You need look no further than the vitriol against Hillary Clinton.

Click on a thread with the name "Woody Allen" in the title.

if you have a strong stomach. That post was completely horrible.

but at least no one will attack me for asking it.

And I don't like seeing her called 'sex fiend extraordinaire'. I don't even know what that is, I could be one and not even know it.

women as Jezebels and "leaders into sin." It allows the abdication of responsibility, and it allows for the expression of the fear that some feel about women in general.


"I could be one and not even know it." Here's hoping you are, because of course, sex fiend-ery is great fun.

no matter what the topic. And that is just the regulars, not the new people who join simply to harp on one topic.

I was astonished by the people I had never seen before, who joined only to defend the FLDS creeps and their disgusting leader. None of them are here now, but if the FLDS ever becomes news again, they will be back. We had people who defended Zimmerman, too, but that seems to have been quashed early on.

I can't make up my mind about Amanda Knox, but I will try to listen to all sane viewpoints. Good luck!

argument, although it is definitely pro-Amanda.

Many of her supporters started out thinking she was guilty because of the media coverage. We had to pick our way through a lot of garbage to figure out where the truth lies.

www.murderofmeredithkercher.com

(there is a site with the same name except beginning with the word "the." That's a hate site.)

While I can't say with 100% certainty she's innocent, I think she is, and even if I didn't the trial itself has become enough of a crazy mess that in any system that even pretends to be a just one I think she should walk. Once the evidence is corrupted and the prosecutors are shown to be trying to railroad someone, that really ought to be the end of it.

Even if she confessed tomorrow to not only this crime, but to everything from being on the grassy knoll to running moonshine, the amount of vitriol directed at her gender would be absolutely unacceptable. You don't use gender based insults against women unless you were already itching to use them and think you've found a way to do it without being called out for it.

Sorry, but if you want to talk about the case from a feminist perspective, that's one thing. That's something I'd be interested in reading. But the vast bulk of that post is calling out another DUer you don't like and it's wrong to drag that drama into this group.

Maybe you should consider editing the post or self-deleting it, because it's really not a good look...

As a father of two bright daughter who are the same approximate age as Knox, I have been interested in this case. I am also a lawyer and so I am interested in the legal aspects. The material posted by Sanders has been weak. I really do not think that this evidence would get to a US jury it survive a motion to dismiss.

I have not been impressed with the material and facts posted by Sanders. These "facts" are weak. I stand behind my views on this evidence and my belief that Knox's rights were violated. I am also convinced that the Italian justice system is a joke. I have read the "facts" presented by Sanders and tHese material have not changed my opinion

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2014, 11:29 AM - Edit history (2)

The poster is, AFAIK, beyond their purview but it's worth a shot. Send a PM to someone who you trust on the newly selected team.

Also consider bringing it to Skinner in ATA. It's a valid question.

I'm assuming the question is where they used this group to call out another DUer in this bit?

I can't speak on behalf of everyone on MIRT, but my answers are:

1. No. Mainly because at DU people aren't stopped from voicing opinions just because another DUer disagrees with them. Unless the opinion is a right-wing one, or racist, or bigoted against Jews or the LGBT community, then that's a different matter...

2. I'd expect the answer from Skinner would be no, because a DU where we're not allowed to post links to sites that aren't political would be a very boring DU. I'd no longer be able to post pics of Eddie Vedder, or cute Spoon clips from YouTube (which I'm going to do at the end of this post). If we're talking only about non-political sites someone dislikes because the site doesn't share their opinion, that'd open up a can of worms, as a long line would form of DUers demanding every non-political site they don't like be banned. And think of the fighting that would ensue when someone demanded a non-political site another DUer loved was banned. Or fights over the grey area between political and non-political. GD would be turned into a barren wasteland of scorched earth and cyber-corpses slumped over their smouldering keyboards. It'd be ugly for us four or five survivors...

Just an aside here, but I strongly suspect the word 'hate site' being given a fair flogging in this thread is being applied incorrectly. A hate site isn't a site someone personally hates. Hate sites are run by hate groups and the primary purpose of those groups is to incite and foster hatred and sometimes violence against minority groups based on their religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. The Southern Poverty Law Centre has a good, but not exhaustive list of active hate groups (hate groups being the folk who run hate sites like Stormfront), and their definition of a hate group is: "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." I couldn't find the entire list on one page on the SPLC site, but this Wiki page has the whole sorry lot of them on one page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups



And now for a keepon dancing to a Spoon song that I desk-dance to every day at work!! Turn those speakers up, people, coz I have shit hot taste in music!

poster has been a member for 6 weeks with 3 hidden posts already so it is appropriate to bring it to the Admin's attention. My personal feeling, if the hides are legitimate, is that DU doesn't need more posters who can't be civil and can't get along with others.

Thanks.

I hope the person who posted that has been asked to remove it...

Or removed it as much as one can by using edit.

the usual suspects act like she's guilty because she's a young white woman. It's like a knee jerk reaction to how young white females usually get treated by the media, but neither way ir right.

I have no idea if she's guilty or not (I'm thinking not), but some of the posts here about her are definitely over the top and probably sexist.