The use of 'whore' to describe women on DU is now almost officially condoned

[wyldwolf]

Pardon me if I'm offending anyone or infringing into this group. Now that I have a young daughter things bother me much more than they used to, Not that I ever accepted calling a woman a whore - but now the use of that term really angers me.

Last night, a host locked a post in General Discussion. The post heavily quoted two well-respected liberal sources that both made the case that people on the left should not use the term 'whore' to describe women. The reason for the lock?

"This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the General Discussion forum)"

OFF TOPIC in GENERAL Discussion? I consider this an almost official acceptance of DU for the use of this term.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026989341

[Wilms]

1. I made coffee.

Would you like a cup?

[DetlefK]

2. Don't forget "Nazi".

It's acceptable to call a person a Nazi, if that person is german and you don't like her. Calling her "Mengele" and musing "it's a good thing she doesn't have kids" is also okay.




On the other hand, if someone calls somebody else a "bigot" you have every right to get your panties in a twist.

Also, if your thread is about a monument of a historic figure, and somebody mentions that this monument is bad taste because this historic figure is personally responsible for the suffering and death of millions, then the commenter should be permanently banned from the sub-forum because it's a protected group.

[patricia92243]

3. Since it is accepted for women, we need to be SURE to use it at every opportunity

for men. We don't want to discriminate (sarcasm)

[merrily]

4. The lock to which you linked us was not for OT but for disruptive meta, which is forbidden in GD.

And, while Omaha Steve did the mechanical locking, he specified it was by consensus of hosts.

A consensus of hosts have decided to lock this as META.

At that, I've been told that the hosts don't lock for disruptive meta without at least one alert. So, apparently, your thread got alerted on as disruptive meta, the hosts came to a consensus, agreeing with the alerter and OS got the task of putting the consensus into effect.

So, no reason whatever to single out OS, which could be interpreted as a call out.

Seems to me as though DU is not condoning disruptive meta, even if the topic is supposed to be names women are called.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with the lock. I am saying the description in your OP does not reflect what happened.

Also, I am getting tired of attacks on Omaha Steve, who has poignantly confessed to us, through his tears, that he is fighting Alzheimer's and perhaps also ALS at the same time.

BTW, this thread is also meta. Whether it becomes sufficiently disruptive meta to be locked in this group remains to be seen. However, if it does get locked, let's not pretend it got locked because it's DU's official policy to disrespect women, shall we?

I hasten to add that it may or may not be that DU does tolerate certain words--and I have wished that DU's general attitude toward women were not so "live and let live." I believe that words help shape thoughts and thoughts help shape conduct, for good or ill.. However, that has nothing to do with your thread having been locked as disruptive meta.



ETA: I just noticed that OS posted in June that he does NOT have ALS, but does have other issues in addition to Alzheimer's (for the latter, see the link within his post):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026772917

[TexasProgresive]

5. Let's see if the original poster understands

your good explanation.

[boston bean]

8. Get what, it was a post full of deflections and little substance.

[boston bean]

7. I noticed that the post in questions was not META.

How about you?

Was it complaining about a DU member, host decision or jury decision.

How can posting links to two well known sources be considered meta.

And in the post it stated who locked it. That doesn't mean anyone is attacking Omaha Steve. It's a fact he locked it.

Lastly, you are posting in HoF, which seems you do recognize. We post in here all the time about the different treatment feminists receive on DU.

So, if you don't like it, you are always free to leave and never post another thing in here again.

[merrily]

9. Regardles, of your opinion (or mine) about that thread, the consensus of the GD hosts and,

I assume, at least one alerter was "disrputive meta."


AFAIK, the proper way to dispute that is not by starting another thread that most definitely is meta. Beyond that, it clearly was not locked for being OT, as the Op states.

Sorry, I disagree that being careful to specify that Omaha Steve was the one locked it is not a call out of OS. You results may differ.

Lastly, you are posting in HoF, which seems you do recognize. We post in here all the time about the different treatment feminists receive on DU.

And what in my post was inconsistent with that?

So, if you don't like it, you are always free to leave and never post another thing in here again.

Of course I am free not to post here. So are you. However, I am also as free to post here as anyone else.

[boston bean]

10. You don't get to decide anyting in this group.

We're not going to sit here and take ridiculous reasoning about an OP that you won't even comment upon whether you personally felt it should be locked, while lambasting the OP.

Have a nice day.

[geek tragedy]

19. GD hosts have expicitly taken a side in the argument--they refuse to lock

threads justifying the use of that word, but lock threads arguing it's not acceptable.

This is not about Omaha Steve. There's host consensus, which means the hosts as a group are dropping the ball in a major way, and that's the most charitable interpretation (the other being intentional and prejudicial taking sides and purposefully silencing one side of a debate while giving the other free reign).

[LanternWaste]

20. And in doing so, have quite accurately illustrated your sincerity.

" I am also as free to post here as anyone else. "

And in doing so, have quite accurately illustrated the breadth of your sincerity in regards to this topic.

[DURHAM D]

11. Nonsense.

Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

This shit post was allowed to stand by a jury -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=455232


Then a Bernie supporter created a false narrative that it was just about the "word" whore so they could have a little fun with this OP in GD -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026986431

It is Meta but you decided not to Lock it.



Then this OP was stared in order to play around a little more with name calling -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026990042

It is Meta but you decided not to Lock it.


Then wyldwolf started his OP in GD and you decided to Lock it. It is obvious that the only reason it was Locked is because he has a Hillary avatar.

Many Bernie supporters are upset about what went on over this past weekend but apparently not enough of them and unfortunately the bias of the forum Hosts is now on full display in HOF.

ETA: When I responded to merrily I thought she was a Host in the Forums. I confused her with another Bernie supporter. Here is a list of the current Hosts.


1 Raine1967
2 fishwax
3 pinto
4 In_The_Wind
5 Hassin Bin Sober
6 Autumn
7 NutmegYankee
8 Sissyk
9 rhett o rick
10 Violet_Crumble
11 one_voice
12 Purveyor
13 greytdemocrat
14 libodem
15 petronius
16 cwydro
17 etherealtruth
18 discntnt_irny_srcsm
19 azurnoir
20 Go Vols
21 Renew Deal
22 DonViejo
23 MineralMan
24 Agschmid
25 cbayer
26 hibbing
27 OKNancy
28 Omaha Steve
29 uppityperson
30 zappaman

[wyldwolf]

12. The lock clearly states it's 'off topic.'

[boston bean]

13. The off topic is a generic message that gets posted when a lock occurs.

Your post was locked for being meta.

Which is complete and utter bullshit, because your post wasn't complaining about DU, Host, Host decisions, Jury decisions.

It was a cut and paste of two very good articles.

So, yeah, it was a sucky and really biased lock.

What I've come to notice around here is that the discussion of defense of bigoted words being used on DU get a hell of a lot more leeway than a post that derides the usage.

When someone is defending the use of the bigoted terms, I'll tell you it makes DU suck for me. And they are complaining that about others on DU who find it unacceptable.

But when you got nothing in the TOS that prohibits this, you are gonna get a lot of people who think it's ok to do.

Not many people here give a shit, that this place looks like a misogynist pit when it continues to happen. And people, women specifically are the ones who are made to feel especially uncomfortable.

So, no, your thread should not have been locked. There was not reason for it. It was completely based in your support for Hillary and for that it was deemed to be META.

[boston bean]

6. I asked in ATA if they felt the post should be unlocked, and if so

would they unlock it.

[ismnotwasm]

14. What to hear about a great example of irony?

Try calling a sex worker a whore. I remember a few years ago where a number a noses went whack out of joint over it. You can call a women of political power a whore, but many of those same people will be offended if you call a whore a whore.

[BobSmith4152]

17. "You can call a women of political power a whore"?

That's so gay.

New #SexWorkIsRealWork

[ismnotwasm]

18. LoL

Love Wanda

[sufrommich]

15. I wouldn't have added the word "almost" to the OP. nt

[LanternWaste]

16. It's a gender-specific thumb-in-your-eye phrase

It's a gender-specific thumb-in-your-eye phrase. Anyone consciously using it knows that as such, and anyone denying as such is cowering behind a profound lack of conviction.

[Skittles]

21. CORPORATE WHORE

is that gender specific?

[mentalsolstice]

22. Jury results

On Tue Jul 21, 2015, 10:27 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

CORPORATE WHORE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=58167

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This group is a safe haven for feminists. There are all kinds of threads in General Discussion where this poster can defend using the word "whore" against women and democratic presidential candidates. It is completely inappropriate and just plain shit stirring to do so in this group.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 21, 2015, 10:34 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Skittles poses a good question...all this warfare over semantics is nuts.
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: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Perhaps you should explain that to her. Sometimes people don't know where they are and all she did was ask a question.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Supporting the HOF group standards. Hide.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A thread about the terminology used in a discussion in the Feminism group... I don't see where this crosses a line. If folks are going to debate terminology, then talking about terminology should not be banned. I see no personal attack. Let the discussion continue.

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

[Skittles]

23. unaware I was in a group

BUT I AM A FEMINIST

[ismnotwasm]

25. So the fuck what.

Justify calling a politically powerful woman a whore all you want with your bad self. Don't expect me or any number of others to think its ok. And I don't play fucked up "more feminist than thou" games.

[Skittles]

27. I DID NO SUCH THING

BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT

*DONE* with this bullshit

[ismnotwasm]

28. Good.

[geek tragedy]

24. The arc of the universe bends towards justice

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=268142&sub=trans

[Iliyah]

26. It was this poster huh.

Every Democratic Party Presidential Candidate should be held in a respectful light. OK to agree to disagree, but my GAWD, that was horrible and the jurors who allowed that post to stand, shame on you!

All I can say is thank you Skinner!

[wyldwolf]

29. so essentially my response post was locked for 'calling out' a troll.

[geek tragedy]

30. at least it wasn't hidden.

many, many people get posts hidden after responding in the tone that the troll deserves