The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on January 07, 2015, 11:08:33 AM
-
I haven't checked out the Men's forum on DU for a goodly while. The war the DUmpFeminazis are fighting against the evil male DUmpmonkiez is still going on, even after a large % of the titted terrorists have had to take a break.
I found this and laughed my ass off.
TreasonousBastard (24,522 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/111414597
Well, another cowardly attack...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125553255
This is about something I said in JaneQPublic's thread calling Cheney a *****. Apparently, calling Cheney a ***** is worse than what Cheney did and the fight was on.
Now it seems I'm a liar, a sexist pig, and such a bad guy that I singlehandedly managed to get at least two people to turn in their Democratic memberships. So far, it looks like alerts have failed (of course I assumed they would be alerted on) so I'm attacked in public on a private "protected" forum where I can't respond. What a wonderful place this can be.
Since I'm one of over 50 people banned from that group I can't defend myself (although the truth is I don't really want to deal with that crowd) but I am fascinated how they have managed to strike enough fear into the hearts of DU that no one else is going to go in and strike a blow for reason.
I'm not asking for support here for my posts, or not much, anyway, but there might be some cause for more discussion about alert stalking. And extremism in defense of polite speech.
Should the expected alert be successful, I will assume m y point proven.
eh...
malthaussen (5,474 posts)
2. Oh, I don't think you were attacked by cowards
Or harpies, if it comes to that. Funny how certain epithets are useable in polite discourse, and others are not. Since your post was contested in open forum (as well as in the Group That Shall Not Be Named), "cowardly" would seem to be a reach. Well, perhaps your definition differs from mine.
Now, if you want to call Cheney a coward, you won't get an argument from me. But so far as I am able to determine, that isn't under question. And by conservative count, there have been a hundred or so posts calling for Cheney's head, but the only objection has been to the use of sexist terminology in the thread in question. Given the lack of objection to the other 99 threads, what, I wonder, could have caused the reaction to this one? Somehow, I doubt many denizens of DU consider the use of a word to be more criminal than Cheney's actions. Perhaps you exaggerate or misinterpret the import of the posts written in opposition to the use of a sexist term. And you might want to reconsider your own use of sexist characterization, unless of course your motive is more to salve offended amour propre than have a discussion.
-- Mal
Ther Male group is like the pro-gun group. People are banned from the anti-gun group but then the anti-gunners can post to the pro-gun group at anything. In fact, their are female mods on the male group...
TreasonousBastard (24,522 posts)
5. In a protected group where I can't reply...
would fit in with my understanding of cowardice. They got on me in the original thread, but then took it to their own little domain. And it was specifically about me, with less about what I said. That's a personal attack-- and it got worse in both threads with their assumptions about my character.
I already defended my use of "harpy" and see those objections as simply another ploy to direct and censor discourse.
A famous British lawsuit (perhaps redone on "Rumpole") I remember from Copi's logic text involved a barrister who ignored the case until the day of trial. The solicitor left a single page in the brief-- "We have no case. Insult the opposition."
I understand some people have objection to "*****" just as other people have objections to other words. But to derail a thread to concentrate on that word for hundreds of posts is simply ridiculous.
In a word-- get a life.
malthaussen (5,474 posts)
7. I'd advise you not to confuse grousing with attack
The protected group in which you are not welcome is a support group, after all. The same points made there were made in open forum. If there is one thing those women are not, it is shy.
-- Mal
There is always a justification for the behavior...
Doctor_J (31,136 posts)
9. a couple months back I posted that someone offended by the sleeze at DI should stop going there. For this I was called a rapist. Zealots tend to lose touch with reality when their pet issues are being discussed.
Warren DeMontague (58,569 posts)
15. I think the wording in the original thread is silly, and makes the OP sound like they're twelve.
However, the entirely-predictable fact that the thread devolves into a 450+post knock-down freakout over the specific word... typical, and blows the silliness of the original deal right out of the water.
It's like the Sports Illustrated issue, or spiderwoman's butt, or on a larger point, comet dude's shirt; far be it for me to suggest that the reasonable thing to do, even if one was slightly offended- would be to be like "gee, that's lame" or "Christ that's an ugly, cheesecake-a-licious shirt", now moving on....
but no, it has to be made into a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE that must be addressed by VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE and god-dammit we're going to derail this train for as long as it takes until YOU UNDERSTAND just how SERIOUS it is to have some scientist wear an ugly cartoon lady shirt and use bad words and eroticize superhero posteriors which reinforce male gaze heteronormative patriarchy inherent objectification dynamic multiple peer reviewed sociological studies erotoxins pornification implied linguistic blahblahblahblah
Name removed Message auto-removed
-
What a bunch of pussies.