage of LLFers swept away by TeenBeat Obama Mania matched, I would guess, about the same percentage on DU. As you said, David: "As I watched events unfold, from the start of the Democratic primaries and through the beginning of the Obama administration, the ferocity of the disagreements seemed utterly nonsensical to me" -- but for an entirely different reason: How could anyone LGBT not see right through Obama?

When the impasse between Obama supporters and everyone else became clear, LLF was dead. I killed it officially in 2007.

It was a grand experiment. It was my baby. I miss it. I mourn it. But it's as dead to me as the DU GLBT forum.

The point: There was a need for LLF. There was a need for it before I ever entertained the idea. We were starved for a place where we could unload, because we couldn't speak freely here, and when we tried, we were ignored, mocked, ridiculed, and sometimes banned.

If a whole lot of people keep telling you the same thing over and over, you can choose to believe one of two things: Either everybody is crazy except you, or maybe, just maybe, all those people might be right.

And if the same group of people are blowing their tops to the point where they engage in behavior deserving of banishment, you have to ask why -- especially when it comes to people with years of fairly clean records.

Or: If you've had a long string of failed relationships, at some point you're going to realize all those relationships had one thing in common: you.

Next:

Rather than re-write history, I'm going to quote at length from a blog post I made May 20, 2008. The context: A reader asked me how I thought the California Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality would "play in the (2008) presidential campaign." I replied at length; this relatively short excerpt sums up the gist of the entire post:

There will be (and always is) the same rending of garments and gnashing of teeth as there was immediately after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in November, 2003, which got much worse once Mass actually started issuing marriage licenses in May, 2004 — not even six months prior to the last chance we had to throw George W. Bush out of office.

When the New Jersey civil-unions decision came down just two weeks before the November, 2006, mid-term elections, the howls of doom became deafening. The timing was somehow our fault, and it was our fault the Dems were going to lose the mid-terms, big-time. (As I told some hysterical naysayer at the time: “If only we queers had as much power as you credit us with, we’d rule the world. What do you think we did, influence a state supreme court by mass telepathy?”)

For that post, I dug up scores of posts from DU to illustrate my point. Here are just a few (none reveals any poster's name, and none is linked, so you'll either have to take my word for it that these are real posts, or go find them yourself) -- bold emphasis mine:

From 2003:

“I am not anti-gay rights but…. I don’t think this is a good time for the gay-marriage issue.”

“Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not gay, but I’m not homophobic either. I’m just thinking that this decision is bad, bad timing politically. ...”

“It is too soon for gay marriage”

“Why not advance the idea of civil unions first. Let people get use to that idea and then push for marriage.”

“This isn’t the time. Our number one priority has to be getting bush the hell out of office. This won’t help that cause.”

“I’ve never met anyone, liberal or not who didn’t express utter disgust at the idea of gay marriage. This includes people I know who are otherwise open-minded and liberal on most every other issue.

“Some form of gay rights such as a civil union of some sort would be more acceptable. But for 99% of the people out there the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R. The gay marrige issue would severely cripple any democratic candidate’s to beat Bush if they support it. Let’s not go down that road."

“... These are much more pressing issues then whether a gay person should be allowed to marry. I’m not homophobic, but I feel that gays ought to think about the well-being of others much less fortunate than themselves.”

“How should we handle wedge issues? Like gay marriage, flag burning & abortion… I say we dismiss them completely. Firmly say that it’s manufactured to divide us & leave it at that. When pressed, just say you won’t take the bait. If someone feels so strongly about it, they can join a special interest group.”

From 2004:

“The gay marriage issue hijacked our party. I think the gay and lesbian community decided to make this a visible issue on state ballots because they thought they could ride on the coattails of the Mass. court decision and Kerry. They ended up hurting him. They could have waited until an off Presidential election year to go ballistic. This issue ended up being identified directly with Kerry on the Ohio ballot and ten other states. Many Democratic Christians who would have normally voted for Kerry went with their family and moral values. I’m not homophobic…”

What would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly ridiculous: This poster seems to believe gay people were responsible for putting anti-gay marriage BANS on twelve state ballots in 2004! These were marriage BANS, not marriage-equality bills!

“You DO need to get over it! You are a citizen of the United States before you are gay. You owe a responsibility to your country FIRST!! Yeah, you’re gay, many people are, we cannot allow the you know who’s to use gays as the new ‘blacks’ to divide our country with the gay marriage issue.”

“I think the Democratic Party should not even come close to this issue. The farther away the better. If this becomes a major issue with leading Democrats crusading for gay marriage, George McGovern will end up looking like a successful candidate.”

“my gay friends, delay marriage … Just delay till December. Why hand Republicans 5 percent more of the vote, when you can stay quietly on the sidelines and deny them this issue?”

“I Am Outraged By Gay People … Well, not really. But I am kinda annoyed by their (meaning those forcing the issue, not all gays) impeccably bad sense of timing. … By pushing this into an unpopular culture war during an election year, these gay activists are screwing up their own agenda. If they demonstrated a few months of patience, it would serve them well.”

Another one who thinks we were responsible for the timing of the Massachusetts SJC decision, and/or putting anti-gay marriage bans on the ballots.

“The gay marriage issue is a disaster waiting to happen. We will lose on this issue if we allow it to become an entrenched part of the debate. So here’s the question: will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election? Will they trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office? ...”

“... The country is not ready for this yet. Maybe in a decade, not now.

“Keep believing that the gay marriage issue didnt cost us Ohio, when it clearly did. Since Ohio cost us the race well what else can I say. … The turnout in southern Ohio was beyond the wildest dreams of Karl Rove and they all turned out for the gay marriage ban.”

Whose idea do you think putting marriage bans on state ballots was? Hint: His initials are K.R.

“Homos will just need to have a little patience and trust us in the long run.”

"Homos"?

From 2005:

“You are impatient.”

“It’s political suicide to come out in favor of gay marriage.”

“Everyone just needs to shut up about their ‘own issue’ and stand behind the party.”

“Get a grip on reality! This is not a winning issue right now.”

From 2006:

“This issue is going to lose us elections right now and we should lay off until a good chunk of the old farts who oppose it die off. In about 10 or 15 years the Nation will be ready for this fight but right now it’s too early.”

“Why not take what you can get with bills like Howard Deans for the meantime and hopefully in two years you will get someone like Dean or Gore as President, who will change the law and give you all the same rights Married people have without changing the name and pissing off all the fundies?”

“Goddamn it…gays I love ya’, but couldn’t you have waited. WTF. Why is it that the gay marriage issues always crops up right before the election. I fully support homosexual rights, but this ruling by the NJ Supreme Court just energized the Christofascist vote and will likely result in an erosion of Dem wins in Nov. Next time, can we just table the homosexual marriage thing until mid-election cycle?”

“(T)his victory is likely to cost us control of Congress or the Senate. What good is this victory when it just sets us all back and puts more anti-gay politicans in office? Make NO MISTAKE there will be push-back on this…just like in 2004.”

“Politically speaking this victory just handed Rove a MAJOR campaign issue.”

“(T)he Christian fundamentalists are sure to turn out in droves because of this decision now. They were the ones who might have helped us win the election, by staying home. So I wouldn’t be surprised in the next week or so that it becomes widely accepted we are going to lose. Worst fucking time for this, you have to wonder why this happened right before the election and not after the election.”

“You will see. I would say this decision has put a Democratic win in the House in Jeapordy.”

In reality, as I wrote in my blog post: "Contrary to all the Criswell-like predictions, Democrats swept the 2006 mid-terms, picking up 31 seats in the House (putting Republicans in the minority for the first time in twelve years), the largest gain for the Dems since 1974.

"Meanwhile, Democrats replaced Republicans in five open gubernatorial races, and booted the Repub incumbent, Robert Ehrlich, out of Maryland’s governor’s mansion.

"Not a single Democratic incumbent in Congress, or in any gubernatorial race, lost his or her seat.

"We’re still waiting for an apology from all those Democrats who opened with the usual disclaimer, “I’m not homophobic / Some of my best friends are gay / I think you deserve equal rights, but…,” and then went on to blame us uppity gays for what was sure to be a huge loss for the Dems.

"We’re not holding our collective breath."

“The Civil Rights Act cost the Democrats the South for a generation.”

Which reminds me: Isn't it funny how LGBTs are attacked for pointing out the unmistakable similarities between the Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s (as if we were equating them, which I've never seen anyone do) -- yet when it is convenient for pinning blame on LGBTs, all of a sudden, such comparisons are perfectly acceptable?

“Right now, the priorities are different in this country, and if gay marriage can detract from other, more pressing issues, yeah, the Democrats are going to eat it yet again in November, because the diversion will have worked. And gay marriage can kiss its own ass goodby for another decade or two.”

“All the special interest issues on the ballots like gay marriage helped keep bu$h close enough that swapping a few thousand votes made it harder to prove it was stolen.”

“How many of those people wouldn’t have even come out to vote if those initiatives weren’t on the ballot? Besides, they see the Democrats as the party of the queers anyway, so it doesn’t matter whether or not Kerry was against it. He’s guilty by association.”

From 2007 to early 2008:

"Handing a huge wedge issue to the GOP … let’s see how the gay community feels knowing they helped put McCain in the White House this November. they will be lucky to have civil unions, much less gay marriage, when that happens."

"This is 2004 all over again. Talk about history repeating itself. WOW. Kerry had his Massachusetts. Obama will have his California. I knew this was going to happen. Well, it was a nice dream anyway."

"I’m All For Gay Rights, Women’s Rights And Getting Our Privacy rights back but I think it would be better to wait till after the election to push these issues."

"If we lose the election, none of the rights will come to pass and we will lose even more. Grow up and have some patience. What the hell is another 6 months when you’ve waited this long already?"

"After we win, we can press Obama and the Congress to do what is right and long over due."

“Personally I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”
–Barack Obama
"I think he speaks for most of us. I have nothing against gay rights, but marriage is something that should be reserved for man and woman. ..."

"...your priority should be to get a Democrat in the WH first. THEN make gay marriage an issue. Self-righteous indignation accomplishes nothing for gay rights except handing the GOP a massive divisive wedge issue that will almost guarantee another democratic defeat in November."

"And the Democratic Party just possbily lost California in November"

Last I time checked, in 2008, Obama was elected president and the Dems retained control of both the House and the Senate.

But here's my favorite of all, from 2008:

The gay community is fucking it up for everybody else.

Mind you, these comments I quoted were limited solely to the issue of marriage equality, and have nothing to do with any of the other "classic" blow-ups such as the Snickers ad, the neverending "discussion" about why we gays have to act so gay at Pride parades, etc., etc.

I'm sure some reading this will want to jump all over me for digging up posts now as much as eight years old. After all, you will want to say, "But things have changed! Skinner has really been working hard to bring DU together! It's not fair to dig up such old posts!"

Before you do, however, consider these points (and here comes The Big Rant, with "YOU" referring to all those people who think we should sit down, shut up, and let the "grown-ups" decide what's best for us):

1) The posts I quoted above represent the smallest fraction of the garbage we have had to put up with for the better (or rather worse) part of a decade.

2) These posts represent a pattern that has never ended.

3) That I was able to dig up such posts which were then more than five years old tells you that such blatantly anti-gay, offensive, and downright cruel posts were never deleted. Oh, I can guarantee you some (I'm guessing most) were alerted on, but there they remained (and may even exist today -- I don't know).

4) These posts represent the attitude: "It's not about YOU GAYS! It's all about US, and how YOUR issues affect US!"

On that last point, here's the impasse: On DU, LGBT issues are "pet issues," afterthoughts -- and until you (the DU membership at large) see "us" as part of "you," the impasse will always be.

What no one seems to "get" is this: While our battles are not identical, LGBTs, African-Americans and feminists (among others, but these are the Big Three groups) are all being held down, and held back, by the same white, male, heterosexual, Christian (and generally well-monied) patriarchy.

Do some of you actually believe that we LGBTs have no other concerns than our own? That none of us cares, deeply, about homeless people, about the gender gap, about Citizens United, about the Koch brothers, about union workers...? Of COURSE, we do! I blog about all these issues... but when I've got one thing smacking me in the face every damned day, it's kind of difficult to see around that to every other issue that does not directly impact my life, in a real, measurable way, every single day.

No, it's not all about me, me, ME -- but it's not all about you, you, YOU. It's that when one's BASIC NEEDS are not being met, everything else tends to fade out.

YOU, Mister or Ms. Heterosexual, may think of marriage recognition, and ENDA, and everything else we keep "whining" about, as some sort of "luxury" -- something nowhere near resembling a "basic need," but rather something we queers just want -- and if so, you couldn't be further off the mark.

I've heard countless times on DU: "People are dying in Iraq, and all you care about is your special rights...!" Well, guess what, folks? WE are dying BECAUSE we do not have the rights you take for granted.

Some of you think that our "pet issues" pale in comparison to what you perceive as "bigger" issues -- the endless wars, Wall Street, unemployment, poor health, lack of insurance, missing teeth...

Well, what the bloody fuck does everyone think -- that WE do not deal with ALL the same issues non-LGBTs do? That we are somehow spared the business of paying bills, finding home remedies when we can't afford doctors, selling our books and DVDs because we can't find jobs, wondering if our mothers are going to live another day, let alone another year, and then agonizing over what to do about her when she gets too sick to take care of herself...? You think we're charmed? Or that we are all rich, white gay men who needn't worry about all the same things you do?

Let me clue you in: Not only do we have ALL the same problems you do, but ours are magnified exponentially BECAUSE we do not have the same basic rights and protections YOU take for granted.

We are unemployed, too -- and many more of us because we are not protected from being fired (or from rejection at being hired) because of who we are. We are homeless -- and many more of us because in more than half of all states it is LEGAL to deny us housing because we are gay.

And what about our children? Every time somebody posts about another teen suicide as a result of bullying -- whether the kid was gay or just as perceived as gay -- what happens on DU? "OMG! This is horrible! This needs to stop!"

What do you think drives these children, who could be gay, or not -- and who may very well be your children -- to suicide?

Words like this:

"I think (Obama) speaks for most of us. I have nothing against gay rights, but marriage is something that should be reserved for man and woman...."

"...the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R..."

Do you know how much you MAKE us hate ourselves? Do you know we spend our entire lives trying to dig ourselves out from under the internalized homophobia YOU, and YOUR churches, and YOUR repulsion instill in us from the playground to the funeral parlor?

Again, I do not speak for every LGBT person. But if I've ever met one LGBT person who had not seriously considered suicide, I've never known it. Every last one of us has wanted to -- and those who say they never have are in complete denial.

And to deny YOUR part in making US feel we are something less than human is complete and utter denial on YOUR part.

We have been hammered endlessly with the challenge: "Oh? So it's all or nothing, is it?"

Yeah, it is all or nothing. You are with us unconditionally, or you are with our oppressors. And if you are with our oppressors -- the ones who have marginalized and demonized us as anything less than deserving of everything YOU have, then, yes -- YOU have the blood of all those dead kids on YOUR hands.

You may not give a shit about me -- but what if the next one to die by his or her own hand is YOUR kid?

One more thing about gay kids: I was somebody's baby once too, you know. Chew on that.

Bottom line:

We have to deal with ALL the shit YOU have to deal with, PLUS lack of protections, PLUS the active persecution by crackpots who think OUR peace of mind will somehow destroy THEIR lives.

I could write another long essay dealing with what we DON'T have just because we cannot be legally married.

And some people here have the brass ones to tell us to WAIT just a few more months, just a few more years, just another decade, just another 20, 25 years -- oh, no, wait! -- just until after the next election, so we don't ruin it for the Dems!

There will always be "the next election." There will always be reason to wait, wait, be patient, wait...

Well, fuck that. I am nearly 50 years old, with no money, no job, no pension, no health insurance, and, if the repukes have their way, no Social Security. How many years do you think I have left? Twenty, if my health holds without a doctor? Thirty, if I'm very lucky?

YOU tell Derence and Ed why they should wait. YOU get all "pragmatic" and tell them why.

YOU tell Del Martin -- oh, wait, you can't: Del is dead. Del was 87 when she died two months after she and Phyllis were lucky enough to finally be legally married after 55 years of working for it.

YOU tell my wife how lucky we were to be legally married two and a half years ago if I should drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow.

YOU tell her.

Now, if anyone wants to jump my ass and rake me over the coals, have at it.

Over and out,
Sapphocrat


P.S. Congratulations to everyone who was un-banned. It's beautiful to see some long-lost "faces" here. On behalf of Buffy and myself, I wish you all the best.


* Colorado = Amendment 2 (1992), passed by voters to strip LGBTs of all protections; overturned by Romer v. Evans (1996). Texas = Lawrence v. Texas (2003), decriminalized sodomy. Arizona, 2006 = Proposition 107, first anti-gay marriage ban to be defeated by voters, a temporary victory until 2008, when Arizona passed Proposition 102. Arkansas = "Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban," passed by voters to stop gay people from adopting, 2008. Maine = Question 1 (2009); second state (after California) where voters stripped gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry after it had already been conferred. And, yes, I did just write this paragraph off the top of my head -- that's how important these battles are... to me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

164. this is a fabulously informative post

I love other things about it, too. But if there were nothing else, the 'core sample' of dipshit comments over the years -- rebutting the notion that 'all the trouble' started during the 2008 primaries -- is invaluable.

[Creideiki]

172. Re: The need for conflict

I don't have a need for conflict. I'm exhausted.

What I need is for the people who should be natural allies, who I have stood up and supported over the years, to stand up and support me. And if not, then just tell us that we're not wanted in the Party. Just say, "Hey, GLBTers, thanks for the decades of support, but we don't need you any more. We'll stand or fall on our own."

NMMNG, you missed the recent (2006) Colorado fights--two amendments: Civil Unions failed and a DOMA passed. In 2006. When we one everything in the state that could be expected except unseating Marilyn Musgrave. Personhood failed. An assault on unions failed. An assault on African Americans and Latin@s failed. The assault on us passed. The only possibility is that some of our "allies" chose to stab us in the back after thanking us for our support.

Now we're facing another fight in Colorado--a Civil Unions through legislature fight that may or may not fail, given how the Democratic Party so demoralized its base that they lost the State Assembly (and no, I was not one of the ones they lost. Yet.) Check out One-Colorado.org for info.

[MuseRider]

174. Just in to say

Hey Sapph! Excellent as always, just really excellent. I always learn so much reading your words. Please tell Buffy hello. I have missed her a lot, missed both if you but it has been so terribly long since I saw her around. My best to the both of you. XXOO

[Marrah_G]

175. Sapphy..........

All I can say is ...........:loveya:

And thank you

and

When I grow up I wanna be YOU.

[closeupready]

179. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU, for finally shedding light on this entire thing.

I am one of the GLBT members here who never fully understood the sequence of events that led up to the purge.

[closeupready]

186. Another thing: Sapphocrat, this has to be the most beautiful and articulate GLBT-related post I've

seen on DU in all the years I've been on here. You have stated so many points for me that I have never been able to do, and I appreciate your taking time to post this here.

When I tell people that my life 24/7 is gay, and that I have few heterosexual friends, I don't really go into the betrayals and trust issues I have encountered over my time here on Earth, but I could, and you have done a great job of showing heterosexuals why gay people like me do NOT generally TRUST THEM. I see heterosexuals 'friends' backstab and betray the GLBT community ALL THE TIME. :mad:

[Missy Vixen]

192. Sapphocrat, thank you

As long as one of us is oppressed, we all are.

Thank you so much for your post.

-MV

[laconicsax]

194. Bravo!

:applause:

[meegbear]

200. Wow!!!

:applause:

[JohnnyLib2]

202. Thank you for an amazing post.

:kick:

[yardwork]

204. Thank you for letting us tell our stories on your forum, Sappho

In the days, weeks, months, and years after so many of us were suddenly banned from DU - most of us without warning - we would have had no way of telling our stories or connecting with other GLBTQ DUers had it not been for your website. Allies on DU posted links to your site until they themselves were banned. The links never lasted long - they were deleted quickly by mods who had been told to destroy all evidence that any of us had ever existed - but they were there sometimes, a crack of light in the darkness.

Thank you. I will never forget the service that you provided. It's value is really beyond words. I am sure that there are literally hundreds of people who were helped by what you did.

[Heidi]

209. You don't know me, Sapphocrat, but your wife was and remains one of my favorite DUers ever.

She was one of my first DU friends and her presence in my life -- seeing how she was treated as an LGBT human and also (double whammy) as a woman -- very much shaped my understanding of how "straight privilege" plays a role in what I and so many others get by with and many of us seem to feel entitled to (not only at DU, but in life) to get by with.

Please give the the DUer formerly known as Buffy a giant, warm hug, and tell her it's from Switzerland. I still have, around here somewhere, the card she sent me in December 2005. :hug: :hug:

(Edited for speelink!)

[MNBrewer]

216. My 2 Cents

It should be painfully clear by now that the majority of GLBTs participating in this discussion have perceived a reservoir of anti-gay bias, and a pattern of unnoticed, unpunished abuse that stretches back prior to the 2008 primary. Look at the quotes in Sapphocrat’s post #190.

As for being a Hillary Clinton supporter, I was certainly not. My choice was John Edwards, because of the way his Two Americas rhetoric resonated with me. After he dropped out, I took a neutral position, because I couldn’t fully embrace either H.C. or Obama, because of their anti-gay positions, among other things.

I’m going to risk stating plainly that holding positions that limit GLBT citizens to second class status is bigotry; those who hold those positions are bigots. How many topics are required? In my opinion, even one is sufficient. A person who embraces same sex marriage but believes that gays shouldn’t be allowed to teach elementary school is a bigot. A person who believes in employment protection, but not the right to marriage equality is a bigot. A person who believes that our request for equal rights should be kicked down the road for political expediency is a bigot.

My concern is that while this biased speech is protected and allowed to flourish, pointing it out as bigotry is grounds for removing a post, or worse.

[Betty Karlson]

217. Wonderfully said.

May I second that concern, and add it to the positions I took in reaction #206?

[enigmatic]

229. Thank you for teaching me during the time I was here

We didn't talk much, but I read everything you wrote and though it took a bit to sink in, it did and I thank you for that:)

[Meldread]

230. Awesome post, Sapphocrat.

It was very well articulated, and I know it sums up the feelings that many people around here share.

[Lyric]

232. Fantastic, Sapph.

As always.

:hug:

[The Philosopher]

233. Wow.

If those quotes are genuine and remain still to this day, that is an indictment of DU, its moderators, and everyone who runs the place.

To me, one of the core principles of the Democratic Party is to defend against the abuse of those with no or little power against those who have all or most of the power, whether it is economic, political, or simply the space to maneuver for abuse.

I've read arguments on pragmatics versus ideology in political and legislative life. It's a good argument to have, I think. But if that one principle is betrayed by a community of Democrats, it's a goddamn shame and we as a whole aren't worthy to call ourselves Democrats. There's a line in the sand where you step over and stop supporting what makes a party a party, and simply become an army for a single person. A political party is a community. It's a set of ideals, with core standards that directs what came before and what comes after.

Thank you for this post, Sapphocrat. It does well not only to defend us, but explain our feelings as well. If the post can be taken seriously and help resolve what's keeping the LGBT community on DU at arm's length from the rest of the membership (and maybe begin to sever that arm in the party itself, since one is free to dream), things will be so, so much better: there will be more communication, discussions, dialogues--and it will be ALL civil.

[Vanje]

237. outstanding post

Utterly

[racaulk]

257. This has to be one of the best posts I have read at DU in a very, very long time.

There is simply nothing I can add to this, and I think all of your comments and observations are spot on. Thank you for taking the time to write and post this here.

:hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

288. Thank you so *very* much.

Well articulated. And well worth reading for straight people. A lesson or a reminder of how straights have/need to evolve if they really want to be deserving of being seen as accepting.

Bigotry based on ignorance is no less bigotry.

[Danger Mouse]

290. I read all of it. Thinking about your words. Thank you for sharing them.

[Bluenorthwest]

295. Great googledemoogeldy, I am breathless from the reading...

Great love to you and to Buffy. Speechless for the time. You can write. I missed that here. Wow. Peacearooni!

[thanks_imjustlurking]

313. This is the first DU post that has ever had me in tears.

Thank you.

[Jamastiene]

321. Great post, as always.

:grouphug: to you and Buffy and thank you for LLF. I still miss it. It was the best.

[hootinholler]

327. WOW

Thank you for the time and effort that took!

I'm so greatful.

-Hoot

[ruggerson]

334. Thank you Saph

For a truly great summation and for all the hard work it must have taken to put it together.

Please give Buffy a big hug for me.

[Cherchez la Femme]

395. Regarding

your illustrative posts from DUer's that were allowed to stand (All the "I'm not a homophobe, but...")

How can I put this? ...when faced with those types of statements I'll substitute a specific, oppressed group (such as blacks, Native Americans) to double-check that said declarations are indeed as homophobic as they initially sounded to my ears.

What I'm wondering here is, does this sound at all like what the Southern Democrats may have said during the 60's Equal Rights struggle, and what provoked their schism from the Democratic Party?
I tried googling it with various terms but came up with just way too many hits and nothing concrete.


Fan-fucking-tastic your post is!! :applause:

[Skinner]

516. I am embarrassed and sickened by some of the posts that you have linked in your message.

And I know that the numerous posts you highlight are just a tiny fraction of the truly awful stuff that has been posted here. This discussion forum is more than a decade old. At the moment I write this sentence, there have been exactly 53,648,048 messages posted here (and counting). 53.6 million. And I own every single one of them.

I try very hard to keep this discussion forum clean. And in the course of 53 million posts, I missed some. For many of them, it's too late to go back and figure out why they were missed. But if we are going to judge this community as a whole, is it fair or accurate to base that judgment on the very worst-of-the-worst posts? Shouldn't some consideration be given to the other 53,600,000 posts? How many of us would want to be judged based on our very worst posts ever? There are some very awful posts in your message. I cannot deny it, and I won't try to. I would insult everyone here if I did.

Running Democratic Underground, and balancing all the competing interests, and trying to be sympathetic to the concerns of everyone -- especially DUers who are hurting -- is not an easy thing to do. I do not do it as well as I think I ought to, but I get up every morning and try. I think that your own experience running Lavender Liberal does provide some context for this discussion:

Four days after the New Jersey decision, on October 29, 2006, I launched the Lavender Liberal Forums. That's no secret now: I launched a private, by-invitation-only message board where those of us so distraught by the shit we were asked to swallow on DU in the wake of the New Jersey decision could let loose and vent. It was never set up as an "anti-DU" board -- it was a decompression chamber. We couldn't talk here about what was going on here, so we let it all loose there.

There was a need for it. And I would bet money that LLF, serving as a place to vent, kept 1/3 to 1/2 of our membership from being banned from DU during LLF's existence. (Not surprisingly, after LLF's demise, a good number of LLFers were TS'ed from DU. I honestly believe LLF postponed those tombstones -- mine included -- because we had somewhere else to go.)

LLF lasted about a year and a half, during which time there was a steady core of some 30 DUers (and another 30 or 40 who came and went), mostly LGBTs, along with some very loyal straight allies.

What killed LLF? Two (main) issues:

1) LLF was too "nice," so I was told. People craved conflict -- the kind of conflict found at DU (and not the sort -- then, at least -- that would have resulted in banning; in the "old days," everyone got away with far more than they do now. There was much more leeway than there was before The New Rules were implemented).

2) Obama. As admin, it never occurred to me that every LGBTer did not see what I saw. I was wrong. The percentage of LLFers swept away by TeenBeat Obama Mania matched, I would guess, about the same percentage on DU. As you said, David: "As I watched events unfold, from the start of the Democratic primaries and through the beginning of the Obama administration, the ferocity of the disagreements seemed utterly nonsensical to me" -- but for an entirely different reason: How could anyone LGBT not see right through Obama?

When the impasse between Obama supporters and everyone else became clear, LLF was dead. I killed it officially in 2007.

Before I continue, I want to make clear that by holding your post up as an example, I mean no disrespect to you or anyone who may have been a member of Lavender Liberal. But I think you tell an important story. Think about this:

Lavender Liberal was a small forum, 30 to 70 people, all hand-picked by the Administrator, all LGBTs and very loyal straight allies. The community was made up entirely of people whose lack of homophobia and commitment to the LGBT cause was beyond repute. The administrator was a member of the LGBT community. And yet tension between pro- and anti-Obama members caused the community to fall apart before the Iowa caucuses even happened.

DU is ten years old and as I've said repeatedly in this thread, I'm not denying that I've made some big mistakes along the way. But perhaps your experience can give everyone some perspective on just how difficult it is to keep something like DU -- a forum with more than 53 million posts and tens of thousands of members who all have a variety of issues and interests -- going day after day.

[truedelphi]

531. That is some post.

I want to thank you for all the many details that are put out there in your post.

I felt ashamed when so many good people, often LGBT, suddenly were Disappeared - usually when I was not around.

And when the mention of that fact ended up in being Disappeared.

I have leaned to stay away from most Big Controversies here.

No posting about how I really feel abt I/P stuff (And I don't mean computer I/P stuff, by that.)

Don't follow the controversies.

I wanna remain a member so I can comment on the everyday news stuff, and the economics stuff, and the voter stuff. So I limit my output.

One thing I like about the post you make is all the noticing of alt sites for the LGBT stuff. Good to know.

[Zorra]

575. Can I have your autograph?

Thank you, Sapphocrat, that was a genuine heartfelt work of art.

You spoke for me, and did so very eloquently.

[RandomKoolzip]

586. This may be the greatest post EVER on DU.

[Betty Karlson]

177. One observation I'd like to make

When Obama defeated McCain, quite a few concerns were met and resolved for those Democrats who "feared all would get much worse under another Republican".

But for the GLBT community, things under Obama started to get worse right from the start. The presence of bigots and blasphemous homophobes at Obama's inauguration was no difference from the Bush years. The passage of Prop 8 (and the Florida gay adoption ban, and so on) constituted "things getting worse": their rights were being taken away by - effectively - mob rule.

I have observed that Obama is a homophobe, surrounded by bigots like Valerie ("gay is a lifestyle") Jarrett. Such criticism is and should remain legitimate on DU. After all is said and done, DU is an outlet of frustrations and hopes. These frustrations concern the condition under which we live. We cannot hope for the continuation of a bad situation, which is what "pony" posters seem to imply.

All those whom Barack Obama has disappointed over time have had reason to criticise him. They cannot be expected to cheer him on when he continues to support a situation that all DU was opposed to under Bush. A DU that doesn't allow an outlet for frustrations (over conditions which haven't changed) or hopes (over most respectable things like a desire to have legal recognition for a stable family), a DU that doesn't allow criticism on the content of actual policies that are being made, might as well call itself Barack's Fan Club.

Or even Barack's Worst Enemies. The Fan Club posters create a double problem for Obama: on the one hand they encourage eceybody to expect everything from him. At the same time, they don't allow legitimate concerns to be voiced. With religious zeal, they will attack the unconvinced. That means there was no way left to temper the expectations we have of BO. And consequently, he was bound to disappoint.

For the future, moderators might want to see the red flags a bit earlier when a candidate becomes too "cheered on" and his/ her fan club too vociferous. Making it clear right from the start that there WILL be criticism should help the fan club to anticipate the occasional disspointment at other people's lack of cheer, as well as encourage the criticisers to concentrate their criticism on policy content (or lack thereof) not the (wo)man's person.

For the DU GLBT community, this means the moderators failed to understand that right from the start there was little to cheer for one minority, and lots of disappointment. Imagine the reverse situation: Prop 8 is defeated and on the GLBT forum everyone is elated; then Obama is narrowly defeated by McCain. Would any GLBTQI or ally have called Obama "a pony" and scolded disappointed Obama-ites for not celebrating the defeat of Prop 8?

I often feel that Americans think too much in binary oppositions. The opposite of celebrating Obama's achievements is not "wishing Hillary were here" or "wishing McCain had won" or even "wanting a pony". The opposite may be all those things, but also "following his achievements critically" or "regretting all he hasn't done yet" or simply "wanting him to honour a campaign promise". This is a heterogene opposition. And most oppositions are heterogene, and that is the only time that hetero should be the norm. (And also: the only time it ususally isn't. Oh, how we never fail to disappoint philosophically.)

The opposite of "straight" is not "gay". Well, alright, sometimes it is. But sometimes, the opposite of "gay" is "jerk". I sincerely hope that in those instances, the moderators will find themselves opposed to the jerk as well, no matter what their own sexual orientation. Let's create some heterogene opposition to bad manners. Pent-up frustration should not be allowed to be tapped by those who mean to have a cheap laugh. And - but do I need to say this - pent-up frustration should NEVER be moderated by those who like such a cheap laugh.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

314. "The presence of bigots and blasphemous homophobes at Obama's inauguration was no difference..."

Amen. First they came for.....

[ThomCat]

185. An important correction:

During that purge: It wasn't so much a group of people ganging up on a moderator.

It was moderators thread-stalking a group of people and deleting every post they wrote, often even innocuous ones. If an entire group of people all find that every post gets deleted within moments of being written, there is no possible way that moderators are not stalking them waiting for their next post to be written.

If simply putting the number "7" in a post is enough to get the post deleted, and get someone tombstoned, that isn't moderators doing their best to moderate a forum. That is moderators acting out on petty, whinny little ego trips, refusing to show even the slightest amount of maturity or restraint. Seriously folks, the number 7 was enough to get tombstoned, but only if you were a member of that group that was getting stalked by the moderators.

Yes, moderators on petty, whinny ego trips.

And let's not forget that moderators were using friend status on Facebook to find out what people were saying over there, by being friends of friends to see conversations, and then using that find out who else was talking to those people the moderators didn't like at the moment. They were using Facebook to be prepared to know who else to thread-stalk, and to know what people were talking about, and were going to post about, so they were prepared to delete everything the moment a post appeared. It was only by figuring that out and deleting Friend status with moderators, and blocking them on Facebook, that some of the obvious abusive behavior from Moderators stopped.

You may recall that this was AFTER everyone was assured one one of your threads that discussions on other sites were not being monitored or used against them here on DU.

When the purge was going on, many of us got the feeling that the moderators as a group had made a decision that what would be best for DU, what would help all of DU settle down, would be to purge our community and let DU recover as a Straight forum. I haven't seen anything to refute that since then. Not even in this thread.

The oft-repeated idea that moderators are wonderful, fantastic people who only do the absolute best job is a load of shit given what happened during the purge. While I'm sure one or two were. I'm sure one or two moderators were trying to keep the peace and advocate for understanding us, I think they failed because the overall group gave in to group-think and took the short-cuts. They gave in to Us vs Them, and using the heavy club against us as supposed common enemy as a cheap way to restore order. And because of that, they were breaking rules with impunity to get the people you set the example for wanting to target.

Yes, you very clearly DID want people targeted, for weeks it went on. Any mention of any of this behavior got deleted instantly, and any letter to you got ignored.

So let's dispense with the B.S. about moderators being wonderful people who did their absolute best in a bad situation. Moderators as a group were a big part of the problem, and moderators made every part of this situation worse. And you watched and let it all happen.

I'm happy that you want to improve all of that, and somehow make sure it doesn't happen again. Good. But I don't see any proposals, any ideas, any indications that you're honestly willing to reform the way things are moderated. I don't see anything to indicate that you're willing to hold moderators responsible, and create even the most basic level of transparency.

Priyanka asked some good questions. I've posted repeatedly that a big part of the problem is that the moderators don't think homophobia is a problem until it becomes so damned blatant that even the most tone-deaf straight moderators agree that it's homophobic. But, by then it's far too late, and by then there is already a history of ignoring our complaints and dismissing us. So what are you going to do to make sure the moderators start noticing bias and prejudice and start taking it seriously?

And what are you going to do to resolve problems when the moderators are part of the problem? Writing to you doesn't work. You ignore letters and Always give moderators the benefit of the doubt concerning us and our issues.

[druidity33]

197. At 73 recs, shouldn't this be on the Greatest page? nt.

[racaulk]

203. Threads only make the greatest page if they are less than 24 hours old, IIRC.

This thread was posted yesterday morning, so it's older than that 24 hour window.

:hi:

[druidity33]

240. ah, ok...

when i read it this morning it was on the Greatest, then going back to it this afternoon it wasn't there. Makes sense now. Thanks for the info!

K&R.

I have nothing to add really, other than this thread has been eye-opening and educational.

:)

[cate94]

198. I have been around for quite a while but I mostly lurk.

Some of the points I am going to make have already been made, however, I think they are important -so forgive me if this seems redundant.

EarlG has a decent perspective but I find it noteworthy that his first statement is completely unacceptable. It is inappropriate to make a generalization that the GLBT community supported Clinton in the primary. Like every other minority community some of us supported Clinton, while some of us supported Obama. Common knowledge? No it was a common assumption, and some of the reactions towards GLBT's were based on this assumption. The idea that the GLBT community wasn't celebrating a Dem in the WH, is absurd, and part of the underlying problem.

(My personal stance was identical to yours Skinner: both candidates seemed virtually identical.)

I cried tears of joy in Grant Park, only to have the wind knocked out of me the next day because
Prop 8 was less like a shit sandwich and more like a punch in the gut. A person can turn up their nose at a shit sandwich, but a punch in the gut causes real pain and real tears. It may seem like nitpicking, but I assure you when you have been punched in the gut, it isn't amusing to have someone call your tears "poutrage". And Rick Warren was a slap in the face after a punch in the gut. It is not right to have your anger and calls for an end to abuse labeled as wanting a "pony". And having the very anti-gay Kaine installed as the head of the DNC- really WTF?

I don't like it when politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. I don't care if it is someone I supported, or someone on the other side of the aisle. Obama had my vote and my full support but he has been talking out of both sides of his mouth. It isn't just on GLBT issues- that was simply the first indication of things to come. I fully supported the Democratic platform but it seems to me that the Democrats aren't supporting that platform. I often find myself afraid to speak up for fear of having my stance looked on as a single issue POV or worse- to be banned for standing up for the principles of our party. Does DU support the principles of the party or the figurehead?

Skinner, this fence mending is a welcome sight, and the decision to allow posters back is a welcome gesture. If you really feel that you made a mistake, I do think it would be more appropriate for you to reach out to the people you banned, but I understand that could be difficult.

Thanks for all that you do.

[JohnnyLib2]

201. This thread is a stunning example of what has been lost, temporarily or otherwise.

--Powerful, logical statements on deeply meaningful matters
--Sharp, to-the-point comments back and forth
--Genuine pleasure at the (online) presence of others

I-hope-it-continues. :thumbsup:

[MuseRider]

208. !

:thumbsup: indeed to what you said!

[Puglover]

210. Hello everyone.

First let me introduce myself because I think many of you don't know me. I'm Jeff. I just turned 57 and live in Minneapolis with my partner of 15 years Kim. I've been at DU since 2003 and have moderated off and on for the past 3 years. As a moderator it has been my personal decision not to post at all in the main forums outside of a few hellos and a recipe here and there. I can be short tempered, opinionated and a smart ass and those qualities do not blend well with the gray ghost next to my name.

I was also an active member on LLF Sapphs old board which she refers to in her post above. And although I never had to do much at all I was honored to be asked to moderate that board by Sapphocrat herself.

I was a moderator here during the "gay purge". I think we (mods and admins) made huge mistakes during that time that have sadly haunted this board ever since. I know they have haunted me. However, on my life, there was no inside plan,talk or even a scintilla of anything to get rid of all of the gay people on this board. If that unimaginable situation had really happened I can guarantee you all that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the moderators would have resigned. That said, are we all perfect? No. Do we all like each other? No. We aren't some caricature of liberal wisdom. We are human and therefore flawed. Like everyone else when backed into a corner (perceived or for real) we can react badly. And looking back in a nutshell I believe that is what happened. I have had conversations with other mods, admin and even Sapphocrat about this and honestly I have always walked away from those almost breathless with frustration. What could or can be done to gain even a tiny bit of the trust lost or to help with the anger seemed (seems) almost insurmountable.

One thing I have to do, whether in a situation like this or even a spat with my husband is to get by my ego, my anger or my shame and find a way to ask myself what I did(if anything) to add to a bad situation and what I can do to help it. Assigning ALL of the blame to some one other then me and not even looking at my actions or asking myself questions simply has never worked for me. As far as the purge goes, I was definitely culpable because as Tygerbright said upthread I didn't scream "STOP!" Because I was afraid. And to all of you who were affected I am so so sorry.

So what can we do folks? Smart as Skinner and Earlg are I don't think they can do this all by themselves. And I believe if we look to them to come up with some grand edict or yet another set of rules this will fail. I think they need your help, my help and our help. And another chance. And maybe even another after that.

In 2003 I felt pissed and alone and horrified with what had gone down in the 2000 elections. To be honest I didn't even follow politics before that. When I found DU it was the start of a relationship. Really not so different from other relationships in my life. I have loved it, cursed it, walked away from it but here I still am.

I don't know how to talk more from my heart then this. And to be honest I am scared shitless to hit the "post" button. But here goes. I hope it makes some sense to you.

[yardwork]

214. I know who banned me without warning and it wasn't a mod.

[Call Me Wesley]

235. Babysteps is what it may take.

I, for one, am glad you hit the 'post' button. I wasn't a mod during this, but I was one shortly a few months after for a limited time to deal with other things. So I blame myself for not having looked as deeply into it as I should have, but I really limited my time there since I was assigned to just a particular forum and its ongoing bruhaha.

We talked about it later, and I know how you felt and you knew how I felt about it, and it was the same. It was a huge mistake that occurred after a huge mistake in the first place. To be honest, Heidi nor I volunteered to be mods again after this, and, as you said, the boards were truly haunted and a 'minority' was bullied.

You know me a little bit. I feel somewhat deeply for DU, even as a foreigner. Sometimes I wish I could just pour some European magical accepting dust on it when it comes to the rights/equality of the LGBT community. In the end, it's human rights.

And everyone who says that it's 'too early,' or that 'other issues' are more important, has, in my opinion, never understood the liberal ideal.

Yes, it was a huge mistake. I hope there's a learning curve from it.

[swimboy]

242. Thank you, CMW, for the European magical accepting dust

You have been pouring it here already. The two of you are golden!

:hug:

[Call Me Wesley]

251. No, you're golden!

So good to see you! :hug:

We still have some work to do here, but we're getting closer, and nobody really objects it at that point anymore. I'm not saying the system is perfect (far from it,) but it's not this isolated and black and white. It's diverse, and you cannot just close your eyes and hold your ears shut from what is going around you.

[swimboy]

292. Thanks, puglover

I don't want you to be worried or scared for sharing this. All of this information together is helping me process what happened--and I didn't understand it at all (I guess that's kind of my signature, not being clued in on behind the scenes intrigue).

I'm all for everyone who wants to make an attempt to have this operate closer to the ideal to pitch in.

And anybody that asks me, I will tell them that if you said it they can take it to the bank.

Talk to you soon.

swim

[enigmatic]

212. I just wanted to pop in for a second

I was told that this thread was happening and it's a start; though I'm a straight white guy, thanks to people like nothingshocksmeanymore, Sapphocract, NMMNG, and others, I saw just utterly crappy GLBT's were treated here especially since 2008 when the primaries began, and even worse after Obama was elected. I was there watching when the purge happened and was horrified and couldn't believe what I was seeing, and how afterwards it only got worse. The things that I saw that were being said by what I thought were "friends" here against them was sick, and I've never looked at them the same way afterwards. Though I never posted much after that time I still lurked, but it was never, ever the same.

I wish I had spoken up more against what I was seeing at the time; to my eternal shame I didn't and I don't know what to say other than that I'm truly sorry.

I've moved on from DU (and mostly) US politics since getting my Canadian citizenship; I work locally both in politics and w/ homeless and GLBT issues here when I can and try to do my best seeing my voice is heard in defense of those who need it the most. I'm not perfect, but I'm trying. Always trying.

I just wanted to say that I'll always stand w/ my GLBT friends here, and thank them for teaching me.

[Heidi]

215. NMMNG was one of your DU friends, too, wasn't she?

I was looking through my 2005 PM messages, and saw that she and I had given one another heads up by PM to vote in your poll.

I agree 100 jillion percent with your assessment, and you're one of the handful of DUers I trust infinitely (the DUer formerly known as Buffy included) and with a whole heart.

[enigmatic]

220. Crap, I meant NMMNG

I hadn't had my coffee yet when I wrote that:)

There are many more who taught me including you, and I'll never, ever thank you enough for that :hug:

[yardwork]

218. Thank you for that very thoughtful and sensitive post.

It's a good reminder that no matter how we identify, there are others who need our support. As a lesbian I believe that it is my moral obligation to be a voice against any kind of bigotry. We all need to speak up against racism, anti-semitism, sexism, anti-immigration bigotry, and all other forms of hatred and oppression. We must stand up for the homeless, the workers, the young, the old, and the vulnerable. We must be allies of one another.

It's no more ok for gay people to care only about themselves than it is for straight people to care only about straight people. It's stupid anyway because we all belong to multiple groups. We should never pick and choose among our identities, privileging some while dismissing others. We are all human.

[enigmatic]

221. I agree

You were one of the ones who taught me as well, and I thank you:)

[Call Me Wesley]

241. You mean, be true liberals without personal restrictions?

I can agree to this.

Glad to see you back. :hi:

[xchrom]

253. i'm very happy to see yardwork, maven and others have

been reinstated.

their voices -- along with saphocrat -- have really been missed.

it's a better place here for their reappearance.

[MNBrewer]

254. I'll drink to that!

:beer:

[yardwork]

255. Thank you, xchrome. I hope that others will return.

[xchrom]

261. ...

:toast:

[racaulk]

258. +1

I completely agree. :)

[Starry Messenger]

278. There's some others I hope can get amnesty too.

LostinVA among them. I miss KitchenWitch too. There have a trickle of steady losses for some time.

[racaulk]

280. Agreed.

The purge did not impact users over a two day period only. Those actions, followed by the enforced silence where those actions were not allowed to be discussed, caused a lot of feelings of resentment that was allowed to fester. Although far too many people were banned at first, the purge did in fact indirectly cause other users to be banned as time went on.

I would like to see LostinVA and KitchenWitch return to this forum as well. :hi:

[Maven]

533. Delayed reaction, but it's wonderful to see you too my friend.

Thank you for the kind words. :hug:

[MNBrewer]

263. Take a moment, please, to appreciate

the community reflected here in this thread. A community that was decimated during the gay purge. THIS is worth sticking around DU for!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

265. Amazing thread.

Wonderful to see & read. Wow. Here's to healing, understanding, awakening, and even to the pain that brings or accompanies them. I generally think I'm awake, but forget my blind spots, my severe limitations. Thank you all for a sometimes painful education....

(As an aside, what does "consensus" mean in the mod forum? More than a majority? Two-thirds?)

[MNBrewer]

266. That's the insidious thing about blind spots, isn't it?

everyone has them and everyone is blind to their own, by definition.

Reminds me of the bible verse where Jesus is quoted as saying "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

(Not a Christian, but grew up steeped in Methodist tradition)

[cbayer]

267. Consensus means we don't act if anyone thinks there should be no action.

That applies to posts, OP's, messages to members, locks, nukes for new or low post members (admin makes decisions concerning long term members) or any other action related to members.

If we have extensive discussion and any single mod puts a stay on action, we don't act.

I hope I was clear here.

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

268. Thank you. n/t.

[closeupready]

269. In other words, like a jury, mod actions must be approved unanimously, correct?

nt

[cbayer]

271. Mods may abstain or hold a differing opinion but not feel so strongly as to impede action.

But there has to be enough mods who support action (that varies by what we are considering - a "fuck you" needing less input than a nuke or lock") and no objections.

Does that make sense?

[closeupready]

275. Okay, so it's a similar rule, but a little more flexible than what a jury has to do.

Yeah, I think you've explained it well. Thanks. :)

[yardwork]

270. Skinner himself has stated that he banned many of us himself, unilaterally.

You do a disservice to truth and transparency when you perpetuate the lie that people are never banned from DU except in extreme cases and then only with mod consensus. You must know that there was no consensus solicited or obtained in the cases of bannings that are the topic of this thread.

I am tired of seeing this lie perpetuated. It involves me personally.

[MNBrewer]

273. +1

This is not a lower case "d" democratic Underground, for sure.

[cbayer]

276. Please see my post above. Mods never make the decision about banning long term members.

[yardwork]

318. It looks like you edited your post, or maybe I missed the parenthetical comment the first time.

The purpose of this thread, if I understand the OP correctly, is to reach out to GLBTQ posters and allies who have felt disenfranchised and disrespected on DU. Central to that discussion is the fact that many of us were banned without warning and certainly without mod consensus over a period of years.

Don't you think it is a little disingenuous for you and other mods to repeatedly post in this thread that your decisions are always made by consensus? You know that that is not the case here. Skinner has acknowledged that himself.

[cbayer]

323. I edited to correct typos and did not change a single word of the text I wrote.

The fact is that the mods NEVER ban longstanding members, with or without consensus. We are sometimes asked our opinion, but we never take action.

If this has not been clear, then it may explain some of the misunderstanding here. However, I have never seen anyone distort this fact or try to dance around it.

It is the way it should be and the mods, as a group, fully support that process, even if we don't always agree with the outcome.

[yardwork]

324. Quite a few mods have distorted that fact and even outright lied about it.

There was a mod I can remember who repeatedly posted that long-time DUers were never banned unless they had actually threatened bodily harm to another person. Several mods have posted over the years that long-time DUers are only banned after repeated warnings and many second chances and only then with mod consensus.

And yes, I believe that you were attempting to "dance around" this fact right here in this subthread until I called you on it. I believe that you were quite happy to let people questioning you assume that we were all banned only after long careful consideration, with the clear implication being that we must have done something awful to deserve it.

Fortunately for truth and transparency, Skinner himself has decided to abandon that particular line, and several mods posting here have completely ripped the lid off it. You might want to read the whole thread when you get time.

[cbayer]

325. I resent this and have nothing else to say here.

[yardwork]

341. I certainly meant no offense. I have a personal interest in clearing my name.

Upthread, another mod is stating that "any and all" actions are the result of mod consensus. Please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=173419&mesg_id=173486

I will be glad to PM you the name of the former mod who often posted on DU that we were banned because we threatened other people with bodily harm, and even then, only after receiving multiple warnings, suspensions, second-chances. Nothing like that was offered to those of us banned in early May, 2009. But we weren't allowed to tell our stories on DU, and anybody who tried to speak up for us or even ask what happened was banned in turn.

So this is a very sensitive subject for me and a lot of other people.

[ThomCat]

391. This is true. Any hint that a post referred, even obliquely

or tangentially to people who were banned resulted in the post getting deleted. and for a while, also resulted in the person who posted it getting suspended, And maybe even tombstoned him/herself if s/he kept trying to say things that the mods insisted on deleting and burying.

That was the whole point of spying on people through Facebook. That was the whole problem with getting tombstoned for the number 7, or having Morse-Code in a signature that said something innocuous, and all the petty shit that got people thread-stalked and deleted by mods back then.

If you don't conform, you get deleted until you conform.
If you don't agree to conform, you get tombstoned.
If you don't like it, you're a persistent troublemaker who supposedly received multiple warnings until the moderators had no choice but to tombstone you.

[yardwork]

410. Thank you for your support, ThomCat. I really appreciate your speaking truth to power.

It is a terrible thing to be treated as an unperson.

[cbayer]

408. Thank you for saying this, yardwork. It is much appreciated.

I hope you know that I understand how difficult this has been for many people that care about this site. It has also been difficult for the mods. My wish here is that we communicate with each other in ways that will lead us to a reconciliation and not further division.

Anyway, I truly appreciate your honest and heartfelt response here.


edited because I type fast than I think and put in "decision" instead of "division"

[yardwork]

409. You're welcome. As I said upthread, I have no interest in blaming the mods for all this.

[OnTheOtherHand]

338. cbayer didn't dance around that fact

She was asked a question about what the consensus system meant, and she actually went out of her way to make clear that it didn't apply to bannings of longstanding members. I didn't read her comment before the edit, but the timestamp shows that the edit was immediate, and I have no reason to doubt that it was as small as she said.

I'm not saying anything about any other interactions with moderators, just calling this one like I see it.

[yardwork]

339. It's entirely possible that I am sensitive on this subject because of my personal experience.

I intended no offense. This is a highly fraught topic that affected me personally for two years.

[OnTheOtherHand]

357. thank you

I understand that this is hard.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

272. I want to apologize to GLBTQ1

I knew that the thread by the mod was going to be trouble. I KNEW it would end badly. I was furious that it had been posted & was banging my head against my desk. The context that it was written in - a lot of threads about Obama possibly nominating the first gay member to the supremes - meant that many would read the thread as 'sit down & shut up'.

The word from the admins was that the OP was fine & that some members were twisting his words. That was a (tiny) possibility. Gawd knows, I've seen some members look for mod bias behind every lock, every banning, every post.

I kept quiet. There didn't seem to be anything I could say. I'd alerted the admins before about what I felt were bad mod decisions & mostly got crickets, so there didn't seem to be any point in trying. The admins made the call & I just went along with it. And when I got PMs from a couple of mods questioning what was going on I replied with something innocuous, like, Maybe it won't be bad & maybe we're being pessimists.


I'm sorry. I don't know that there was anything I could have done, but I didn't even try.

[Danger Mouse]

284. Hey you...

hope you're doing ok.

Thanks for posting this. :hug:

[ThomCat]

285. I am very sorry that you felt so intimidated that you

kept quiet. :(

Though, given what you were up against, it's probably understandable.

I'm glad some saw the problem for what it was, and who it was.

[yardwork]

319. Thank you very much for acknowledging that this is what happened.

You have no idea how much this means to dozens - possibly hundreds - of people reading this thread.

Your post - and the posts of some other folks here - are the acknowledgement that we have sought for years.

It is such an awful feeling to be made an "un-person." To be silenced and then lied about. And to have this done by people who claim to be allies - it's just such a feeling of defeat.

Thank you so much for your post.

[Marrah_G]

377. thank you

Thank you so much.

[hootinholler]

287. SO, when does my pony show up?

That was a joke.

Seriously, I'm kicking this to digest it later.

-Hoot

[Creideiki]

300. Saturday morning

It'll be chestnut. Hope you approve! :)

[hootinholler]

329. YIPPEE!

:greenbounceythangojoy:

Something to look forward to!

-Hoot

[TriMera]

294. I think it's time for me to speak up.

I signed on here in February of 2009, but I lurked for a while before that. I learned very early on to lay low. Anyhow, I think I can provide some insight as to what LGBT members face on a pretty regular basis here. I'll hone in on one example, just to keep it simple. There is a "list" that is posted here quite often that is used to antagonize and draw in LGBT posters. I think most folks here know the list to which I am referring. It's not so much the list as the flaming snark that usually accompanies it and the animosity of those who post it.

One day, I logged into DU and, whatta ya know, there's the list. Under that list a poster referred to LGBT's as "vampires". I got there at the beginning and called the poster on the vampire reference and said poster edited their post and claimed I (and others who saw the post) was lying.
I'm not going to go into anymore detail, I'm just going to let folks read for themselves and make up their own minds. The thread was allowed to go on and on.

My point is, there are particular tactics that are used on this site to systematically get rid of people with opposing views. These tactics are completely transparent and they are allowed to continue year after year. IMHO, this is one of the issues that needs to be addressed if LGBT folks are ever going to feel like part of the DU community again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x485790#485960

[MNBrewer]

296. I testify to the veracity of your post

[TriMera]

299. Thank you, MNBrewer. n/t

[ruggerson]

304. I witnessed it as well and you were correct

To his credit, that particular poster came in to this forum a few days later and apologized. It was a credit to his character that he felt compelled to step up and do that.

His defenders in that thread have not.

[TriMera]

307. Yes...

Yes, I am aware of that apology and I give him some credit. However, other posters continue that behavior and it is a pattern. That's what needs to be addressed by the Admins.

[Bluenorthwest]

310. 'Vampires' is a word used against us by McClurkin and other

Obama related 'ministers' of the virulent anti-gay sort. That word was used with great and specific intention. I also remember.

[TriMera]

322. You're right, Bluenorthwest.

It's the intent that is the problem.

[yardwork]

316. The word that describes this is condescension.

As a lesbian, I'm used to reading outright bigotry and homophobia. The types of things we see every day coming from the religious right. We're used to this and although it can make me angry and discouraged, mostly I just laugh it off. I worry about the effect on young people and on gay folks who are isolated in communities that are overwhelmingly bigoted, but personally, I find it more laughable than upsetting.

It's the condescension on sites like DU, coming from people who claim to be progressives and allies of human rights, that makes me see red. Lists like the one you cite. The only purpose for that list is to make gay people feel bad. To rub our noses in something and humiliate us for daring to ask for equal rights. The purpose is to intimidate us into silence, so that we don't "bother" the Democratic establishment, so that we let our "betters" - straight people - decide what is important and valuable.

The same motivation is behind the relentless posts about "poutrage" and "somebody didn't get their pony" and pictures of pink cartoon ponies in response to Every. Single. Post. made about gay rights in the months after the election.

[TriMera]

317. +1,000,000 and welcome back. n/t

[ruggerson]

330. Good post

Hi yardwork, glad to have you back. :hug:

The thing that continuously astounds and saddens me is the rank brazenness and insolence of the disdain. Some of them, unfortunately, continue to this day, even in this very thread itself, which is about the divide that they, in large part, fostered.

[yardwork]

332. Glad to be back with you and others, ruggerson. Missed you very much!

[QC]

333. "...the rank brazenness and insolence of the disdain..."

Why not be openly and brazenly contemptuous?

It's not like anybody ever got in trouble for it.

One of our community's most relentless antagonists on DU made it her personal mission in life to stalk two gay posters from one end of DU to the other, morning, noon, and night, for months. They both got tombstoned after taking the abuse for as long as they could, but she is still a member of DU and is posting in this very thread.

That exemplifies the problem very nicely, doesn't it?

[Vanje]

346. The brazenness and insolence

come from very few people. The outrageousness of those few posts arrests our attention. Dont let it.

Most of the posts in this thread are very supportive and/or truly do serve the purpose of fence-mending.

Only a very very few posters (count em on one hand), are here for the apparent purpose of discouraging this long awaited effort.

Do'nt let them bog this thing down.

[QC]

348. Believe me, I am very touched by what we are seeing here.

Last night, working late at the office, I was fighting back tears as I read this thread.

And the few negative posts in this thread are valuable, because they provide excellent examples of the problem we are trying to resolve.

[Vanje]

349. The negative threads come from very few

I'm still walking on air.

[Behind the Aegis]

352. I remember that little thread.

As I recall, I fucked everything up when I provided a "copy" of the post, :evilgrin:, which caused serious back-pedaling. I had your back...still do!

[TriMera]

371. Yes, you did. I remember. Thank you.

:pals:

[Behind the Aegis]

353. I remember that little thread.

As I recall, I fucked everything up when I provided a "copy" of the post, :evilgrin:, which caused serious back-pedaling. I had your back...still do!

[justiceischeap]

303. Thanks Skinner. It's a start.

I do need to state though that this has been an ongoing issue on this board since I learned of it (during the Shrub years). I can recall the LGBT community getting blamed for the Dem loss when Jr. ran for reelection. Because we had the audacity to want to be included in the dialogue. I can recall a post where someone said it was the LGBT communities fault that Kerry lost because we spoke too loudly and too often about wanting equality. So, this hasn't just developed as an issue, I think it's just an issue that's finally peaked.

At times, as a member here, I've felt treated just like I do by the Dem party. Our vote is courted, promises are made to get us to the polls and then we're forgotten about. Same at DU. How dare we actually want politicians to follow through on their promises that got our community out to vote. My issue with Obama is that he had 2 years guaranteed to do some real good for the LGBT community and he didn't do much. Obama fan's here don't want to hear the reality that he squandered those opportunities for our community because how dare WE demand equality when there are 2 wars, the economy is in the tank, unemployment is high... these are all things I've heard from fellow DUers since Obama has been elected.

[DURHAM D]

306. Personally I think the call has gone out to anyone that has a forum...

The call has gone out that our pocketbooks have dried up. I don't think the DNC and Obama 2012 campaign are too worried about our votes. I don't think they are overly concerned about our shoe leather and ground running. What they are really worried about is our money.

For many decades our community has provided a disproportionate amount of the funds collected by the Democratic Party. Howard Dean's DNC even took down the help desk and used the money to add more staffers (fundraisers) to target our community. They wanted our money but not our issues.

I believe that the standing down by the justice department on DOMA was to throw us a bone - hoping we would salivate and get out our check books. We will see other efforts to make a crumb look like a loaf. I am even skeptical of the reason for this reconciliation post.

I think many of us have finally had enough - I know I have and I have been generously supporting the Democratic Party for over 45 years - with my time and my money. Until Obama I believed it to be my best chance for my rights. No longer - I am just tired of being used. I will come back if I see a reason. And, it would have to be major. I can't be counted on any more.

[yardwork]

320. The GayTM is closed.

[LooseWilly]

355. I couldn't help but be struck by the timing of this thread...

The day after some FOX contributors (Gingrich and Santorum) have to leave the network to start campaigning... and the pundits say that the 2012 campaign season has begun... is the day that fences call for mending.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid... or reading too much into it... but removing a visceral obstacle to voting/donating in the minds a potential constituent community on the opening day of the official "election season" seems more than a little hyper-coincidental to me.

:tinfoilhat:

Not that it's not a fig leaf to be appreciated...

[ThomCat]

387. I don't think that's a coincidence either.

That we had to wait until we are needed again, it's time to start rallying troops to shore up unity again within the party for upcoming election season, and to start up the fund-raising engines.

I don't think the timing was conscious. But, I do think that reconciliation couldn't have happened soon because there was no broader need for us within the party sooner.

There is a general feeling spreading that it's time to start bringing people back together. Now is the time. Everyone is important within the party again. Even if it has to be us.

If the party was doing well, was still in power, and didn't really need us in order to keep power and advance policy aims, would there be any sense that people need to reconcile with us? Probably not.

Would this reconciliation being happening under those conditions? I kind of doubt it. Attention would be diverted elsewhere, where it's "more important." We know we're never one of the "most important" issues.

So, consciously or unconsciously, the fact that the part needs us right again now helps lead to the timing of reconciliation. It's a prod, helping it happen when it might not otherwise have happened.

That's okay. We know it, recognize it, accept it for what it is and take advantage of the opportunities that come our way, regardless of the reasons behind it.

[pinto]

309. Cindi Lauper said it well -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPn0KFlbqX8&feature=artistob&playnext=1&list=TLbqY91TmV9iU

:hi:

[Skinner]

326. Hello, again, everyone.

Sorry I haven't responded to any of this today.

I have read all the posts in this thread, and I would like to continue the discussion tomorrow. Hope that works for everyone.

[Meldread]

336. Can you answer these questions when you respond to this thread, Skinner?

I wasn't up-to-date on the behind the scenes intrigue here. Some of the things I had heard I dismissed, because as a long time member of DU my experience with the Moderators and you guys has been very good. Learning about certain things in this thread has been rather eye opening for me, and it has left me somewhat disappointed.

The two questions I'd like you to address are as follows...

First, can you explain why there was some type of code of silence regarding the "gay purge"? I just can't imagine how something like this would benefit DU in the least, and many of the hard feelings seem to be in direct result of this enforced silence. It allowed rumors to spread, speculation to grow, feelings of anger to ferment into bitterness, and to cause many in the know to adopt an us vs them mentality.

Second, why has it taken so long for this "mending of fences" to take place? Even though I was totally out of the loop, I could clearly see that there were people angry and upset with not only you but the moderating staff of DU. Why was this allowed to fester and become worse with time?

My frustration and disappointment is not a result of what happened, but rather how it was handled after the fact. As a long time member, I used to frequent the LGBT forums, even if it was just to lurk and read what others were posting. I watched as members slowly and gradually disappeared with time, and I believed that many were simply moving on for many of the reasons Sapphocrat outlined in her post. I want to understand your actions and how things unfolded from your perspective, because I simply struggle to imagine that you thought this was a good course of action for DU or the LGBT community.

I hope moving forward policies are changed to more quickly address the bannings of a large number of people in a single community - especially when that community is attempting to seek answers. It just seems to me that many problems, confrontations, resentment, and hard feelings could have been avoided had this course of action been taken.

I'm guessing that things simply look different from your perspective because you have access to knowledge that I do not; which is why I'd really like to hear how things went down from your point of view, and why you took certain actions.

[Name removed]

328. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[swimboy]

340. Regarding the humorlessness of the LGBT members

this came up in the Snickers threads and many other times such as the brazillion times (sorry, I'm supposed to be humorless) people posted a joke about Bush being gay, Cheney being gay, other straight leaders being gay and then asking why we couldn't "take a joke"

From my journal:

Now you add to your testimony the accusation that anyone who takes issue with the laugh potential of picturing unpopular world leaders engaged in anal sex is "sanctimonious and hollow"

How many times have you had someone call you a fucking faggot? Did you share a laugh? That's not how it goes. You usually do a quick evaluation of your physical safety and potential escape route and decide on fight or flight.

If you search posts, you'll see this has come up an incredible number of times and it will surely come up again and it will still be offensive.

People are free to express offensive ideas, even to post those ideas on a progressive forum. Just don't be surprised when people find the offensive post offensive. That's not politically correct; it's simply correct.

[yardwork]

344. I dunno, I'm starting to find a lot of humor in some of the posts here.

I was a mod during the Snickers debacle, btw. Very frustrating experience.

[TriMera]

350. This thread is awesome.

:)

[pecwae]

356. Isn't it?

I wish there was some way I could reach out and hug everyone here who is really trying to understand. And, thank you for the link you provided above. I hope Skinner reads through that horrible thread with new eyes.

[Kali]

364. wrong place

sorry

[TriMera]

372. It's a start and it's nice to see you, pecwae.

:hug:

[racaulk]

362. Thank you, mods.

Skinner mentioned that no posts would be deleted from this thread, but I think it was fairly clear that at least one person approached this thread in a way that was contrary to the spirit of healing and reconciliation, the spirit intended by this OP. Your clean up of those posts is definitely appreciated.

:hi:

Edited for clarity.

[Kali]

365. 100 posts removed?

[ThomCat]

367. I was wondering about that too, especially because

Skinner posted above that no posts were going to be deleted. :shrug:

I am optimistically assuming that they very obvious trolls who very clearly needed to be removed so badly that there was no choice but to get them the hell out of here. If so, good!

It would be nice to be able to see who they are though, so we could be warned who to watch out for. But then we'd want to see what they said too. So I guess it's just as well that they're fully deleted. :P

[Kali]

373. it looks like that post is one of the ones that is gone

I suppose it was kind of off-topic, as these are now (and likely to disappear too) but the issue of transparency is one I personally am kind of sensitive to. I think this dialog is good for the site and I hope it helps everybody.

[Pab Sungenis]

374. I read the subthreads before they disappeared

and unless there were some troll-invasions late in them when I wasn't looking, there was nothing really objectionable in them, especially when you consider that Skinner said there would be no deletions.

As I said above, are gays going to have functional "Alert" buttons again? Or were they alerted by homophobes with still-functioning Alert buttons who can't handle the deep dark truthful mirror?

[ThomCat]

380. That's what got deleted?

:(

Geez. I guess my optimism was too quick, and misplaced.

We've all had the experience of Alerting and having our Alerts ignored far more often than not. We've all wondered if only alert's from straight people get answered.

Hell, I've even alerted directly on Moderator Messages to say, "Hey, this is FUCKED UP. This is a prime example of you guys doing something that shows an obvious double standard compared to what you did over here. This clearly looked biased." I have never received a response. Never! Not one email explaining what happened, justifying or explaining anything. And never once did I ever see one of those situations get fixed.

Your post not only should have stayed, it should also have resulted in some serious discussion!

Edit:

Hmmm... Having heard a bit more about what was under there, and whom... perhaps it wasn't all calling for taking a look at when/why moderators don't pay attention to alerts.

Some of it was just refusing to accept that we're moving forward. I've been one of the people screaming most bluntly, and even I'm accepting that we're moving forward. Or at least making a good try at it.

So, while I agree that sometimes you have to peal off the bandages and really see the wound before you can treat it properly and get it to fully heal, I don't think that means we should be poring gasoline on fires just to see how hot they can burn.

[LiberalAndProud]

382. I wish they were still there so you could judge for yourself.

I didn't see the post Pab referred to above but I did see some of it, and there were some harsh words exchanged. Some posts deleted were innocent bystanders within subthreads (mine included).

Edited because I got the partial username wrong)

[closeupready]

385. What got deleted was a divisive sub-thread initiated by someone who

denied that there was ever a gay purge - a denial that serves no purpose here - in light of Skinner's OP seeking to attempt to put past disputes behind us all and to mend fences between DU and the GLBT community. It was very clear to me that leaving that sub-thread in place only picked at the scab, and did not offer anything constructive.

[Cherchez la Femme]

648. I haven't seen

'Radical Activist' at all since this thread (his was the first deleted IIRC)
yet last I checked, he was still a member in good standing.

Posting under a new name, perhaps?

[Skinner]

411. I removed four sub-threads from this discussion.

I believe this discussion is difficult enough as it is. Those sub-threads were started by members who wanted to discuss different concerns from the ones we are discussing in this thread. I did not feel that this was the appropriate place to address those concerns, and was worried that they distracted from the atmosphere we are trying to create in this thread.

[William769]

370. I have spent sometime reflecting on what you wrote.

First of all I want to say I appreciate very much what you wrote.

Now I want to say whats on my mind. I had a total complete breakdown after the primary was over, I felt not only was I thrown under the bus but the people on the bus were cheering do it again! Do it again! I left DU on my own accord for awhile to sort things out and came back a couple of months later. When I came back I was constantly accused of fighting the primary over again which was not the case Hillary lost although I was still stunned by it, I moved past it. The tension and hostility towards me and other like minded DU members was just to insufferable to take so I left again (this time for a long while). I came back again about six months ago and I did notice that things had settled down quite a bit and for that I was thankful. I still see a few people getting their digs in where they can but it's at a level that is tolerable.

I feel at home on DU most days now than I use to which is a good thing.

I use to always have a star next to my name but gave that up awhile ago because yes I did blame the the Admins of this site for the turmoil that was going on but felt I had no recourse to address the problem with the Administrators. After reading this though I feel comfortable donating again to this site. I will give what I can this month and then in the next fund drive get on track again.

I would like to thank you once again for writing this.

[mitchtv]

415. good to see you back

you were missed

[William769]

416. Thanks.

:hug:

[BillStein]

375. This discussion means a great deal to me

I haven't really told people much about my background, but I think it's time I did... I'm almost 59, and have been active in GLBT rights since the first time I went to college. Back in the late 70's I was among the co-founders of a GLBT group at my college. Unfortunately, our original group soon splintered over issues such as inclusion of other sexual minorities, and the inexcusable behavior of some frankly misogynistic members. We tried to keep the group intact, but by the time I left there were three active groups on campus- our original GLBT rights group, a Lesbian group that made it clear men were unwelcome, and a graduate school LGBT group.

I've seen this dynamic too many times. In the early 90's a local HIV support group splintered into several different organizations due to personality clashes. I knew most of the people involved, and agree that a few of them could be abrasive. But I could have sworn we were working together to help our community in a crisis- and there really is strength in numbers. In Law school, we had a strong, active and influential GLBT group, but when we tried to merge with the undergrad group, there was open rebellion. To my mind, another opportunity lost.

More recently, the GLBT synagogue that I belonged to for many years started falling apart over perceived slights to different groups. Several persons who were in transition (I apologize if that's the wrong term) felt they were not getting the support they deserved. I can only speak for myself here, but I realize that my desire not to offend became offensive in itself. I never wanted to make them feel unwelcome, and I apologized for my insensitivity, or more specifically, my ignorance. Meanwhile, some of the men in the shul felt that some women made them feel unwelcome. There was, in fact, some nastiness over the choice of a Rabbi. Some women stated openly that they would resign if a man was hired- and leaving my opinions aside, this seemed unnecessarily combative.

And then I returned to DU after a long absence. I wasn't here for the gay purge, so I had no idea what caused the problems. I only knew that the LGBT board was moribund, except for a few people who seemed dedicated to its survival. Now I read the posts here, and learn that at least some of the problems are rooted in yet another divide between LGBT and AA members- or divisions between straight and GLBT DU members- just another example of a group of people who should be allies dividing ourselves and diluting our power in the process.

It broke my heart to think that what should have been a valuable resource was ruined. I didn't understand the dynamics of DU, so I didn't post unless I felt I had something worth saying. As you can see, that didn't happen that often. Maybe it's time I spoke up more often- but I can't tell you how many times I've reread this....

So let me just say this, if I said anything with which you disagree, or if you feel I'm wrong, or I misunderstand- just tell me, and we can talk about it. Don't call me names, don't question my intelligence. And please don't question my sincerity. OK?

[Kurovski]

426. Thank you for your active involvment over the years, Bill.

As you point out, it's never all that easy, even within a group.

[yardwork]

505. Hi Bill. You raise some very important questions, and probably others have similar questions.

There is a thread that Ruggerson started in April 2009 that is well worth reading all the way to the bottom. I recommend this thread as a picture of where we were three weeks before many of us were abruptly banned. Sadly, hardly any of the people in that thread post on DU anymore. We were on the edge of an important step forward. Can we do that again? Is there a second chance? I would like to believe so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=125849&mesg_id=125849

[BillStein]

509. Thanks for the pointer, Yardwork

I'm heading to CA soon, so I'll check in when I get out there, and read the whole thread before I comment

[The Philosopher]

379. Are the deleted posts

going to remain deleted? There was some jerk posts that just begged to be alerted, but it was better to let them remain as they are.

Deleting posts harms what this thread is about, which is the promise to an open and frank discussion. If one post can be deleted--even if for good reason--then any can be deleted for any reason. The deleted posts also participate in what--it seems, from reading this thread--lead to the problems that this thread addresses. Allowing them to be and to remain deleted only harms this dialog.

[closeupready]

388. As a disclaimer, I do not mean to offend you here, I would just like to respond.

It's all well and good for members of the GLBT community to support (in a Voltaire-ian way) openness and inclusion, but not if homophobes and troublemakers come in here and shout and scream bloody murder, scaring off and precluding the participation of gentle-natured and easily discouraged GLBT people from talking here. This dialogue must remain focused on putting the past behind us, raising legitimate grievances with Skinner regarding mod behaviors and also how to move forward constructively. The only way this can happen with contributions from everyone in the GLBT community is if people who persist in crapping on us either respect the spirit of Skinner's OP or else they are shown the door.

I know what was deleted, and it added NOTHING to Skinner's goal, IMO.

Cheers. :hi:

[The Philosopher]

396. I understand that

And agree that they really held nothing to the discussion. But they did do one thing that I think was needed, which gave proof that we're not making all this up. There are those who are new to the forums who haven't experienced it yet, but see this Mending Fences thread and wonder if it's all just a big misunderstanding or if the LGBTers are being bitchy. The posts by the deleted proved otherwise and put posts like Sapphocrat's on just that more solid ground.

When Skinner said he would continue this discussion for a second day, I expected a new thread to be opened by him. In that thread I wouldn't mind the alerts working and all those inappropriate posts being deleted. But, I think for this first step, this thread should remain as is. Warts and all. That way we never again have to explain that there are those who are hostile to us in one way or another. We got something to point to.

[closeupready]

398. Those are actually some excellent points. Can't argue with you.

:hi:

[cate94]

400. Personally I think it is great that those posts were deleted.

I alerted on one of those posts- before Skinner said he wouldn't delete any posts on this thread. Not only did that specific post not add to the discussion, it was essentially homophobic nonsense. It belittled the very purpose of the thread.

While I understood the original intent of not deleting, I think the fact that these posts are now gone is indicative that we are being heard. It feels to me like they understood some of the concerns about homophobia not always being as obvious as an outright slur.

I think it is great that they are trying to respond.

I also think the links provided by various posters on this thread proved the point about hostility, as did the numerous quotes provided. We can point to this very thread w/o the additional hostility to prove the point.

[The Philosopher]

422. Yeah, that is true

But my paranoia doesn't like me being that comfortable. While you could check out those quotes and other threads, they're open to deletion and whitewashing, too. There wasn't a rule to keep them as is, as Skinner began this thread. Just having ONE thread that had a few nasty stuff and was allowed to exist as is, I think that would help us.

You also have to worry about that this thread has a spotlight on it. If they do respond by deleting offensive posts in this thread, I don't think that's a sign they're trying to fix the problem. Because once everything is calmed down, they can always return to the way things had been. That's something that should be avoided and I think having those posts left alone would help that.

I really wanted to alert those posts, too, when I read them. They were entirely offensive and not just to LGBT members. I held my mouse button down on the alert link thinking, "I don't care what he says, this needs to be removed. It's getting in the way of the spirit of this conversation." But then I thought, wait--one of the things we seem to fight is non-LGBT members and allies belief that we're not experiencing overt or subtle homophobia on DU. What is a better way to combat that attitude than being able to point to the horse's mouth?

[cate94]

446. You make a good point.

I guess it really isn't paranoia when it is based on experience. :)

I wonder though, if they aren't trying to fix it, wtf was the point of this exercise? I hope they are really trying.... At the same time I sincerely understand wanting to document the "overt or subtle homophobia on DU". Thanks for explaining so well.

[Vanje]

407. I think the deleted posts were an attempt to sidetrack this converstation.

I think its important , for now, that this conversation not be sidetracked.


(I'm at work now. I'm reading a little, and look forward to posting more later.)
This thread is like breathing fresh air.

[swimboy]

401. I guess we need to talk about alerting.

I rarely use it. Never at the level of disgreement, almost never for being personally offended. Examples: You don't know what you're talking about. You're stupid, disagreeable. The Methodist Church sucks, etc.

I would not hesitate to use it if someone posting along the lines of "All gay men are pedophiles."
I would probably use it if I saw someone being relentlessly attacked or baited out of proportion to their own posts.

I don't know what other people's criteria are.

Maybe it won't matter quite as much under the reconstructed DU that is coming.

But I think it was not always to our advantage to have offensive posts vanish entirely forever.

[TriMera]

403. I've never used the alert function.

I would rather the post stand. The problem is that someone else usually does use the function, sometimes with the best intentions, and then everything changes. I feel like I'm left out there with my ass flapping in the breeze, trying to call attention to something that's not there anymore.

As far as the posts that were deleted in this thread, I don't think they served any purpose other than a disruption. Maybe people should see that, but I think we've presented enough evidence on our own.

[cate94]

406. I agree.

I have only used the alert function a handful of times.

In the GLBT forum I expect to not see hateful rhetoric about GLBT issues, just as
in the Astrology area, I don't expect to see woo comments.

In GD, my tolerance for crap is much higher.

I think in the past it might have been a disadvantage to have offensive posts removed, but can I be optimistic that things will change for us?

[mikeytherat]

425. Thanks for tipping me to this thread, Swimmy!

:grouphug:

mikey_the_rat

[Call Me Wesley]

429. I think alerting is really essential.

I understand that you probably want the offensive post to stay so others can see it. But, speaking as someone who was a mod once, and looking at the current mods posts here, I won't reveal any secret in saying that if you alert, and the offending post(s) get deleted, they're on the members record.

Which makes it much easier to overview their behaviour. If it doesn't get alerted on, there's no record, and in the worst case, the worst offenders have a squeaky clean record, which results in, "Hey, this must be a good member!"

So, please, yes, do alert. Give a reason, but do alert. Mods can't read every post that was made, they rely on alerts. That's the only way they can look at one's record and see a pattern, and it's helpful.

Make a screenshot before you alert if you want to have it on file for yourself. :)

[swimboy]

453. Thank you a lot.

I never caught on to all the other functions of the alert. And it's a good tip to capture something you think is likely to disappear. :thumbsup:

[Danger Mouse]

450. I think it is very important to alert. I encourage every member to do it.

We don't see everything. If nobody alerts on an awful post, don't be surprised if it doesn't get deleted. It really makes our job easier when people alert. :)

[cally]

451. Please use alert when you find objectionable posts

Mods rely on alerts to find offensive posts. If no one alerts, we will probably miss it. It also helps to add a comment if the problem is not obvious.

[MNBrewer]

418. Is anyone else having trouble following this thread now?

What with the deleted subthreads, etc. I'm having difficulty finding the new material. Anyone have hints to help me out?

[Meldread]

420. I'm viewing in threaded mode.

It's virtually impossible for me to follow threads that get this long on DU outside of threaded mode. The advantage of viewing things this way is that posts I've read become purple "viewed" links, and new posts appear as blue "unviewed" links. I didn't even notice the subthreads were gone until it was mentioned in the thread.

[Kali]

421. if you hit the little clock icon at the top of the page

it will make all the posts in the thread where they show below the OP in white, new posts you havent read yet will show up in yellow or gold the next time you come back to the thread

another way I am having to do this as I am on dial up is to have the thread open in the NOT "view all" format and use the edit-find function in firefox - it will open a little box at the bottom of the page and you can enter the next number after the last post you have read and it will take you to that next post - it is kind of a PITA because it goes in real-time order and not by subthread.

(that is how I noticed all the missing posts earlier - I had left last night at 400 some odd and in the main GLBT page it showed 450 posts but they didn't come up in "find" the actual posts had dropped to 350 or something.)

and somebody probably already answered you before I post this but hey, I tried.:P

[NMDemDist2]

432. if you hit the 'MARK" icon on the top of the page

any new posts will have a yellow icon, the ones you've already read will be grey

[dsc]

423. A more complete response

As I have said before on this website, I am in recovery and one of the hallmarks of recovery is the making of amends. Making amends isn't simply apologizing for the past but taking concrete steps to help those you harmed recover from the harm you inflicted upon them. You have gone a considerable way toward making amends.

I know that our side hasn't be perfect in this. We have seen slights where they may not have been. Anyone is going to be informed by his or her past. My past leads me to believe that some subset of straight people, I don't know numbers or who, will be put off by my being gay. I know from my present that the subset is declining both in terms of numbers and of virhelence of that belief. I admit, I sometimes don't encorporate that change in my thinking all the time. I hope someday that I will encorporate it.

Seeing the likes of Yardwork and Vanje back is nothing short of fantastic. I hope others who were removed can and will join them.

[Broken_Hero]

424. I guess its my turn,

I guess its my turn, hmm, it feels like I’m in an AA meeting of sorts. I use to be the Duer known as petersond, and I was a Topic Forum Moderator for a good portion of the past 4yrs+. I was not only a Moderator for the Topic Forums, but States/Country, DU Groups, Editorials and Other Articles, and the Political Video Forum.

I write this to show support for our GLBT brothers and sisters, and also the brothers/sisters I’ve worked with in the Moderator Forum. I suppose I’ll start with technical Mod issues, and my history as a Moderator, some of which other Moderators up thread touched upon.

In the fall of 2009 the Admins changed our moderating procedure, in terms of Alerts, and our Alert Forums. Prior to the fall of 2009 whenever you alerted on a post, for example GLBT, that alert would go to the Topic Forums: Alert Forum. In this Alert Forum, we receive alerts from all the DU Topic Forums, if you alert in Religion Theology, or Education, or what have you, it ends up in the Topic Forum: Alert Forum. Once the alert goes to the Alert Forum, its my job being a Topic Forum Moderator to copy/paste that alert, and bring it over into the Moderator Forum, so the other Moderators could read the alert, and we can discuss the merits of keeping the post, or removing the post(or other action).

That’s how our alerts were handled prior to fall of 09, we had select moderators for different discussion forums on DU and those moderators would bring the alerts that came from their designated area, and bring those alerts to the Moderator Forum. Now, this is where a lot of issues happened. In order for an alert to be taken care of, a Moderator of the select forum(where the alerts are) has to be “on duty” to bring those alerts into the Moderator Forum. During certain mod cycles there are moderators who have real life issues that trump the ones at DU, and other issues that arise which make their availability to moderate non-existent, and those alerts will not be cleared for…seriously, for long periods of time. In my mind I was a workhorse of sorts, I started as a Moderator in GD and the alerts that forum can create are huge, let alone when a topic du jour hit’s the fan(circumcision, smoking, vegan/meat eater wars), and when it hit’s the fan, it comes at a billion miles per hour.

During my first term, my post count was around 1800 posts, after my first term, which was roughly 3 and a a half months I was sitting at 15k. The work load that we, as moderators has to deal with is tremendous, and having help is not only needed, it’s a necessity. And that help during the Prop 8, Primary of 08, the following Warren issue was not in abundance. The up tick in alerting grew by very large margins, at the time I was all ready on DU for 5-10hrs a day doing my Moderator duties, but the up tick on the alerts especially in GLBT prompted me to stay on longer to deal with alerts, because I felt not that I was “forced” to do so, but because I concerned about your issues, I was concerned about leaving things up too long which in turn would foster more animosity.

I would be on DU from roughly 2pm til upwards to 6am in the morning, trying to keep up with GLBT alerts, and in doing so this phenomenon would occur a LOT. I’d log off around say, 4a.m, and say someone comes into GLBT around 7am, causes some grief and a good portion of GLBTers alert on this person at 7:15am, nothing happens, time goes by, its now 8am, its now 9am, its damn noon, hell its 1pm and the posts that GLBTers alerted on are still standing.

The alerts, and re-alerts keep coming in, and the alert messages were not kind, and on the other hand they shouldn’t have been, because there should’ve been a Topic Forum Mod on to deal with it. But, by and large that Moderator was me, and of course when I clock out at 4am, hell I’m not coming back on til no earlier than 2pm, so when I come onto DU to do my duty as a Moderator I check my Topic Forums: Alert Forum, and there are 40-50 alerts, many of them re-alerts, some of the alerts I admit were very hostile and disparaging of myself, but I tried to not let it effect me(which it did effect me). I felt, as a Moderator that I was alone on an island, I had some good ones come through that helped, but the kicker was, usually we were on at the same time, I know I had two fellow Moderators that would come on around 9pm-midnight, but heck since I’m there, there isn’t much to deal with. Having moderators online during the early morning, til 3pm was the hardest to find, and usually we didn’t have a Moderator who could fill that void.

I asked for Admin help in dealing with GLBT alerts, and I did receive some help, but by and large the main issue was the Alerted post staying for very long periods of time. In the fall of 2009 that aspect was taken care of substantially. Before the Admin switched the software in fall of 09, Moderators who were assigned to the different forums of DU, dealt with those alerts in there area. If someone alerted on a GLBT thread it was up to me to bring that alert over, if it was deemed necessary via consensus that the GLBT post, or thread needed to be removed, or locked it was up to me to deal with that action. It was the same across the board, you only saw me locking/removing threads in my assigned forums, you would not see me taking action in the Lounge, or GD, or GDP, or LBN, and vice versa you would not see a GD Mod taking action outside of their area.

I tried my best and I felt like I failed the GLBTers, and my fellow Moderators and Admin because I couldn’t keep up with the alerts. I felt it was MY fault that alerts would stay up for so long, which in turn would cause a lot of animosity between Admin/Mods and the GLBT community. I felt like a failure, and add to that some very heated, and emotional pm’s, and alerts that I would receive. I did a lot of self-reflecting, and it did hurt. I tried so hard to keep up, I failed at that…I tried so hard to keep the hurtful things out of GLBT, I failed at that…I tried so hard to be there for my fellow GLBT brothers, and I failed at that.

I felt like I let everyone down, the heat I received from the DU members, especially in GLBT made me terrified to post in this forum. I was afraid I’d get jumped on, create more alerts for my fellow Mod’s to deal with, and create a situation where the Admin would have to step in. I hated feeling like I couldn’t post in here, but to keep tension down, I didn’t post. With the incident of early May of 2009 it really reinforced the notion that any moderator presence in GLBT would only do more harm then good(at least, that’s what I personally felt). Fwiw, I wasn’t on when the incident of early May transpired. I came on when the bannings and what not was over with, and we were given instruction on how to deal with flare ups in GLBT, or elsewhere. I didn’t speak up that day either, in my eyes, the situation was all ready done and over with as in the Admin all ready did what they did, set guidelines in to deal with flare ups. I’m sorry for not speaking up, that was MY failure…

I would love to be able to mend fences, I admit I know I made mistakes, I made errors, I know I hurt peoples feelings by locking threads down, or removing posts. I’m not perfect, I’m sorry, I tried my best, and I failed.

The new system the Admin brought in fall of 2009 eliminated a lot of issues of Alerts going to specific Alert Forums. Now when you alert, anywhere on DU(except I/P and 9/11) those alerts go straight to the Moderator Forum. The Admins eliminated the aspects of alert forums, and the need for Mods to copy/paste the alerts into the Mod forum. That change alone took a load off Moderator shoulders, we didn’t have to deal with the copy/paste aspect, and to boot, when you alert the alert will be seen by all the active Moderators on duty. The new format was a change we needed for a long time, now alerts wouldn’t sit there for hours without being seen, or dealt with.

I’m glad Skinner started this OP, and I truly apologize if I hurt any of you. Like I mentioned above in my post, I felt like I failed everyone…and I truly apologize.

[Broken_Hero]

427. Fwiw,

I got some errands to run, so don't be worried, or offended if I don't reply back quickly. I should be back in a couple of hours, I got a tire to take care of...meh.

[MNBrewer]

431. I'm glad I put 2 and 2 together on this post

and realized that you're the same person who posted the message this was a reply to!

I thought "how rude!" :) In context it is clear that you weren't being rude to yourself :)

[Lyric]

428. I wish I would have known all of this earlier.

I had no idea how this stuff worked. I have no doubt that at least a few of those snarky alert messages came from me, and I feel quite ashamed of myself now that I know what was going on behind the scenes.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry. Very sorry. And thank you SO much for explaining all of that.

[Broken_Hero]

437. I wanted to talk about it at the time the alerts, and pm's

came up, but it was deemed a "lose/lose" by most, and discussing Moderator action, or procedure in my mind, was frowned upon, as in I believed I'd get in trouble for talking about procedure. A lot of the pm's were shared/or cc'd to the Admin so I knew they were aware of the situation too, and at those times I believed the ball was in their court, not mine.

You don't have to be sorry, with the sheer volume of alerts, and names that come up, I'm very hard pressed to remember members names unless they are alerted on a TON. Some Mod's remember everything, I'm not one of those, the volume for me is too high to try and remember everything. I do accept your apology, I don't want to be rude, in not accepting it. I would argue that you don't need too....

[thanks_imjustlurking]

554. A belated thank-you for your posts.

It was interesting to peek "behind the curtain," and I think the curtain has been one of the problems. It looks like everyone else has said "it wasn't your fault" already, but I'd like to say :hug: as well.

[QC]

430. I want to apologize for what I did to make your life harder

during that difficult time.

I had no idea why bigoted posts took so long to be acted on, only that they sometimes did, and I know that I did not makes things easier for you.

For that, I am very sorry.

[Broken_Hero]

438. Again,

I accept your apology, albeit I don't think you owe it to me, but I'll take it. :D

[pecwae]

433. You did the best you could in the situation you were in.

I think I know you well enough to be able to ensure anybody anywhere that you always did your best in the Mod forum. You were one of the most fair minded, even handed Mods I've ever had the privilege to know and work with. I'm glad you came to this thread with your input. It's important.

I apologize to you as well if I ever sent snarky, smart ass alerts.:hug:

[Broken_Hero]

439. Hey pecwae! Long time no see

:hug: Thanks for the kinds words, it really means a lot to me. :hug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

435. just, ouch

I have thought that my experience as a moderator back in the 90s taught me some empathy about the sheer suckiness of it. But that was at a small fraction of your workload. Participating in online discussions can be pretty hard any way one slices it, but having to deal with all the conflicts -- and rarely being able to help resolve any of them -- is sort of like a video game from hell.

[Lyric]

440. I was a moderator too--a Beliefnet Community Host.

I was a Host for several years, and of the most contentious forum on the site--Christianity Challenge & Critique (comparable to a much-busier version of R/T here). Our system was a lot different than that, but I do know what it's like to be on the other side of that proverbial wall. In my own defense, I can only say that if and when I've ever sent a snarky Alert message, it was because I spent a long period of time truly believing that the mods and Admins were "against" my community, and THAT was why it took so long to respond. Yet more negative fallout of what happened, I guess. :(

But I *am* sorry. I feel like I helped hurt someone who didn't do anything to deserve it, and that's a miserable feeling. :(

[Broken_Hero]

442. A video game from hell,

I admit, that rings true with me. One of the issues I didn't bring up which, Skinner has stated, is that DU is growing. When I first came to the Topic Forums as a Mod, I'd be lucky to get 3 alerts a day(usually from a forum, you would never guess from), but over time, with DU growing the alerts would come more often, and in torrents of volume.

I use to kid, that if a Mod needed a break from LBN/GD/GDP sign up for the Topic Forum, its a lot slower...that rang true til about early 08 where the volume, and growth of DU in terms of new members, and the sheer volume of alerts in the smaller forums, became very overwhelming to me.

[Call Me Wesley]

436. Hey Friend.

Thanks for this post. I remember when we had to watch one hour videos posted in the Political forum just to see if the alert was reasonable and reach consensus. And that was because of one alert.

To the very few ones who blame the mods for everything here, read the post from Broken_Hero. It's not easy; it's mostly overwhelming and frustrating. You're either hands off, which I think is the best way to go, but then you get accused of being lazy, or it's to be a bad cop, which I despise, and then you'll get (rightfully) treated like one. DU doesn't like cops, I don't like cops, so I think these mods should re-think their actions.

I'm not protecting nor excusing the mods in what has happened here. And, burning bridges here, I wish at least one would regain consciousness and resign, as a small olive branch reaching out. There are hard working mods, and there are some who think it's just cool to have the little grey ghost next to their name and after that, you'll never see them again.

Perfection? If we only could have that in real life ...

[Broken_Hero]

444. Hey bud,

Long time no see, did you see that Hoff pic I threw at you in the Lounge? :D

Its a hard job, being a moderator for those that choose to participate in the actual motions, and procedures of the Moderator Forum. When I first arrived, I was under the impression that mods just roamed around deleted things that were bad/offensive(I was use to that in other forums), but I was very taken aback at how much effort goes into the process.

I'm don't want to appear to be excusing things, I know I made mistakes, I make a lot of them, but I'm pretty quick to own up to them. With Moderating you can't win, or lose it seems, but its part of the job, and I was willing to take the burden on. Like you, CMW, at first I was more hands on as a Moderator, but after my first term I thought it best to take a more "hands off" approach, and that hands off approach didn't change from time to time, because I am human, we do make mistakes, but for the most part I was a hands off type of moderator. Outside of my first term, I probably alert 5 times per term, and only for bad site links to bigoted websites.

[Call Me Wesley]

448. Yes, I saw it. It's awful! I wonder which sick mind did this! ;)

And I know what you're talking about. First term is almost always 'hands on,' and so was I. It's a learning curve.

And it's a no-win situation. We all made mistakes, and as weird as it sounds here, I'm glad for the mods and ex-mods to post in this thread and admit to it. My deepest respect.

Hope all is well with you and yours! :hi:

[Broken_Hero]

454. Do you still have that gif

of the Hoff where his head keeps coming out of his....Hoffness. I think the gif was hypnotic in nature, and it was black/red.

Thanks for the respect...I knew I was going to respond to this thread, eventually, unless it flamed hard, which I'm very surprised it really hasn't, except in spots. I figured the intent, and vibe I got from the thread was truly saturated with transparency, and the intent of real mending.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

522. I second everything you said.

Unfortunately, (you all too well know my pragmatic ways) I realize that your third paragraph will happen when pigs fly. :sigh:

Aside: I didn't use ONE SWEAR WORD. Aren't you proud of me? :rofl:

:hug:

[Broken_Hero]

524. ....

George: Get your damn hands off her. Do you really think I ought to swear?

Marty: Yes, definitely, God-dammit George, swear

[Heddi]

537. Hey babe! Miss you!

Your voice of reason in the mod forum is very missed....you should think about coming back.

[Vanje]

441. I sent some horrible alert messages

Yes, I did.

It was'nt helpful.
Not to excuse, myself, but I thought I was striking out against a "system".
I would never express myself that way to another person in real life.

I stoked the fire.

I'm sorry.

[Broken_Hero]

445. Its okay

apology accepting, and I hope you forgive me for my mistakes as well, I know I made them. :hug:

[yardwork]

443. I think it's important to note that all the moderators are unpaid volunteers.

It's up to the owners of this site to come up with a management approach that does not ask too much of volunteers to keep the site running. I see that Skinner has posted here that there are plans to completely revamp the way that DU is run. I hope that the new approach doesn't require so much of a handful of a volunteers. This is a labor issue, as has been pointed out before by TwoAmericas, another banned DUer who ought to be reinstated.

[Lex]

545. I completely agree with this, yardwork. nt

[Pab Sungenis]

447. Thanks for your explanation.

It helps to know some of the reasons why alerts had been so slow in the past. Since part of the problem was that we had moderators who were trolling or stalking GLBT posters, it became very easy to see the lack of moderation of anti-gay attacks as being part of their homophobia, not part of a broken system that has since been fixed.

[Broken_Hero]

455. No problem,

My explanation is probably way overdue, I can understand the frustration. When I was on, alerts, and things would be taken care of rather fast(probably no more than say ten minutes), but when I wasn't on to bring over alerts that occurred in GLBT, they posts, or rule violations would stay for long periods of time.

If I was an outsider, I would be very confused, and concerned as well, where some posts are gone in minutes, others stay up for hours on end.

[Meldread]

449. Thank you Broken Hero.

I'm very sorry that you feel the way that you do. I'm also intensely sorry for the insulting and hurtful messages you received from our community. I'm certain that you did the best that you could, and that is all that could really have been asked of you.

I think if there is one lesson that non-Moderator and Administrators can learn here; moving forward we need to put aside the notion that we're somehow on opposite sides of a conflict. We need a way to relay our concerns publicly to moderators and administrators, and discuss them - just as we're doing here now. I know that when emotions are high, and when we're all in battle mode... things and actions can be taken that cause us to hurt each other.

Your post has been intensely helpful to me Broken Hero. Thank you.

[Broken_Hero]

457. I'm glad that I could be

helpful, its my intention to be transparent and open in this discussion, its the only way mending can truly occur. The battle mode of which you speak of is a true phenomenon. In my case, when I'd get into battle mode, I would be very reclusive, and take everything internally. Its my way, I guess, when the accusations were flying, I blamed myself for failing.

[ThomCat]

462. My personal thoughts on this.

Of everyone who was involved, I think you should be apologizing Least of all.

I think think, if anything, you prevented things from being far worse than they could have or would have been otherwise.

I don't know if others agree with me. :shrug: But I think we knew the other moderators who we felt were really the problems. And you should never have had to deal with a shitty system that made one person responsible for a load of alerts without back-up like that. That's bad design and bad planning.

We shouldn't have had to deal with it either. But the overall point is that the apologies needed to come from other places. Skinner started this process, and that's good. Some of the other moderators have added to this discussion, and that's good too.

At some point, it would be nice if the rest of DU recognized there place in this mess. But it's doubtful that will ever happen. So perhaps there is no point ever expecting it.

I don't think you'll have much trouble mending fences that aren't really broken.

[TygrBright]

495. Dude. BIG hug. You and I spent a coupla loooong nights on those boards...

...and yeah, I remember that sinking feeling, coming back on the mod board to find that not one single other mod had checked in for hours, and things were escalating accordingly.

You did a helluva job under incredibly trying circumstances. I wish I'd been able to be there for you more than I was, too. And for this community, and the other communities who were hurting because we just couldn't keep up, and things fell apart.

I'm not blaming the Admins, or fellow-mods. But we were all suffering from a combination of overwhelming load and (in my case, anyway) proto-consciousness of how my actions and attitudes were affecting the member communities.

Thank you for parsing this out further, and giving more of the story. Regardless of viewpoint and validity, I think one of the best things about this thread is that it is bringing out the stories, and letting everyone have a chance to see ourselves through each others' eyes. Which is sometimes painful, but absolutely necessary if healing is going to happen.

And, FWIW, I remember more than once you stuck up in the mod forum for some of the LGBT posters who were getting the most flak from exasperated, hurt mods. I wish I'd done that more often.

affectionately,
Bright

[Broken_Hero]

496. ............

:hug:

Thank you so much for the kind words. Your post way up thread, and your OP in GLBT are phenomenal and many...MANY of the things you touched on I agreed with, and felt too.

We had some good times, that term you and I were working the TF was very emotional. Outside of the Warren/Prop 8 things, we also lost Longhorn(fellow moderator), my emotion from that term was up/down often.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

520. You didn't fail anybody.

If anything, we failed you in not covering for you when it was apparent that the other Topic Forum mods had disappeared.

And let's put where the real blame is; members who volunteer over & over, but don't actually show up in the mod forum to do anything. And the admins who keep taking them back.

[Broken_Hero]

521. ....

:hug:

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

523. Back atcha!

:hug:

[Heddi]

538. ...

:hug:
:thumbsup:

[JonLP24]

532. There you are!!

I always wondered where you went to (I only knew you by petersond. I remember you posting in college football threads in the Sports forum. I think you even replied to me under this new name in a thread but I couldn't put 2-2 together. I always enjoy what you have to say there. :hi:

[Broken_Hero]

534. Hey,

Yeah, don't get me started on College Football again...I think this past year was the first time in my life, that I didn't watch a single second of broadcast College Football(my SO was very happy about that aspect). I did watch highlights though, so I guess I still added that to the mix....

I usually only watch OU games in which I figure they have a good chance of losing, usually the Red River Shootout, or their bowl game(if they actually get a tough opponent, and not say, Ucon).

[Humansletstalkok]

456. As a lesbian woman of color ...

who left DU around the time of the purge, not because of the purge, but because of the other issues swirling around the purge, I would like to make a few comments. I'm sure they will be deleted, so you better read quickly.

This thread is about disgruntled GLBT people coming back to DU. As Skinner's OP points out, part of the conflict had to do with GLBT people having drama with African American DUers.

Stuck in the middle were AA GLBT folks who basically abandoned the site around that time.

Some of you are asking why there are so many deleted posts/threads. It's because us uppity GLBT people of color tried to add our comments.

Many GLBT DUers seem not to be disgruntled any more as a result of this thread. This thread requires that everyone become firmly "gruntled" now or take their Soma and fuggetaboutit.

So here's what was deleted. An AA DUer tried to correct the OP about AAs voting overwhelmingly for Prop 8. That DUer was accused of accusing certain people of racism and was asked for proof. As a former DUer and former member of the AA group, I wrote, Okey dokey, you want proof, and provided this list of links. Within seconds the entire thread was deleted.

None of you will see this, but what the heck, you can delete this post, but you can't delete my harddrive (although I'm worried that the linked to posts are likely to be deleted and sent down the memory hole):

forum members start using the word, “nigger” – not “the N word” – but NIGGER
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=102930

Black ministers should willingly go back into slavery. Mods call it blatantly racist, but it gets lots of recs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4429202

No peace with blacks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x87931#88034

blacks and Latinos are now the enemy and “they” control the party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x87611#87819

Blacks voted for Prop 8 because they are “Mandigo” sexual predators – cites “Birth of a Nation” for proof and posts glorious Klan knight picture to illustrate "black men are sexual beasts" –all the while saying this is just for discussion of stereotypes. Forum applauds and defends despite larger DU audience saying WTF?????
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=87922

Let’s have the Ku Klux Klan give the inaugural invocation. On being told by DU public, “you don’t want to go there,” forum members chime in, “YES WE DO”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7993507&mesg_id=7993507

minorities who voted for prop 8 are disgusting bigots, but not white people who voted for it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4413863#4419333

“Homophobic blacks” are a bigger problem than white racism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=89566#89604

[yardwork]

463. Most if not all of these posts are arguing the OPPOSITE of what you are claiming.

I just clicked on all the posts, and most of them are arguing AGAINST the racist statements that you are portraying.

[Humansletstalkok]

467. What a load of dog whistle crap!

Let's take the "Mandingo" thread with the picture of the valiant knight of the Ku Klux Klan as an example.

Yes, the poster said, oh jeez, this is just so interesting, and of course I'm not a racist, but let's examine the image of blacks as sex crazed Mandingos and the awful image of the valiant Klansman on horseback ...

Everyone saw through the bullshit. Everyone.

That was just trying to be evil and coat it with a veneer of oh isn't this interesting...

Bullshit, and everyone who wasn't invested in the ongoing conflict saw it as bullshit.

Even if you can't grasp it, so much of this thread is about how maybe people outside the oppressed group can't understand what's offensive to the oppressed group so they should take their cues from the oppressed group.

But when it comes to posting pictures of valiant knights of the Ku Klux Klan just because it's so intellectually stimulating and GLBT people of color leave in droves, we're supposed to shut the fuck up and pretend no dog whistle was intended. Right. That's why THERE IS NOT A SINGLE GLBT AA PERSON LEFT ON DU mkay???

[yardwork]

469. Why are you shouting at me? I'm one of three people engaged in conversation with you about this.

Everybody else seems to have gone to dinner.

I get that you were offended by those OPs. However, I didn't post them. They don't represent any kind of "official" statement of the GLBTQ forum. Take up your concerns with the individuals who posted them.

Personally, I think that you may be seeing offense where none is intended but what do I know.

[Lyric]

476. I fail to understand why you think that the entire GLBT community at DU

is collectively responsible for the posts you linked to.

I take it that you WOULDN'T agree that the entire AA community is responsible for the words of homophobes like Donnie McClurkin, right?

So why the double-standard?

[Humansletstalkok]

488. Where did I say that???

I never said the entire GLBT community was responsible FOR ANYTHING. I would like the OP and the resulting responses to be honest about what happened.

I provided links. Those of you who wrote shit and are still members, you know who you are.

Number 23's thread was deleted just for saying, hold on a second, that's not what happened......

That's all I'm trying to do, but this thread will be deleted in about 30 seconds.

Know why? Because the admins need members and there ARE NO AFRICAN AMERICAN MEMBERS ANY MORE AND CERTAINLY NO GLBT AA MEMBERS. OK there are like 4 AA members left out of 60,000 members, but NOT LESBIANS OF COLOR and ZERo Gay BLAcK MEN!!!

uh, hint???

[yardwork]

490. Ok, so it sounds like the person that you want to talk with is Skinner.

It sounds like you have something in common with almost everybody else who has posted on this thread - you have been very, very angry with Skinner.

Please don't shout at us. We're not Skinner. In fact, we have serious grievances too. That doesn't make us your enemy.

[Lyric]

492. Here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=173419&mesg_id=174144

I mean yeah, you didn't use those EXACT words, but the basic gist of what you're saying here is that you think the GLBT forum is overwhelmingly (i.e., FAR more than the "real world") full of gay racists, and that's the reason (you claim) that there aren't any black gay people left here.

By pointing out what you see as the Super Duper Uber Racism of the DU GLBT forum, a reasonable person would assume that you hold all of us responsible for the posts you linked to. Otherwise, what was the point of linking to the posts in the first place? If your problem is solely with the individuals in those posts, and you DON'T blame the entire community, then why are you bringing it HERE?

This is a thread about healing the rift between the mods and the GLBT DU'ers. Don't act shocked if people assume that, because you're posting it HERE, you think this is somehow ALL of our collective faults. We're certainly the ones you're yelling at, at any rate.

:shrug:

[ThomCat]

470. "The Blacks have made us their enemy as have the latinos."

You can't get much more obviously racist than that statement, and it wasn't deleted. Claiming that huge groups of people act as homogeneous groups based solely on racial classifications, and claiming that they deliberately made all LGBTQI people their enemies for some reason? clearly, there really is a point to be made in claiming that something like this is couldn't get deleted.

:(

[Humansletstalkok]

473. And yet, you didn't object, did you???

I remember asking you -- do you object to this crap?

SILENCE

This is why I'm not a DUer anymore.

[yardwork]

475. That is a lie. I absolutely objected. I can link to OPs I made in which I objected.

How dare you accuse me of not objecting to racism! Who are you?

[Lyric]

477. I'm wondering that as well.

This person has already owned-up to being a zombie. Why not just tell us who they are?

Something's weird here.

[yardwork]

479. I think it must be the DUer formerly known as Noire.

[Humansletstalkok]

484. I'm not Noire nt

[yardwork]

487. She'll probably be along to bite my head off in a few minutes, too.

Look. It sounds like you are very upset. I appreciate that you have stopped posting in all caps. I am listening. I am genuinely, sincerely listening. Please talk.

[yardwork]

493. Are you Silverojo?

[Humansletstalkok]

483. Not you -- I was asking Thomcat nt

[yardwork]

485. Sorry. However, I did object - strongly - at the time to broad-brush attacks on any group.

Being consistent, I'm objecting now to your broad-brush attack on the GLBTQ forum as somehow being collectively responsible - or even agreeing with - posts made by individuals, many of whom did not even identify as GLBTQ.

I wore my fingers out alerting on racist posts at DU. You will never hear me say that there isn't pervasive racism on this forum. But to blame this specifically on GLBTQ people? That is wrong. That is a wrong that has been perpetrated on the gay community here that heaped insult on injury.

[ThomCat]

491. That particular thread was 11/6/08

I went back into my PMs to see who contacted me to ask me to to check out any threads or comment on anything on that date. I don't have any PMs from anyone that entire week. None. So I have no idea who you are, or what you claim you asked of me, or when, or about what.

But you posted a link today to that thread, I saw it and commented on it. Now you are all upset because you insist that I failed to comment on it before? Sorry, I don't know anything about that.

:shrug:

[ThomCat]

489. You asked me and I was silent?

I wasn't even on that thread. If you asked me to come into that thread and look at that post, and for some reason I didn't, then chances are I wasn't even online in a timely manner to do it.

I don't know who you were at the time, so I don't know what YOUR comments were. I hope you were making good points and rallying opinions against that shit.

But to claim that you're not a DUer anymore because specific others aren't online at the right times to response to every example you can find of racism? That's not having a discussion. That's just looking to yell at people.

[yardwork]

474. Like you, I'm surprised that that post wasn't deleted.

Check the date on that post. It was posted in the hours after Prop 8 passed while the media was telling us that 70% of African Americans and a majority of Latinos had supported taking away the right of gay people to get married. There were a lot of very strong posts made in those days. Later, many people apologized.

However, I am in no way excusing anything anybody said.

Personally, I think that it would have been a good idea if DU had stopped right there and had a conversation about Prop 8, racism, homophobia, and the extremely bad feelings that were flying around the forum that week.

[Lyric]

472. I had a long post in response that I deleted.

Mostly because this whole subthread will probably be deleted anyway, but also because I realized that it was pointless. This is obviously not somebody who's ever going to believe anything but what they WANT to believe, and no amount of argument is going to change that. They've already decided what their "verdict" is. Now they're just trying to scrape up evidence to prove it. That's not the thing that an open, fair-minded person does.

:shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

464. as a queer of color, there are plenty of racist statements made by white lgbt people

however most of the ones you tried to point out are not in the least bit racist.

the nigger post for instance, is pointing out that lgbt people are facing a similar form of bigotry that african americans faced when whites used to refer to them as niggers. its hardly like the post is calling african american niggers. could the post have been better written, sure. however its not the racist statement you are making it out to be

the post that called minorities who voted for prop8 bigots, is a minority themselves.


the kkk comment is also an analogy. it might sound far fetched but consider what rick warrens influence uganda has been.

[yardwork]

466. Yeah, I agree with both your points. One - there's racism in the GLBTQ community, hell yes there is.

(There is also sexism, ageism, classism, etc. See a couple of my posts upthread).

And I agree with you that a number of these OPs could have been phrased more sensitively or were perhaps even ill-advised in the first place. But I don't think that a single one of them was intended to be racist. In fact, I think that most of them were intended to be anti-racist. But I can't say for sure because I didn't post any of them. And that's the larger point - the people who posted those threads may or may not be GLBTQ but either way they don't speak for ALL GLBTQ people, any more than any one black person speaks for all black people. So if this is the Big Evidence for GLBTQ DUers being a "den of vipers" and "vile racists," it's pretty damn weak.

And none of them seem to have anything whatsoever to do with the poster who was specifically accused of racism in the referenced subthread.

I don't what the purpose of this is except to cause trouble.

[Humansletstalkok]

468. NO

How can I say this politely: THERE IS VERY LITTLE RACISM IN THE GLBT COMMUNITY in the real world, mkay??

As a lesbian woman of color activist, I deal with gay white men, gay white women, lesbians of color, trans folk, whatever...

There are a few "bad apples" of course. But NOTHING LIKE WHAT HAPPENED HERE mkay???

This is NOT the REAL WORLD. That's why THERE'S NOT A SINGLE AA GLBT person left on DU.

[yardwork]

471. I'm not going to talk with you if continue to shout at me.

[Humansletstalkok]

478. You were one of the few who tried

I disagree with what you're saying here, but I remember you.... you tried to say like rodney king hey can't we all just get along...

And the answer was fuck no!!!

As for the N word, it is NEVER OK to use, mkay???

Read this fast because this entire thread is going to be deleted in about 30 seconds/.

[yardwork]

481. .

delete.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

497. actually i disagree. when people make a point they use words

so long as the word is not used specifically denigrate, its a usable word. usually i dont say faggot nor do i approve of its use, but if you were to use it specifically to make a valid point, you are entitled

[ThomCat]

465. All very valid points, and all posts still standing, not deleted.

:(

One of the huge issues we have always had is that so few people are willing to cross boundaries and really try to understand the issues of people who are different from themselves.

That goes even more for the general majority that doesn't even make the most basic effort to understand Any minority issue or perspective. If you can't understand any one minority issue, how are you going to ever understand how any issues effect people who live in several communities, and simultaneously in the crossroads between them.

I get some of that when I try to get other people with disabilities to understand LGBT issues. I mistakenly think that other people with disabilities would have some empathy, or the ability to develop it, so that while we are all advocating for ourselves despite our disabilities or because of them, we can also join ranks with this other movement. It doesn't happen.

I also try to work it in the other direction, and that doesn't work either.

And trying to get people in the LGBTQI community to understand the feminist movement? You would think it would be a natural fit. No, not really.

So you bring up a real problem, while we are addressing one form of prejudice common to all of us that does not mean that others are going to be addressed too. It doesn't mean that all members of our own community are going to be treated with respect if they happen to be part of a minority group within our community. And that lack of respect could come from us as a group, or from the powers that be, and yet not be commented upon by the rest of us. :(

There is a lot to be addressed here, by all of us.

[yardwork]

494. You know, I hope that this subthread isn't deleted, and I hope you stick around to continue talking.

I will take your word for it that DU is not a friendly place for African Americans.

There was a lot of racism on DU, and maybe I didn't do enough to combat it because I was busy with my own grievances. I don't want to fight with people of color. I don't want to fight with other women. I don't want to go along with the Establishment's idea that all of us "different" people can't get along and somehow need to be supervised.

[Lyric]

499. I definitely agree with that.

When minorities fight each other, the only winner is the majority.

[yardwork]

500. You've made excellent points in this subthread, Lyric. I hope that people get to read them.

You really explained it very well.

[ruggerson]

502. as have you yardwork - my hat's off to the both of you n/t

[yardwork]

504. Thanks, but you and Lyric and Lioness did all the heavy lifting in this subthread.

That thread you posted is extremely important.

Looks like the author of this subthread too off.

[ruggerson]

498. You VERY conveniently left out a number of threads

like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=125849

Did you participate in this thread?

If not, why not?

And what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

The poster who you reference as being silenced won't apologize for a slur against gays and is generally regarded around these parts as being one of the main impediments to reconciliation between DU's AA and LGBT communities.

So, I repeat, what are you trying to accomplish? Because whatever it is, it is not in the spirit of tryiing to mend and/or heal fractured communities.

[yardwork]

501. That thread has the epic post by Chovexani!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=125849&mesg_id=126404

[MuseRider]

506. Well now!

I miss her, that was some reply!

Also a very interesting thread. I learned a lot reading that.

[Lyric]

507. I miss Chovexani.

I miss her very much. :(

[Iggo]

510. I miss them all.

Strong DU voices were shown the door over a massive pissing contest and a battle of egos that only one person could win.

Things may be changing, but DU will always be weaker without those people.

And that can't be fixed.

[Iggo]

515. Oops.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=173419&mesg_id=173487

I think I'll read som more before I comment further.

[yardwork]

503. That thread occurred less than a month before the Gay Purge. Yet it ended very positively.

By the end of that thread a whole bunch of GLBTQ people of all colors had rousted a white straight trouble-maker and had agreed on a way forward. Three weeks later many of us were banned. Now hardly any of those people post on DU anymore.

What a lost opportunity. I hope that everybody in this entire thread reads that link all the way through - all the way to the bottom - and reflects on what has been lost.

[meegbear]

511. The first thread you refereneced was mine ...

the context of the word was meaning a lesser status person, like the John Lennon song "Woman is the nigger of the world". I guess Lennon was a racist too.

[Iggo]

508. I stand humbly corrected.

I said this day would never come, yet here it is.

Good on ya, Skinner.

[closeupready]

513. Part of the problem here is that gay people have to choose between self-respect and party loyalty.

And this has probably been said much better by smarter people elsewhere, ad nauseum, but I'm going to take a stab at it, while it's fresh in my mind.

I think it's indisputable that Obama and Biden are both technically homophobic, as well as most members of the Democratic Party. Mountains of things provide evidence of that.

At the same time, like many other gay people with an ounce of self-respect, I am 100%, 24/7 gay. I enjoy being gay, it's an essential part of who I am, I am fully open about it and I can NEVER accept anything less than full equality with heterosexuals.

Yet, we see time after time that many in the Democratic Party demand that we sit in the back of the bus, wait our turn ('this is not the right time') or else. No wonder we get angry and say "fuck you." We see that condescension in Democratic leaders and right here on DU. You know, the pony and chess bullshit. 'You're either with Obama or you're Republican.'

I'm older than most here and I guess seasoned in how to dance with homophobes, so I don't really lose it very often; I just either make them embarrass themselves or put them on ignore. When I do talk back, I hold nothing back and I guarantee you it's almost always for a valid reason. But others are young and inexperienced, and may live in scary places like rural Florida or Wyoming, where they live in the closet, in a manner that may be unhealthy psychologically, as a means of survival. I know, because that's what I had to do before setting out to support myself as an adult.

That's all for now, I may add stuff later.

[SacredCow]

518. This is the first time I've logged in here in quite some time....

I have intentionally stayed away from here- yes, mostly due to what I felt to be an unnecessarily hostile environment to GLBT folk. It was absolutely reprehensible that a GLBT person could not call out the Obama administration on certain issues without being attacked en-masse by people who made it very clear that they felt GLBT DUers should just vote Democratic and then shut the hell up. I watched as others were banned- in essence, for simply defending themselves. And as many of these people were gone, I found very little camaraderie remained so why would I stay?

Do I blame Skinner and/or the Mods and/or anybody else? Partially. I won't pretend that managing and policing a website such as this is an easy task. People are always going to bicker, and (on the internet, particularly) it can get personal and ugly in a big damn hurry. But I also believe that precious little effort was made to walk the proverbial mile in the shoes of GLBT folk.

But mistakes are made all the time- the question is whether anything is learned from them. From this post and the responses, it looks as if there may be an honest-to-goodness olive branch.


I wish you all the very best.

[yardwork]

530. Hi SacredCow! Long time no see. Please stick around!

[stevenleser]

535. Glad this is being worked out, but I cannot help but noticing...

that in a thread about improving tolerance and understanding, some folks couldn't help but refer to Obama's supporters as "The Rah Rah crowd". I guess that just underscores the challenge that Skinner and EarlG face here. They're doing the right thing to address this issue with the LGBT community, but the issue of how to stop the generalizations, nastiness and general assholery from folks on the opposite sides of the main divide here remains and I include myself in that.

Fixing that? Well... let's just say I don't envy Skinner and the rest of the admin's and mod's jobs at all.

[mtnester]

539. There should not be any divide when it comes to the rights and suppport

of GLBT. THAT is the problem, and anyone who admits beloning to another side of any "divide" over said rights needs to be shown the door promptly. DU does not NEED to address that opposition or mend any fence with it whatsoever. The "Rah Rah" group that is specifically being referred to here ARE the people that come out to state every objection to complete and equal gay rights over maintaining the popularity of a standing President. If you fall in that group, there are other places for you besides DU, and partuclarly this discussion.

You know, you CAN support full and equal rights for the GLBT family here and worldwide, and be able to disagree with hurtful, stumbling, stupid policies the administration steps itself into due to ignorance or stupid dumb idiotic political maneuvering without bursting onto flames. Calling the administration on it is a MUST if you put the circle D next to your party affiliation.


edit - punctuation or spellinng errors only.

[stevenleser]

542. I have no problem with TS'ing anyone who comes out against gay rights. I will agree with that.

That to me is a core Democratic issue. If you are not for that, you should not be here. Same goes for women's rights, 1st amendment rights, the right to collective bargaining and such.

But something tells me that is NOT to what was being referred when someone mentioned "The Rah Rah crowd".

[BlueRidgeProgressive]

543. So, what are you hoping to accomplish in this thread?

What would you like to have happen?

[stevenleser]

544. With what? There is no hidden agenda in my post

#1 - I am extremely happy that this issue between Skinner/Admins/Mods and the GLBT community in DU is being worked out. The tension was obvious and agonizing.

#2 - I am hoping that the broader issues in DU can somehow be resolved or mitigated.

[William769]

546. Oy vey.

:eyes:

[stevenleser]

547. Oy vey back at you. Which one of the things I talk about upset you?

Are you upset that issues between the admins and GLBT community are being worked out or are you upset that I hope that the broader issues at DU can be worked out?

Talk about doing your best to spin nothing into something to be outraged about.

[William769]

548. What did post #542 bring to this discussion?

So yes I see a hidden agenda here.

So yea, Oy vey!

[stevenleser]

549. I was responding to someone else's direct comments and agreeing with them. Are you going to oy vey

them now?

[Marrah_G]

558. I am glad you are here with your unconditional support for the GBLT community

Some folks might use a thread like this to try and push their own agendas as being more important or to scold the GBLT community for not behaving as they would want them to.

I'm glad you are not that sort and came here to support your fellow GBLT democrats and activists unconditionally while they fight the difficult fight for equality.

:hug:

[stevenleser]

564. You all have that and more from me at any time.

I have had disagreements with LGBT folks on DU regarding certain issues but the rightness of full equality on all fronts for the LGBT community is not one of them.

[boston bean]

550. I always wondered why posts like: you and your pet issue, there are more important things

than you and your issues you know?

Why weren't those deleted right off the bat.

Those type of replies and posts are condescending, hurtful and bigoted.

I can't understand how the admins or mods here could not understand how toxic that one little sentence made DU for the LGBT community and DU as a whole.

Still can't understand how someone couldn't see that.

[truedelphi]

551. I have never understood that the

Word: Seven would get someone blasted out of here on a tombstone.

Not derogatory, not insulting. Rather commemorative.

Not much different than when Seems like A Dream got banned, and someone said in their header "Seems Like a Dream, Seems Like A Dream..."

And though that was archived and locked immediately, IIRC, the poster wasn't banned.

Why the difference?

[stevenleser]

553. I think Skinner and the rest of the admins and mods have acknowledged the mistakes in that and

brought the people back from the tombstone.

[yardwork]

557. Four people have been reinstated, as far as I know.

[truedelphi]

559. Are the Admin folks seeking people out?

Some people had tried to be let back on, and maybe they were too surly in their request, or whatever, so they were not answered in their pleas.

It would be nice if the amnesty included efforts by the Admins to get them back on. (Admins should have their latest emails, especially when so often TS'ed people had recently donated.)

The public humiliation of TS-ing is for some people very painful.

[stevenleser]

552. They are condescending and hurtful and I apologize if I have ever said anything close to that.

I hope I didn't. But I do not agree that saying that is bigoted. It's actually pretty normal politics to argue which issues should be dealt with first even by people who agree on what should happen, and it is pretty normal for that argument to get heated. The unfortunate thing is to where that escalated on both sides.

I will say that complete equalization of rights for the LGBT community should be a top 3 issue for anyone who is a Democrat and anyone who is here. There should be a way for people to argue which should come first, HCR or LGBT equalization without using terms like "pet issue" and "pony" and without calling people bigots.

[boston bean]

556. calling LGBT rights "your pet issue" is bigoted.

[DURHAM D]

560. Some folks just don't get it.

They still seem to think they can inform "us" as to what is bigoted and what is not.

I usually just invite them to move into the 21st century or get left behind.

[stevenleser]

561. OK, so explain it to me. I can explain pretty well why everything that I think is bigoted deserves

that label. I can tell you why the "N" word is bigoted. I can tell you why calling Jews "misers" is bigoted. I can tell you being against granting equal rights to marriage for the LGBT community is bigoted. I can go on but you get the point. Why is "pet project" bigoted?

Part of the normal political process is jockeying for position to get the issues one feels is most important to the top of the priority list when your folks are in power. That process can get heated and ugly. When Obama was elected, some folks thought HealthCare Reform should be the top priority, some folks thought ending the wars should be the top priority. Some thought the economy should be the top priority. Some folks thought statehood for the Palestinians should be the top priority. Some folks thought progress on rights for the LGBT community should be the top priority. I can see all of the above saying to any of the others nasty things like "Your pet project". Is it bigoted in every situation?

[The Philosopher]

562. Our "pet" issues are civil rights

And referring to it as "pet issues" delegitimizes and dehumanizes the LGBT community. It's as if you're a voter in the mid-19th century talking about slavery with your friend, who keeps telling you that the institution of slavery needs to be abolished and every right a white man has needs to be given to the black man; and you retort, "But we have a union to keep together! Think of the country, it will rip us apart!"

Calling them "pet" issues is dismissive of their claims of importance. I find it abhorrent you're arguing for the term.

[stevenleser]

563. I'm not arguing "for" the term anymore than I would argue "for" calling people assholes.

The question is whether the term is bigoted, because something that is bigoted is cast in an entirely different light here on DU. I've argued that people that spout bigoted positions and terms should be thrown out of here as have others and I think that opinion is gaining traction.

Calling a position a "Pet project" or "Pet issue" is certainly a put down and it is certainly nasty, but it is not unusual in politics in terms of how people jockey for position to get the issue of most importance to them handled first and minimizing the importance of other issues so they get handled later.

It also does not dehumanize anyone, although it certainly minimizes the importance of an issue with respect to for whatever else the utterer is advocating. Is that bigotry?

I also agree with your example and I think it reinforces my point, "It's as if you're a voter in the mid-19th century talking about slavery with your friend, who keeps telling you that the institution of slavery needs to be abolished and every right a white man has needs to be given to the black man; and you retort, "But we have a union to keep together! Think of the country, it will rip us apart!"

That position is not a bigoted one. I can certainly understand it angering people. If you look at the relationship between Fredrick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, among many other similar ones, you see a lot of this at play. But saying that the importance of one issue is more important than another doesnt imply bigotry.

[The Philosopher]

565. That's hilarious

You're decontextualizing the term and then saying, "See? It's not bigoted!" You entirely miss the point of my point. No one argues for the slavery of another person in a purely sterile way. There's no way to acknowledge a person as a human being--of the same and equal as the arguer of slavery--and then make them a slave. To argue for a lesser place for another human being ALWAYS strips them of their humanity and makes them DIFFERENT, something a human being can handle without losing any sleep at night. During the 1860's slaves were inhuman, they were cattle. Just like today we're supposed to be pedophiles and degenerates, simply because we don't love someone of the opposite gender. It is inexcusable back then to argue for the cattlefication of a human being; it's inexcusable to support the idea--in any way--that the LGBT community is nothing but pedophiles, sick, degenerate and disgusting people. "Pet issues" regulates our identity, our safety, our souls to that of tax rates, funding the arts, or what flag gets flown or if it's able to be burned or not.

[stevenleser]

566. It's hilarious to you because you are not addressing my points. You are addressing something else.

I'm not countering at all that the treatment of slaves then or the LGBT community now is deplorable. It was/is. That does not equate to someone saying "Let's address that after... X issue" or "if we do that now, a catastrophe will occur" or a nasty version of either of those arguments, means that they are a bigot. Let's compare the above to statements I think we both agree are bigoted, OK?

"X group is subhuman." - I hope we agree on that, right? Replace X with African Americans, or Jews, or Gays, etc. is bigoted.

"Y group does not deserve the same rights as everyone else." - Again, no question, right?

Any of the slurs we agree on, right? N word for African Americans, K word for Jews, F word for Gay men, etc.

THOSE statements are bigoted.

To your point about slaves, Lincoln treated the issue EXACTLY in the manner we are discussing which created a complicated relationship with Fredrick Douglas and other abolitionists http://www.rense.com/general63/friend.htm http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=69&subjectID=4. EXACTLY. He did NOT abolish slavery immediately upon coming to power even though it was something he DEEPLY believed in doing because of his fears that the issue would destroy the country. He even gave an inaugural speech that really infuriated fellow abolitionists by placating those who were pro-slavery. I encourage you to reread it now because the context of our discussion so closely relates to it http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Does that make Lincoln a bigot? Certainly, Fredrick Douglas was pretty angry at him at times, but no, it doesnt make him a bigot. He still managed to get slavery killed during his Presidency. He just handled it like everything else he did, very carefully and with planning.

Are some of the people who say "Pet Project" bigots? Probably. Just like some of those who talk about "Zionists" all the time, and those who are "anti-welfare" and "Anti-immigrant". But it does not necessarily follow.

From the above mrlincolnandfreedom.org link:

Douglass was not a proponent of any compromise where slavery was concerned, but his interaction with Mr. Lincoln convinced him over time of the wisdom of the President's deliberate movements toward emancipation.
"In a speech delivered in Philadelphia only two weeks after Lincoln had dedicated the cemetery at Gettysburg, Douglass made an aggressive appeal for what he repeatedly called an 'Abolition War,'" wrote historian David W. Blight in Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. "Douglass felt confident that history itself had taken a mighty turn. He took the pressure off Lincoln. 'We are not to be saved by the captain,' he declared, 'but by the crew. We are not to be saved by Abraham Lincoln, but by the power behind the throne, greater than the throne itself.' The supreme 'testing' of that 'government of the people' about which Lincoln had spoken so carefully at Gettysburg was precisely Douglass's subject as well. In language far more direct than Lincoln's, Douglass announced that the 'abolition war' and 'peace' he envisioned would never be 'completed until the black me of the South, and the black men of the North, shall have been admitted, fully and completely, into the body politic of America. Here, in late 1863, he demanded immediate suffrage for blacks. In such expressions of equality, Douglass, too, looked beyond Appomattox to the long struggle to preserve in reality and memory what the war could create."2

[mondo joe]

567. Glad I Saw This

Having been gone from DU since early 2009, many here will not recognize or remember my name, though I was a member from 2001 on.

I was one of the bunch who chose to leave DU, and spent some time in an alternative forum called The Silo, set up by disenchanted LGBT DUers in 2008.

I wasn't part of an identified "gay purge", but in retrospect there was a simmering passive gay purge. There was a positive glee on the part of some DUers who harassed many LGBT members out the door in those days, and a blind eye on the part of many mods. As others in this thread have noted, even mentions of sorrow about what was happening were deleted, and we were made invisible. **That was the worst of it, for me.**

For whatever reason I looked into DU tonight and read this thread. I could take issue with some of Skinner's points, but I see Sapphocrat has done that already, and more ably than I could.

Still, I'm glad to see some acknowledgment from Skinner, however late. But I'm wistful at seeing so much still unchanged.

To those of you who have stuck it out or who have come along since, I wish you well.

[JackBeck]

570. Thank you for the transparency, more posters should follow your lead.

I have to admit, though, I used to enjoy your posts and our interactions when you used to post on DU. I felt like we shared a common cause and solidarity.

But now I have to unfortunately question your intent any time you respond to me knowing that you are a member of that forum.

[xchrom]

574. i remember you well

:hi:

[Pab Sungenis]

568. Well, that was all short lived.

The "gay caveman" thread and its fallout prove once again that homophobes are allowed to do whatever they want, but abusive homophobic moderators will descend like locusts on GLBT posters.

If you want to "mend fences" this has to stop.

[closeupready]

569. +1.

nt

[stevenleser]

576. I created an OP in General Discussion to discuss Gay Caveman and other diversity/bigotry issues at

DU. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x923214

I hope everyone here will weigh in.

[Maven]

577. Yeah, so, this happened.

Is pretty much where we're left now.

I agree with you, it needs to stop, but it probably won't.

[akbacchus_BC]

578. Skinner, this is a great thread to mend fences. I really do hope that

the members of the LGBT community will be able to come back and make it a more vibrant community, like it was before.

If the responses on here do not make one cry, then I don't know what else could! I did ask in the ATA Forum if they will be allowed back! I hope they do come back as we need their voices and dammit, I miss my LGBT community!

It does not matter whether we are brown, purple, black or white, gay or lesbian, we need our people now to address our problems and get DU to where it once was -- a wonderful place to come to and even if we do not post as much, at least we get to see the issues our members face and sympathize silently as some of us are not as vocal as others!

[foreigncorrespondent]

579. Personally...

...I think you have offered one olive branch too many, for many LGBTer's that used to roam the DU halls, myself included.

The way I see it, 2008 was just the straw that broke the camels back. Homophobia has been ripe here on DU since day one. I remember a lot of us LGBTer's requesting rule changes for more protection against the homophobic onslaught we were facing.

I also remember being told more times than I can count that LGBT needs were not so important, that we just needed to get a Democrat in the big chair first. Yeah? Well that time came and what happened? More homophobic shit, and once again we were being asked to take a step back, that now was not the time.

As far as I am concerned, the homophobic shit was allowed to go on for far too long, and the wedge that came between the LGBT community and others is just far too wide to ever be repaired.

As much as you want to try, Skinner, I don't think there will ever be room for an LGBT community here on DU that doesn't have to face direct or stealth homophobia.

Do I miss DU? Every day, but not enough to put myself through the crap that I know goes on here. Sorry Skinner!

[QC]

580. KICK!

[MNBrewer]

582. This is lovely preview of what we have to look forward to from here to Nov. 6, 2012.

Anti-gay BS from some people accusing us of being insufficiently enthused about the President's reelection, while he and his administration drag their feet and dither.

I suppose the Anti-Marriage amendment in Minnesota will be our fault too, asking for too much, too soon. Putting the party's chances at risk.

[QC]

583. The people responsible for this morning's bash thread are still members.

That says everything that needs to be said.

[MNBrewer]

584. Of course they are

[QC]

585. Oh well, I got a snazzy new sigline out of the deal, anyway.

It will be help me to remember what a silly, childish little person I am.

[QC]

587. Oops, can't use that sigline anymore because posting a bigot's own ugly words

is a call out of said bigot.

[Pab Sungenis]

589. You're a silly childish little person, too?

So am I. Maybe we need a pride week.

[QC]

590. I am not only unreasonable but also childishly impatient.

That is why I am postponing the feeding of hungry children the world over by expecting equal rights.

[QC]

591. Would anyone care to guess who is at it again?

The ungrateful queers are not only all racists, but their hatred of the president has driven them insane.

Interesting thing to find on a purportedly progressive site, isn't it?

[mitchtv]

592. that would get me deleted

A SIMPLE "PEOPLE LIKE YOU" GOT ME DELETED YSTDY

[QC]

593. Well, the rules do not apply to certain people. Everyone knows it,

and dealing with that fact is a prerequisite to any real fence-mending here.

[closeupready]

581. Lionness Priyanka, part. in post #10 of 'Mending Fences' my ass thread, stated it perfectly.

If you consider mending fences with the GLBT community of any big importance, you simply MUST have openly GLBT mods on the board, in SIGNIFICANT numbers/percentages.

With all due respect, Skinner, anything less than that indicates to me that you really do not care - talking the talk but not walking the walk, as people said in the 60's. And to be honest, you don't HAVE to care (frankly, many in the Democratic Party itself don't care about the GLBT community, who's to say you are one of them or you aren't? I would never be so arrogant to make assumptions, been burned once too often), I just personally would like to see you actually do something for once, rather than give yet another song-and-dance about how it pains you that GLBT members here are hurt, and this and that, and I really do love you all, yadda yadda. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, PLEASE.

And if you are being fair, you know I have been supportive of you and your self-assessments all through these years, even when valuable members were being TS'ed and when bullshit was hitting the fan - I was always loyal to you and the board. Either I've been stupid or else perhaps too willing to assume the best of everyone.

Posted in complete sincerity and in good faith.

[FreeState]

588. +1

[Mimosa]

600. ^ TRUE! ^

I would forward that LGBT members can be more sensitive to all groups. I also believe we have nuances perspectives and can get along with all types of people.

[QC]

594. Oh well, it looks like this was just bullshit after all.

I'm really embarrassed that I was taken in by this.

As Lily Tomlin says, no matter how cynical we get, it's never enough.

[Pab Sungenis]

595. Whitewash, anyone?

[closeupready]

597. I am, too, but I guess we shouldn't be faulted for having given the benefit of the doubt

to those who are ostensibly on our side. Now that we know we are on our own, we can laugh and mock at the next time an attempt is made to paper over the clear and entrenched homophobia here.

:hug:

[MNBrewer]

601. We gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed sincerity

because we have been TOLD to do so, by Skinner himself. Or Else.

[yardwork]

599. Yes. This isn't working out well.

I wanted to believe Skinner and sincere-sounding mods who said that things would change around here, but in the past week....

1. There have been numerous OPs and individual posts mocking, taunting, and ridiculing gay people. When some DUers get bored, their favorite game is to pick on gay people, and they usually get away with it. This is bullying, pure and simple.

2. Gay voters are accused of being ungrateful and unsupportive of Democrats and President Obama, even though 70-80% of gay voters regularly vote Democratic. This is much higher than the percentage of straight voters who vote Democratic, but my thread pointing that out was locked as hate speech. WTF?

3. Individual posts have said that gay voters are being "kowtowed" to by the Democratic Party. The progress toward fuller equality is kowtowing? How is that not a violation of DU rules? Despite numerous alerts, that post is still up.

4. Numerous posts stating that any criticism of Tracy Morgan for his long homophobic rant, which included the statement that he would kill his son with a knife for being effeminate, is unfair and probably racist. Tracy Morgan himself has apologized profusely - twice - for his comments and acknowledged that they were unacceptable, but apparently any criticism of Tracy Morgan by gay people is hate speech.

I've been a Democrat all my life, but if this is the face of the new Democratic Party I don't think I can support it. Voting Socialist Party starts to seem like a real alternative. I have to vote my conscience and I can't support this level of hatred aimed by gay people. I think about the young people reading these posts and just cry.

[Pab Sungenis]

596. This thread is now nearly as long as the Kudzu one

and has had about as much lasting effect.

The homophobes still post with impunity, homophobic moderators still feel free to go nuclear with little justification, and any discussion on the matter is shut down.

[closeupready]

598. Correct.

nt

[DonCoquixote]

602. Humble suggestions

But there is one thing that I would like to ask.

Has there ever been an attempt to clearly define what a Ts offense is?, in clear, OBJECTIVE TERMS.

Now, some people might roll their eyes, but I do think some of the damage is because the mods have not communicated what is a clear offense. The things that seem "obvious" are often not, especially in politics.

There are some people who sincerely meant to criticize Obama, in the hopes of saving him from himself, and there are people who use criticism of him to advance their agenda, or avenge a slight.

Text is a medium that, even if you are a Shakespeare, can be misinterpreted wildly. Someone may never have meant to be a "troll" yet by the time the rumor mills, grapevines and peanut galleries get through, a person is made a villain. And there are some who know how to manipulate said mills, etc. to where they do not get caught.

So, what is my point?

ONE: if you really want to establish justice, go ahead and make a CLEAR standard, and give examples of that standard. For example, why not do a bloody F.A.Q explaining what it and is not acceptable, and give examples of each.

If I may humbly offer my own example (and I do mean humbly):

Reply one : "I really do not understand how you do not understand my point! Read the link I put! How can you disagree with me based on what I have said, I really do not get why people think like you!

Now, that was emotional, heated, but it did not attack the person, nor did it use any slurs, stereotypes or profanity. That is a reply that should not be tsed.

Reply two: "I bet you just have that point because you are a (insert stereotype here).

This reply could risk it, because the person tried to bring up a (stereotype). It also attacked the person, rather than the view. This may not necessarily lead to Tombstoning, but is a clear example of behavior that could lead to that, and the reader should consider themselves warned.

OK, yes, that sounded clunky, but at the very least, it provides a clear example, and someone who decided not to read the F.A.Q could not throw their hands up and say "but I had no idea!" Heck, make people read the thing or at least say they did before posting here. It is not like the mods cannot bring up enough examples of comment to highlight as "bad examples."


I also think that the mods do need to be diverse. Granted, I have no way of knowing if Skinner or Earlg are gay, white, black, or (insert variable here), but we do have a right to know that the mods "look like america." By the same token, there is no reason that a LGBT mod cannot be held to the same standards as anyone else, be they whatever group.

Lastly, I do think that after said FAQ was made, you invite some of the "offenders" back, however you make it clear that there is a standard now, a clear one, and that coming back is not a license to kill. Just to let the mask off my face, I am Puerto Rican, if someone called me a "SP_C" I would be offended. While most LGBTQ's I know are cool, I would also be offended by the term "bre_der", and have told my LGBTQ friends that. I have some cred, because they have seen me jump down the throats of people who say (insert LGBTQ here.) It's the Golden rule people, and if you do not like the religious baggage that term has, keep in mind Confucious said the same thing centuries before :"what you do not like when done to yourself, do NOT do to others."

Again, I offer humble suggestions, because frankly, while we snipe at each other, the GOP is laughing.

[swimboy]

603. From time to time I check for any recent ADMIN input. There's none.

[QC]

604. More fence-mendy deliciousness!

Michelle Bachman must be gay, because she's such an awful person!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=711087&mesg_id=711087

[dbackjon]

605. Nothing has changed here

[closeupready]

611. No, nothing has changed, and nothing will change. End of story. Therefore,

those of us here who are GLBT and have remained at DU can not rely upon the moderators to be fair, and are basically on our own to fight our battles.

If one isn't strong enough to do that (or if one just doesn't enjoy fighting people who are supposed to be friends), then it would maybe be better to leave.

[William769]

606. My fellow friends, please let this thread die the death it deserves.

I was hopeful in the beginning but now it just doesn't matter.

Things have not changed, are not going to change & new software isn't going to do it either.

BTW The DU3 the savior of all, I don't think so, best guess it is being kept so secret just to buy time. Well in my book times up.

[Name removed]

607. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Philosopher]

608. I alerted the Mod in your thread

I wrote: "This is an inappropriate message, as the OP did not call out any members, but instead reiterated points about President Obama's Administration and its relationship with the LGBT community. This is the sort of inappropriateness that creates friction among LGBT DU members and DU Admins."

Not that I believe alerting would do anything.

The other poster, considering the threads I've seen, doesn't appreciate the "accomplishments" of the President, but rather cares more about the President's PR. I can't believe any rational person could ask why the LGBT users on DU aren't thanking the President more about the DADT certification when it's well known the struggle it took to get here, and in the way it got here. The poster is very uncouth, as many others are.

Recently Senator Franken questioned a FOTF witness' ability to give testimony if he purposely misleads on his reading of scientific studies. The idea that if we can't properly acknowledge what's really going on, even purposefully misleading, means that we're not trustworthy can be applied to all of us. The poster and others, who we all know, are questionable and the repetition of their questionable posts can only mean they can't be trusted.

[MNBrewer]

609. The level of anti-gay bigotry that's allowed to stand in some of these Obama hagiographies

is amazing.

[Pab Sungenis]

610. Three questions nailed to the fence.

1. Are you going to do ANYTHING about the people who are using the DADT repeal as an excuse to ATTACK LGBT*.* posters on DU for being "ungrateful?"

2. A former moderator admitted in the big "mega-thread" in GD that there were biased and "rogue" moderators. She was fired for her truthfulness. Recently you've had another clear example of an anti-gay moderator bias presented to you. You've chosen to sweep it under the rug instead of confront the problem. You've got moderators allowing (even enabling) anti-gay posters using the DADT certification as an excuse to bash the "ungrateful queers" while going out of their way to squash any response to the hatred.

3. The way the anti-gay bias by your moderators has been open and blatant the past few days, should we all fear?

[ThomCat]

709. The admins have never been willing to admit that the mods

do anything wrong. Even worse, they periodically purge people for even posting even the suggestion that the mods might be capable of having biases. The mods are perfect, after all.

DU3 does away with mods. We will now have hosts with much less power. Unfortunately, it seems that those hosts are selected in popularity contests. We shall see if groups of homophobic people can stack the hosts. I've already posted that I think the jury system is inherently biased towards more conservative opinions because it dilutes and separates minority opinions. In many cases there won't be any minority opinion at all. If people go into a jury with biases, there is no discussion, no changing opinions, and no appeal.

[NYC_SKP]

712. Paaaab....

Did we ever figure out if there even was such a rogue mod?

[Pab Sungenis]

612. Still waiting for answers

to the three most recent questions.

[dbackjon]

613. I would like answers as well

And why certain posters can make anti-gay remarks, and those are allowed to stand, but responses to those anti-gay posters are deleted.

[Pab Sungenis]

626. They never answered

nor will they ever.

[dbackjon]

614. So Ask the Admin questions are NOT being answered, but merely deleted??

I guess your post about mending fences is all BS.

[TriMera]

615. I noticed that, too. n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

616. They deleted the three questions again.

They're hoping we'll all shut up and go away.

[BigDemVoter]

617. I got banned too

I prefer not to use my former DU name, as I was banned after being on this sight since 2002. I was banned after responding to an outright homophobic attack, and yes, the other person is still here.

So, why don't you put up or shut up? I will believe in change when change comes. It's been too long out of sight around here, and perhaps this may be a small step in correcting an unacceptable situation. I find it curious that so many GLBT members were axed when others weren't.

[closeupready]

618. Giving credit where credit is due, however, here is a thread

from today that was locked quickly in response to the threadstarter's use of "limp wrist" to denigrate Cantor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1655175

I appreciate that. Call me naive, but if hope springs eternal, I hope that this shows that somehow, they are maybe getting it...? Or some of them are?

[QC]

619. More fence-mendy deliciousness: Gay people are sickening.

Yes, someone posted that on Democratic Underground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1678947&mesg_id=1680864

[Duncan Grant]

620. Were they tombstoned?

I'm guessing they were given more rope. Hope I'm wrong.

[QC]

622. No, that person is a member in good standing.

I wonder if it's even possible to be a big enough homophobe to get in trouble for it around here.

[demmiblue]

621. That was one of the worst things I have seen posted on DU.

That poster should be tombstoned for what he/she wrote.

[QC]

623. Absolutely nothing will be done about it. n/t

[QC]

624. I am happy to be proven wrong: that person has been banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=226672

Thank you Skinner!

[Name removed]

625. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

627. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tgal]

628. Why was pabs VERY GOOD POINTS

deleted?

Fence is still full of holes and tear downs, board owners.

Gaping holes, no mending done here.

pabs posts should NOT have been deleted.

March 2011....now it is September 2011.

Dig in your heels over the lack of fence mending you've done.

[Maraya1969]

629. Thank you Skinner. You have made a lot of things clearer to me. And

I understand some others more than I did before I read your post so thank you.

Maraya

[tgal]

630. kick. PAST TIME

to actually do the mending.

[tgal]

631. kick.

[dbackjon]

632. Yup - homophobic posters still get free reign here

[Name removed]

633. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pab Sungenis]

634. They don't even try to hide it any longer.

[The Philosopher]

635. I guess I'll ask it here...

Since the other thread got deleted: "What could you do about it? Why should anything be done? A minority is a minority, right? It's the majority that matters and, after all, it's not like you have rights, right? The fence isn't yours. So, what's the point?"

And now there's deleted posts even in THIS thread that isn't worse than what was said when this thread was first created; there wasn't supposed to be any deletions at all. I wonder if they understand the damage this is doing, not only to the LGBT members, but potential members, members who haven't signed up, LGBT kids and young adults who view our neck of the woods as a safe zone, and future voters considering the Dem Party.

We're pretty much powerless, right?

[yardwork]

640. What happened last night and this morning here have been the last straw for me and DU.

There's work to be done in the real world. I'm no longer wasting my time fighting with homophobes on an anonymous message board.

[Pab Sungenis]

636. I've come to the conclusion that

it's not Skinner who is keeping the fences unmended.

[yardwork]

637. I was wrong about DU. Lately I thought it had improved, become more welcoming to LGBTQ people.

Last night a long-time DUer posted a thread in which she decried racism on DU - and specifically called out LGBTQ DUers as the racists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=782616&mesg_id=782616

I've alerted on this OP twice - nothing has been done except that one of my posts in the thread was deleted and a thread I started asking why it is acceptable to randomly single out a minority group of DUers and accuse them of bigotry was locked.

Apparently it is perfectly ok on DU for GLBTQ people to be randomly attacked, accused of racism out of the blue, brought up when the topic is not about us. It's very discouraging.

[Name removed]

638. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yardwork]

639. No kidding.

As the records in this thread attest, gay people have been called every name in the book on DU and consistently discriminated against, but this particular little incident really takes things to a new level.

[QC]

641. The most hateful, disruptive people on DU are all bulletproof.

Again: The most hateful, disruptive people on DU are all bulletproof.

That is why this place has become so toxic that even Skinner says he's disgusted sometimes. It's not so much an LGBT problem, or a pro v. anti-Obama problem, or a left v. right problem, as it is a behavior problem. As things have been for quite some time now, the few people whose behavior does so much to poison this place are allowed to stalk, bully, slander, and otherwise disrupt with absolute impunity. They are bulletproof and they know it.

[laconicsax]

642. But remember: DU3 will fix everything.

:eyes:

[QC]

643. Rumor is that it will even cure the heartbreak of psoriasis!

[yardwork]

645. A handful of people with personality disorders are allowed to poison an entire board. It's true.

[Pab Sungenis]

644. Going public with something

In my recent dustup, I sent a PM to EarlG and copied Skinner. Part of what was said was this:

I'll tell you what. Why don't you, yourself, go into GLBT and post like Skinner did. But this time lock out the disruptors. Prevent (names of well known bashers and disruptors deleted), and the other haters from using the group while this discussion takes place. You know what? Lock me out of it, too, just to be fair. But most importantly, lock the moderators out of it. Then once you start the discussion, give it one week.

If that's not feasible them let me know. I have plenty of hosting available and can put up a private chat board and lock it away from prying eyes. Just you and the regulars from the GLBT forum.

Give the people in there a chance to speak freely and without fear of reprisals. Let them point out where you've implemented double standards. Let them tell you about unfair and bigoted moderation. Let them show you what it's been like to be a gay poster on DU. Let them name names and give evidence.

I have a sneaking suspicion that after that week you'll come out of the discussion a changed man. And I have a sneaking suspicion that after that week, I won't have cause to actually enter ATA ever again.

Skinner said you folks wanted to mend fences. Here's a hammer and some nails. The boards are stacked over in GLBT.

If not? Then I guess everything we've said about DU is true. Come on and prove us wrong.

The silence I've gotten from the Admins is deafening.

I wanted to let the folks in this thread, and this forum know, what I'd suggested. Basically, what this thread was intended to be before it got hijacked by the people we had reason to complain about.

If the rest of you in this thread want to salvage what's left of the relationship between DU and the LGBT*.* community, then please join me in extending this invitation to EarlG and Skinner. It's time to mend the fence at long last.

[Cherchez la Femme]

646. But one needs two parties to want to Mend Fences,

seriously Mend Fences, for that to work.

Regarding the (lack of) response from the powers-that-be, that premise seems highly unlikely. This was merely a trifle, a little experiment: just calm them down and get them back on board to adore The Precious -- their Pony, which they've long had. This thread t'was just a little psychological experiment: putting us in the Baby Box to (try to) calm us down and get us --and our checkbooks-- back in line screeching 'Happy Happy Joy Joy' and the Hallelujah Chorus for afters.

An experiment, if you will, replete with duping us into believing their propaganda and actually inculcating all the Subliminal Images and Hidden Messages and dog-whistles to make us believe everything is JUST FINE and why aren't we happy like the rest of the sheep?!
2nd class citizenship under a Republican-like president who throws us crumbs is tres cool, y'know -- and everybody knows how we gayz love to be at the forefront of cool, hip, and in! :eyes:

So strange that it never quite worked...


edit: As for we racist, racist, LGBTQI's... I'm waiting for the dissertation spelling out, how,
considering we were not racist when we elected President Obama in Nov. '08
we suddenly turned racist prima facie, now. That should be a good story.

...perhaps every LGBTQI in the entire country was mugged by a random colored person, and we, en masse, decided that we would hold that anger against every single black person or person of color? Starting with the president, of course!
No, surely we wouldn't be disconcerted that our Democratic (in name) President has been reigning as a Republican; and a Corporatist Republican at that. Oh no!
That's crazy talk!


Yeah, that all makes perfect sense. :crazy:

[Pab Sungenis]

647. So very true.

The troublemakers who were stirring things up leading to the Great Gay Purge of 2009 are still here. The ones who mocked us throughout the struggle over Prop 8 are still here. The ones who accused us of Ponyism during the debates over DADT are still here. Now they've been allowed to mock us and rub our noses in the DADT repeal, not even allowing us to celebrate the victory.

How many LGBT*.* posters have been tombstoned for nothing or next to nothing in the past two years?

And can anyone name a single anti-gay poster who was TS'd after this thread started? I know for a fact that not one anti-gay moderator (AND IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED THAT THEY ARE THERE) has been fired.

[Cherchez la Femme]

649. You know, I don't even remember if

Solon or Toasterlad were LGBTQI, but I do remember I always enjoyed their posts.

SO many good, intelligent, well-meaning people were booted it can make one cry;
yet it took almost an act of god/dess to finally get rid of trolls such as OPERATIONMINDCRIME.


SO curious! A puzzle that even beats out Gordians Knot.


Ramen on the non-fired moderators.
Y'know, I especially love the Great Justice when the moderators finally shut down insulting, egregious threads--

--after 200-300 or more mostly nasty comments!

Warms the cockles of my lil dyke heart, as I'm sure it does for many other LGBTQI sisters & brothers
:rofl: <-----if you don't laugh, you'll cry

[Pab Sungenis]

650. It gets even worse.

Now it's moving beyond TS's. One prolific LGBT*.* poster has apparently been IP blocked.

The new Purge won't be as public as the previous ones, but might be more effective.

I really wish it wouldn't end like this.

[William769]

651. Famous Final Scene

Think in terms of bridges burned
Think of seasons that must end
See the rivers rise and fall
They will rise and fall again
Everything must have an end
Like an ocean to a shore
Like a river to a stream
Like a river to a stream
It’s the famous final scene
And how you tried to make it work
Did you really think it could
How you tried to make it last
Did you really think it would
Like a guest who stayed too long
Now it’s finally time to leave
Yes, it’s finally time to leave
Take it calmly and serene
It’s the famous final scene
It’s been coming on so long
You were just the last to know
It’s been a long time since you’ve smiled
Seems like oh so long ago
Now the stage has all been set
And the nights are growing cold
Soon the winter will be here
And there’s no one warm to hold
Now the lines have all been read
And you knew them all by heart
Now you move toward the door
Here it comes the hardest part
Try the handle of the road
Feeling different feeling strange
This can never be arranged
As the light fades from the screen
From the famous final scene

by bob seger

What can I say, this is what I see.

[Pab Sungenis]

652. The apparent IP block has been removed.

If it was a glitch, I apologize. If it was removed, thank you.

[Jamastiene]

653. For some posters on this board, any minor disagreement

with President Obama means we are racist. Asking for the same thing from a Democratic president who just happens to be black that you would ask from a Democratic president who just happens to be white is not racism. I don't care what color President Obama is. That's not what makes or breaks his presidency. His actions do. I just wish he would quit giving into the Republicans so easily.

[Pab Sungenis]

654. Well, how about it Earl?

And you too, Skinner?

Do you want to come in here and have a real conversation with us? Without interference from the haters and the biased moderators?

Or is it time to take down the fence once and for all?

[Pab Sungenis]

655. All quiet on the Western Front?

I guess they're hoping we're going to let this fall back off the front page instead of actually talking to us.

[QC]

656. Gay DUers who disagree with the president are Log Cabin Republicans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=790124&mesg_id=790145

Alerted on hours ago but still there.

Fencemendalicious!

[racaulk]

657. "You are ignoring the author of this thread."

Wow, what a shocker.

:eyes:

[William769]

658. It's deleted, who said it?

I need to update my list if the person is not already on it.

[QC]

659. One of our loudest and nastiest antagonists,

a resident of North Carolina.

[MNBrewer]

660. I noticed that comment.

It's gone now.

[plantwomyn]

661. When will there be any movement on this subject?

I have been away for a while, fighting the fight in court and leaving myself little time to post. I check in every once in a while to see what has changed if anything and what if anything has been agreed on.

This post started a lifetime ago for those of us waiting for some answers and some kind of consensus.

I suppose if I hadn't been fighting this fight for so long, the malaise here would be acceptable. As an old woman who if fed up with waiting, the fact that it has been so long with so little achieved is totaly disheartening.

I had hoped that fences could be mended and that we could look forward together. All I see when I check in is posts in Septemeber that look much like that posts from June.

And we wonder why our government can't find common ground and learn to work together.

Sad.

[laconicsax]

662. I think the official line is to wait for DU3.

From what i understand, something super secret about DU3 will magically change things for the better.

[QC]

663. DU3 will make the blind see and the lame walk.

Or maybe it will make the blind walk and the lame see.

I get confused sometimes.

[laconicsax]

664. I think it's the latter. n/t

[Vanje]

665. DU3 will firm your abs ,

cure the heartbreak of Psorriasis, and whiten your smile!

[Pab Sungenis]

666. Curls your hair, cleans your teeth, and makes childbirth a pleasure.

[Pab Sungenis]

667. I guess we have our answers.

The silence is deafening from Skinner and EarlG. We get the message, guys. We're not wanted here after all.

Don't worry, we'll clean up before we go.

[The Philosopher]

668. *ahem*

[QC]

669. Looks like we can't discuss the appointment of a knuckledragging homophobic bigot to the DNC.

Not very fencemendy, I say.

[MNBrewer]

670. Looks like we CAN discuss it, as long as we keep it in the ghetto.

I.e., the GLBT forum.

[QC]

671. That is the decent thing to do, you know.

No sense acting up in front of the straight people. Just ain't fittin'.

[The Philosopher]

672. Except

they come down here, too...

[QC]

673. Yes, but they are allowed to do that.

They are allowed to do pretty much anything they please, no matter how hateful and disruptive.

[NMMNG]

674. Someone has to keep us in our place

:shrug:

[The Philosopher]

675. At least it's nice to have a place.

Nice end tables WILL be provided!

[laconicsax]

676. I think Skinner wasn't too clear on the natures of the fence being mended.

It's the fence around GLBT designed to keep us out of the rest of the site.

[The Philosopher]

678. Has

the GLBT forum had a discussion or the Admins ever participated in a discussion about closeted Gay, Democratic voters and the resource this website and particularly the GLBT forum is to such people? Have they discussed how the lack of an appropriate response to the bigotry and the inequality among posters would be viewed by such people? What it would do to them?

[laconicsax]

679. That's a rhetorical question, right? n/t

[The Philosopher]

680. That's what I fear....

[Iggo]

684. Hadn't thought of it that way.

Do whatever you want on The Res, but you better act right when you're among the respectable folks.

[Sub Atomic]

685. And don't make a fuss when they come down here and poke us with sticks.

[Pab Sungenis]

691. How dare you suggest that someone disrupt their civil right

to deny us our civil rights?

[Pab Sungenis]

677. It's also telling that the moderator who ended that discussion

not only proved that the first moderator lied about the reasons for locking the thread once, but was too chickenshit to attach her name to it.

[stevenleser]

683. Wait, what? Do you have a link? That is absolutely something we should be talking about. nt

[Name removed]

687. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pab Sungenis]

688. And another bigoted moderator tries to cover their tracks.

And does it anonymously.

[laconicsax]

689. Are you surprised?

[Pab Sungenis]

690. Not in the least.

"If you have evidence of moderator bias, post it."

We post it.

"Deleted message."

[Vanje]

692. /\ That

nt

[Pab Sungenis]

695. "Name Removed"

is the new "gay."

[Sub Atomic]

693. Holy shit.

Now I fully understand what you meant in response to me in another thread.

Wow. That's fucked up.

[Pab Sungenis]

694. Tell me about it.

It's also a common practice, when a well-known homophobe is tombstoned, for certain moderators to cover up their return as a sock puppet by deleting any reference to their previous name.

[Vanje]

696. ~`~`~~`~

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0xnb42zkSRQ/SzlR0lIEaUI/AAAAAAAAAC4/A9vPv2yhHZM/s400/maverick+GT+76.jpg

[QC]

697. Yep. He has more avatars than Vishnu,

each more excruciatingly obvious than the last.

[Pab Sungenis]

698. And protected in every one as long as is humanly possible

by certain people.



Then there are the ones who even after their real identities are discovered lead a charmed life.

[RKP5637]

681. Thanks!!! Very thoughtful and deeply appreciated!!! n/t

[Sub Atomic]

682. How long do we have to wait for you to return to this thread?

242 days since your last appearance.

Many of have questions that have been unanswered and concerns that have not been addressed.

I know you're busy with the baby and all, but you seem to have more than enough time to post in other forums.

[Pab Sungenis]

686. Lots of fencemendy deliciousness in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=189018&mesg_id=189018

How could you folks allow that to go on for so long. IN THE GLBT FORUM OF ALL PLACES.

[Pab Sungenis]

699. Keeping this kicked

before it falls down the memory hole.

[Pab Sungenis]

700. And again.

Don't want them to let this disappear on its own accord; if they want this thread gone they'll have to delete it.

[Vanje]

701. Yeh. Kick

[Pab Sungenis]

702. Kick again.

This needs to stay on the front page.

[pecwae]

703. Giving this a good kick as well.

A revisit is past due.

[William769]

704. I have to admit after previewing DU3 with the hosting/jury system.

That things are looking much better. The Admins gave us a host here before the launch of of DU3 (although there was a glitch with it, the effort was there) which was definitely helping to mend a fence. I may not be getting my thoughts across correctly but I am happy with what has happened since this thread was started.

I tip my hat to you Skinner. Thanks for all you have done and may the launch of DU3 be a major success.

[HillWilliam]

705. So far I like the jury system

and the ability to have hosts. (I feel like Pearl Mesta!!) If the jury system within groups keeps problems IN the groups where we can deal with our own dirty laundry, then I feel even better about it.

It's all new yet, so the proof's in the pudding -- but I think we'll like the flavor.

[William769]

706. This thread will be retired very soon along with this version of DU.

I believe we have a new and stronger fence that may never need mending again (keeping fingers crossed).

Will the last person to post in this thread please turn the lights out on your way out.

Peace
William769

EDIT: added r to you to make your.

[Vanje]

707. Ass Hat!

[William769]

708. Me and MADEM send our love to you.

[NYC_SKP]

711. I hope so, William769.

I never cared much for the fences analogy, who needs fences?

But a better, more civil, place we hope.

Peace to you, too, and to all the membership, and best wishes to all for the holidays.

NYC_SKP

[NYC_SKP]

713. A lot of time has passed, but I think things have gotten better.

A few lingering examples of personal animosity refuse to fade away, but the war seems to be over.

Nobody was right and nobody was wrong, and what matters most is happening before our eyes, slowly but surely.

Marriage rights for all, one state after another, and an end to DADT.

More to come, stay tuned!

Thanks, William769, for your voice.

:hug: