Is this blog post intolerant of the transgendered?

[TransitJohn]

http://firewomon.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/there-is-no-he-in-she/

[99Forever]

1. Never heard of it, nor...

... will I give it any traffic.

I take you at your word that it is a hateblog.

[TransitJohn]

2. I don't think it is a hate blog, it's a feminist blog

That is advocating never using the pronoun 'she' to refer to a transgendered person born male.

[99Forever]

5. Okay.

Then I'll have to pass on being lectured as to how to use the English language. Last I heard, no particular group or person has exclusive rights to it. What gender a person considers themselves, is their choice and theirs alone.

[TransitJohn]

7. That's what I was thinking, but I also think it's intolerant and bigoted. eom

n/t

[99Forever]

8. Then we are in agreement.

[snooper2]

112. Well, at least whoever writes there isn't very bright

Spelled Woman wrong LOL



FireWomon

[Chellee]

113. I believe that the alternate spelling is intentional.

When someone spells woman "womon" or "womyn," they are removing the word "man" from it.

[snooper2]

115. Really, LOL, I guess that makes sense, learned something new today :)

YouTube and Google try to correct it for you-

I guess she needs to start a petition

[Chellee]

120. Well, I won't throw "herstory" at you then.

DU doesn't like these spellings either. I get red lines on all of them.

[BainsBane]

415. Kind of like Miscrosoft'sconspiracy against men

for refusing to recognize the word misandry in spell check.

[RainDog]

3. yes

I read the post and the conversation/blocking of someone who said such essentialism fails to acknowledge the human.

personally, I think this sort of feminism is stupid, conservative and, ultimately not worth my attention.

[auntsue]

107. I consider my self a feminist

---- yet ---- I found this an incredibly intolerant and hateful screed.

[LadyHawkAZ]

4. Yes

and I'll go you one better and call it what it is- bigotry.

[Nine]

6. It's cruel and stupid.

And I say that as a feminist.

[NuclearDem]

9. Yes it is. Unfortunately there is a huge undercurrent of transphobia in some feminist circles.

[dionysus]

76. my guess is the tiny subset of feminists who hate men, will only see a transgendered female as a man

and therefore loathe them right along with the rest of the men.

when pregnancy is viewed as this;

He sticks his penis in her and impregnates her. She conceives, carries, births, feeds, clothes, cares, nurtures, loves unconditionally. He has an orgasm. She has nausea, sore breasts, vomiting, low blood pressure, swollen ankles, pre-eclampsia. Her internal organs are crushed by the growing foetus. Her belly is stretched, her back and breasts ache. She labours for hours or days on end. His scalpel cuts her from vagina to anus, or right through her stomach wall in the case of a c-section. She cares for her newborn, despite her personal discomfort.

you're fucking batshit crazy, no other way to put it. the person who wrote that is seething with hatred.

[NCTraveler]

429. There is an even larger overt current of transphobia...

among the general population.

[The Straight Story]

10. That blogger thinks people who don't agree with them are being abusive

even blocked one.

Typical mindset of some when others don't agree with them and they believe there is only one viewpoint that exists.

We block out that which we fear (much like fundie creationists and science) and see dissent as an attack and try to tune it out (ie, stick fingers in ears and go lalalalalala).

Intolerant? Yes. As are so many others.

[CreekDog]

160. i agree with you about the intolerance, but i disagree with you on blocking

if someone is abusing safe haven groups, posting men's rights crap in feminist groups, posting reverse racism crap in groups about African American civil rights, etc. they need to be blocked.

there is no hearing both sides when it comes to whether in general, women are victims of discrimination or disparate treatment. they are period. if someone comes to a safe haven group to peddle the lie that the question is not settled, they need to be blocked for lying.

the same with a white person who doubts every instance of apparent racism or discrimination or overall disparate treatment of blacks in our society, and or the concept of white privilege. they need to be blocked from safe haven groups, not because we don't want to hear what they have to say, but because they are lying.

[RainDog]

164. I agree n/t

[AverageJoe90]

263. "Typical mindset of some when others don't agree with them.....

.....and they believe there is only one viewpoint that exists.....and see dissent as an attack and try to tune it out."

Yep. Oh, and on the general SJ forum, Flavia Dzodan and the lady who runs "Gradient Lair" are REALLY bad about that from what I've seen for a couple of examples. In fact, from my experiences on the Internet in general(though in this case, not so much on DU, just to be clear), the most extreme "People of Color can't be racist" types are often amongst the worst offenders......though that's not to say it's ONLY them. (If you've heard of notorious radfem Diana Boston, YouTube feminists may remember a rather vicious and quite frankly bigoted attack she launched on one Divinity33372, who happens to be sex-positive, BTW. And she's Latina, too. Boston called her a "chola", btw.)

[Ms. Toad]

11. Yes.

There is a group of women, who generally describe themselves as radical feminists, who are extremely hostile to trans women. A few who hold this point of view were kicked off of DU a while back (in part) because they continued espouse these intolerant and offensive views.

[TransitJohn]

12. I didn't know about this facet, or subset, of feminism

until I came across the linked post today. I had no idea. I would think that people struggling for a more egalitarian society wouldn't be for disenfranchising others. Shit's complicated so much anymore. Rodney King's question is so apropos and metaphysical, "Can't we all just get along?"

[Ms. Toad]

23. It has been around forever. That view is becoming more marginalized,

I first ran into it in 1974.

Part of the "concern" is that women who were socialized as men are privileged (relatively speaking) and cannot really understand women's experience.

[nomorenomore08]

48. Anyone who scapegoats, and foments hatred toward, a minority group, does not belong on DU.

And it's unfortunate that this even needs to be specified, ever.

[Ms. Toad]

66. It's not just DU -

It's in the real world, as well. I have a friend who was invited to speak at a RadFem conference, and was uninvited when she pushed on the issue of trans* inclusion.

[nomorenomore08]

69. I know. People are so blind to their own flaws and contradictions. n/t

[RainDog]

62. I know Iverglas was part of this

but I don't know who the others were. Was one of them the "bemoaning the moon bombing" person who keeps showing up?

Eloriel - she was here for a long time - is she part of this group?

[Ms. Toad]

67. I'm lousy at names.

Iverglas - yes. I don't remember specifically about Eloriel - or about the bemoaning the moon bombing person.

[LadyHawkAZ]

77. Iverglas, Eloriel/Remember Me, Sargasso Sea/Feldspar

See this thread:
www.democraticunderground.com/11391866

If you plug the words inveigle transmagical boardhost into the Google machine, you can see where they and a few of their impenetrably-codenamed friends went after those three were forcibly removed from DU- and what they think of transpeople when there's no juries to censor them. Bringing along an antiemitic might be of benefit to you.

[tammywammy]

79. I remember that.

What a nasty time on DU.

[RainDog]

83. thanks

I remember Eloriel from early on at DU. She was very nice, from my recollections, but had diff. of opinion about what's referred to here as "woo." So I was surprised to see her there.

Haven't used the google, etc. but I do remember there was a group that included ppl here on DU after Iverglas was banned that was trashing DU b/c of her banning. Of course friends are going to be upset when a friend is no longer allowed here for being considered the worst disruptor on this site.

[opiate69]

84. "impenetrably-codenamed friends"

[RainDog]

85. It's pretty obvious

that spikeboy is someone who sees beyond the current DU.

[Sissyk]

86. Results of the alert on your post

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Apr 7, 2014, 05:17 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's pretty obvious
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4792241

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

How do we know that the men's group didn't make all this up? This is witch hunt type behavior. These people are obsessed with seabeyond and it needs to stop. This whole subthread is ugly but this is the only one that actually mentions a duer, even though this person is today cowardly to come right out and say it. This is disgusting, shameful behavior. Spreading rumors intended to portray other duers in a negative light.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 7, 2014, 05:29 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: inflammatory
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough of the "see beyond" already.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a fucking break. Skinner, ban this alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alert is what's inappropriate.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I almost completed jury duty voting to let this stay ... I am quite tired and did not notice the not too clever call out of the DUer Seabeyond (it was a long day at work). If the poster has an issue with Seabeyond or any other feminist DUers, why not discuss in an open and adult manner. This is childish
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I did not vote to hide.

[RainDog]

87. LOL

I'm glad to discuss the issues I have with this sort of thing in an open manner, but I don't really care about anything but the truth about what has gone on and created divisions here - who has been responsible for so much of the division - say, someone who thinks it's okay to seek out personal and private mental health care info about another DUer, simply over a power struggle about who gets to host a DU forum, to disparage that other DUer?

how petty must you be to do that? That, to me, is a serious ethical violation in life. That others don't see this says much about them, as well, imo.

Some people here are averse to the truth of their actions. This is why I have had so many of them on ignore for so long.

This subthread is about telling the truth, whether people like it or not.

[etherealtruth]

91. I am glad you enjoyed my jury comment

Interesting that you would respond to my jury comment with "I'm glad to discuss the issues I have with this sort of thing in an open manner"

It is quite clear, referencing the comment that was alerted on, "that spikeboy is someone who sees beyond the current DU," we have distinctly different ideas of what an open adult manner is.

I could make snide comments about "snowcat" ... but decided to comment directly to you.

"This subthread is about telling the truth" .... seriously, are you sure it is not about expressing opinions in snide childish ways?

[RainDog]

93. It wasn't snide

I didn't want to directly state her name, but I would be happy to do so. The reason I said what I did in such a way was to avoid a direct call out.

Why don't you focus on others' actions rather than someone who notes them?

[RainDog]

94. and why don't you ask those who are named

if they were not participating on such boards with iverglas, if you think such is only an opinion.

[etherealtruth]

95. I do not have a clue who iverglas is, nor do I care

I do not recall expressing an opinion on the topic, just the childish way it was being discussed.

I chose to respond directly and (I believe) clearly regarding how I felt about the delivery.

I could have remained an anonymous juror, yet I chose to own my comment.

I am going to go enjoy my dinner, have a lovely evening.

[RainDog]

96. so you don't really know anything about the situation

but felt it was appropriate to refer to my remarks as snide.

that's sort of par for the course. there may be valid reasons people here have issues with others here - even if, like me, they don't try to have someone banned, etc. for their actions.

fwiw - I have voted to leave posts from SB that have been alerted on here recently - I'm not trying to apply a double standard.

and the only time I have ever requested a review for banning was when someone here said I was enabling a pedophile to disagree with her.

See, it's that level of nastiness that I take issue with, along with others here who have said I support rape because I don't agree with certain issues about porn, and those who have stated they wish to obliterate my existence simply because I called out an emotional response as propaganda (which it was.)

All women who treated another woman in this way - and who have also tried to imply I'm not a woman, etc. ...then maybe that I was a transwoman (see the OP) etc.

[CreekDog]

175. the discussion isn't childish at all

it's quite mature and is aiming to understand a complex issue.

the childish thing is to decide because one cannot or will not put forth the effort to follow it that nobody should talk about the topic anymore.

[etherealtruth]

189. I did not call the discussion childish, I called a comment childish

I called the comment that was alerted on childish, stating those that cannot "see beyond" (the alert I served on the jury for alerted stating it was a call out of a current member).

I don't care about a former poster named Iverglas and would never have joined a conversation about said poster. My objection was: if one felt the need to call a current poster out, either do it or don't ... using not very clever name changes to do so is childish. You disagree as did the poster that made the comment ... i stand by my comment

[Sissyk]

190. You didn't read all those links

provided for you, did you?

[etherealtruth]

191. Not sure what you are talking about ... there is not a link in a response to me

I have limited my conversation in this thread to my jury comment and why I commented. In this thread I am more than happy to discuss why I commented the way I did (in my jury response) and why I would vote on a similar jury and give a similar response.

I am happy to further expand on that

[Neoma]

224. I was that main person who was exposed in that manner she is talking about.

I don't think simply talking about a wrong that was never righted is a childish thing to do.

[pintobean]

230. +1

I hope all is well with you, Neoma. That was a disgusting series of events.

[Neoma]

231. Considered to be a truamatic event, with all said and done.

I'm a stress-ball in college right now, but fine otherwise. That's why people haven't seen much of me.

[pintobean]

236. Well, it's really good to see you here.

Best wishes in your studies.

[Neoma]

251. I'm curious to what mess you're talking about.

Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

There was a flame-war created right after I was promoted to leadership, since RedQueen left. I was good and ready and on your side until I found out what the flame-war was about. Iverglas admitted to being trans-phobic to me, and indicated you along with her. I'm unsure if you're aware of that disservice to your character, but I took it seriously. At that very point I decided to take action to try and end the flame-war, I was beyond character assassinated, and you contributed along to that. And I took that bullet as gracefully as I could, and as you're already fully aware of, a lot of people got pissed about what happened to me. But I'm not the one who told them to be pissed. I did not tell them after the flame-war was over to continue the fight. I wanted it dead and gone and resolved. But wrongs haven't been righted in the least, and I can't blame them for being mad about it still.

No one on the opposing side messaged me to get to an understanding of my actions. I tried to stop iverglas from feeding the flames, and I got what I got in return. You have a determent to your character because you took my medical information, my stress relief valve in the Mental Health Group and tried to make me look too insane to have a position I was holding firm to because I did not want iverglas in a leadership position after what she said about transgendered people, and I had everyone saying the nastiest things I've ever had said about me, in my life, which didn't help their case in letting me hand over the group. I was open to that course of action! The problem was no one tried for an instant, to be nice.

You know as well as I do that I asked for an apology for you using my mental health as a weapon against me. You stuttered off at how bipolar isn't a disease and completely dismissed me. If you're mad at BeHereNow (RIP) for bringing any attention to you doing that, then talk to her in your prayers. Because believe it or not, I DIDN'T WANT it to become public. The only goddamn good thing that came out of it was the flame-war finally settling down and stopping. That was what I was aiming for in the first place!

Not being willing to hand over a group to people who were insulting me to the core of my very being? WOW! WHAT A MESS I MADE BY BEING A PERSON WITH FEELINGS! And whether or not they were a roller-coaster, was none of your goddamn business by a long-shot. I had proven that I could be calm in front of all that, and I only survived it because I had previous experience with insults. But never to that extent, ever.

[polly7]

256. Plus a bazillian, Neoma!

I couldn't believe what I'd just read .... you have to admit, it was a decent attempt at putting out the old switcheroo (and blame ... holy fuck! ) on what was the ugliest thing I've seen happen here.

[enigmatic]

258. It was truly, truly ugly

Just just stomach-churning to see.

[LittleBlue]

289. Wow

I'd heard your story before but without knowing who it was, didn't know it was you.

What a nasty bunch.

[CreekDog]

294. as I said back then, you did a great job under the horrible circumstances you were given

and I'm glad you're standing up for yourself and what you did.

when one sees how the Feminists group is in the aftermath, it's clear that what you did was important to this outcome, and it was not getting there with the previous hosts, quite the opposite.

using mental health issues as a weapon was bad, but almost as bad were the people that defended the actions.

but remember, what was done wasn't a reflection on you, but a reflection on the ones who did it and defended it.

[LadyHawkAZ]

296. ...

"If they give you hell, Tell them go fuck themselves" ~Lzzy Hale

[etherealtruth]

252. This is the last post I will make on this (this has become absurdly funny)

You do not find referring to an other DUer using an obvious play on names as childish ... I do. if I want to call you out I will simply state "Neoma' ... I will not refer to you "Knee oh muh" or some other childish play on your name.

I will continue to write comments for most juries I serve on, if someone complains about a comment and I am aware ... I will explain my comment in the thread.

I am sorry that several folk do not care for my being up front (owning my jury comment and restating it); however it will not change my habit of doing so.

If my jury comment caused so much distress, I hope it was alerted on, my understanding is that there is a mechanism for inappropriate juror comments. I would suggest adding me to your jury blacklist and or ignoring me, so that you are never put in a position of having to discuss my jury comments again.

Note I have never commented on the subject being discussed, I have continued to post what I had posted initially, only related to the jury.

I have no idea, nor do I care about the discussion of a "wrong" ... my comments have never involved the overall discussion.

[Neoma]

255. Fair enough.

[CreekDog]

293. doesn't seem like you read more than 3 words from the post you're responding to

[RainDog]

88. oh, and the reason we know it's not made up

is because iverglas was responding to ppl on DU from her hidey hole, then formed this other group.

if anyone wants to dispute this - please feel free to respond to me directly rather than attempt to CENSOR the truth.

[maddezmom]

90. There are quite a few active member here that posted at that stinkhole

everyone is so big on transparency here but post with code names there. Wonder what the new board is called.

[RainDog]

92. The funny thing is

I'm not obsessed with x or y DUer here. I talk about Iverglas - but the reality is that I had her on ignore for months before she was banned. I wasn't arguing with her, etc.

I found her so obnoxious I didn't want her to exist as part of my DU experience. I never tried to get her banned, never alerted on her posts - but I was really glad she got banned because of her obnoxious way of interacting here -

which involved a lot of insults and personal attacks. She was intelligent, but she used her intelligence in a stupid way on this site - or a disruptive way, with her manifestos to bring diff. DUers to fight one another.

When these things come up, I mention them. I show them in plain sight.

When meta was here, I used it to show another DUer how obnoxious she had been to others with her attacks - because sometimes that's what you have to do to prove a point.

[Sissyk]

97. Holy.Shit!

My respect for a few here on DU just went to zero. Zero!! That is some nasty shit, LadyHawk!! You have my support any time you need it on DU.

For anyone that hasn't checked out this DU thread, or entered those three words in google search, you need to. Read the thread and the results of the google search.

I see why some of those are in the "Know Your Troll" thread in MIRT and they should always be banned when they are identified on DU.

[RainDog]

98. And here is someone wondering how they can get Steve Leser ts'd

Last edited Mon Apr 7, 2014, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)

http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338775789.html

someone called Misstee, who is obviously a DU member and is talking about trolling another DU member to get them banned.

yes. reality is a lot different than how it is sometimes presented around here.

eta - here's another from someone ReallyQuiet, and you may recognize the phrase "pat on the head" and the general thesis as one expounded by someone here.

http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338813752.html
Is it about race? As Tinoire/Catherina implied when she went on that incoherent rant about Soujourner Truth being the 'first third waver'?

Is it about empowerfulling sexxxxxxxy commodified sex for money and power and fame or at least just a few pats on the head?

Is it about the so not understood concept of 'instersectionality' which the confused cult of personality at the dump has waved about like a flag for one purpose only?

I think we all know the answer. Look at how most people use the term. It's about porn, prostitution, and objectification... it is about access to women's bodies.

And if you're not down with protecting men's access to women's bodies, then most of the 'feminists' at DU will turn on you viciously, because they have interests to be protected.

eta - in that thread, you also see Iverglas tell someone she refers to as "SB" that Neoma is "fair game" to attack here. fwiw.

[Sissyk]

100. That is some seriously fucked up shit.

What the hell happened to those people? Do they think other members here can not identify who they are???

I swear, I hope the members they are gossiping about read EVERY BIT OF THAT LINK. They need to know what kind of people they are dealing with here. Pathetic!!

[opiate69]

102. Yup yup.. but of course...

everyone else is the problem here at DU.. makes perfect sense..

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. It shows a degree of contemptuous presumed stupidity of their fellow "dump" posters.

And the alerter's attempted deflection of the issue onto the Men's group is really quite typical.

Does the Men's group serve a useful purpose? Yes. If nothing else, it is a mechanism that helps limit Iverglas' ability to control the dialog from the metaphorical grave.

[Sissyk]

105. I hear you.

Also, I wouldn't have come in this thread if I wasn't called to jury duty. WHich means, I would have missed all that.

I don't think it had the outcome the alerter was looking for.

[RainDog]

106. Not to mention that I'm not a man

have never participated in the men's group, and, to my knowledge, none of those who were involved in this stuff have ever claimed it wasn't them, or, if they have, I haven't seen it and I can't believe someone wouldn't state this if it wasn't them -- this has been posted on DU in the past, not just now.

I assume the alerter is someone here who is in contact with iverglas, by her admission, who is dissembling in the alert. just a guess.

but I could be wrong, and anyone who wants to dispute this who is named here - please do because I would sincerely want to know if I have been misled.

[RiffRandell]

109. No doubt.

That's insane...but like opiate said, everyone else is the problem. Yeah, okay.

[RainDog]

125. here's someone lying about being trans

to be able to cry "victim" to get someone else td's.

Posted by Misstee on June 3, 2012, 9:36 pm, in reply to "Re: Phobias"

The short story is that I have never felt like a girl. I have never felt like a boy either. I don't even understand what that means. Gender is irrelevant to me. Except for this female body I have, so I get treated by the world as "woman" so that is why feminism became important to me.

One day a couple years back I was doing gender research (my pet hobby) and I came across the whole gender spectrum thing where some folks just ID as "gender neutral". I said "wheee that is me because I just don't give a f*ck." Plus I hang with new-agey folks so maybe it is just the company I keep that made "gender neutral" sound like a good label for me.

Gender neutral, as a gender identity, falls under the broad umbrella term "transgender".

I am female born and have never presenting to the world as anything but female, nor do I desire to. Just inside, I don't grok myself as a "woman". I hate babies. I fix lawnmowers. I change tires. I climb up on the rood when it needs fixing. I worked in high tech. But I also cook and quilt and wear a dress once in a while. And I have sex with men.

I was really stretching it calling myself "transgender" but technically I can and I wanted that bastard dead.

http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338773808.html

No wonder they think others lie - they do it here habitually, if it scores points for their "side." ugh.

[opiate69]

126. Oh, snap.

Great catch. Somehow that little nugget of prevarication eluded me.

[RainDog]

193. It would appear that misstee is MadrasT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=3517

based upon the similarities describing gender identification.

[Sissyk]

101. btw,

it was pretty damn easy to figure them all out, even MissTee, and I've only been here about 2 years.

[RainDog]

103. I don't know who it is

nor do I know who Fashion Guru is, or unReMorseful.

I didn't know, until a few years ago, that there were groups of people here on DU who congregate elsewhere and attack one another - or, a group that will focus on an individual and attack that person.

afaik, they're not connected to the cc site that does this - I also didn't know it existed - I come here to read and talk about issues. I have always consciously chosen to be a part of this site - except for one time, when I got pulled into others' disputes - but I left that group - and then was told they were nice to me so they could attack me.

yes. there's that level of teenage b.s. here - and bullying, which is what it is.

The only time I talk about others here is when they attack me - or are banned as trolls - and when I talk about these situations, I don't attempt to disguise what I'm talking about.

[LadyHawkAZ]

108. Apparently all the attention upset someone...

there's a new post on the old board (presumably from one of the still-heres, or they wouldn't have bothered inventing a new name) sobbing about the evil transwomen wanting to invade women's spaces... it's quite the work of art.

http://queen-nanny.tumblr.com/post/81879144379/so-recently-at-a-julie-ruin-show-kathleen-hannas

So for all trans women of conscience. I beg you. Get your girls. Speak out like Calpernia Addams in PUBLIC. Speak out using pseudonyms. Speak out, publicly, on FB, everywhere in support of this space. Of understanding what patriarchy does to females and how we need to recover from it. I beg you.

snip

But understand what you are doing and why. Because we don’t have spaces like this available to us. We ask you to understand what it is you are trying to take down. This isn’t about equality, it is about liberation.

I'm trying to imagine any circumstance where a white person could be telling people of color "Hey, we're totally cool with you! Really we are! We just really need this whites-only space for a little while, because people who look like you are scary! But we're cool, right, because you know I'm not racist, right? And btw, can you get some of your black friends to help us keep this weekend white? We just need to be liberated from you for awhile." ~ saying all of that and getting any other reaction than spit in their eye for being a racist asshole.

And then there was the thread where posting sex-positive articles means that a guy is fucking his daughter.

And then there was the thread (actually, I think there was more than one) where everyone they didn't like was trans.

And then there was the thread where current members were trying to help get the tombstoned back onto DU.

and on... and on... and on...

[RainDog]

124. edited title

Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2014, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)

http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338775984.html

Posted by spikeboy on June 3, 2012, 10:13 pm, in reply to "Never underestimate the depth of my hatred"

gosh, that one is down right pathetic. a lapdog to william. he is a sad dude. and i swear he gives his daughter this shit. she is a lovely 18, 19 yr old. i wonder what is up there. he has said enough, and is odd enough, i wonder. i really hate men that say stuff like this raising a daughter. it makes me sad.... i have seen what happens with that.

creekdog... lol

but it helps me to understand how rq could think she was justified in calling people here pedophile enablers - fact doesn't matter to them - the only thing that matter is their hatred, which they use here to troll.

it also explains why some were going on on that totally joking thread about a fundie porn video to say if anyone here finds fundie views of sexuality seriously fucked up, they don't care about rape - iow - those doing that in that joke thread were trolling. repeatedly. maybe that makes them trolls?

[enigmatic]

176. At least one of them is certainly trolling

The others? Who knows, but I have my suspicions.

The whole thing about Neoma was the thing that made me leave DU for a few years. I've been on the internet for a long time and posted on USENET when it was truly The Wild West; what they did to Neoma was about as sick as it gets.

I was cordial w/ one of them previously before they joined in attacking Neoma and mistook a post I made as one supporting what they were doing. They pm'd me and about how much fun they were having and when I asked them if they were serious about having fun, they said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory, as I don't have any of my old pm's here anymore) "Lol I got tired of playing WoW and this is my new game".

I figuratively shook my head; how can a message board bring out that much hatred and callousness in someone? That was it for me, and I just stopped posting and reading. It was just beyond creepy.

[Jamastiene]

183. Off-Topic

enigmatic!!!!

Long time no see.

[enigmatic]

185. !!

I know, it's been awhile. Just got sick of it all and decided to bow out for a few years

How are you? I've been lurking every so often for a bit now; being up here now has pretty much weaned me off US politics so I've been mostly working at a local level politics-wise.

[Neoma]

253. I never found that leaving was a choice.

Why let them kick out decent people? I'm sorry that happened to you.

[enigmatic]

257. The whole thing was just too creepy for me

What they did to you was just so over the bounds of rational behavior that I just didn't want to be around that kind of mentality, even as a bystander.

This is just a message board. That they would still have this obsession going on for years is just nuts. When I came back to (mostly) lurk, I had hoped that they would have had some self-awareness of their actions and at least stop this madness, but it was still going strong. I just don't understand that.

I'm glad all is well w/ you!

[chrisa]

110. That site again? It looks like it was made by a 5-year-old.

They talked just like members of Free Republic / CC, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were dopey trolls trying to troll DU. Or, they were just a collection of angry, bitter morons who hate the world.

[Sissyk]

111. Read the names.

Look at the writing styles.

Those are high post count members of this website.

And, it is sickening to me.

[RainDog]

114. separatists

Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2014, 04:11 PM - Edit history (2)

not all at the site are feminist separatists, but apparently some are. This pov may work for them - but then you have to ask why they post on DU if they want exclusively female space for their world - unless it's to fight with men - and women who don't share their view of life, with the goal to get people here ppr'd or to hide posts from them, etc. - iow - they're trolls.

If someone has the desire to expend the energy, Fashion Guru is Serabellum (ETA-Sargasso Sea) a formerly ts'd person here - you can find this from links to her blog site on the duckies site on one of the threads.

She participated on a thread here at DU in which DutchLiberal was ppr'd. I don't know about that person - never had anything to say to him, but from what I read he did come off as a peacock - but that's why I've said many times ignore is good to use. Anyway, if you go to the duckies site, you see others who are here who knew a troll was trolling and fully approved.

Anyway, at least when those posts were made, someone who is considered a troll here was part of a group with others who are here in good standing and those others willingly participated with a troll to try to remove someone from this site.

[maddezmom]

117. Hi feldspar

Or is it Moonstone?

[RainDog]

121. I'm glad some of you have "institutional memories"

about various socks.

I think having served on MIRT helps people - even if there are general names that may not be the same person here - the same tactics or issues come up.

[maddezmom]

122. There were more but here is another one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=281351&sub=trans

[opiate69]

123. And yet another..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=309982&sub=trans

(All iterations of the same one or two trolls, IIRC)

[RainDog]

127. It's Sargasso Sea, not serabellum

who is also "Fashion Guru" on that site

Posted by Fashion Guru on June 4, 2012, 4:11 pm, in reply to "Re: and here is another post to catherina. she draws them."

Here's what I had to say about the Dutch boy's demise (clickable link as it simply goes to my blog):

http://radicalresolution.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/equal-protection-under-the-law-duh-style/

but Fashion Guru is in touch with serabellum, as she notes -

Posted by Fashion Guru on June 4, 2012, 4:36 pm, in reply to "Re: and here is another post to catherina. she draws them."

You're doing great!!

It's a lot of information to pick up and it is kind of shocking (well, and in####ingfuriating too!) to realize not only that it's there in the first place but the sheer amount of damage they are doing and have done.

So everyone knows, I told i v in an email that I've been following this whole trans thing for the past couple of years. What we (Sera and I) were seeing happening at DU back just right before duh.3 went live I could tell that the transactivists and MRAs were really getting away with *murder*. That's when feldspar and sera laid down just a few trigger words and all hell broke loose .
http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338842198.html

So, maybe Sargasso Sea is Feldspar.

[opiate69]

128. Ok...

If I'm remembering my troll history correctly, Sargasso Sea was feldspar, and sarabellum was her girlfriend/wife/partner.

[RainDog]

129. which the deleted message indicated too

Feldspar disputed that serabellum was Fashion Guru - which plants doubt - but didn't bother to say she knew this because she's fashion guru.

[RainDog]

131. Fashion Guru also talked about getting Zorra banned from hof

Posted by Fashion Guru on June 5, 2012, 1:52 pm, in reply to "Re: Found it."

I really don't want to sound like *I've been watching you* but we knew that there were a handful of you there who would get it if we could shake the trans enough to lose it.

It was much easier than I thought it would be

http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338918738.html

...admitting to trying to spur people on DU to attack another person here - who says she is trans. fwiw, I didn't know DurhamD (someone else who has attacked other women here who disagree with people who i.d. as part of hof) is also trans, according to the duckies site.

So, for Feldspar to post here and claim she didn't know about the "duckies" site is yet another outright lie.

[maddezmom]

130. Yeah, pretty sure that is right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2557026

[RainDog]

132. It's that MIRT "know your troll" info

But what this demonstrates is that people in hof who post threads calling out others here about posts in GD, etc., are or have conspired with known trolls on this site.

heckuva job, brownies.

[maddezmom]

133. Pretty sure it is in there somewhere

[RainDog]

134. Was Helen Reddy one of those trolls?

I asked someone on MIRT and they thought she was one of the repeat trollers - part of the elorial, rememberme, xmaude, sargossosea group. But that person is new to MIRT.

[maddezmom]

135. Not sure who HelenReddy was before

[opiate69]

136. Yes, she was.

[RainDog]

139. someone here said xulamaude wasn't HReddy

because she's in contact with HReddy (who was, apparently, banned too - tho I don't know why, other than as a sock or zombie, I suppose is the correct term, for someone who was here earlier.)

and that someone is another person here who constantly accuses people of various things and takes things they say and distorts them in order to create reasons to attack someone - iow, imo - another form of trolling.

So, RememberMe is Eloriel is unReMorseful on the Duckies site.

Feldspar is Sargasso Sea is Fashion Guru on the Duckies site.

Misstee is someone who has M and T as part of a user name here.

spikeboy, reallyquiet, inveigle have already been id'd as current or former members here.

[opiate69]

141. Unfortunately...

Someone was able to hang a fifth hide on me a couple weeks ago, so I can no longer access MIRT, but if my memory serves me, Earl did say that xula, Hreddy, sargasso and feldspar were the same.. in any case, yeah, you have a solid handle on the cast of characters, for sure.

[RainDog]

143. I've never really tried to break it down before now

Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2014, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

but if EarlG says it - I'm sure he knows waay more about it than I do.

So, if someone alerted on my post, above, and tried to claim the Duckies site was generated by the men's group, but knows people who have been ppr'd who participate in that group and is in contact with them....

the alert itself would simply be another form of trolling, as I see it.

of course, I don't know who alerted on my post - but the admins do. I asked a question about this very thing to the admins, but deleted it b/c I thought I would just try to figure some stuff out for myself.

eta: and if someone hadn't made that false alert - I wouldn't still be talking about this - but I saw it as one more example of trolling and decided to try to find out more about the whole situation surrounding the "duckies" site. so, yeah, as someone else here mentioned, if you persist in trolling, you just do yourself harm.

[opiate69]

144. Yeah.. ultimately, it's pretty fucking convoluted, really..

Hard to keep track without a line-up card lol

[RainDog]

145. Which is why I also say so many of these fights

are about personalities who have staked a claim about one person or another.

One time, in the past, I went back to look at what someone had said in a thread where that person (who I don't think I've ever had anything to say to here, fwiw) and, from my pov, here's what happened:

(I could provide a series of links if anyone cares to follow up to check my understanding - ask and I will - but I'm about to start on a big project and will have to stop procrastinating here... which I'm sure will make many happy...lol)

anyway, in a protected group, people (I don't know if it was all women or not) were talking about abuse of children by adults - talking about their personal experience with the same as children.

First - let me say that I don't think that's a good thing to do on a public site for anyone who is still processing such things, emotionally. The reason is that they may be vulnerable and don't need to hear things from others who don't understand. Private group therapy sorts of things for such can be great - but I question the value of such things on a public board - for the sake of those who have been harmed.

anyway, someone wondered into that thread, not knowing it was a protected group for women and made a statement about using "I" sentences to frame experience... " I felt" rather than "He made me feel."

This is classic, basic stuff from therapy - owning your emotions, and not meant to say someone who abused another person was in any way not responsible for his/her actions - it's about saying those actions don't define you - the emotions are within your capacity to control b/c you felt them. It's part of empowerment.

The person who made the statement about using "I" words was referring to his own experience in therapy, in fact, and said the cultural environment had impacts on people processing such things and taking on negative emotions about the self.

Personally, I wouldn't have participated on the thread at all... but when this person made the statement - it's not you, but own the emotion, then recognize you can let it go by tracing it to sexism, etc. in society - that person was excoriated for such remarks as somehow attacking those in the thread who had experienced abuse.

Maybe my take on the situation is wrong - I don't really know the person who made the remarks - but the situation, again, reinforced my thought that personal abuse is best dealt with in safe environments - not public ones. But because the person said this to people in the thread - he's a hater.

These situations are complex - and that's why asking for clarification, rather than immediately attacking someone for what he or she says goes a long way toward making this board a better place for Democrats and liberals and lefties, etc. to find common cause.

[pintobean]

161. You can alert on your own post.

It lets you send a note to admin. I think they would be interested in seeing who is trying to give cover to repeat trolls.

[RainDog]

162. LOL, wuh?

why would I want to alert on my own post?

I did ask a question in AtA but I deleted it and, instead, tried to figure out who might have known about duckies - but, unless people are privately claiming they didn't post this - a lot of people who have been here for a while know the duckies site was created by iverglas, and some of her friends are there.

I don't know if the person who alerted would have known - which is why I decided to first see if I could read the duckies site to find some names that would've known, rather than just ask the question without knowing who was there other than three names.

[CreekDog]

181. i don't know but they were all types of schists

[RainDog]

119. why should anyone believe what you say?

Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2014, 05:20 PM - Edit history (3)

when there are threads that link to radfem blogs that talk about this and the history on that site demonstrates people there are trolling du?

...and when Serabellum is considered a troll by MIRT, etc. ETA- feldspar, not serabellum, is fashion guru.

Some people here think that Fashion Guru is a specific person on this site. Many here already assume Misstee is an active du member, based upon her posts at that site.

If anyone here wants to claim they did not participate on the site - that would be something they should do - but they did - bibliography - the kind that looks at writing styles - definitely puts two active members here on that site -

but since they are talking about others here - for instance, if rq discussed something in pms to CreekDog - then it should be fairly easy to figure out who's lying. also - if Steve Leser sent rq pms about feminist waves - that would be further evidence that the person is the person assumed.

[LadyHawkAZ]

137. I can certainly vouch for the PM exchange mentioned that involved me

Still got it in my inbox.

[RainDog]

140. I think public apologies would go a long way

instead, we see "if you want to know what happened, pm me."

They say... oh, that happened long ago, who remembers - or, why does someone dredge up this stuff? Well, the reason is because they have never apologized.

but if your goal is to provoke someone into losing their temper, tho, OF COURSE you will call someone a pedophile enabler. Of course you will call anyone who disagrees with you an MRA supporter - they have a bifurcated view of the world - the one true feminists and the MRA, and if you don't agree with them, you're the latter.

Ethical behavior seems to be a lost subject here for some because they're like gawd warriors and any bullshit is acceptable to say if they decide to do so.

I've never seen a more unethical bunch, in fact, who claims all they care about is others' well being. That's also why I even bothered to say anything on the thread trying to "rehabilitate" Dworkin here. Or why I even bother to say anything a lot of times in these moments. It annoys me to see such dishonesty.

Sometimes it comes down to a debate for me in my head - are they really that ignorant, or are they simply trolling? It's giving them the benefit of the doubt to say they're ignorant. But obvious some of them aren't - so they're simply trolling.

[opiate69]

142. Perfectly stated.

[Sissyk]

146. To me,

sb, rq, MT, and a couple of others who I am starting to think are still here, own apologies to the following people:

La Lioness Priyanka
William769 - This one really pisses me off and I can't tell you how much!
Catherina
Creek Dog
StevenLessor
Violet Crumble - mostly soliciting her help
Kali - mostly agreeing with Kali and wanting her help
Neoma
Zorra



Check this out and tell me they didn't know they were in the wrong. sb called it paronoid.


Re: On *Catherina*


Posted by spikeboy on June 4, 2012, 1:27 pm, in reply to "Re: On *Catherina*"

from what i gather catherinas stupid ass attacks yesterday in that thread with me pissed vc off. that doesnt go on your board. the way you handled it works well. i doubt vc is reading your board. it has been caterthinas behavior on the board that is pissing vc off. she went to bed to let the others chat.

you are getting major hits on the catherina shit

paranoia. can someone put catherinas name in and find us? tell ya, regardless of what the woman said yesterday, i am computer stupid. just a yes or no. cause i have my post littered with like, vc, and cath



Posted by reallyquiet on June 4, 2012, 4:25 pm, in reply to "On *Catherina*"

These people are deranged.

http://www.democratic xx underground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=105524

That's the best post ever?
And elsewhere in meta, Neoma is a "hero".
There are more examples of this cult of personality crap, it goes on and on and on.

Seriously, these people have deep-seated, severe issues.

Posted by reallyquiet on June 4, 2012, 5:00 pm, in reply to "Re: Oh. My. God."

Nothing new. Just for how amazingly awesomely brilliantly gracefully wonderfully well she handled all the brutal slings and arrows of all the mean nasty THINKING PEOPLE who knew what the #### they were actually ####ing talking about with respect to MISOGYNY, not that any of that cult give half a shit.

I'm ####ing livid. Zorra ... Wtf.
http://www.democratic xx underground.com/12553813


On phone now but I'll clue you in on the circle jerk in meta from home later.

From misstee:

Posted by Misstee on June 4, 2012, 5:13 pm, in reply to "Oh. My. God."

Between Catherina's "I'd respond in more depth" self-glorification in Meta, the subsequent fawning pile-on of her herd of drooling admirers, and Zorra's ####ing bullshit in H of F on S.C.U.M., and then subsequent whining about the failed alert in Meta, I am basically done too.

There was NOTHING about feminism in that thread... then Saint Catherine sails in and makes it all about her and her trans-advocacy.

AGAIN.

She is UNHINGED. Completely and utterly UNHINGED.

It is bizarre. Just mindbogglingly bizarre.


I have not even posted 1/3 of all the dogging of other DU Members. And,then these under-cover assholes now want to command respect on DU??? Not in my book.

All the members above (and more) deserve and apology from this group. It is up to them if they accept that apology or not. I will support their decision either way and some of them I don't even know.

Here. Read the entire fucking stinking thread. I'm done with this until I see one of those assholes trying to act all high and mighty. Then, there is more swimming with the duckies.
http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338828234.html

[Sissyk]

147. Oh! I left out one name.

Skinner


Posted by spikeboy on June 4, 2012, 5:00 pm, in reply to "Re: Male "feminists""

really discreet. dont mess up again. and get on it, would you. nip skinner fat ass, ok, probably a little scrawny ass. lol.


Same link, further down the thread, talking to iverglas about figuring out how to sign back up on DU after her famous banning.

[RainDog]

148. GVScout is also there

I haven't read all the threads there - but whoever GVScout is is here, and that person also knew that Feldspar was posting on DU as Kitty Herder, based on participation on this thread, which also calls men here losers, and spikeboy boasts about all the "men losers" telling her their story before they attack her - and she uses the information they told her to call them losers.

And they talk about making plans in hof to attack others here who disagree with them.

http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338672491.html

[Sissyk]

149. I think if you take off the G and the V

and do a search you may find something interesting.

[RainDog]

150. Here's another person who would've had knowledge of the group

Posted by inveigle on June 6, 2012, 7:18 pm, in reply to "A couple of things I have failed to mention:"

bb has been in touch as I'm sure she is with the rest.

She has troubles that you all probably know about more than me and didn't want to wander in here and then not participate. I said no problem, say hello and browse.

http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1339024692.html

[Sissyk]

152. I hear what you're saying, RainDog,

but I didn't see any evidence that she was involved in any way at duckies.

I'll inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt since I have no evidence. That's just me though.

[BainsBane]

168. Hold on

What do you think it is you are doing? You feel entitled to gossip about current DUers based on something you found on another site?

In case anyone is wondering, that BB is not me and the only way I heard about that blog is through posts like this and a member of the men's group who sent it to me. Nor do I give a shit what banned or current members write off site. I know of nothing in TOS that restricts what a member can say on other websites. Anyone can do a Google search and dredge up stuff about members here, whether you or others. The question is why? What purpose does it serve? I'm not commenting on the content of that blog because truly I don't give a rat's ass. What does bother me is that people who feel entitled to talk crap about DUers right here and now in this thread.

I'm trying to figure out the issue here. You seem upset someone was talking about DU members offsite, yet you feel completely entitled to spend this week talking shit about DU members in this thread. Earlier you gave some sort of lame excuse that a feminist was "attacking women" and you in particular some time in the past, yet in this thread you have devoted yourself to nothing but attacking other women. Every point people have complained about, they themselves have repeated in this subthread, including spreading the same malicious gossip you claim to abhor. I agree that gossip accusing someone of molesting a child is awful. When you repeat that gossip, and even put it in a subject line, you do exactly what you claimed the people who first raised it did. You think yourself entitled to do so because it serves your cause of showing how awful a certain member is, but in the process you continue to malign that male member's character.

I have seen you engage in gossip about the same DUer on at least four occasions. I would like to know what you think this is supposed to accomplish? If you think she should be banned, the accepted procedure is to PM the administrators. However, above you proudly proclaim you have never tried to have this member banned. Then what is the point of this? To get as many people as possible to share your antipathy toward that member? Good for you. You got some kids to sit with you at the lunch table. Happy now? My guess is not.

I can tell you for a fact that member neither talks nor thinks about you at all. If fact, I PMed that person to let her know what you were up to, and she was so unconcerned she didn't even bother responding. Seems to me she is living in your head rent free, and that is no one's doing but your own. Why anyone would devote so many of their waking hours to cultivating enmity with strangers on the internet, or anyone, is beyond me. It must take lot of energy to carry around that kind of grudge.

[DURHAM D]

173. This post was Alerted on an received a 0 - 7 vote to leave.

Here is the Alert message -

Personal attacks, light on facts, iverglas style.
Poster is likely part of the organized trolling team from the site linked in this thread.

[BainsBane]

178. Thanks

Someone else sent me the results. I enjoyed the juror comments.

[snooper2]

315. I only made it halfway through the thread so far and THEN you have to go and

write this long reply LOL-

You could have said that in like three sentences


Okay, back to work !

[BainsBane]

320. I know

It's a bad habit. The more pissed off I am, the longer winded.

[snooper2]

323. Please tell me you are hunting and pecking

Please!

[BainsBane]

324. No, sorry

I type close to 70 words a minute.

[LadyHawkAZ]

165. I think the marching orders have been handed down from beyond the grave

and they are "Don't discuss it AT ALL, pretend it never happened". I notice that image rehab is already under way.

I wouldn't believe an apology even if they gave one.

[RainDog]

170. maybe that's the point of posting

"Remdi95"

as a search term that would show up as a "breadcrumb" via google for those who are not here. they talk about leaving breadcrumbs to call in the troops to attack.

If this is not the case, of course, anyone who knows the purpose can explain - otherwise - that's what I'm coming up with. I've been given the breadcrumb in the past. Maybe it's the password to the new clubhouse.

[opiate69]

172. My best guess?

[LadyHawkAZ]

177. Possible. Probable.

I knew it was a breadcrumb but I didn't think of that angle.

[RainDog]

182. so whoever has done that here

may be part of this whole thing. the person who left me the breadcrumb was not any of the people mentioned from the duckies group, but is friends with helenreddy - which is another reason I was wondering how helen fits into the whole dynamic.

[BainsBane]

367. While the creativity here is fascinating

No. Just no. Remember Occam's Razor. You've taken something very simple and woven a complex plot that bears no relation to reality. I must confess to being amused by how much time you've all devoted to it.

[stevenleser]

220. One of the folks has pm'd me to apologize. Reality is, I'm so used to crap being spewed about me

on the internet that even an attack as heinous as that one is/was doesn't have much impact. I remember now that a few years ago when that was first written, someone mentioned it to me. I said the same thing then. I am attacked 24x7 by folks saying all kinds of things. In the business you either grow a thick skin or find another career. I'm still here, so...

[BainsBane]

227. If people were actually concered for your reputation

They would not have repeated on DU--and even featured it prominently in the subject line--an allegation they thought they read on the linked site.

[stevenleser]

232. The thought occurred to me. Perhaps they wanted to make sure I and others saw it and the other

things said there.

As I said, I've accepted the apology of the one person who apologized.

[seabeyond]

234. or maybe she is doing it simply cause she feels "slighted" by hof, screw the innocents that she hurt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024787933#post206

If you and others here hadn't thought bullying me was a worthwhile endeavor, these posts here would not exist.

if we did not piss her off, then she would not be throwing these posts up from more than TWO YEARS AGO, in the heat of a battle with anger everywhere.

[Major Nikon]

519. As suspected the apologies never came

Notice the similarities between what TERFs have to say:

ReallyQuiet:

I think a huge part of "transgender" issues are psychological.

Body dysphoria is a psychological problem, not a medical problem to be "corrected" with surgery and hormones.

Transphobia in the feminist community isn't new and continues to be promoted by radical feminists such as Sheila Jeffreys, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel who pathologize transgenderism for a variety of reasons. They characterize being transgender in various ways: as an extremely kinky sexual practice or a mental illness such as body dysmorphic disorder.
http://www.radicalwomen.org/transphobia.shtml

[Bonobo]

299. +1,000 brazillions. nt

[CreekDog]

180. and that's what happened

[Agschmid]

267. People need lives...

[Bonobo]

297. Perhaps you can see why some that have been slimed by them...

as "misogynistic" are NOT, in fact, misogynistic but are quite specifically responding to bully behavior.

There are literally only about 4, maybe 5, of those posters in THAT group that are responsible for ALL of it. And I do not consider themselves feminists so much as nearly psychopathic.

[BainsBane]

303. Do you have links?

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 12:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Of occasions on which these psychopathic women have called you misogynists? I know quite recently you accused me of attacking you because you insisted an entire post I had written was all about you, when it was not at all. When I explained that to you, you didn't bother to respond.

Am I one of these psychopaths? I don't recall every calling you a misogynist. I have, however, pointed to some of your own posts and even things you had said about me personally. My sense was that you seemed to think I should bear those accusations without holding it against you in anyway. You told me the only place I could respond to such posts where you made them, only you make them in a safe haven group from which you have banned me. You refused to discuss any of this the last time you made a similar charge against me. I recall another time you accused me of calling you something awful after I had referenced your previous posts. I called you nothing. I simply pointed out what you posted and on another occasion simply provided links with limited commentary. In my experience, you invent charges that others--at least I--have not leveled. You become angry when I point to your previous posts on subjects like rape and accuse me of insulting you simply by mentioning them.

Additionally, perhaps you can explain why you consider it acceptable to insult feminists on this site you refer to disdainfully as "radical feminists" and "psychopaths" who spew "bile," yet no one should ever say anything against you or anything you interpret as being about you, even when your name isn't mentioned?

I'll help you out by giving you the definition of psychopath:

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) (or sociopathy /ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθi/) is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores on different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations

It doesn't say failure to assuage the ego of someone who has continually expressed contempt for the alleged psychopath. It doesn't say refusal to accept continual insults from someone without objecting or responding in anyway. It doesn't say refusal to understand that the DU member named Bonobo should under no circumstances be challenged or reminded of anything he himself has recently posted.

[snooper2]

316. Too long! give me a chance here!

[Sissyk]

318. Hey! If you didn't have to come back

and read how you make me laugh (even though I shouldn't admit it, I'm sure), would you be done by now?

lol! btw, you make me laugh!

[snooper2]

319. Well, done now, I think, I'll wait till it goes over 400 replies then start over

that's when it gets harder to read though

[Jamastiene]

154. feldspar and another one with a rock theme to their username.

Curious how they all had rock themes to their usernames. But, yes Iverglas was DEFINITELY one of them and absolutely hated lesbians (and the rest of the GLBT community too, but especially lesbians) too.

[RainDog]

155. I don't know if iverglas hated lesbians or not

I would imagine not, since, on that board, she's good friends with a separatist lesbian. I think the problem, overall, was simply not being able to participate on this board without insulting others constantly who did not bow down to her awesome awesomeness - she enjoyed having sb as someone she could teach, as well.

but she did help to clarify some of the user names.

Eloriel became Morgana - which she talks about as unReMorseful when she notes she was ts'd here as RememberMe.

Here she tells spikeboy about the ppr and how she also left spikeboy "clues" to know her sock on DU.

Posted by spikeboy on June 4, 2012, 1:10 pm, in reply to "Re: was remember me ever tos'ed"

with you on the whole post. BUT... the tos'ed i believe was cause you kicked anyones ass that dared to argue with you. they argue stupid. they are easy to beat. you were good.

and i got the rm.

i swear i am getting old, young. brain does not work like it use to.

Posted by unReMorseful on June 4, 2012, 2:15 pm, in reply to "Re: was remember me ever tos'ed"

Aw, thanks.

So, you got it, eh? I just left you a dozen clues in the other thread. LOL.

http://members.boardhost.com/duckies/msg/1338833757.html

When Helen Reddy posted here - you see this same signaling going on when she was welcomed to the forum. Could Helen be iverglas? I don't know. Don't have the wish to dig up Helen's intro here, but it's in the google.

Iverglas had a sock on DU after she was banned that sb and rq knew about - because they discussed it.

et - they also talk about how to use proxies to get around DU software that bans repeat trolls.

[Jamastiene]

157. I know Iverglas railed, ranted, and raved on that weird message board of hers

right after she got banned. I lost my links since Meta is gone, but I know she stayed on me for quite some time on that message board. She REALLY hated me and several other lesbians on this site. I know that for sure. So, maybe she only likes lesbians who agree with her 100%. That's Iverglas though. She only likes anybody who agrees with her 100%.

Props to you for finding all of this information and letting everyone know in this thread, especially those they seem to be targeting for a PPR/TS here.

I will still never get over what they did to Neoma. That was beyond despicable. A lot of what they did back then was despicable. I wish the evidence didn't show they are still at it, but it is looking more and more like they are playing one sick, deranged game here on DU.

[RainDog]

159. I think it's about expecting 100% agreement

The duckies board started when iverglas was ppr'd. I don't know who, but someone found out about it at some point and posted it here.

And if you're a woman and don't see the world their way, whether you are lesbian or not (I'm not), you are called a faux feminist.

These are not the sort of people any actual feminist organization would want to speak on behalf of them, imo - whether it's here or anywhere else. If you post about issues, if you're not posting on a protected site, etc. - you are going to have people who disagree with you - even people who may be wrong and disagree with you. But here we have women saying others should shut up and let them tell us how to think.

Of course, I would likely imagine there are men here who troll, knowing they can get someone to "lose it," just like people on the duckies site talk about.

So - what would be the best thing to do if you think someone, whether male or female, is involved in such things? The best thing to do here is to use the "ignore" button if you can't interact with someone here without resorting to insults. There is so much bad blood here between some - unless they publicly talked it out or called a truce - it's nearly impossible for some to interact here b/c of a long history of disputes between them.

If someone is on your ignore list, but they constantly make statements that seem to goad - they'll lose interest after a while b/c they're not getting what they want out of doing so.

Others here, tho, do a lot of troll hunting because they've dealt with the same over time - so if you ignore people, the argument goes, you won't be able to see them. But if you can't keep your temper, it's better to ignore until you can.

I'm sure there are all kinds of personal spaces apart from DU where friends gather. Nothing wrong with that. It's the trolling that's the problem.

[FloridaJudy]

167. She got onto me too.

I'm hopelessly straight, but she tried to out me as a former drunk. Big Whoop. Like that's a secret...

I always thought I was in excellent company.

[Jamastiene]

184. You are excellent company.

[CreekDog]

158. Eloriel's most recent incarnation was as "Remember Me" and we did

though not fondly!

she was kind of famous for picking up Iverglas' baton in any argument after Iverglas had proverbially whacked someone with it and gotten hidden.

Remember Me would immediately step in as though Iverglas was using her account and post right where Iverglas left off, though it's believable that Remember Me was not Iverglas because Remember Me had some self-control.

[RainDog]

163. I think she may have been Xulamaude after that

When intaglio went down a thread insulting people, trying to bait them to lose it - but he lost it instead - for a moment I wondered... iverglas/intaglio? but surely not.

but then there was that "salute to fallen comrades" thread in a protected forum that was like singing the marseilles backwards, to me lauding him for trolling people here - he was the victim, according to some - and the meenies here who use logic, etc. to try to sound reasonable are the unreasonable ones.

that moment was when I decided some here had distinctly different understandings of reality.

[RainDog]

192. but intaglio is back now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125541746

and is somehow not at fault for his actions in this thread - it's always someone else.

Intaglio - I alerted on you when I read the thread because you were trolling. you weren't doing anything here but trying to stir up shit. The reason my alert was after midnight was because I had gone out for the evening, came home, logged on to DU, and there you were, trolling people on a thread.

This is what got a time out - or was the final straw - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4315181

And this was the response - http://www.democraticunderground.com/125534767

smgdh.

I wonder how Skinner, EarlG, etc. feel about a group here who celebrates trolling by its members

- especially with the knowledge that more than a few of the ones doing so were part of a group that talked about creating proxies to allow people who had been banned to get around this reality - and knew the zombies of banned posters were participating on DU with the full knowledge of some in that same group. That's the sort of thing that make DU suck - because trolls are banned for reasons.

eta - and here was another post defending those who troll here from that same time - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4321929

[maddezmom]

198. That was a classic meltdown

[CreekDog]

174. the moon bomber was Omega Minimo

oy.

[RainDog]

196. Here's how I break it down, tho I could be wrong

Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 06:24 PM - Edit history (2)

spikeboy - sea beyond
really quiet - red queen
misstee - madrasT
GVScout - scout

bb- unidentified
fffff, etc. - no idea
inveigle/iverglas - bushwah - possibly HelenReddy

Feldspar - fashion guru, moonstone, sargasso sea, kitty herder
serabellum - chonky - on blog sites

these two are partners and people have assumed one person is all of them, but they are distinct, however - they may use a shared proxy site to create new IPs unrelated to previous iterations

Eloriel - unReMorseful, Morgana, RememberMe, Xulamaude, Omega Minimo (aka the moon bomber)

anyone who has "tagged" anyone else's posts here with "Remdi95" is likely aware of the same group and is leaving a breadcrumb for google. more than one person here has done that in the past, according to others here.

the person who did this to me previously is not any of the names above, but is a member here - who has served on MIRT, fwiw, and who apparently tried to get people here ppr'd because she claimed they were coming here from other sites to troll, while defending known trolls like Xulamaude - and who claims she is in contact with HelenReddy.

yeah. that's ironic.

[JJChambers]

200. Jury Results

On Sat Apr 12, 2014, 03:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Here's how I break it down, tho I could be wrong
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4812890

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster has more than 15 posts on this thread that are nothing but pure gossip and blatant call ours about current DU'ers who supposedly posted on an off site board 2 years ago. I'm not part of the drama in any way, shape, or form, but this looks like pure shit-stirring to me, and I don't think it's appropriate at all.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 12, 2014, 03:46 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is needlessly disruptive, inappropriate and divisive. As is CreekDog's post, fwiw. Let's back off from this "list" stuff.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Radical feminists who are intolerant of the transgendered amongst us should be called out and their names should be known to all. DU should NOT house radical feminists and when caught, they should be removed. This alerter is probably a homophobe and a radical feminist who hates transgendered folks.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Drama seems to be part of GD now. I don't agree with that but see no reason to hide this and leave the rest.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Shandris]

201. ...I'm having trouble with all this.

I came in expecting to read a TERF screed (and I wasn't disappointed), only to find out way more than I ever wanted to about other posters and the amount of...of...I can't even think of a good word for it. Premeditation? Despicableness? I don't know. The kind of planned disruption of a board with obvious intentions to get other posters banned for no other reason than disagreeing with them, as if it were some kind of battle between good and evil and all that other type of poo that Shrubya announced leading up the Iraq War?

Sometimes it's very eye-opening to be shown some of the things we don't want to believe exist. If you had told me this was happening, I would have told myself you were a paranoid person and that no liberals would be doing this kind of thing. I mean, I've actually cried over this thread and what I was reading, and not because of the hate and invective-filled stupidity that is the link in the OP (as if it weren't bad enough on its own!).

I know I don't read here as regularly as I should, but that was an infobomb my entire life could have gone on happily without -- not that I'm upset anyone posted it. It needed to be done, in some sick perverse way. But it makes me nauseous to know that these types of people are out here planning this kind of thing. How DARE they try to control what I or anyone else am allowed to hear from people, and then claim themselves 'defenders' of women?!

I'll never understand the mindset. Maybe I'm too sheltered or something, I dunno.

[boston bean]

202. Don't write my screen name one more time regarding this.

I never participated at that website, never knew about, nor did I care to know about it.

You however, are making false accusations, absent of proof, because there isn't any, it's a fucking lie.

Now stop it.

[RainDog]

203. I'll delete your name

I made the assumption b/c you are in many threads with the same people backing up their claims, and when red queen said my choice to side with Jennifer Granholm's opinion of someone rather than an anonymous radfem blogger made me a pedophile enabler -you apparently saw no need to dispute this.

so, bb is someone else who knew about the site b/c she was in contact with iverglas via email.

The rest of what's here, however, is not a lie. I may have some of the troll genealogy misapplied - but those who are still here under the names mentioned are the people who participate on that site, as various people here can confirm by their emails.

[boston bean]

205. What a piss poor excuse.

You are shit stirring and then admit you might be wrong.

Leave me the fuck out of your shitty little shit stirring fest, ok?

[RainDog]

206. No. I did not say I am wrong

and I'm not interested in this bullshit deflection you are trying to pull.

I explained my reason for assuming you were the "bb" mentioned by iverglas.

What I am doing is helping people here see the bullshit that goes on while people cry victim. If you and others here hadn't thought bullying me was a worthwhile endeavor, these posts here would not exist.

I will be happy to leave you out.

Funny you think the truth is shit-stirring, when this thread provides examples of left wing trolls here.

Personally, I always assumed trolls here were from the right - but that, too, is a mistake.

[boston bean]

208. Get this. I don't give a shit what you are saying.

Because it's a fucking lie. It's not fucking true, and I demand that you leave me the fuck out of whatever the fuck it is you are trying to do here.

Get it. Don't do it again, please.

You make shit up, attempting to stalk, and then get it fucking wrong. Again, leave me the hell out of it.

[RainDog]

211. LOL. I already deleted your name here

the two times it was mentioned.

so, have a great day.

the truth is still here.

[boston bean]

215. I don't find anything to LOL at regarding your false accusations about me.

I know that was not the truth, to put it kindly, and a lie to put it more bluntly.

[RainDog]

217. It was an honest mistake

based upon your posting history here.

I apologize for making such a mistake.

What makes me LOL is that I had already deleted your name, and your seeming insistence that this mistake invalidates anything else posted here when the posts were copy/pasted directly from the site and identify the others.

I'm sure it makes you upset to have your name defamed here for associating with people outside of DU when you associate with them here.

Imagine the outrage if you are the mother of a disabled son and someone accuses you of being a pedophile enabler.

Maybe you can get it if it happens to you.... some empathy, that sort of thing.

So, again, apologies.

[boston bean]

218. I came into this thread to set you straight.

Delete the entire post that mentions me, don't leave it in your edits. That's the least you could do after making such volatile accusations against me.

[RainDog]

219. there is no post here that mentions you

there is a post here from inveigle that mentions "bb" from the site.

I removed your name from my own questions, but will move "bb" to the "iverglas" section.

[boston bean]

221. Do whatever the hell you want to do.

I don't give a shit. You think this makes you look like some sort of really principled person?

No, to me, someone you have lied about, makes you look petty, bad stalker, who is out to stir shit.

Keep on with whatever you go to do to help pass your day. But leave me the frig out of it.

[RainDog]

222. Everyone is entitled to an opinion

I don't care what you think.

[pintobean]

239. If you really want to have clean hands in all this

start enforcing the SOP in your group. It's being used as a meta forum to trash other DUers. Even Skinner gets trashed there. It also appears to be an entry port for people who are not welcome here at DU.

[seabeyond]

241. meta? this si not a little meta subthread of hate you are playing in. poke poke

[pintobean]

254. What's with you repeatedly replying to me with "poke poke"?

Does that have anything to do with a post of mine that was hidden back in December?

[seabeyond]

228. honest mistake? i never said steven molested his daughter. you put that out as fact.

you took a post, out of context without knowledge of what was being discussed and put up a lie as a fact. a hurtful lie. i never said he molested his daughter. i never thought he molested his daughter. i KNOW he did not molest his daughter. i know he loves his daughter. that is not what we were discussing. you draw your conclusion. put it out as fact. it is wrong. it is a lie. and you put that lie out to do for a man to read, about his daughter. you did that. not me.

i will not go back over two years ago to a time of a lot of ugly, a lot of anger, a lot of fight.

I know what it is like to be ridiculed and name-called without addressing the actual points and arguments I make. so I do apologize for the posts made in distress and anger two years ago after the nasty events here on DU. for you and others to pretend outrage, when you and i and the other knows the shit was flinging toward me and others, and is in this very subthread is hypocrisy at its ugliest.

Imagine the outrage if you are the mother of a disabled son and someone accuses you of being a pedophile enabler.

prove it. i do not believe this for a minute. prove it. link. link showing this was actually done to you, and i will be all over support of getting the person kicked off the board.

you have so many errors in your little game that has gone on for a week. the mens group has been waiting for a year and a half for someone to run with this. and you do it because, women in hof has dared to disagree with you on your position with porn. in disagreement. all the outrage. a week of pulling shit from elsewhere, at the bequest of the mens group, the glee they have a woman starting the shit up again to split women. because a few women didnt agree with you.

classic....

now. i am outta your ugly subthread. play at your destruction from events OVER two years ago, that most of us has in an adult fashion, put away as a learning experience. but the small group that keeps this garbage going cause they want the strife and their intent is to shut down hof.

over two fuggin years ago. geez

totally

pathetic.

[Warren DeMontague]

212. What's a lie? Are you saying that "DUckies" website isn't what it pretty fucking obviously is?

Good luck making THAT case. Really.

And, I mean, "stalk"?... you're the one who searched 3 years worth of posts in the mens group for the word "dworkin" a week or so ago and put them all in a post, as if that proves something nefarious. I don't recall being asked my permission before my name was dragged into that response of yours.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4762526

[boston bean]

214. What I said was a lie, Exactly what I stated, Warren.

I don't know a fucking thing about it. You want to talk to someone about it. Talk to someone who does.

[RainDog]

223. The reason I bothered to look into this

was to compile a list of names who may have alerted on my post earlier that made the claim the message board was probably an invention of the men's group, in order to ask if it was a frivolous or, more to the point, trolling alert.

And then, when I read the stuff... it sort of opened my eyes to understand trolling a little better.

[BainsBane]

264. You posted about it BEFORE you were alerted on

How ridiculous. That post that Ethereal Truth posted the jury results for mentioned Spikeboy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4792241

[BainsBane]

225. You don't see a difference between using the site search function available to all members

and searching for someone's off-site activity? Given you consider the latter perfectly acceptable, I assume that means if I now go do a search on you and turn up conversations, you would have no problem with my posting it? You seem to think what people say off DU is more important than what they say on the site. I know of some sites where members I don't care for congregate, and if I actually gave a damn what they said, I could go search for it and bring it back here. However, I can't summon enough pettiness to even bother. I never thought joining this site came with restrictions about what people can and can't do off-site or in their private lives. I know nothing in TOS specifies that. It does, however, require civility while posting on DU.

You feel that two-year old site is some sort of smoking gun. I think it gives a veneer of justification to people who already dislike Seabeyond and other feminists who have the nerve to speak their minds [on DU b]about issues. I also think extended gossiping about other members here and now in April 2014 exposes the character of those who do so. People have made rude comments about other members on that faux DU FB page, and I don't see those posted here ad nauseum. In fact, among them were comments calling for the PRRing Seabeyond. Yet I see no outrage about that. This appears selective and ideologically driven.

How or why anyone can carry around grudges for years against anonymous people on the internet astounds me. I didn't even carry a grudge against my abusive ex-husband that long. That takes sustained effort, the kind that drains energy and ultimately hurts the person carrying the grudge more than anyone else. The problem, however, is that this psychodrama is being played out in the middle of GD. It is uncivil and only further generates an unnecessary climate of hostility. The purpose of this site is meant to be to discuss Democratic politics and liberal ideas, not cultivate enmity.

[Warren DeMontague]

246. You find something said by me that contradicts anything I've said here on DU, knock yourself out.

You won't, because I haven't.

What's relevant here- among other things- is that a group of people pretty well known for demanding that their interpretation of certain RULES be put into place on the rest of DU (instead of, say, using the hide thread button) show themselves to pretty blatantly not give a shit about the RULES of the site when it comes to themselves and their ideological allies.

Oh, yeah, and like I said, there are probably people and groups here on DU who are still due an apology.

[BainsBane]

260. I agree

However I see the people making the accusations as those who think the rules should not apply to them, not Sea and the others in the two-year old discussion list.

No rules apply to behavior off site. TOS governs civility on DU. It does not control anyone's life off this site. DU does not own anyone. This entire discussion is uncivil. Clearly some members here consider them superior to others, so much so they call people trolls who dare to challenge their behavior in this thread, as was evident in this alert message against me. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4810978

I think if you were really concerned with off site activity, you would not be so selective in which discussions you bring to DU. You would bring over some of the discussions from the faux DU FB page, such as those calling for Seabeyond's banning. Yet I think we know the problem isn't that some members talked about others on a site two years ago. Your post gets at what this is about, and Sea referenced it--disagreement about porn, bikini threads, and objectification--something hundreds of DUers have said they find unacceptable. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024522226
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125538236
Yet the focus becomes about individuals rather than issues. Seabeyond, however, is joined by hundreds of other DUers who oppose creating a climate deliberately hostile to women, as is evident in the recs to the threads linked above. This is the 21st century. At a certain point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that means most women expect to be treated with respect in public spaces, and that has nothing to do with any particular individual.

Your oblique reference betrays the fact that the point of this thread is to talk shit about feminists, as is made further evident by a member accusing me of involvement with that duckies site, when I wasn't even on DU at the time. Anyone who challenges the veracity of the accusations is denounced as a troll. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=inbox&view=1452361 Trolling is now defined as daring to disagree with our betters. A certain group of members talking about Duers off site is unacceptable. Another group of DUers talking about those same members as well as those members discussed in the duckies thread is righteous, but challenging anyone on their doing so is denounced as "trolling." As you yourself observed, they don't believe the rules apply to them. Only you got the they wrong.

[snooper2]

317. oh man! I was just starting to make progress again LOL

This is hard enough to go through as it is....

please help me here!

[BainsBane]

321. Why force yoursefl?

Ain't nothing to see in here but a meta shitstorm.

[Warren DeMontague]

209. I didn't "participate" in that site either, but I'm pretty clearly mentioned.

"Demontagewwwww"!!! oh, however shall I survive.

Fact is, though, it was a site by DU members, active and banned, specifically ON the subject of DU, and it was left hanging out on the intertubes for the world to see.

To expect that no one should ever mention it or somehow pretend it didn't exist, is ludicrous. If it makes people look bad because it exposes a side of them they would rather not have shown, whose fault is that? If I were a member of the transgender community here, I'd still be waiting for an apology.

[seabeyond]

237. so you got it warren. a year and a half peddling this bullshit to get someone to start the shit over

happy? gleeful? all excited that you got raindog to spew the crap for a week now? what you were looking for? oh the joys.....

really?

jeezus. this says so much. and ya.. i get your part in it. i have known for a good year and a half as you and a few others worked for this goal. people pretty much ignored your guys other efforts. but raindog? well she is pissed at us. so that is why she puts out this crap, knowing it will hurt others. just as you pm them, not caring if it hurts them. i am sure you tell them... it is for their own good. they have the right to know, to see, to read, what someone says about them OFF fuckin site years ago.

what a man

[Warren DeMontague]

244. Yeah, it's MY fault you guys said all that stuff, over there.

Actually, it isn't.

[seabeyond]

248. ya. right. fuck.....

the thing warren. i have not touched this for two years and you and others had had the freedom to trash me and others at will. but the thing? people see for over two years you and others are trying to get the fight going. for over two years you throw this shit out to cause problems. most of us are well beyond it. besides you in the mens group and a few others to do the work on the sly, so the finger is not pointed at you.

for two years you and yours are playing this game.

i need to take a shower. actually getting into your alls pigsty is just...

shower time.

i wont be touching base with you again.

you did what you wanted in this thread, that you have wanted for a good year and a half. bask

[Warren DeMontague]

249. I haven't "trashed" you, at all, sea.

Not once, not ever.

[BainsBane]

282. You can't be serious

[maddezmom]

284. Ya...everyone else is at fault for your posts off site

Those are your posts. Own them.

[Warren DeMontague]

290. I'm glad it's not just me who notices that.

speaking of

[maddezmom]

291. I am sure a lot more noticed it as well

But don't want to comment on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

309. ya, right really? ya I noticed it as well...

I wasn't going to comment on it, but seeing I'm going to post in this thread, thought I may as well check in and appoint myself the Voice Of Those Of Us Who Notice But Don't Comment!

[maddezmom]

312. Hi Violet_Crumble

I read your post down thread and agree, you should not feel ashamed at all. The people that should feel ashamed are the ones that were engaged in giggling about transphobia, actively giving props to members that were PPR'd here for being bigots and actively scheming to disrupt DU.

[Violet_Crumble]

313. Hiya maddezmom...

I wasn't aware of that duckies forum until I followed a link to it from this thread, and it was disgusting. I spotted the ones who are active DUers, and after reading all that, I can say that 'spikeboy' got one thing spot on in one of their posts - I'm definitely not into *their* feminism

[Major Nikon]

285. So is there some sort of statute of limitations on when your own words can't be used against you?

Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2014, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

This would be very good to know, sea because one of the favorite tricks of you and your "alls" is to dig up posts from years back and pretend they're saying something which is generally 180 degrees out from what they actually said. Now it seems you guys can't even take ownership of what you actually wrote. As one of the Duckies/DUers said, if you don't want your own stuff raked over the coals, don't put it up on the interwebs for all to see. Seems more than just a bit hypocritical to take exception with this kinda thing now. I'll have to remember all of this next time you guys are on your guilt-by-association "MRA" schtick (even when the associations are dubious at best). Speaking of which, here's what Feldspar/Saragossa Sea (which you publicly proclaimed love for) has been up to since being declared persona non grata here, which is some of the sickest shit I've ever read on the internet (perhaps I don't get out enough):
http://witchwind.wordpress.com/?s=spot+the+man

You can't have it both ways, sea. Either you are who you associate with or you aren't. You don't get to lump large groups of posters into one pot and pretend they are all the same and then play innocent when the vile ugliness of your own besties comes back to bite you on the ass.

Just sayin'

[pintobean]

286. She can't answer you

She has another hidden post up-thread.

[Major Nikon]

287. Noted

I won't be replying to anymore of her posts in this thread.

[Capt. Obvious]

372. The MRA's are only one post away from silencing her

again

[pintobean]

377. The Minnesota Rodeo Association?

I think it's just really bad luck on the jury draws.

[Capt. Obvious]

378. What are the odds

her juries are always stacked with the Patriarchy.

[Comrade Grumpy]

412. Posters are responsible for what they post, not some bogeyman.

[Capt. Obvious]

417. But the keepers of the patriarchy are the ones silencing her

and all because she speaks out on feminist issues. It's the MRA types that have her on the verge of going on her 3rd(? 4th?) vacation.

[BainsBane]

292. Since you posses the omniscience

to associate blogs and discussion posts elsewhere on the internet with the screen names of DUers past and present, perhaps you can tell us who these reddit posters are? http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights

Many of the posts and arguments are identical to some I've seen in a certain safe haven group. Or is that merely coincidence?

[Warren DeMontague]

301. It's not "omniscience"... one of the bloggers in question is right there in the comment window

on Nikon's link.


Not only that, but her username links back to HER blog where she specifically brags about trolling DU under multiple incarnations.

I'm happy to explain this further, with links, if you don't understand the connection. ...but honestly I suspect DU has seen enough of this crap.

[BainsBane]

302. How about the Reddit site?

You'll notice the subjects are identical to posts we've seen here. Do you know who those posters are?

I'm still confused. I see a link to Sargasso Sea, which goes to another blog. Let's assume for the sake of argument that is the same infamous Sargasso Sea who was once a DU member. What is Seabeyond's crime? That she participated on the Duckies site with someone you believe to be Sargasso Sea? Is your suggestion that once a person is PPR'd from DU, no one here can communicate with them in any way? Does that apply to the associations a member in the men's group has with banned trolls? Or that many active members here communicate with banned DUers on Facebook and Old Elm Tree? Why is it worse for Seabeyond to do that than other members? Consider that some members have been known to keep in touch with HopeHoops, who is an admitted rapist and continually rejoins DU as a zombie. Why is Sea's posting with someone you believe to be Sargasso Sea worse than that? Nikon says that blog is the most hateful thing he's ever read. I've not read the blog, nor do I care to. However, I have to wonder, can it really be worse than committing rape?

[Warren DeMontague]

304. You're changing the subject. You suggested Nikon was using "omniscience" to glean a relationship btw

this blog, and DU.

Hence, my response.

And yes, in that person's also linked blog, the blogger specifically talks about being banned "multiple times" from Democratic Underground.

[BainsBane]

305. Okay

I take that as a clear refusal to confront your selective application of what you seem to think are "rules" governing the private lives of DUers, or more accurately, a few feminist DUers.

The original point was the Reddit blog. Apparently the fact that a banned member has a blog is more important than the fact current members echo arguments found on extremist websites.

[Warren DeMontague]

306. You can take it however you choose.

All the other stuff, again, is just stuff you've pulled out of thin air and are trying to ascribe to me, that I've never said.

I don't know jack shit about reddit, or the rest of whatever it is you're on about.

[BainsBane]

307. You don't seem to have read or understood my post

I didn't ascribe anything to you. I did two things. 1) I asked a series of questions designed to explore why you hold HOF members to a different standard from other members of this site. They were logical positions that followed the criteria you yourself established in assessing participants on the Duckie site. 2) I posted the Reddit page to point out the similarity between the ideas and arguments there and what is posted in certain quarters of DU, yet you continue to be more concerned over a blog linked to someone who is no longer part of this site than to the fact extremist MRA arguments are repeated here. It appears to me that you are unwilling to confront the inconsistencies in the standards you apply to some members but not others, particularly those with whom you are friendly.

[Warren DeMontague]

308. 1) I don't, and 2) It's irrelevant and a weak attempt to change the subject.

Any time I've been on MIRT I've banned zombies and disruptors no matter what their ideological inclination.

[Major Nikon]

311. Actually it offered a pretty good example of the point I was making

...which was those who employ guilt by association gibberish will continue to employ those half-fast tactics ad nauseum, yet will never accept the mirror argument when it comes back around on them. In other words, you are who you associate with (or who I imagine you associate with) regardless of whether that behavior has the slightest thing to do with you, but I will never take responsibility for the bad behavior of those I pal around with. It demonstrates a complete lack of cognitive dissonance. Orwell called it doublethink.

It's really a pretty good trick if you can pull it off. It means that so long as I can somehow associate your argument with something presented by some nosepicking anti-feminist posting from mommie's basement on some obscure website (whether or not you've ever even seen or heard about it), then you ARE that nosepicking anti-feminist. Meanwhile the very people I hang around with who spread hateful divisive garbage all over the internet (while I gleefully cheer them on) has nothing to do with me.

[BainsBane]

366. "Guilt by association"

Like Andrea Dworkin and Ed Meese = anyone who doesn't like porn? Or no feminist who opposes porn likes sex? That kind of thing? I take guilty by association to mean exactly how people have used it here, going so far as to saying that even having one's initials mentioned on that board was indicting. In other words, Seabeyond is guilty but we'll do the exact same thing because we are superior to her. I took your response in that same vein. If you had actually read my argument, you would see quite clearly I was not invoking guilt by association but rather interrogating a clear double standard, while you yourself demonstrate that same selective application of outrage.

As for the MRA thing, I think it matters less how one identifies themselves that what he argues. It is clear from that link that the same extremist arguments are repeatedly frequently on DU. For some, in is their regular line of argument. Their own words speak for themselves.

This passive aggressive tactic of not answering me directly is a bit silly, don't you think?

[BainsBane]

322. I wasn't discussing MIRT

I was discussing your argument in this thread. 1) Clearly you do; 2) It is not a change of subject. It is the very subject of this entire subthread.

Let this be the final word on this whole ugly affair: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595609#post2

[Warren DeMontague]

333. You claimed it was "omniscience" that led Nikon to draw a link between that blog and DU.

It wasn't, there's a direct link. As I indicated.

You keep bringing up hopehoops, for some reason- IIRC, I'm pretty sure I personally banned a return incarnation of his at least once, on MIRT... of course, I wasn't real familiar with his lounge shtick to begin with, so I'm not positive. But whoever you're accusing of "sheltering" him, it's not me. And I can't imagine how MIRT wouldn't be relevant, to that sort of discussion.

Furthermore, there is no equivalent situation I'm aware of with repeatedly banned people complaining specifically about this website having to do with reddit or any of the rest of it, so for you to pull "you don't apply standards equally" is ludicrous.

As for Skinner, dude has always had a way with words! Believe me, if GD became the meta-free zone we were promised when meta was shut down, no one would be happier than yours truly. There are a LOT of people on DU, however, whose bread and butter is complaining, day in and day out, about DU and other DU members and their unhappiness with this that and the other on DU, to DU.

[BainsBane]

343. I already gave you specifics

via PM. For obvious reasons I can't do so in open forums. You ignored that in the PM and ask you ignored it in other posts in this subthread. My initial post was to Nikon. When you responded instead, I resumed a discussion with you that you had pointedly evaded.

We have all banned all kinds of people on MIRT. That is a change of subject. The point is the argument you are making in this thread about participants in the Duckie thread that you refuse to apply to other members, particular those with whom you are closely allied.

Given your participation in the Men's group, I would think you would be considered that extremist MRA arguments are given currency there. If transphobic stuff were posted in HOF, I would be very much concerned. However, it is not, at least not since I've been participating.

I think we could all do our part to contribute to the demise of Meta threads by not participating them. That includes myself. I resisted joining this discussion all week until it appeared people were starting to implicate me personally, when I wasn't even a member of DU at the time. If we all try to avoid Meta threads in the future, DU would be much the better for it. When this Meta "shit show," to use Skinners phrase, extends to discussions outside of DU, it becomes particularly uber-Meta and thus all the more absurd.

[Warren DeMontague]

347. I participate in what interests ME. Im not in charge of what other people talk about.

As for your massive PM, I have several other novels I need to get through before I wade through that. You've bragged to me about not bothering to read stuff I've sent you, so I'm not sure why I'm under any obligation to hurry up and read one of your your gimungous wall-o-texts.

I will say this- any collaboration outside of DU with previously banned people, on the topic of how to get back on DU or anything else, I'm not aware of, nor have I been a party to. I barely have the time or inclination to give DU all my DU attention, talking endlessly about it elsewhere isn't really MY thing.

I responded to one point and one point only in this subthread, your "omniscience" quote. And like you, I didn't come into this thread until a link was posted to a discussion with a member who got a time out for, among other things, personally attacking me and calling me a bigot, and who was treated by some here as if he was the victim- for engaging in his own spectacular meltdown.

[BainsBane]

353. It wasn't bragging

and you yourself said you advised not reading it. I figured it was anger based and wanted to end the discussion. Fair enough, don't read my PM. But I also pointed out to you elsewhere in this thread that people talked with banned trolls on FB about getting Seabeyond banned. That would seem to be the purpose of this subthread, but unfortunately for her detractors, Skinner doesn't give a shit.

This entire discussion is based on the double standard that some people are entitled to talk shit about some DUers because they see themselves as superior to those they accuse of talking shit about members off site.

Your obsession with a single zombie seems disproportionate. Dozens sign up every day, but the one you despise most is a feminist who I never saw say I single uncivil thing while she was here as xulamaude, if that is indeed the same person you claim is Sargasso Sea/Feldspar, whatever. Fuck if I know, and I don't know how you can claim to know either. (Spare me the blog as smoking gun again because I don't get it). Skinner OWNS this site and he has made clear he has no interest in what people talk about outside of DU. Why you feel compelled to police all mention of DU by feminists on the entire interwebs, I can't begin to imagine.

I don't know how a call out of that particular member (who hasn't even joined this thread) would prompt you to participate, but that's your concern. Clearly you can participate in any thread you want, and you are free to answer only a portion of a post if you want, but I am also free to tell you what I make of that.

[Warren DeMontague]

354. Fair enough. i dont remember sending you a PM and simultaneously advising you not to

Read it- that sounds like an uncharacteristic waste of energy on my part, but, if you say so I believe you.

On the topic of the FB page.. if we're talking about the same one I think I may be a member there, but I can say with total certainty I've never discussed sb or other DU members there, nor have I looked at it in quite a while. Whatever conversation you are talking about, I don't think I saw it.

i also don't "despise" anyone. i think its disingenous for people to get emotionally invested in the rules of this place and controlling the discourse of others while simultaneously disregarding them. I dont think repeatedly banned zombies who count on being able to leave behind the trouble they caused under different names, are entitled to silence and amnesia just because that makes their disruption easier. I remember the original trouble in meta, again, it was people defending these same people AND their egregious comments after they were banned. That was how some of the trouble started.

There are tons of places on the web that they can hang out, but if someone has been banned from DU multiple times, many of them by admin directly, there is probably a good reason.

And I would apply that logic to ANY and ALL repeatedly banned zombies, whoever they are.

[BainsBane]

355. Let me try to sort a bit of this out

You are again imposing present-day knowledge on the past, similar to what you did when you accused me of being derelict in my duties on MIRT for not banning Xula when she first joined--and evidence for that was the same blog you pointed to earlier. Think for a second. We are on MIRT, and we see a new member. We have no idea who that person is. Months later you've somehow decided it's the former member with the blog. NO ONE on MIRT had any way of knowing that at the time. I'm not sure how you can even claim to know it now.

Now, as to Duckies. Of course, I was not on DU at the time, but it would seem that came shortly after Iverglas' banning, did it not? Or was it shortly after Sargasso Sea's banning? At any rate, at that time they weren't trolls who had signed up repeatedly. You are blaming Sea for participating in a discussion with trolls who tried to sign up repeatedly, when they had not done so at that time. My issue is not that this subthread discusses Zombies but it maligns and calls out current DUers, some falsely, and participants feel entirely righteous in doing so, despite the fact they've been proved wrong in at least a couple of instances.

I never said you participated in that FB discussion. Truth be told, I wouldn't know if you had since I don't know the name you use on FB. I said someone else did, shall we say an amigo of yours, and both of those banned members had already tried signing up hundreds of times at that point.

You may not despise the particular feminist troll or others you implicate here, but it is clear your personal feelings are invested. The fact you care so much more about that particular troll and this particular off-site conversation more than any other demonstrates as much.

If you're concerned about spotting zombies, the number one place they aggregate is not HOF but another very popular group that is not categorized under gender and orientation. Since I left MIRT, I figure that's someone else's job. If I see someone who stands out, I PM a current MIRT member and leave it at that.

[Warren DeMontague]

358. You're confusing different situations.

I think MIRT may have been derelict when that blogger signed up under her blog name and admitted to being the same person, and MIRT still didn't act, despite that person being clearly delineated in one of the MIRT informative threads. I don't know, or particularly care, who was involved there.

"Xula" signed up and immediately, IIRC, admitted to being a previously banned zombie. That, to me, is a red flag, but I wasn't on the team for that either.

At any rate, at that time they weren't trolls who had signed up repeatedly. You are blaming Sea for participating in a discussion with trolls who tried to sign up repeatedly, when they had not done so at that time.

I haven't mentioned any names, however from what I remember of the original meta "discussion", the usernames were banned for bigoted statements, came back, other people defended the statements, and it caused all sorts of trouble. There was original egregious stuff that was said which went above and beyond simply "being banned and coming back". Like I said, there were reasons these folks were kicked off. Repeatedly. I think if you read the blog which started this current exchange between you and I, here, it's not too hard to figure out exactly the sorts of statements which led to the bannings. When people defended the banned members, and the things they said, other people understandably had a problem with it. Of all the list of other zombies you claim I'm not concerned about, have I ever complained about them being banned or defended the statements which caused their bannings? I don't think I have.

I said someone else did, shall we say an amigo of yours, and both of those banned members had already tried signing up hundreds of times at that point.

Ay, caramba. Well, then take it up with said amigo, then.

That particular off-site conversation is the topic of the subthread, but it's been beaten into the ground. And despite accusations thrown at me around it, if I had wanted to spend the past 2 years bringing it up, I would have.

[BainsBane]

361. Here's the thing

The blog identifies Sargasso Sea, no one else. It doesn't say Xula. How am I to know they are the same person? I asked Seabeyond, and she doesn't even remember a Sargasso Sea. She doesn't know if they are the same person. I'm not sure how you can claim to know.

If you have a complaint that Xula wasn't PPR'd faster, you should take it up with Skinner, since MIRT referred her upstairs for an IP check at least twice before she was PPR'd. You and I don't own the site. As I've made clear to you in the past, I believe that after the administrators are notified of something, the call is theirs. I didn't believe it appropriate for MIRT members to continue to argue for someone's banning after the admins have chosen not to act, and I think you will recall my saying so in MIRT on more than one occasion. Additionally, active MIRT members put a lot of time into that position. I put in a minimum of 15 hours a week when I was on there. I think it uncool for you to turn around and criticize them for not overruling Skinner and PPRing someone you don't like. MIRT members serving at that time owe you no explanation.

As for the amigo, I've been pretty clear I don't care what people discuss off site. I only happened to see that conversation because I was on MIRT at the time and we were looking at that FB page since it was a staging ground for relentless troll attacks (and I mean hundreds). I consider what people do in their private lives and off site their business entirely. That includes said amigo, despite the fact he and I don't exactly get along. I simply wanted to point out that you are inordinately concerned with the Duckies discussion and not others that you have already admitted being aware of. If I go snooping in someone's business (even if it's on the web), and I see something I don't like, that's on me for snooping in the first place. That is also my view concerning this outrage about Duckies. Skinner has made perfectly clear he does not give a shit. It's not up to you to set rules for what is acceptable on DU or who can be considered a member in good standing based on what they say on another site. If Skinner has an issue with it, he'll act. End of story.

[Warren DeMontague]

365. Well, we've all been uncool at times.

As for the FB discussion or whatever, I'm only aware of it now that you brought it up. I don't remember seeing it previously. Like I said, I think I'm a member of that FB site, but that doesn't mean I check in with it very often.


My original- and really, only- point in this subthread was that it was not 'omniscience' that links that blog to DU, there actually is a demonstrable link. I don't know who 'xulamaude' was, however, 'sargasso sea' was, by her own admission, 'sargasso sea', the blogger. And as she delineates in her own blog, she was also associated with "sera_bellum","feldspar","amazonite" to name a few.

http://radicalresolution.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/update-trans-takeover-all-but-complete-at-democraticsicundergroundsic/

[pintobean]

357. Lol

[maddezmom]

327. People can associate with anyone they want

People from DU have actually posted over at CC before and they are in good standing.

What was posted at the DUckie site, about DU'ers by current DU'ers is the topic of this subthread. Why are you trying to change it to what MRA's are posting on other sites like reddit. Could some of them be DU'ers? Who the hell knows, but the people at DUckies, certainly are DU'ers (some PPR'd for bigotry)and so far not a lot of denials, just want to sweep it under the rug.

Speaking only for myself, it hard to take lectures from any of them when their true feelings and disdain for fellow DU'ers and women DU'ers that don't meet their strict definition of feminism are on a public site for the word to see.

[BainsBane]

329. You don't have to take lectures from anyone

Or even read anyone's posts. That is what ignore is for. Yet for some reason ignore isn't enough for some. They insist on nurturing grudges despite putting people on ignore. That has everything to do with who they are as people rather than the target of their anger.

As for former DUers, who cares? They aren't here anymore. Why even worry about what they say?

My issue with this whole discussion is that everything people claim to hold against people posting on the Duckies thread (and we only know the identity of one current DUer) has been done in spades in this thread. People seem to feel themselves entitled to do what they accuse others of and feel justified because of their already existing animosity toward that member. Several have even called out other DUers they suspect of participating in that other site based on nothing but idle speculation. At least three of us have been falsely maligned, and in my case I wasn't even a member of DU at the time of that Duckies thread.

I fail to see why something said on a site two years ago justifies taking smack about DUers this week. It is clear the only motivation here is antipathy toward certain individuals. Skinner called it a "meta shit show" and he's right. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595609#post1 He doesn't give a damn about off-board activity. Why should you?

Pointing to the MRA site and the fact other DUers make negative comments about members on other websites can only be seen as a change of subject when one conceives of the subject as being entirely about condemning Seabeyond and HOF. The exact same arguments posted on an extreme right-wing MRA site are frequently made on this board, and that people here don't care tells me that the outrage has nothing to do with bigotry, since MRAs are intensely bigoted against women. The lack of concern over associations with HopeHoops is also instructive. When associating with banned feminists is deemed as worse than sheltering a repeat troll who is an admitted rapist, something is seriously wrong.

There isn't one person making condemnations here who hasn't already made their contempt for Seabeyond and the rest of HOF clear on multiple occasions. One thing this thread has done is shine a light on the characters of those who feel themselves entitled to engage in the same behavior they condemn others for, only they have done it in the middle of GD.

Just put the people you dislike on ignore and be done with it. You'll save yourself a great deal of angst.

.

[maddezmom]

330. Couple things

I have no idea who you are talking about...who is still associating with HopeHoops? You seem to want to call them out without naming them.

I think anyone that clicked the DUckie link can easily figure out the members name here.

As for the rest of your post, ignore works both ways.

[opiate69]

332. .. but then...

If they ignore people, they can't stack juries against them.. or something...

[pintobean]

337. !

[BainsBane]

362. I remember someone else who thought

that HOF members merely being available for a jury pool amounted to "stacking." He's not around any more though--something about "playing the victim card."

[pintobean]

363. He's referring to your hof thread

about stacked juries.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125538563

Are you suggesting we could get PPRed for laughing about that?

[BainsBane]

364. I am most certainly not suggesting anyone be PPR'd

I am pointing to a common belief. I know what he was referring to. I heard the same comment countless times from RC. And there you are, another one who thinks the mere fact a feminist is available for jury duty amounts to "stacking." That suggests a view that a natural state of juries include no feminists, as though there were something aberrant about including people who speak out for women's rights in a liberal jury. The concept of a jury of one's peers clearly eludes you. So laugh away. What you find humorous exposes who you are.

If you think HOF members, feminists, or any other group should not serve on juries, you can take it up with Skinner.

This is not the first time one of my HOF posts was been creatively interpreted by more than one member of a certain ideological persuasion in the precise, same way. Is there some place you all congregate to hash out your plan of attack?

[pintobean]

368. You are hilarious.

Laughing and joking about that thread suggests nothing more than amusement at your obsession about who serves on what juries. For you to try to flip your concerns and project them on others is just ridiculous. The "stacked jury" concept is yours:

Juries, however, continue to be stacked against us. Someone pointed out to me today why this is happening. It's our ignore lists. In having them on ignore and trashing certain groups, we stack juries in the favor of members who post flamebait and deliberately seek to offend women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125538563

I haven't seen anyone say that feminists, or hof members, shouldn't serve on juries. I have no idea where you get that shit. Is it just throw it and see if it sticks? I think you do that a lot.

I don't "congregate" or have any "plan of attack". I'm not at war.

[BainsBane]

413. Given that you're the one who keeps mentioning it

the obsession is hardly mine.

[pintobean]

416. That one didn't stick, either.

It didn't even make any sense.

[BainsBane]

423. Then let me make myself clear

You accuse me of being obsessed because I posted a single thread on the subject of juries months ago. Yet you and your friends are the ones who continue to mention it, not me. Therefore the obsession clearly is not mine.

[pintobean]

424. I understood what you meant the first time

It's a playground tactic of changing the subject, and it doesn't make sense. You're claiming that we're obsessed with your obsession, therefore, you have no obsession.

[opiate69]

426. Lol. Yup yup..

[BainsBane]

431. I mentioned something once, it's an obsession

And yet you devote a good portion of your posts, most days, to sniping at me. Looks like you've got an obsession of your own.

[lumberjack_jeff]

407. ... Lately. n/t

[BainsBane]

422. Oh, Jeff

Do you hold a grudge against everyone else on MIRT who voted to refer that TOS violation upstairs? Or am I special?

Any MIRT member who actually spent anytime doing the job knows that referring something upstairs is not synonymous with advocating for banning. When the group decides they think the person should be banned, they say so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

436. No, you're special. n/t

[BainsBane]

438. Ah, shucks

I always knew you had a soft spot for me.

[BainsBane]

350. Clearly people cannot easily associate the names

Since they have repeatedly speculated falsely, as is demonstrated by the alert indicating I was Iverglas and another suggesting I was the BB referenced in the Duckies site, when I hadn't even joined DU at that time. That people do not care that they have falsely maligned people reveals the nature of their characters.

I most certainly will not name people. It would be rude, malicious, and hypocritical of me. I will not engage in the same behavior I criticize others for. My point was that this entire discussion is transparently about antipathy toward certain individuals, in part ideologically based, and devoid of principal. It is not a righteous defense of truth but rather, as Skinner so aptly called it, a "meta shit show."

I will also point out I spoke out against a similar swarm on backwoodsbob a week or so ago, despite the fact he and I have had major disagreements and the guy has expressed animosity toward me.

[maddezmom]

352. Ok BainsBain

I will let my words speak for me and be done with this little conversation. Have a good night.

[pintobean]

331. "As for former DUers, who cares?"

"They aren't here anymore. Why even worry about what they say?"

They come back repeatedly. They get protected. They get mourned when they're caught.

[RiffRandell]

250. No, the true colors have been shown of you and all your friends.

They were quite clear to me already and I'm sure to others as well, and I wasn't even aware of your alternate site.

Not an ounce of humility, but not surprising. Blame everyone else; that's all you do.

If I were the admins, I would ban most of you because you are nasty, mean people who do nothing but cause trouble on this board.

[pintobean]

259. Amen!

[BainsBane]

265. What do you mean by causing trouble?

and who do you include as "most of you"?

Another question, why is it worse for Sea and whoever else posted on that site to talk about DUers than you to talk about me from the men's group, even though I'm banned from there? Why is that two year old off site discussion worse than what you have just posted, or others calling out DUers who they think might have been involved in the thread, some of whom were clearly not?

[RiffRandell]

269. You're a troublemaker.

You always post flamebait, and when someone disagrees with you, you attack them; it's not a discussion.

If preventing rape is your cause, that's great. I have no problem with that at all.

It's your acerbic, entitled attitude. It's grating and annoying.

I should correct myself to say I believe at least 3 people should banned.

You really have no right to lecture others when you were dishonest enough to create a sock.

Big difference about talking about you from the MG (which I barely recall) than accusing someone of being a child molester.

Alert away. It's your trademark.

[RiffRandell]

270. Rest my case.

No, the true colors have been shown of you and all your friends.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4814277

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Says the person who posted a feminist-flamebait swimsuitissue cover thread, and a men's group regular. This is the point of this thread, posted by someone who thinks rape is overblown and shouldn't he discussed so much in GD. (Notice how few people are outraged by those posts in this thread, as compared to things said two years ago on another site). This is so obvious to everyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention to the men's group regulars and their friends who hate feminists who call out rape culture, objectification, etc.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 12, 2014, 05:57 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Most threads go to shit after 200 replies and should be deleted before they turn into this.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The whole argument reeks of republican sock-puppets trying to create strife based on feminism and people's various perspectives on the issue.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

271. What case does that rest?

What does that say about me? What does that have to do with me? And where did I ever accuse anyone of being a child molester? You need to provide proof of such a serious charge.

What "flamebait" did I post? Is that your description for threads about violence against women and gun violence? Because you don't like the topics I care about, they are flamebait?

Perhaps you should provide a list of what I'm allowed to post and care about.

[RiffRandell]

272. Admit you alerted on it.

I can admit when I'm wrong, even from mistakes 2 years ago.

[Agschmid]

274. I alerted on one of your posts just FYI...

So it's not always the people you think it is.

[BainsBane]

275. That was not my alert

I most certainly did alert on your post, but I was not the first to do so. Therefore you did not see my comments. I would not be surprised if others alerted on that post as well. But even if that had been my alert, what would that prove? That having the audacity to alert on you would mean I was a troublemaker? What makes you so much more important than me? Why is it okay for you to insult DUers and call for their banning? Why is it okay for you to post swimsuit threads yet it's not okay for me to post about rape or violence against women?

I can admit when I'm wrong, even from mistakes 2 years ago.

How about admitting that you were wrong to accuse me of calling someone a child molester? How about admitting you were wrong to talk smack about me in the men's group before you had even had a conversation with me?

You haven't answered the questions of flamebait or provided evidence for your allegations.

[RiffRandell]

278. I never accused you of being a child molester!

Thanks for at least admitting you alerted on me, though!

[BainsBane]

279. You accused me of calling someone else a child molester

I'd like to see a link proving I did that because I have no memory of it.

You haven't answered any of my questions or supported your accusations against me in anyway. What do you consider flamebait? Since I "always post flamebait," it should be easy to provide examples.

Why would alerting on you prove I'm a troublemaker? Is there something in TOS that says Riff Randell is too important to be alerted on?

[RiffRandell]

280. No, I didn't.

This whole exchange is exactly what I'm referring to.

[BainsBane]

281. You mean asking for proof of your allegations?

That's causing trouble? Why is that? You seem to feel entitled to insult me and provide no evidence to support yourself.

This was your comment:

Big difference about talking about you from the MG (which I barely recall) than accusing someone of being a child molester.

That reads as though you are accusing me. That it was prefaced by a subject heading calling me a "troublemaker" reinforces that point. If you meant to convey something else, you did not succeed.

What I see is your refusal to engage with any of the points you yourself raised or to even specify what you mean by flamebait. Since you claim I "always post flamebait," it should not be difficult to find examples. Yes, when I have a discussion I ask people to clarify their ideas and provide evidence. That is part of discussion. I'm sorry you feel that is unreasonable.

I will happily let my posts in this thread stand up against yours. I know for a fact that I have never once treated you in the way you have behaved in this thread. I have never once insulted you or called you out, not in this thread or any other.

[polly7]

273. Did she SAY threads about violence against women and gun

violence are flamebait? NO!!! Just stop with the frigging lying. God. You twist every single thing someone says into somehow being 'against women' when in fact it's usually just about pointing out your hypocrisy regarding your constant lectures about following the rules here. Like she said, coming from someone who's been outed as a sock and posted using both ID's at once ........ that's pretty damn rich.

[Inkfreak]

457. Alerted for being a "Men's Group regular"

What utter and complete horseshit.

[RiffRandell]

468. Right!

What a joke!

[BainsBane]

470. You were alerted on

by at least three separate people for saying particular members should be banned. One even sent me a PM expressing disbelief it hadn't been hidden.

[RiffRandell]

472. Well, it stood!

Oh, I'm sure the pms were flying!

I stand by what I said, and I don't give a flying fuck who posts in what group, even though I was a HOT topic in one!

[BainsBane]

475. A hot topic?

Where? I think you may be overestimating your influence.

The PM was not from a HOF member, BTW.

[RiffRandell]

490. I'm not one that constantly alerts and must have my way.

That's a person that overestimates their influence.

[BainsBane]

493. Is it really so difficult

to stay on topic? I'm dying to see the links to this group where you are the hot topic.

If you have an issue with my or anyone else alerting, take it up with Skinner. Last I checked, you weren't the owner of this site. Skinner has been perfectly clear about people who have issues with alerting. Don't write uncivil posts, and you won't have a problem.

[maddezmom]

498. Haha, says the person that had the 2nd most post hidden for a time

And a sock so you could alert .

[maddezmom]

481. But going over to CC

And flirting with the dudes there is A-OK.

[RiffRandell]

482. Way more gross than posting a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

For sure!

[msanthrope]

207. You are not the BB named? I saw this site sometime back.

Thus my utter contempt for its participants.

I am glad you are not one of those participants.

I do not know if anybody there is an actual DUer, here. If they are...I think they should be shitcanned.

[boston bean]

210. No, I am not. And I never fucking participated.

Now leave me the hell alone, with bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

213. It could be Bob Balaban. Barbara Bush.

Barry Bonds?

[LadyHawkAZ]

216. It's Bob Barker. I'd put money on it.

COME ON DOWN!!

[opiate69]

247. And here I thought it was Bat Boy

[seabeyond]

233. who was not even on the fuggin board at the time... jeezus you people are a mess in your accusation

and attacks of hof. this whole stupid subthread of wrong. everywhere. but that does not matter to a single one of you. take it out of context. throw in a poster that is a year after the event and call it all the same.

[quinnox]

238. Ya know, I checked and its true that they joined DU after most of the posts on that board. So I will

self-delete so my post will not be used to distract or divert from the main issue brought up.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that most of this so called "gossip" has a pretty solid basis for it. It is all there in black and white text, they are obviously talking about DU on that site.

[seabeyond]

240. cause quinnox, you of course have NEVER said ANYTHING about me in ANY pms to others. right?

[quinnox]

242. First, that is entirely a private matter, what I may say in any PMs. But speaking hypothetically,

if I did mention you, it would be in response to any PMs I received mentioning you first. I would naturally reply back, it is not something I would bring up myself. I'm a guy and don't really find this kind of stuff all that interesting.

[seabeyond]

243. ya. kinda like being OFF fuggin du is private. i hear ya. oh wait. until those with the intent to

shut down hof and get memebers kick off decide to BRING IT to du.

but, wtf right? that would be a difference?????

[quinnox]

245. Jesus, sea, I am just an observer of this thread. I made one post a long time ago in this thread,

as a matter of fact it was almost a week ago on Sunday when I made my reply, and then saw this thread had gained a lot of replies, and kept being kicked to the front page. I was curious, and started reading it again. I am not the one who brought this other site up in the first place! So don't blame me for it, you need to take it up with the poster above.

Yea, I was curious to read this new information, but so what.

[BainsBane]

268. Just observing?

Is that why you accused me of participating in that Duckies thread that is dated three months before I even joined DU?

[Agschmid]

276. I would hope that they would come up with a better name than basically the same one they use here.

For example is you ever see posts from...

- ItsBritneyBitch
- ThereisBearinMyBedohitsme
- CrownANDAnchorBOI
- HeWasntManEnough
- bathBOMBbubba

Those might be me... just an FYI.

Don't go getting any ideas now.

[msanthrope]

298. Indeed....I think I would be ashamed to be mentioned in a positive light

on that board. Disgusting hypocrites. There's no way of really knowing who is whom on that board....but if there are current DUers there, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

310. I'm not sure if the mentions of me were in a purely positive light, but I'm not ashamed

It's hard to feel much on top of the icky feeling I got when reading the transphobic comments and the vile stuff aimed at one or two DUers, not to mention navigating through all the spammers and the posts obsessing about not clicking on direct links for fear of being discovered while they were posting on a publicly available forum. Y'know, if people aren't going to take responsibility for what they say, at least have the foresight to find themselves a forum to use that's a private one.

If I'd been one of that bunch, no-one, not even that bunch, would have spotted me because I would have chosen myself a super clever name that would never give me away, like Victoria Crabtree. And I'd say 'ass' a lot instead of 'arse' so everyone would think I was American! And I'd post a lot about my undying love for Celine Dion, Michael Buble, and spammers who are flogging cheap handbags online. Seriously, after that, how would people not be able to resist saying positive things about me??

[msanthrope]

314. I wouldn't characterize what was said about you as positive.

Whoever these posters are, it seems as if they regarded you and others as outside of the inner circle of trust...

And those inside the circle of trust really showed their asses.

[msanthrope]

204. 0-7 to leave this. nt

[CreekDog]

266. If i posted the weather it would get alerted

[Agschmid]

277. Only if it was a crappy forecast, sunshine only please.

[Warren DeMontague]

484. And this thread is, itself, approaching Moon Bombing size.

I wonder if it's connected to the eclipse?

[pacalo]

504. I got here through jury service...

...& I'm reading through this thread for the first time (due to a full page of auto-trashed feminist keywords & about 6-7 feminists on ignore).

[Iggo]

13. It's stupid.

But I still don't hate feminists.

[Nine]

14. Is that the motivation behind this thread?

If so, I'm sorry I replied to it.

[TransitJohn]

16. No, it wasn't.

It was an honest post. If you go searching, you'll come across some posts of mine expressing exasperation at posts discussing rape in GD, but I am not an anti-feminist.

[Nine]

19. ok

thanks

[Sheldon Cooper]

38. Tell us a little about your "exasperation at posts discussing rape."

[TransitJohn]

39. DU used to be a political board

and now, is a ghost of its former self, with a fraction of the traffic, and a large part of GD's content is a certain subset of the user base trying to focus the rest of the user base on what they deem the most important issue, rape. It's exasperating and sad that DU has become a personality driven site. Any other questions you wish to back-handedly impugn me with?

[The Straight Story]

41. It does seem at times

That DU/GD is more meta than meta was. Purity tests, trying to one up each other over who has it worse, etc and so on.

We are all in a bad way in some form of other, all victims of a system that caters to the few at a cost to the many. The world is filled with injustices regardless of race/religion/gender/etc. Bring up an issue that impacts one group (say men and the courts and custody/etc) and suddenly you are bombarded with others have it worse and you have nothing to complain about (say the same about others and how people elsewhere have it worse though and you get an earful....)

All face some sort of issues and working together to solve them and recognizing that our issues are just as important as those of others is a worthy goal. Sadly around du it seems to have become more of a race filled with accusations from hating one gender, having privilege so you can't have any problems worth discussing, etc and so on - followed up by alerting and trying to hide dissenting views (if you don't agree fully you are a hater).

[AverageJoe90]

261. Re: "Purity" It ain't just with the SJWs, either. The climate doomers are really bad about this too!

For example, I can't recall how many times I've been (falsely) labelled a denier, or a "minimizer", etc., for actually looking at the science and drawing reasonable conclusions that just happen to rather strongly disagree with folks like Guy McPherson, David Wasdell, etc., in the sense that yes, climate change is a serious problem, but no, humanity is not at risk for extinction, civilization is not inevitably doomed, and no, the IPCC isn't really underplaying climate change all that much, if at all(and have actually been very much on target with the large majority of their predictions).

And just like you're "uneducated" or "not an ally", etc. if you don't believe that minorities can't harbor racist attitudes, in the eyes of a certain few, you are a "denier" or a "minimizer" according to doomers if you don't believe that humanity is in imminent danger of permanent decline or sudden death. The former is actually not quite as much of a problem on DU as it is in other places I frequent; but the latter problem is actually somewhat more prevalent on DU than most other places(ThinkProgress possibly being an exception).

Honestly, purity fights seem to be a problem with the activist left in general, not just DU; although the primary specific problem varies from site to site, the fighting in and of itself seems to be a universal problem, even if it's only a few doing a majority of the mudslinging. Which is unfortunate, IMO.

[BainsBane]

42. How is rape not political?

Is it because the victims are principally women? How is it that you attribute concern over a crime that deprives victims of basic human rights "personality" driven? It seems to me your view of politics excludes subjects that are about groups that don't include you, as if no one else's experiences matter. At least 25% of the US women are raped and not an insignificant percentage of men. Yet you consider the subject inappropriate, while a blog by one person is so important it needs to be the focus of an OP in GD? Why is that? What is what you find important so much more important than a significant portion of this website?

The Department of Civil Rights is investigating universities for violating women's civil rights by failing to adequately pursue rape charges, yet you claim rape isn't political.

Women and people of color are the MAJORITY of the Democratic Party. There is not one Democrat in office today who doesn't owe his or her job to votes by women. If men alone voted, and white men in particular, the country would be solidly Republican, yet you insist our concerns are not "political" but rather "personality driven." Which of the millions of rape victims personality drives what you describe as a superfluous concern with their basic right to be free from violence and to have rapists prosecuted?

The idea that rape is somehow not political is absurd and shows that your version of politics is gendered male. Decades ago feminists made clear the personal is political, yet in 2014 somehow you haven't figured out that yet. It is unfortunate that you consider our lives and our basic human and civil rights too trivial to be included in a forum that post kitty pics, pit bulls, videos about having sex with cars, and Sports Illustrated covers. But clearly the lives of millions of Americans who are raped pales in comparison to those far more important issues.

If you want to discuss only politics as narrowly defined, there is this forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1251

And yet you post this, that doesn't fit your own version of politics and is about a single blogger.

Wasn't it you who just said:

I believe in the equality of all people

and

I would think that people struggling for a more egalitarian society wouldn't be for disenfranchising others. Shit's complicated so much anymore. Rodney King's question is so apropos and metaphysical, "Can't we all just get along?"

I have to wonder what version of equality it is you have that requires that women keep silent about issues like rape that you find inconvenient?


In regard to your OP, I find it odd you feel compelled to ask GD if something is intolerant. Can't you tell that yourself? Imagine, a bigoted blog on the internet. Who'd a thunk it? Those who wondered if something else was at work may find confirmation in your post denouncing threads about rape.

[TransitJohn]

45. You've really lost me, and put forth a lot more effort overanalyzing my posts in this thread

than I put forward making them. My statement that I think that the rape issue is over-pushed in GD on DU is valid. You are free to disagree, but Jesus Christ, please stop assuming you know where I'm coming from, you don't. Your default setting regarding anything impacting on feminism is outrage, and it's tiresome. Good day to you.

[TDale313]

73. The "Rape issue" over-pushed? Seriously?

Ya know what, I personally just lost any shred of hope that you were posting this in good faith.

[JTFrog]

82. +1 n/t

[seaglass]

89. + another n/t

[laundry_queen]

99. Yep, same.

It's clear what this poster is trying to accomplish.

[Sheldon Cooper]

63. Oh I think you're doing a fine job of impugning yourself.

Please proceed...

[sufrommich]

81. How is using this small,insignificant group of

radical feminists proving your point other than posting "look,crazy feminists!"?I've seen this crap posted here before,it's basically the old "scary feminazi" canard that Limbaugh uses. These type of OPs are like the Acorn/New Black Panther crap that the right uses to smear minorities. Yeah,crazy radical feminists exist,so what?

[Iggo]

17. Couldn't tell ya.

It's got a funny smell, is all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. agreed. nt

[JTFrog]

34. +1 n/t

[Sheldon Cooper]

37. +2

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Ayup

next we'll hear about door-holding and the like.

[TransitJohn]

15. Neither do I.

I try my hardest to be a feminist, although I probably am a horrible one or not one at all at times, as I am a man. I believe in the equality of all people, so I linked that blog post in my OP posing the question, because I was unaware of the transphobic undercurrent to some feminism before an hour or so ago when I ran across it, and GD seems to be an appropriate place to pose such a question.

[Ms. Toad]

25. That belief belongs to a very small group of feminists.

It is not (at least these days) mainstream.

[JTFrog]

33. +1 n/t

[LittleBlue]

20. Radical feminism is intolerant in general, but this takes the cake

Look at that tag "misgendered".

The second paragraph is some of the most rabidly transphobic bullshit I've ever read.

[regnaD kciN]

156. And yet, if you read down the comments...

...you'll find that the author has no problem with FtM transgendered people, just MtF, because "men rape."

[quinnox]

21. Let's hear from some of the HoF feminists on this topic, haven't seen any of them

posting so far. Odd. Seems to me this topic would be of interest to them.

[Texasgal]

61. Why is it odd?

Why would you think that HoF'ers should respond?

This thread is pure flamebait! Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Most certainly bigoted and intolerant.

nt

[LostOne4Ever]

24. It is incredibly bigoted (nt)

[m-lekktor]

26. They are called TERFs.

an acronym for "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists"! i just did some googling and found that term to describe this type of feminist. Google TERF if anybody is interested in specifics, there is discussion out there on this. I haven't figured out how to post an article on this discussion board yet.

[Ms. Toad]

68. They go by different names

TERF is one of them.

[11 Bravo]

27. It's possible for some feminists to be just as asshole-ish as some MRAs.

No group has a monopoly on shitty behavior.

[maddezmom]

29. True

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. yes. but also plain stupid. nt

[TransitJohn]

32. I agree with that.

[maddezmom]

31. Dumb, intolerant and bigoted

[Jesus Malverde]

36. The word "vile" comes to mind.

It could also be world class trolling.

Didn't bother to read past "We are told it is impolite to do otherwise"

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. Yes, it is.

I have personally never met a feminist who has felt that way. Not sure I'd want to.

[idendoit]

43. Feminists usually don't portray themselves as victims alone.

The blog reads like a victimization list and doesn't make a case for why transgendered people shouldn't be addressed how they choose to be.

[Madam Mossfern]

44. I think this blogger

needs to get a life and some perspective about important things. I wonder how she feels about transgenders who become men? Does she consider them traitors?

That was a very bitter screed indeed. The banner photo is an insult to the feminist movement when it's attached to such garbage.

[TDale313]

46. I think that's a bigotted attitude.

Fair disclosure: I didn't click on the link. I do absolutely consider myself a feminist, and I strongly disagree with telling someone who is transgendered that they're not the gender they identify as. I also don't think this is a particularly mainstream feminist attitude, although some may hold it. It's transphobic and kind of offensive.

[CFLDem]

47. Wow

The transgendered aren't the only group that blog hates.

Stuff of nightmares.

[nomorenomore08]

49. Of course. She's no better than people of color agitating against gay marriage.

And yes, men do abuse women all over the world, even if her version of things is (probably by design) over-the-top. But trans people - one of the most persecuted minorities there is - certainly aren't to blame for that.

[LeftyMom]

50. TERFS can fuck right the fuck off. But I question your motives for linking to an obscure blog

based in an increasingly obscure and outmoded feminism that at this point mostly exists to troll other feminists.

[TransitJohn]

55. Again with the accusations as to my motive.

Why?

[LeftyMom]

56. "I question your motives" is not an accusation. It's a question.

Perhaps you're feeling a bit guilty about your motives if that feels like an accusation?

[TransitJohn]

58. Nope, just tired of passive-aggressive accusations.

Good evening to you.

[LeftyMom]

59. Personally I'm tired of MRAs in on a progressive website.

[TransitJohn]

60. Yeah, watching them troll here and then being accused of being one of them sucks

The pettiness knows no bounds, and has debilitated the DU's awesomeness greatly. Yay for whoever the fuck is winning. Thanks for another cowardly accusation towards me.

[CreekDog]

199. +1

[ismnotwasm]

51. Yes

It's a premise also suggested by Germaine Greer in her book "The Whole Woman"-- while I admire a lot of Ms. Greer's writing, that was not her finest hour. Plus, there is a subset of feminists "TERFS"-- Trans exclusionary radical feminists who take exception to the the transgendered and are bigots.

On the other hand, there are Trans who ARE radical feminists, who make much more sense.

If you want more information you have but to ask.

[TransitJohn]

54. That's what I was trying to do with the OP and my responses, but

I've been accused several times of having a motive or agenda. So, this is why we can't have nice discussions around here, I guess. Thanks for your response. I had no idea about this part of the feminist movement before today, and posted it in GD because it hosts a lot of discussion about feminism lately. I came across the blog post I linked in the OP today while reading about Suey Park's ridiculousness about Colbert. I also learned today that some young adults style themselves hashtag activists, which is itself crazy to me. They seem like the dude who faked that his boy was in the balloon trying to get a reality show; they are just trying to get famous on Twitter and Facebook, while claiming they're social justice activists. The world is weird.

[ismnotwasm]

64. We have a lot of bad feelings between feminists and different POV's here

It's like the argument that never ends. So I think you're catching some of that.

I'm a feminist and I find TERF's despicable. Mainstream feminism has distanced themselves as has much of the radical end of feminism. TERFS are kind of left as a wing nutty kind of movement

When I first read Greer-- it made a certain amount of sense--a women isn't make up or a skirt or a way of walking; but it soon became clear that not only is transphobia bigotry, it's unscientific bigotry that leaves out that small spectrum of people born without a clear anatomical gender, not to mention the torture it inflicts on those who feel like they have been born in the wrong body, or those who don't identify as either male or female.

It's time to let the human race grow and evolve-- there will always be gender, but on a kind of continuum, what feminists really want are things like justice and equal opportunity.

[TransitJohn]

72. Thank you very much for this post.

Like I stated upthread, I had no idea about these facets of feminist thought and ideology, and I'm very glad to be educated, and relieved to learn that they are considered fringe in the movement.

[ismnotwasm]

80. ...

You're welcome

[Zorra]

52. Cartoon ~

Same shit, different day:

[Shandris]

226. LOL! That cartoon was good, I hadn't seen that one before. (n/t)

[Aerows]

57. Am I an "intolerant" feminist

if I say fuck you to that blog? If so, I'm glad.

[Seeking Serenity]

65. Very trans intolerant

and also incredibly bigoted against men in general.

Not enough tomato juice to get the skunk smell off after reading that vile crap.

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. You have to ask? Of course it is.

There are, sadly, feminists who are like that. The attitude is partly a defensive one; there's a certain school of thought in feminism that claims gender is a social construct. So if there are actual transgender people who have an innate sense of gender identity that's at variance with their biological sex? The whole "social construction" theory of gender looks a lot less tenable. Unfortunately for the social constructivists there are numerous studies showing significant evidence of innately "gendered" neurology with transgender people showing similarities in things like certain brain structures and digit length ratios to their self-identified gender.

So in essence people like this are not any different from fundamentalist Christians who insist that homosexuality is a choice (despite the evidence to the contrary).

[customerserviceguy]

71. Whoever wrote that

seems to have a lot of problems with a lot of things on many levels.

[AverageJoe90]

74. The nastiness of that blog post doesn't give off any positive impressions, that's for damn sure.

It kinda reminds me of the "All White People are Racist" crap I've had the misfortune of stumbling upon in recent months.....so definitely something off with this particular blogger; sounds like she's got some serious prejudice issues to address & work out.

[CreekDog]

187. link to all these posts that say "all white people are racist"

[AverageJoe90]

188. Wasn't referring to DU, by the way(that shoulda been clearly obvious!).

But they're out there. Go look on Tumblr for examples, because I don't have the time or energy to search thru dozens of Google pages(and besides, would you even bother to listen anyhow?).

[dionysus]

75. intolerant of TG? uh yeah, even more intolerant of the existance of males, period.

she's batshit crazy.

enjoy the flame war this OP will bring!

[NCTraveler]

78. I try to stay away from articles...

I try to stay away from articles on this topic that use "some feminists" to make their point.

[cherokeeprogressive]

138. If you follow the links... and follow the links... and follow the links...

You can get caught up all day in some seriously entertaining reading.

[upaloopa]

151. Per the cultural competency course I took on

Weds of this week yes it is.
The gender of the person is what he or she identifies with not the biology they were born with. Transgender is not a mental illness.

[Jamastiene]

153. From the get go. The very first sentence is intolerant of

the transgendered and it just devolves from there.

[Shankapotomus]

166. I understand her need

Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2014, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)

for a space where women can recover, support each other and liberate themselves without fearing interference from the damaging cultural effects of patriarchy. My take is it is equivalent in principle to women who have been violently traumatized that walk to the other side of the street when a male is walking toward them. Not every male wants to harm them but I understand the need for the woman to walk to the other side of the street anyway. In a similar fashion, not every transgender person is going to fail to understand women who are recovering from patriarchal culture but I understand why some women can be at a point in their life where they would just rather avoid the whole possibility for problems altogether and not take any chances. Does that project a potentiality on someone unfairly? Perhaps. But I think people who have been traumatized, feel oppressed, have been damaged or are trying to recover from abuse should be afforded some understanding and their space.

[Zorra]

169. Just FYI: Transgendered is not a word. The proper word is transgender. See link below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024810648

[TransitJohn]

171. The word isn't used as an adjective in my thread title, it's used as a noun.

Transgendered most certainly is a word. It may not be the preferred appellation, but it is proper usage.

[Zorra]

194. I can't seem to find a word "transgendered" defined as a noun in any dictionary,

but if you wish to create the word as a noun for yourself, there's no law against it yet.

"Transgendered" is an erroneous variant of the word transgender, mistakenly used by straighted people, and even sometimes gayed people, who don't know any better. However, the usage of the word trangendered may alienate, and often insult, the majority of transgender people, and if it is your wish to continue do so, that is your right. Transgender is a condition at birth, just as are the condition of being lesbian, gay, transsexual, or straight.

If you try to use this word as a noun, you may create unrest among the multitudes of transgendered people out there, possibly even the transsexualed. The gayed and lesbianed folks probably won't appreciate it either. Do you know actually know anyone who is a transgendered?

People do not become lesbianed, gayed, straighted, or transgendered at some point in their life, do they?

We are born this way. Lesbian. Gay. Transgender. Straight.

So, how old were you when you decided you decided to be straighted, or should I say heterosexualed, if you prefer?

GLAAD's Transgender Media and Education Program
http://www.glaad.org/transgender

"The word transgender never needs the extraneous "ed" at the end of the word. In fact, such a construction is grammatically incorrect. Only verbs can be transformed into participles by adding "-ed" to the end of the word, and transgender is an adjective, not a verb".

TRANSGENDER TERMINOLOGY, from the National Center of Transgender Equality (pdf)
http://transequality.org/Resources/TransTerminology_2014.pdf

Is this blog post intolerant of the straighted?

Is this blog post intolerant of the bisexualed?

Is this blog post intolerant of the lesbianed?

Is this blog post intolerant of the transsexualed?

Is this blog post intolerant of the gayed?

Is this blog post intolerant of the homosexualed?

Is this blog post intolerant of the transgendered?

Transgender or Transgendered?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-herman/transgender-or-transgende_b_492922.html

Here is a post from one of our transgender DUers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11379657#post9

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

[Boreal]

179. Yikes!

What vile insane ranting. Whoever wrote that not only hates men but hates herself (all the complaining about being female). The writer is a misanthrope.

Pay it no attention. It's batshit crazy!

[Blue_In_AK]

186. It sounds intolerant to me

and also very ill informed about the reality of transgender, not to mention extraordinarily misandrous.

[Crunchy Frog]

283. Yes, and bigoted against males as well.

I'm a woman and a feminist, but I'm also a mother of two young sons.

[Major Nikon]

288. It's bigotry against anyone born with a penis

[cyberswede]

325. Even Skinner calls this thread a "meta shitshow"

I wonder if you'd consider self-deleting it? It's not productive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595609#post1

[hrmjustin]

326. I agree.

[maddezmom]

328. There are a lot META shitshows on DU

Mostly in the groups, tho.

[RiffRandell]

334. Perhaps it's only a "meta shitshow" for certain members.

Looks like that to me.

[cyberswede]

335. Do you think there are people here who DON'T think it's a "meta shitshow?"

That would surprise me.

[RiffRandell]

336. I think several people miss meta.

Not me, and getting rid of it was one of the best moves by the admins.

[cyberswede]

339. I agree, except...

now the pooh-flinging happens in GD instead.

[Violet_Crumble]

369. Better here than in a protected group where people can't stick up for themselves...

Navigating my way through the tangled mess of hidden posts and links to posts elsewhere that lowered my already reasonably low opinion of one or two DUers, and resisting the temptation to jump in at one point when MIRT was being discussed, I think I came through this harrowing ordeal a more self-controlled lone wolf type than I was before I started. Let's face it. A bit of pooh flinging is far more interesting to read than cute kitty threads. Much like watching 10 episodes of the Bold & the Beautiful in a row, it's probably not good for me in a waste of time, killing my brain cells sort of way, but sometimes I just can't tear myself away from a good public spectacle

[boston bean]

370. You are talking about people here in this thread who can't stick up for themselves.

Why the double standard?

[Violet_Crumble]

371. Which ones? Last time I checked everyone can post in GD n/t

[boston bean]

373. look again.

[Violet_Crumble]

374. I did. I'm not understanding what yr getting at...

If someone was posting in this thread, they had a chance to stick up for themselves, something others can't do when these meta style threads are posted elsewhere at DU...

[boston bean]

375. If they've been locked out they can't.

Certainly you must know that, no?

[Violet_Crumble]

376. Are you talking about seabeyond?

She was in this thread posting for a while before she got a hidden post. That's not my problem, and hidden posts are very different from people being blocked from a group or unable to stick up for themselves because they know they'll be blocked if they do...

[boston bean]

380. Well, she certainly can't respond to the hundreds of posts made after a hidden, or yours could she?

Many posts were directly about her.

In fact, if how you say you feel about this were actually the case and how DU was run, this thread would be hundreds of posts less than it is.

Like I told you before. My feelings on the subject are it is up to a jury. A member takes a chance on doing such things, as you have done in this thread and you received no punishment for doing so. Seems my words are in line with the admins on this. The members take a chance of a hide if they do so. I don't specifically like call outs. Nor am I perfect and in this case neither are you.

If you have a problem with how the site is set up, take it up with admin. You seem to want others to be held to a different standard than you allow yourself.

[Violet_Crumble]

381. Then she should be more careful not to get her posts hidden...

Apart from that, all I did was say what my reaction was to reading that duckies thing. I didn't name names or anything, so I'm not sure why anyone would think there was anything hide worthy about it. While I tend not to reply to any posts from anyone I've noticed has got a hidden post in a thread I'm in (and sometimes I don't notice), that's where it ends. But GD isn't like the groups. No-one is blocked from posting in GD, and they don't run the risk of being blocked from GD if they do decide to stick up for themselves in a meta slugfest to the death...

So what exactly do you think I have a problem with that I have to take to admin? I'm pretty sure there isn't one. All I have to say about these meta threads where people duke it out with each other is I wish people would get with the program and use the group that thrives on those sort of slugfests - the Israel/Palestine forum...

[boston bean]

382. And people should not be disruptive in groups.

That is the way the site is set up. If you have instances where you feel hosts have blocked someone for another reason, then provide the proof.

You think everyone knows who has been blocked, or that they check the blocked list prior to posting anything? Hell, I can't even remember and I'm the one that blocks most of them. I have made it clear in the group that if they do call outs, they risk jury hides and that I don't particularly like them. But on occasion I have failed, just as you do. A call out is a call out, no matter where it is made. Either you recognize that or you don't.

What I think you have a problem with is how a particular group is run. I'm not imagining that am I? We've had more than one discussion regarding this. Therefore, my suggestion to take it to admin if you have problem with it. There is nothing going on there, that doesn't happen all over DU.

[pintobean]

383. Your group has a Statement Of Purpose

which does not include trash talking other DUers, but it's done constantly in your group. You and your members do it because you are there to protect them by blocking, or the threat to block, anyone who would defend themselves there. As host, you have the power to put a stop to it. Locking call-out threads and/or temporarily blocking your members who trash talk would end that crap really fast. Any fair minded DUer can see that the way your group is used is extremely unfair. Enforcing the group SOP is not the job of juries, it's the job of the hosts.

You can't continue to run hof in that manner and have any legitimate complaints about the group's reputation.

[boston bean]

384. That is bull. People are blocked for being disruptive and hostile to feminism.

You got something to show otherwise, spit it out.

Oh and PS, you feel so strongly about call out threads, where is your disgust shown for this thread. I've been wrongly accused, and called out here. I guess your indignation only applies one way, heh? In fact you are calling me out in our little convo right here.

Excuse me for laughing my ass off. It's just to damned comical.

[pintobean]

385. "disruptive"

This is what you consider disruptive?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=17651
That's pretty damn mild compared to what goes on in hof. And that's just one example.

One got it for mentioning your blocked list (oops... I'm doing that now)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=9394

Then, there's this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12556689

Do you really think that anyone wouldn't believe they'd get axed for defending themselves when they're attacked in hof?

Then, there is your pinned SOP thread, which includes this:

Member SOP

Rules

There are some very basic rules all participants are expected to follow:

1) No bringing personal fights/issues/problems from other groups or past grievances with a particular member or members to this group
2) No individual personal call outs of any DUer
3) Be respectful at all times, even if an opinion is at odds with that of another poster
4) No bullying
5) Repeated violation of the rules or a refusal to adhere to them when approached by hosts will result in being blocked from the group.

If you actually enforced this, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[boston bean]

386. Thanks for the links. They absolutely back up what I have stated.

Any reasonable person would agree.

[pintobean]

387. I actually laughed out loud.

It startled my dog.

[boston bean]

388. Don't scare the good doggie.

But the truth of the matter be told. I think you give way too much of your time to this. I'm not sure of the motivation, but I know that it is a constant for you.

How many times do we have to go round and round with this shit? Save links, think they prove some point, when they don't, same accusations going on over two years now. Move on comes to mind.

You haven't been blocked from HoF, have you? You can post respectfully anytime in there. So, you are an example of the exact opposite of what you claim.

[pintobean]

390. The threat was there

Now, run along. You remain hostile to this group and have been for sometime. I'm not all that comfortable with you posting your justifications here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125538600#post17

And, you haven't addressed your lack of SOP enforcement. I'm not alone in this. People have gone into hof to discuss this, only to be ridiculed. I'm getting PMs saying people have asked you about this and gotten no, or similar, results. You're there to defend your members from the community, how about defending the community from your members, like the SOP thread states?

[boston bean]

393. And thank you again for posting and linking to a very well reasoned concern of mine.

Your presence in the group, because of your hostility to the group on the board, is a concern for many who post in the group. I do wonder why you would want to post given your very bold accusations and continuous maligning of the group. And then expect that no one remember your actions outside of the group and not view your participation in the least as being uncomfortable. Do you really think that is reasonable? I think you have been given very respectful treatment in the face of your ations.

Secondly, as for the SOP, that is for hosts to work out and discern what is disruption. I think we've been pretty open about it, as you can see from your links. And that post was made in the face of accusations like yours, ie banning people because of an opinion, when in fact it is disruption.

If you think blocking someone from the group and then comments on the blocking are any different than someone getting a hide and people commenting on it, I suggest you re-think that. Essentially it is one in the same.

The admins have provided groups and structured a hosting environment, in which HoF does not fall outside of any bounds. If that were the case, you would see admin speaking out and taking action. I don't know why you would think that your accusations would hold more weight then their actions or non actions.

[pintobean]

396. More non-answers.

You still won't answer why you refuse to enforce your own rules.

Member SOP

Rules

There are some very basic rules all participants are expected to follow:

1) No bringing personal fights/issues/problems from other groups or past grievances with a particular member or members to this group
2) No individual personal call outs of any DUer
3) Be respectful at all times, even if an opinion is at odds with that of another poster
4) No bullying
5) Repeated violation of the rules or a refusal to adhere to them when approached by hosts will result in being blocked from the group.

I guess it's kinda difficult to enforce these rules, when you constantly violate them yourself. You've had posts hidden by juries for violating your own rules, because they also violated community standards. At least one of those hidden posts was even a pinned thread. Pinned right up there with the rules it violated. The one that's there now passed a jury, so it stayed.

The point is not whether you can get away with it, but whether you should allow it. It's your group and your reputation, so do as you please. I would guess most people think it stinks, though.

[boston bean]

397. Why would anyone be held to a different standard than others on the board.

Hell, look at this thread. Call out galore. You don't seem to want to answer and respond to that.

However, as a host of the group:

I don't see people following around others to other websites.

I don't see people putting names in Original OP's and using the group to post gossip about a particular member.

I do see people discussing others who have been blocked, mostly regarding the reason for their blocking. Similar to when one gets a hidden post.

There, enough answers for you? Not that I had to respond, but because your allegations are specious.

[pintobean]

398. Yeah, Hof is just ducky. /nt

[boston bean]

399. HoF is fine. I suggest if it bothers you so dog danged much, trash it please and forever it will be

and not worrisome to you any longer.

What a novel idea.

[pintobean]

402. No, thank you.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[boston bean]

403. That is what you are doing? Disinfecting a feminist group on DU??

LOL

Pettiness, stalking (as seen here in this thread) and grudges, and negativity, don't take up to much of my time. YMMV.

[SunsetDreams]

425. The Jury is in...

On Tue Apr 15, 2014, 02:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeah, Hof is just ducky. /nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4824889

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Ducky is an insult about HOF based on the Duckies thread off DU that this entire subthread is about. Seabeyond is the only current HOF member known to have participated in that 2 yr old site, and for him to use that to malign Boston Bean, the host of HOF, who did not participate, and the rest of the HOF members who did not participate is deliberately insulting.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 15, 2014, 03:00 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get real!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: oh please
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ducky
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, you must be kidding or should be. I would suggest a reality check for you.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Really?!!?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[opiate69]

427. lmao! someone lost their button privileges!

(Also, dear alerter.. sea is decidedly not the only current DUer who regularly posted at that troll site. )

[Capt. Obvious]

428. 7 MRA types called for the same jury

AGAIN

[pintobean]

430. Thank you.

I had just read this in a DU mail message and I'm still laughing.

I appreciate everyone sharing.

[SunsetDreams]

434. You're welcome

When I was called for that Jury, I could have still been reeling with anger from this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024825421

So I might not have been paying proper attention....NAH

What a silly alert

Juror#6

[BainsBane]

419. How does that have anything to do with you?

Skinner has repeatedly said groups are the concerns of hosts and their members. If you see something inappropriate, you can alert. Lord knows plenty of people alert on HOF posts. There are other groups that don't conform to the SOP. For example, the Men's Group maintains a very limited notion of what constitutes issues about men, despite having a broad SOP. But that is also their concern, because it is their group. You are not a HOF feminist. You are not someone who comes to HOF to discuss any matter of substance. Whatever goes on in that group is none of your business, unless it violates community standards, and that is why the alert function exists.

Additionally, your constantly going on about Meta threads is the height of irony given your own posting habits.

[maddezmom]

389. HA

Give him a nice pat on the head from me.

[pintobean]

391. Her, and I just did.

She startles pretty easily. We think that one of her previous owners was abusive. Actually, going by her behavior, we're pretty damn sure. I don't get that - she's tiny and sweet as can be.

[maddezmom]

392. OOPS! I have a rescue that was abused and he is very skittish

He lets the cat rule the house, but they get along most times.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[pintobean]

394. Great pics.

Our dog gets along with our mellow cat. The other cat is a shit-head who mostly only gets along with my wife, but she's becoming more tolerant of me lately.

You dog looks like he's smiling. Our last dog smiled a lot, but it looked like a hideous snarl. If he smiled at someone who didn't recognize it as such, it could be frightening.

[maddezmom]

405. He is always smiling

Except for when the kitty takes over his bed.

[opiate69]

395. Aw. what a beautiful pup!

[maddezmom]

404. Thanks

No love for my kitty?

[opiate69]

406. Lol.. Sorry.. he's adorable too!

Not a huge cat guy, but I used to be..

[maddezmom]

408. She....

Hehe, I did the same with pintobean with his dog. Her name is Charlie.

[opiate69]

409. Dammit! Lol

[one_voice]

410. ...

my reaction was to reading that duckies thing

[BainsBane]

418. This is the first you've heard about Duckies?

Really?


Talking about someone in a thread from which they are locked out is EXACTLY the same as talking about them from a group from which they are banned.

[pintobean]

420. Do you have any idea how many DUers

know about your anti-spelunking expeditions?

[BainsBane]

421. I assume anyone who reads there would

I said nothing I am ashamed of. I did not conceal my identity but simply confronted them on their gossip about me, which is what I always do when people talk shit about me, as you have likely observed.

[pintobean]

432. You were trashing DUers there.

Why else would I bring it up here? Did you completely miss the point of the pic I posted up-thread? But, I wasn't the only DUer you were trash talking to the enemy.

I just want to know which one of you is Pintobean. My money is on you.

MADem fabricated quotes that seemed to be from an alert he decided I had written. I had not. That was the proof he came up with as so-called evidence against me. It was low and dishonest.

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=e63b76ffb09be6210b04d6824cd7158c&topic=93917.510

You sure seemed pretty pally with them.

That's too much for one day. Pick three and I'll get to them later. I need a break from DU anyway. Believe me, people there hate me a lot more than you folks do. Tucker can confirm that point, I'm guessing.

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=e63b76ffb09be6210b04d6824cd7158c&topic=93917.0;msg=1180999

It's a very long thread, and their site is a pos, but anyone can follow the links to see the rest.

[BainsBane]

433. You are not DUers

You are one DUer.


I made that same statement directly to the other member. I don't say things about people I won't tell them directly.

Skinner has made very clear he isn't concerned about what people do off DU. Why you think it's your role to police people's activities on the internet, I have no idea.

[pintobean]

437. I am pintobean. I am a DUer.

MADem is a DUer. Together, we are DUers.

1+1=2

With two, we add an "s" to make it plural.

[BainsBane]

439. You are one, singular

I wouldn't characterize that other statement as trashing. Someone posted an excerpt of an exchange between myself and the other member, and I relayed the circumstance. As I said, I previously said that exact same thing to him/her.

[pintobean]

444. Well, I can't tell you what MADem thought

because it's not fit for public viewing.

[BainsBane]

445. I felt similarly at the time

but it's water under the bridge at this point. Life is too short to nurture grudges.

[pintobean]

447. You went to the enemy

to trash talk your fellow DUers. Do you have any idea how they've fucked with DUers' lives? You have no shame. I'm not so sure that that's water under that bridge.

[boston bean]

448. They seemed very pleased to have her posting, NOT.

As far as I can see from your link, they banned her, no?

Hell, there are people over there from DU who hold active accounts. I've seen it linked to here before.

Who gives a shit? You obviously, but who else? Not many.

[pintobean]

451. Why don't you conduct a poll.

[boston bean]

453. Why don't you? There are people here on DU who are members in good active standing

who hold accounts over there.

Would I? No, because I don't give a fuck about them. But obviously some do. What you are trying to imply isn't the case. It's just another specious allegation.

[pintobean]

456. I'm not trying to imply anything

I layed out facts with links. DUers can decide for themselves what is and isn't acceptable behavior. My guess would be that most DUers would not approve of trash talking other DUers on that site. Their mission is be as disruptive to DU as possible, and to try to destroy as many lives of DUers as they can.

[BainsBane]

460. Why do you so dutifully read the site then?

and have bookmarks dating from the day of the flood? You realize each click contributes to their advertising revenue.

[pintobean]

464. Dutifully?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Bookmarks dating from the day of the flood? Really, I'm clueless here. I have no idea why you would think you know what I have bookmarked and no clue what the flood reference means. I have one bookmark for that site. It's from your first trip there. (you've joined them twice, that I know of) You make your appearance on page three.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=774c85ba2819ee7fcbea776276d18dde&topic=85948.0

It's pretty disgusting stuff. I didn't even remember bookmarking it.

[BainsBane]

450. I did not go to trash talk DUers

I went to confront them on their trash talk of ME. That is clear to anyone who honestly reads the entire exchange.

[opiate69]

435. Hmm.. didn't posting over there used to be a ToS violation?

[BainsBane]

440. Nothing in TOS about it now

Can't believe you missed it. I used to be their favorite topic of conversation. The advantage of my visit is they grew bored of me.

[opiate69]

442. Yes.. if only I had used past tense,

To signify that I was well aware that it was not currently in the ToS....

[BainsBane]

443. Why would you even mention it

If not to suggest it was a violation?

[opiate69]

446. Why then, O brawling love! O loving hate! O any thing, of nothing first create!

[BainsBane]

452. I don't think I can take all this adoration from

members of the men's group, flattered as I am.

[LittleBlue]

449. That site is disgusting. How the fuck are DUers on it?

I've read in the past that those guys make sock puppet accounts to encourage DUers with drug problems to commit suicide. They have a section devoted to uncovering the RL identity of DUers and getting them fired.

This thread explains a lot, really. Bookmarking for future reference.

[BainsBane]

454. If you're going to pass judgments

at least read the whole exchange. I am not "on" the site. I went to confront them about their trash talking of me and they quickly banned me. I have this habit of confronting people who talk shit about me. I tend to believe if someone has something to say, they should say it to me directly.

[LittleBlue]

455. And if you were just defending yourself, that would be one thing

(Why you'd do it, I don't know. They call us "bald dwarf" and celebrate when DUers die)

Trashing other DUers on there, not cool. Keep that to private messages, don't sell out DUers so you can gain approval from those people. Those people openly want all of us dead.

[BainsBane]

458. That is not an accurate representation of my comments there

Note that he links to pg. 35 of that thread when I actually entered at p. 5.

[msanthrope]

466. I think it's a pretty accurate representation of your interaction. As that site currently

hosts the stalker of me and my disabled child, I have little tolerance for DUers who participate there.

[BainsBane]

467. I confronted them because of their stalking of me

That is my right.

You have no less tolerance for me now than you did before. I know nothing about you, your child, or your stalker. the only thing I know about you is that you have made clear on multiple occasions that you believe I have no right to my own views and now even my actions in confronting my stalkers.

[msanthrope]

469. And it's my right to comment on the method you chose to confront them.....

Disapproval of other DUers. Not cool. Maybe you should have educated yourself as to the goatfuckers on that site before you headed over there.

[pintobean]

471. That's the problem.

You don't know, or care, how they hurt DUers. It's all about you. I warned you about those assholes when I told you about how you were exposing yourself with your photobucket account. You basically gave me the finger, and shortly after, joined their site to play your game.

ETA link
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023423243#post92

[BainsBane]

474. Oh, Good god.

I thanked you. I sent you a PM to thank you. That is not giving you the finger. You then sent a PM to someone else whining that I hadn't thanked you twice.

Nearly every day you snipe at me in order to cause me pain. You now expect me to feel some great empathy toward you? You think no matter how badly you treat me, I'm supposed to worry about your feelings and put your concerns ahead of my own?

You, Pintobean are not DUers. You are one person.

[boston bean]

477. They rightfully put down those bunch of creeps for stalking behavior

yet will seek out posts outside du themselves and bring back links to chit chat about and confront and try to make others feel uncomfortable. I don't know.. But the cognitive dissonance here is something to behold.

[BainsBane]

478. I think it comes down to

some feeling themselves superior to others.

[pintobean]

479. Your curt thank you is included in the link.

Immediately putting me on ignore was the middle finger, and I never PMed anyone saying I wanted another thank you. You're either misinformed, or fabricating. The point here is I warned you about them. Your infamous "instinct" must have told you something different.

[BainsBane]

480. Actually the person sent me the PM

Yet another inaccuracy on your part.

I put you on ignore for how you continued to treat me after that. Yet I found out it only emboldened you, that you continued to make negative remarks to and about me despite the fact I had you on ignore for months.

[pintobean]

483. Send it to me.

I'm sure you found it and double checked it for accuracy, so send it on over.

Again, the point here is that I warned you about what assholes they are. Your post up-thread says you didn't know about msanthrope's stalkers, but you sure as shit knew they stalk and harass a lot of DUers. You couldn't go to that site and not know it. The remote control thread was very active while you were there. They were claiming to have gotten a DUer fired. In the midst of that, you decided it would be a good idea to trash a couple of DUers while you were there. Of course, you were there for the noblest of reasons - defending yourself. The trash talk just seemed to happen somehow. Ooops.

They think the only reason you were there was to try to find out if I was one of them (infamous "instinct" again). Unlike you, I can say I have never been a member of that sight. I would never lower myself to that level, no matter what they might say about me.

[pintobean]

459. There it is. Thank you.

[opiate69]

461. They banned you "quickly"?

I know we're spoiled by how quickly MIRT usually nukes intruders, but I still don't think a full week and 200+ posts constitutes "quickly" in anyone's mind...

[maddezmom]

462. That is a lot of clicks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4826109

[opiate69]

463. Indeedy, it is!

[BainsBane]

465. More quickly than the men's group banned me

for the same reason, confronting them on talking shit about me.

[RiffRandell]

476. One in this thread talked a ton of smack about at least 2

current members, saying they were moles, which was total bullshit.

I took a screenshot, but unfortunately my laptop got fried, got a new one and don't have it anymore as I would gladly post it.

[BainsBane]

414. Gosh

No one seems bothered when I'm talked about in a protected group from which I can't respond. In fact, I remember someone jumping in to interrogate me for bothering to mention such gossip.

[Warren DeMontague]

338. I remember when meta got shut down, admin instructed GD hosts to "be ruthless" with meta threads

I don't know where that went, but GD has been full of meta shitshows in recent months.

[cyberswede]

340. Unfortunately, hosts can only weigh OPs, not replies.

This particular OP didn't "whine about DU" or contain any overt "disruptive meta."

Of course, it's possible the OP was posted intentionally as a veiled meta topic, but I don't know if hosts are able (or expected) to determine that or not.

I sometimes wish that non-meta OPs that degenerate into über-meta threads could be locked anyway, but alas, that's not to be.

[RiffRandell]

341. So why suggest the OP be deleted?

Do you have a dog in this discussion?

ARF!

[cyberswede]

346. I think it's turned into such an ugly display...

and the only way to move on might be for the OP to self-delete (since it can't be locked as the meta-palooza it's turned into).

My only dog in the discussion is that I like DU, and threads like this are unpleasant, to say the least. Sure, I could trash the thread, but I think having our members attacking each other - over what people said on another site - is unflattering to all of DU.

I guess the least I can do is stop kicking it.

Take care.

[RiffRandell]

348. I agree it sure has turned into an ugly display!

The truth came out! Take care as well!

[Warren DeMontague]

342. It'd be nice if the standards could be applied equally & consistently, even just to OPs. For starts.

I can list off the top of my head 20 or so threads in the past few months which were exclusively people complaining specifically about DU and other DU members. Which is, to my mind, the definition of meta.

[cyberswede]

344. I think the GD hosts were trying to work out some things...

I know for a while, the general idea was to lock posts that were "whining about DU" - specifically, posts that complained about jury results or host actions - not necessarily posts about DUers - some of those also fell into the idea of "discussing the discussion."

I think Skinner has weighed in, and the latest idea is it's ok to lock "disruptive meta" (OPs only, of course). I think that's a better guideline, but it's mostly moot, if a non-meta OP like this one spawns a meta trainwreck anyway.

[BainsBane]

345. Thosec certain members include Skinner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595609#post1

[RiffRandell]

349. He posted he didn't want to get involved.

Hey, by all means go for it. I'd be surprised if you didn't!

[pintobean]

351. At least, when they're in GD

they're not one sided.

[Texasgal]

356. This whole thread is pretty ridiculous.

I was right, it was indeed pure flamebait when I posted several days ago.

And really all this talk about posts off-site and all this suposed troll hunting from 2012 makes me think some people really need to get out more. Sheesh.

[Maraya1969]

359. "HE" is already a "SHE" for the love of "FUCK"

Anyone who knows anything about transgender knows that it is in the brain. The brain does not sync up with the body. So the "he" that this woman is so upset about has always thought of herself of a she anyway. She has always been one of us. Welcome her with open arms.

Yes it is very intolerant.

[MrScorpio]

360. Oh, No...

[hrmjustin]

379. I have to say one of the worst days I had on this site was when Chelsea Manning was sentenced and

she announced her name Chelsea. I was a MIRT member and at the time we got all TOS jury results that were hidden. All day I watched people on this site I liked and dislike make the worst transphobic comments I had seen. There were only a few of us on MIRT that day so I saw it all.

Point is there is transphobia everywhere unfortunately.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

400. The blogger is quite obviously severely mentally ill

Intolerance is the least of their issues, quite frankly.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

401. If you find yourself that obsessed with pronouns...

I think you're missing something.

[seaglass]

441. TransitJohn - come back to us - where did you go? Please I beg of you - put this

thread out of its misery.

[lululu]

473. it's just uninformed and wigged out

I'm a feminist but there are people who call themselves feminists who are out of the normal range of human sanity. The writer appears to be one of them, so tied up in "feminism&quot sic) that she has no clue about gender identity issues.

[zappaman]

485. Thank you for this very revealing thread.

VERY revealing.

[pintobean]

486. It's been a blast, hasn't it?

Very revealing and sometimes just gut splitting funny.

[BainsBane]

487. That comment more than anything reveals

who you are.

[pintobean]

488. Where's that pm?

[BainsBane]

489. I will not betray a confidence

and least of all for you.

[RiffRandell]

491. How funny since you tried to at CC. nt

[BainsBane]

494. What confidence did I betray?

None. Absolutely none.

You may think that when someone makes it their mission in life to cause others pain, they should be able to operate without interruption or response. I, however, do not share that view.

Additionally, how I conduct myself off this site, whether online or off-line, is NONE of your business.

[pintobean]

501. Oh, I think a lot of DUers

believe what you did at the cave is their business. Those people have caused a lot of DUers trouble. Our community members, our friends, our brothers and sisters. You just don't seem to be able to grasp that. If some guy DUer went over there to yuck it up and started trashing you or your friends, you might understand.

[BainsBane]

502. I have no confidence with you

You are not my friend. In fact, you have made your feelings toward me perfectly clear. That you think I owe you anything is rich. I have never treated you with a fraction of the disrespect you have showed toward me.

[pintobean]

505. Let's go back to the mail I sent you.

I know you and I don't get along, but we're on the same side. I assume you're aware of sites like the conservative cave and how they stalk DU and mine our site for personal information. I hate to see what they do to DUers. They're really sick.

The fact that you and I don't get along is irrelevant to this issue. You are a DUer and a Democrat. I side with you, not some pos stalking conservative cave assholes. Still. Now.

[BainsBane]

506. I see no evidence that you side with me

Quite the contrary. If you think we are allies, I would hate to see how you treat people you consider enemies.

[pintobean]

507. Here's a clue

I haven't gone into the enemy's camp to trash talk you, or anyone else.

[BainsBane]

508. No, you do it here

frequently. If your approach to enemies is to leave them alone, I request that status.

[opiate69]

509. I think somebody posted some advice you may consider upthread, then.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4820842

[BainsBane]

510. Believe me, I have tried

It did no good. I had him on ignore for months, and he never stopped making snide comments. It only emboldened him. I eventually took him off so I could at least alert on the worst ones.

Lord, if it only were so easy as ignore. I hear they used to have forced ignore that went two ways. Would I ever love that.

[pintobean]

511. I've never accused you of being a troll

like you did me, over there. I don't make things personal. I point out what you do. You treat DUers like shit, and I don't like it. I've told you before, I'll back off when you start treating DUers with respect.

You're trying to make it look like I'm racking up hidden posts like crazy and all those imaginary hides are posts directed at you. I don't have any hidden posts right now, and I can't remember if, or when, I've had a reply to you hidden. I'm sure that isn't due to a lack of alerts.

[BainsBane]

512. BS

It's all personal to you. You constantly talk about what a reprehensible human being I am and treat me like I'm dirt on sidewalk. You don't care how people treat other DUers. That's an excuse. There are people here who have had forced leaves for nasty insults, and you haven't lectured them. In fact you've supported some of them. It's all about picking sides for you. You targeted me from day one and haven't let up. You even kept it up for months while I had you on ignore. I of course am not the only one. There are others on your list, and if there is a swarm against someone, you're always participating.

I didn't say a thing about your having hidden posts racked up. You are extremely skilled at what you do. To pretend it isn't personal is absurd. Anyone who does a search of your posts will see that they are nearly all about other DUers and rarely about any political or social issue. Your post declaring how enjoyable this thread has been said it all. You noted above that people have been caused pain from some of the links and comments here. Yet you wrote:

pintobean (11,976 posts)

486. It's been a blast, hasn't it?
Very revealing and sometimes just gut splitting funny.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4827233

People on all sides of this mess have been hurt, and you call it "a blast." You take great pleasure from what you do.

[pintobean]

514. Omg. Were you crying when you wrote that?

Who got hurt in this thread? The person who got herself kicked out? You know, the one who is a hidden post away from another forced time out. The one who's off-site trash talk got this shit-storm rolling. That hidden post was one of the most disgusting things I've read here in quite some time.

Maybe the one who acted all innocent in all of this, yet presides over a daily meta shit-storm where any DUer outside the group is fair game for trash talk.

You? You came plowing into this thread acting like you're some kind of authority of who can trash talk, and where and when it can be done. Basically, your theory says you and your friends can do it off-site and in a protected safe haven. Places where their victims can't defend themselves. But god forbid anyone call this shit out in GD, where there can be a fair fight.

Then, your example of how mean I am is a post where I said some of this thread was funny? I'm sure you didn't miss the 0-7 jury results on the "ducky" post. That was some funny shit. Well, maybe not for the alerter.

What we see in this thread is people saying no to a group who thinks they get to make their own rules. A group that has been trash talking this community and its founders for years.

[BainsBane]

515. Who got hurt?

Your words: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4826318

The person who had false child abuse rumors spread was hurt.

People who felt hurt by other comments they read in the Duckies thread

The person who had this raised. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4814033

The person who first introduced the subthread starting all this clearly feels hurt

The principal target of her anger was also hurt

The people who were falsely charged with participating in the Duckies thread were hurt.

People on all sides of this situation were hurt. Yet you described this thread as "a blast" and "just gut splitting funny." THAT is who you are, Pintobean.

I'm sorry to limit your schadenfreude, but I was not crying while I wrote that post.

As for what I do while I'm not on DU, that is none of your business. Nothing in my life is any of your business. You don't own DU, and you don't own me. I owe you nothing.

Now that we've had this out, there is no reason to revisit this or any other conversation in the future. Continue to enjoy your "Meta shit shows," to use Skinner's phrase. I'm out. I've had enough conversation with you for thirty lifetimes. We know each other better than either of us wants to. You'll have to save your antediluvian bookmarks for someone else.

[pintobean]

516. I only listed some of the people

you would be concerned about. Everyone else is fair game to you and your friends. I would guess that a lot of DUers have gotten some satisfaction from you and your friends having your asses handed to you. I know some have.

I've never made your private life any of my business. What you do on DU, or on other sites about DU, is my business. It's all of or business. I don't really give a flying fuck if you think so or not. Any DUer trashing this community and it's members is the business of all of us. You and your friends aren't special. There is no hof exception.

[RiffRandell]

517. Excellent post!

[pintobean]

492. How convenient.

He betrayed mine, so I don't have any limitations here. So, was me wanting a second thank you your interpretation, his, or something you both agreed on? I seriously doubt that he included his reply to me when he sent that to you. That reply makes me think he didn't see things the same way you did.
Do you still have that DU mail, or did you delete it and are now trying to go on memory?

I have it. I went and found it. I'm more than happy to play your game. You've already betrayed that confidence. You brought it public in an attempt to smear me. Smear me again for doing you a favor.

Btw, go self delete that OP. The info is still there.

[TransitJohn]

496. No problem.

I had no idea there was an anti-trans aspect to feminism, and it ballooned from there......

[zappaman]

500. Yeah, I don't get it.

But it seems like some feminists really are trying to alienate anyone else to their cause.

[Rex]

495. Wow, I see we can never have a meta forum again.

Sometimes I think, sure we blew it...but that was years ago. We are all more grown up now and can handle...oh...no we can't. NM.

[hrmjustin]

497. lol some members live for meta.

I don't miss it.

[Rex]

499. I miss it, up until a thread like this one comes along.

Then I am reminded of why the admins took it away from us.

[hrmjustin]

503. Yeah I can see why they got rid of it.

I wish some people here would get over it and just stick to the issues.

[herding cats]

513. Let's be honest.

Some members would still behave badly to each other when discussing the real issues. Sometimes people cannot discuss certain topics without making it personal and taking shots at those who disagree. I think this may apply to any topic a person is inclined to feel passionate about. Also, some people just don't like each other and they think showing their dislike in public is some kind of sport, or something like that. I'm still not really clear on that one. Some people on the internet band together and take "sides" no matter what is being discussed. It's how things work on the internet, and DU isn't an exception.

My personal advice is avoid it if you can here and if a jury pulls you into it, be impartial and force yourself to read it only then. Then take a shower and try and move on and pretend you didn't just see what you did. Whatever you do don't let their anger poison your heart. If you do they win. Oh, and really don't ever let any of your personal information slip through if you may be in anyway vulnerable to some of the less stable types who troll the internet. They can, and will, do real harm to your non internet life if you expose a chink in your armor. Watch out for yourself here and every other place you may post about topics which are inclined to draw trollish types. Don't use the same moniker at multiple places. It makes it too easy to slip and let things be said which can then be used to find you in real life and lead to abuse.

[hrmjustin]

518. Good advice.