Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Feminists
In reply to the discussion: I'm a little peeved, to put it lightly [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)24. post 19 was sent to a jury
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1927
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
This poster has been on a crusade against the LBGT group ever since she was blocked from posting there. The line about "LBGT-oriented feminists" is a reference to an epic battle in the Fem group started when iverglas tried to include such language in the Feminists' group SoP.
... the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I will not vote to hide a post simply because a poster does not like its respectfully phrased contents. If this alerter does not like Meta type discussions they can trash the thread or place the poster they are concerned with on ignore. The jury mechanism is not meant to be an organ of censorship, it is intended to uphold the Community Standards not to squelch dissent.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: just here to cause trouble and hi-jack the thread
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: There are some unresolved issues that are specific to that group, I am not part of that group and cop out with a "let them handle there own business" chip. I think discussion may help work things out, censorship certainly will not. It is for them to decide which way to go, there were no overt insults or nasty remarks in the post so I can't (won't) hide it for that reason.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think anyone on DU who decides to defend a potential opening for bigotry does so at their own peril; however I don't think this post does more than perhaps dredge up old arguments. It does not appear disruptive in the strict sense; it is not particularly rude or hurtful; it *is* perhaps insensitive, but only to someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of DU's past flamewars. If the poster here crosses the line into defending bigots -- and I'm not convinced that day can be avoided -- she can be removed from the discourse for having violated the site's Terms of Service. In the meantime, I see little advantage to hiding this post.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
This poster has been on a crusade against the LBGT group ever since she was blocked from posting there. The line about "LBGT-oriented feminists" is a reference to an epic battle in the Fem group started when iverglas tried to include such language in the Feminists' group SoP.
... the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I will not vote to hide a post simply because a poster does not like its respectfully phrased contents. If this alerter does not like Meta type discussions they can trash the thread or place the poster they are concerned with on ignore. The jury mechanism is not meant to be an organ of censorship, it is intended to uphold the Community Standards not to squelch dissent.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: just here to cause trouble and hi-jack the thread
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: There are some unresolved issues that are specific to that group, I am not part of that group and cop out with a "let them handle there own business" chip. I think discussion may help work things out, censorship certainly will not. It is for them to decide which way to go, there were no overt insults or nasty remarks in the post so I can't (won't) hide it for that reason.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think anyone on DU who decides to defend a potential opening for bigotry does so at their own peril; however I don't think this post does more than perhaps dredge up old arguments. It does not appear disruptive in the strict sense; it is not particularly rude or hurtful; it *is* perhaps insensitive, but only to someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of DU's past flamewars. If the poster here crosses the line into defending bigots -- and I'm not convinced that day can be avoided -- she can be removed from the discourse for having violated the site's Terms of Service. In the meantime, I see little advantage to hiding this post.
I found it especially amusing that a HOST of this bleeding group, me, who had already posted in the thread requesting that the group's statement of purpose be observed, was described as "just here to cause trouble and hi-jack the thread". Very funny.
And the juror who doesn't think the day can be avoided when I cross the line into defending bigots? Get a hobby. Something other than posting crap about DUers you don't know (or hm, do know but don't care to portray accurately?).
This thread in the Feminists group has now had over 1000 views.
All, I am sure, from committed feminists eager to read other feminists' news and views.
The thread in Help & Meta-discussion has gone as might have been expected:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124041878
and I do hope more members of this group will take a look.
This vendetta against the women who have been committed to the Feminists group since it was created goes from bizarre to more bizarre.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

How do you discuss it? For starters, don't refer to people who disagree with you...
TheWraith
Feb 2012
#1
"not quite so tired" me, too.... cause it matters an it is a good subject. nt
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#10
what is interesting is it is the second gay woman kicked off du, thru our forum, not by us..
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#21
EDITED - so how many here agree with this characterization of this thread and this group?
iverglas
Feb 2012
#29
I've got a suggestion, and it's aimed at everyone, including our vindictive alerter...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2012
#40
IMHO, there's not one vindictive alerter, there are many alerters acting in good faith.
Gormy Cuss
Feb 2012
#46
My starting assumptions could be naive, but I lean toward the vocal minority "theory."
ZombieHorde
Feb 2012
#37
Except perhaps for a few trolls, the FR folks self identify as anti-Democrat.
ZombieHorde
Feb 2012
#39
"I invite you to PM me when you're doing the Goddess's work in some thread on DU, will you?"
ZombieHorde
Feb 2012
#57