In re Prism's thread

[dsc]

If you wonder why we suspect there is one set of rules for gay posters, and another, vastly more lenient set of rules for Obama supporters who aren't gay, just look no further than Sandnsea's behavior in this very forum. She posted, and I quote, "I know there has always been a pink tutu fringe here that attacks Democrats more than Republicans." Now just imagine for one second a gay poster posted "I know there is a watermelon eating fringe here who defends Obama no matter what he might do." I don't think he or she would be a poster here after posting that. Sandnsea is still going strong. Both statements are bigotted and worthy of tombstoning. Only one ever sees it happen. We have seen gays tombstoned literally for posting seven. Sandnsea posts about pink tutu fringe and is still here. It is hard not to see that as one set of rules for gays and another, vastly more lenient set for everyone else.

[Skinner]

1. I have to say something.

There is no way I will ever win this "stopwatch comparison"-style admin critique. People are always telling me that because it took X minutes to do this and Y minutes to do that, then I must be biased. There are probably hundreds of posts deleted, dozens of threads locked, and dozens of people banned every day. If you want to prove we're biased, you can always find some action that took longer than something else. The moderators and I have way too much work on our plates to waste time and effort trying to time everything fairly.

Here's what matters:

Sandnsea posted something inappropriate. Sandnsea got banned.

[dsc]

2. thank you

I had assumed, and sorry to have done so unfairly, that once the post was deleted from this forum that would be the end since it apparently took you to do the deletion. I had assumed that given the fact you did the deletion and you would also do the banning you would have done both at the same time.

[Skinner]

3. It was late.

Banning long-term members is not taken lightly. After the time she invested in this community, I do not think it is inappropriate that I waited to talk to another administrator in the morning before banning her. In fact, it seems barely fair.

[dsc]

4. I admit to being totally baffled now

Your answer to me surely implied that you agreed that Sandnsea's statement was clearly homophobic and that her banning was all but a forgone conclusion. Now I read your answer to NJMaverick and find out that the only reason she was banned was her history. I am glad she was banned but quite frankly the reasoning seems to confirm exactly what my post said. You fail to see the pink tutu comment as being homophobic and worthy of being banned on its face. If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is. There is nothing you can say that will convince me that the watermelon statement wouldn't result in an immediate banning regardless of history. Yet the pink tutu comment would have lead to no such banning but for the fact Sandnsea had tripped your last nerve. In point of fact you were going to explain to us why you felt it wasn't homophobic instead of banning her. This is exactly the double standard to which I was referring.

[Skinner]

5. I am going to let sandnsea explain what she meant in her own words.

After all, she knows better than anyone what she meant to say. Here's an excerpt from an email from sandnsea, explaining her use of the phrase "pink tutu fringe."

Just to clarify, I was referring to the fringe who have done nothing but attack "pink tutu" Democrats for years, which is easily recalled when one remembers the pink tutu graphics posted at DU routinely. When I said pink tutu fringe that attacks Democrats more than Republicans, that is the group I was referring to.

I always hated those graphics because I felt like they were homophobic of themselves. I would never ever use a slur like that. Funny I should be tombstoned for posting against the people who posted garbage like that.

And here is an excerpt from another email:

I wasn't referring to gays or any group of Democratic politicians.

I was referring to The People Who Use That Homophobic Slur To Attack Democrats. That pink tutu fringe, the group of people who have been attacking Democrats with phrases like "pink tutu" for years.

Obviously, her post was not completely clear, but I believe this is a plausible explanation for her post. It has the ring of truth to me, as her use of "pink tutu" was somewhat unorthodox. And also, this is consistent with how I interpreted it. Interestingly, she seems to agree with you that "pink tutu" is a homophobic slur.

So, now here's your chance to think like an admin. As I've said before, it's my job to understand nuance and give people the benefit of the doubt. Let's set aside for the moment the question of whether or not sandnsea should have been banned, and instead just focus on the post. Now that we both have access to the explanations provided by sandnsea, can we say for certain that she intended to use "pink tutu" as an anti-gay slur?

[dsc]

6. if it were stand alone

then maybe not. But I will say I can't fathom that a similar explanation would be accepted for my example. But add in her record, and yes, I think she is outright lying in her email given the fact that she has literally pissed off just about every gay poster at this site. I will say that if she didn't have that record, than I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

On edit: In fairness you are hardly alone in thinking that statements that are homophobic are less problematic than ones which are racist. That is one of the reasons we had 9 kids kill themselves in Sept. It is perfectly acceptable in way too many places to say homophobic stuff when it isn't to say equivalently racist stuff. I have to say that from the very beginning I had a problem with the pink tutu stuff and it is why I don't read Bart Cop despite the good stuff he does post. To say that pink tutu equals weak is an anti gay stereotype and not even a very fair one. If you could have followed some of us around in high school you would have seen some of the most courageous people you would ever want to meet who endured hideous abuse just to get an education. That isn't weak.

[Skinner]

7. I hope that I never gave the impression...

...that I think LGBT people are weak or cowardly, because I absolutely do not feel that way. I obviously do not know what it is like to be gay. But I am aware of the cruelties inflicted on LGBT people by ignorant and malicious people. Facing that kind of abuse takes enormous courage.

I want you to know that when I say I do not think a post is homophobic, I mean you no disrespect.

In my previous post, I provided sandnsea's explanation why her post was not homophobic. As I said above, I think her explanation rings true. Given that her post had nothing to do with GLBT issues (it was a complaint about DU allowing people to discuss primary challenges to President Obama), and given that she has long been known as an outspoken defender of establishment Democrats on DU, and given that the "pink tutu" label is usually applied by her debate opponents -- those on the left who believe that the Democrats are spineless -- her explanation seems reasonable to me.

Obviously you disagree with my opinion. But I appreciate that you at least understand the explanation she gave, and are willing to acknowledge the possibility that her post, if taken in isolation, may not be homophobic. Thank you for that.

However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that I consider homophobia to be less problematic than racism. Respectfully, the hypothetical comparison you set up simply does not support your conclusion. You yourself admit that if sandnsea's post is considered in isolation, it is "maybe not" homophobic. But then you try to claim that her "maybe not" homophobic statement is the same as a hypothetical statement that is obviously racist ("watermelon eating fringe"). Given that sandnsea's post, by your own admission, may not be homophobic, it is simply wrong to use it as evidence to support the assertion that I take homophobia less seriously than I take racism.

[dsc]

8. the only reason her post may not have been homophobic

is because she was complaining allegedly about other's use of it. Not because the words themselves aren't homophobic.

[dsc]

9. To give another, current example

Yesterday a thread was posted pointing out that if everyone had voted like gays had, no Republicans would have won anything. That thread got locked for being divisive. Today a thread is in GDP wondering how gays could vote GOP, in GD several threads were posted excoriating gays for voting GOP, none of those got locked. It should be noted this was after I was called a delusional liar for daring to post a premptive thread about that conduct. So bottom line, it was divisive for us to point out how loyal we are, but not divisive for us to be accused of being not sufficiantly loyal.

[Skinner]

10. I think that thread should not have been locked.

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=732&mesg_id=750

[dsc]

11. sorry I didn't see this had been asked before

thanks.

[Skinner]

12. Not your fault.

I hadn't answered, so you couldn't see it.