it's open season on Hillary

Thank you admins!

There is just a lot of people who don't think calling a woman that is a big deal, or is a mistake.

The slur is the worst thing you can call a woman akin on a level to the N word.

That said, I was pretty surprised to see that particular poster banned ...

and it is unbecoming of a Democratic website to not repudiate such insults to what may be our Democratic nominee for president. That's pretty clear to me.

who don't think he deserved a ban. I find that distressing also. I don't know of any word more degrading to women, and I don't understand women who think it wasn't a big deal.

Last edited Sat Jun 6, 2015, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

The word is used from time to time on this site, in its original untwisted form. Sometimes it's not even hidden. We had a week following the hiding of a post with the Rude Pundit blog entry where some were using it as often as they could and getting away with it. I remember being on MIRT when a new member used the word, and MIRT wouldn't vote to ban. That really pissed me off.

Evidence suggests there is more to the ban than the use of a misogynistic term. Was it because he used it toward Clinton? Was it in part to serve as an example that the anti-Hillary stuff has gotten way out of control? Clearly many in GD think so. There are, however, indications he may have been on the admins. radar before this since he wasn't selected to serve on the current MIRT, despite signing up early in the thread. I know from the time I was on MIRT, the admins rarely ban a long-time poster over a single act. It's usually an accumulation of things. I don't know all what was involved in this, and we only have EarlG's ban message.

I can see arguing he shouldn't have been banned. What troubles me is the numbers of people who insist he didn't do anything wrong, and some even follow it up by claiming there is something wrong with objecting to the word, that it doesn't bother "real women."

And move on. And I understand why Admin did what they did. The reason behind it - is disappointing. Very disappointed that language was used towards SOS Clinton.

Am I correct in that?

in a protected Group?

Cowering behind implication mitigates sexist intent? Am I correct in that?

but I'm pretty sure you'd know what I meant. See the similarity?

just like many did when the spoonerism was used .

Heard of a spoonerism before.

Ignorance is a convenient thing to hide behind...

That's ok, I know I am.

If someone is going to use derogatory language against women, saying it exactly or using a workaround means the same thing. So, you can keep going around typing the same post over and over again. It doesn't change that what NYC_SKP posted meant the same thing. It just means you missed the point entirely.

Jesus, how can anyone not get that?

I sure hope they don't give in and reconsider. It will get much worse if that happens. We all knew this was coming. Let this high profile case get overturned and it will be a free for all with all kinds of "funny" little plays on words. Damn, I can see it coming a mile off as easily as I see admins giving in to the pressure, after all a lot of women are OK with this. *sigh*

I am not anywhere near to supporting Hillary but damn. I had sensed an increase in rancor and there it was and I don't believe anyone who posts here could not figure that phrase out. I had never heard it and the moment I saw it I knew what it was. Good grief nobody here is really that dense or if so they would at least have thought to look it up.

I noticed how many of the old crew is in to support him as they go way back.

He was in with the in crowd.

I don't think what he said was right. I'm not necessarily against him getting banned. The biggest issue I take with it is that the punishment should be the same for all members. This group, probably more than any other, has seen people get away with saying it or just a slap on the wrist. I just wanted to try and explain from my point of view. Im ok with banning people who use that degrading hateful word, but that banning should apply to all members who choose to use it in a demeaning way. That's just my opinion. If I crossed the line in this group, please let me know and I will self-delete. Thank you for reading.

Folks in this group have been asking the admins to take sexism and misogyny seriously for years here. I don't think anyone here would be opposed to seeing a) more definitive language in the TOS to cover sexism and misogyny and b) such TOS being enforced equally toward all posters.

I don't think the person was banned for a play on a misonogystic word anyway. I think there was some sort of pattern admins were looking at. I also think he will be back.


To speak to your point though, no it's not surprising. Not even a little bit. I've noticed a lot of mental contortions--everything to bringing up how other countries perceive the word to a disingenuouly indignant comparison to the word 'dick'.

He'd become seemingly unhinged in a lot of threads and just being so utterly gleeful in disturbing attacks, a lot based in nothing relating to fact, that even those that were on his side were telling him to step back. The thread about the roosevelt island location he kicked off was pretty intense on his part and had a lot of folks surprised by the vehemence.

Didn't agree with everything, but he could be very cool. I noticed a change in tone lately, or at least he surprised me with some of his postings. I hope he's ok.

I know a lot of people are pointing to the surgery he had last year, but it seems like something far more recent hit him to make him as intense as he was. Which is unfortunate.

I think. It was his posting pattern of late topped off with his euphemism. Excuses made to justify what he said are just that, excuses.

guess what? Some people talk about bigfoot on the internet. Some people in other countries talk about him. DU doesn't allow it yet I don't see thread after thread fursplaining why the big hairy guy should be discussed here.

The admins make the rules. It's not really difficult to understand.

Why are you here?

to insist that the poster didn't say what he said. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

We really should be better than this. Sigh.

But this goes so far beyond that. It's happened before (POS used car salesman comes to mind). It's just so discouraging.

he did anything wrong.

I made a post to answer the OP with 300+Recs.. because I've seen so many excuse him by stating "he didn't really say it".

I said in so many words that this is SKP's doing-he has to own it.. he has to realize he made the mistake.. and apologize and maybe he will get reinstated.. and I laid it all out from "the Troll's" post to what SKP replied to him.

And, then EarlG's statement on why he was banned. I think it is clear as a bell.

It seems like I'm the only dissenting view there.. but I just quickly perused..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6788609

Thank you, boston bean

NYC_SKP absolutely meant it the way it was taken. Arguing "well, it's not verbatim!" is just dumb.

He's not stupid. He knew exactly what the words meant. (Could apply to both NYC and EarlG)

I really don't see the point of denying it.

He replied in agreement a few years ago to an OP using the same phrase when talking about Palin.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7059909

So, those who claim he did not know what it meant are deluding themselves.

I do hope admins here will start taking the misogynist language more seriously from now on. I'm fed up with it. There are a lot of anti-women types of people on here, far too many.

and some spent this weekend repeating the same phrase that got NYCSkp banned.

just the straw that broke the camel's back. I am not going to believe that this is a change in the admin's approach until I see actual evidence. This one situation wasn't enough. Forever hoping.

Consistency would help a lot.

In clear defiance to the administrators' actions. I wonder what will become of those members?

I posted in there too. I also like NYCSkp and don't believe he's a misogynist. As you said, he made a mistake. That doesn't make him a bad person, but enabling him doesn't help either. I hope he is able to sort it out with the administrators and come back.

Yes, they aren't helping SKP at all. Trying to deny it.

You have to own it and admit it before you can apologize. It you just keep saying "I did nothing wrong" then fat chance you have of moving on when the Admins clearly got it.

generally get fewer replies than rants or more extreme statements.

"enablers".. I thought there would be hell to pay.

What do I know!? Anyway, I don't think the "reputation" of DU will suffer because the Admins clearly saw a misogynistic slur directed at Hillary Clinton and banned the poster. There may have been other underlying issures too.. that we know nothing about yet.

But, ya have to admit it.. not try to cover it up.

He wouldn't have been banned if he hadn't said it about Hillary Clinton.

Hell he wasn't banned for the using the killing of babies to promote a gun fantasy. And we know the admin knew about that post.

self Delete.. then he pasted it in the last post too.. trollish like behavior that also got a Hide.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022002711#post15

He had so much leeway and went further further and was egged on on.. and now they're worried about the "Reputation" of DU if they don't let him come back and oh, "who's next?!", and "we're being purged!". uh huh.

Such victims.

The little 'play on words' game has gotten completely out of hand. I've served on one jury, others have as well for variations of misogynistic words.

If the general population of DU was in their 20's or 30's, I think the behavior would be better. It's the middle-aged to older ones who are getting their giggles with this, (I can't count the times I've made incorrect assumptions of age from posting styles, it made me look at a number of my own biases)

And they see it as harmless because they were never personally harmed by it.

Lack of empathy and understanding.

It's definitely a "challenging" time for many of all types in going through this phase of understanding and correcting themselves so as to not do these kinds of things. I follow a lot of writers, particular comic book writers, and seeing the dynamic there where they're dealing with a big influx of new and younger readers, and predominantly female readers, with the "old guard" fans and creators is fascinating. Some adapt really well by listening and incorporating while understanding at the same time. Others, like we see here, just can't understand what the fuss is all about.

One I find possibly 'inadvertently' homophobic is "Preacher" even though gender issues are part of the story line.

But it's also a product of its time, and culture, where it was written in the 90's by a Brit looking at Southern US culture. It's one of those areas where I always try to view it through the context and lens of the time to understand it. I read it when it came out and there's a lot of unsettling stuff in there across the board.

It'll be interesting to see how the TV adaptation pans out.

It's a series I can read over and over. I hope they don't screw it up!

The most problematic is that they did a racial change for Tulip. so instead of a white southern girl christian upbringing, it'll be a black one, and that's a whole different set of experiences. The cast is shaping up nicely and they're filming the pilot now and it's got a series order already.

As someone pointed out.. "this is how some Sanders supporters choose to campaign.. through misogyny?"

Is the same people shrieking that this is no big deal, and women aren't shrinking violets who need to be protected from bad words, are the *exact* same people who lost their shit a couple years back when redqueen made a comment that some men just view women as _____ dumpsters. All hell broke loose, it was the most horrible thing they ever heard, bannings were demanded, and so forth.

Why were they acting as shrinking violets themselves then? And now they are all tough ass "AS A WOMAN, I can take anything you can dish out"?

This position is wildly inconsitent with that position.

I believe some people just live to argue on the internet.

So strange to me.

making the mistake of answering a troll who used it first. He didn't baldly say "Hillary is a ***."

That's why he's getting support, that and the fact that he was a great poster before he got sick.

Just an observation.

why does it matter some didn't.

The first couple letters of the first word and the last two letters of the second. The sounds are clear. What is complicated about that? Seriously?