i made a post about the pageant before reading iverglas thread. i addressed what she stated.

[iverglas]

14. are you speaking from some authority, maddezmom?

What does one do if a call-out of the sort I was subjected to (on which another unknown person had alerted before I saw it, so I could not) is allowed to stand?

Yes, it stayed up because the jury decided not to hide it. Despite the fact that it was a vicious false statement about me, which in itself violates civility, and the fact that by being posted in a group I did not read it was a call-out.

I'm afraid I have to say: so? How does this explanation help me?

I am a target, of at least two well-organized groups at this website; have been for a decade, in the case of one. All they have to do is play the odds -- report enough posts of mine, and at least some juries will play along ... for whatever reason. I've had results in which the reasons were obviously sheer animus. (I was informed a couple of hours ago that someone had recused herself from a jury on a post of mine, without reading it, because of an antigonistic history in another forum; good on her, although I actually think she might have had the smarts to figure out what the nature of my hidden thread in this group was.)

In addition to the poster posses, there are hosts who have their sights trained on me. It seems to me that my days are numbered in this brave new DU. And I'm not sure how this would benefit Democratic Underground. People who hold genuinely progressive views, and write more than posts empty of content beyond a pointless subject line, are in short enough supply around here.

But the subject of this thread was actually the nature of this protected group.

You seem to be saying that this group is subject to the general rules ... but I have been told that the GLBT group is not:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372559#post45

Fearless
Response to iverglas (Reply #21)
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 01:37 PM

45. Ok we need to back way up here...

That's everyone involved needs a big old time out.

There are two points I would like to make now as a host of both the General Discussion forum where the thread originated and of the LGBT group where it is now.

1. LGBT's group protected status. This group maintains rules that are far stricter than the GD or any of the other forums. We have the right to control membership and bottleneck discussion. These are tools used to make sure that this group and it's community members feel safe here discussing issues of an LGBT nature. In this case, I can assure you that it was meant far FAR less personally attacking than you have taken it. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why you have taken it this way. But that doesn't change the point that in this forum, discussion about members will sometimes occur in terms of a broader discussion of LGBT rights. I believe the reason you were singled out in this instance was because you are seen as taking a negative view on this woman in the beauty contest. It isn't a personal attack. It's a method for us to discuss the LGBT condition in America. I hope that you can see the fine line between malicious and meaningful dialog in this way. If you have trouble with this, I could try to explain further and would willingly do so in an effort to iron out this conflict.

2. Personal Attacks. I have stated above that mentioning your presence in the other thread, explicitly or implicitly, does not necessarily constitute a "call out" as the group's purpose (in part) is to discuss perceived attacks against LGBT figures. Let me stress perceived, as I do not think it was your intention to attack the woman in question. That said, I need to ask of you one thing. When coming into the LGBT forum, it is decidedly unacceptable explicitly call out our members (some of whom are our hosts) with google searched talking points. The reason that this is unacceptable is because it constitutes a personal attack on a protected group of people in a protected group. Would this behavior be allowed in GD? As of late, depending on the jury. But, it is certainly unacceptable in the LGBT group.

My request is that everyone. And I mean EVERYONE, put the claws away. In the LGBT group we discuss matters based on merit to the LGBT cause and not out of hurt feelings or personal pride. This issue has become personal and should it continue, undoubtedly the hosts of this forum, myself included, will take action to rectify any and all disruption to the group's purpose.

This was posted at a time when the poster, a host, knew full well that I could not reply.

It contains multiple false statements.

That the post in question

Vanje
2. Iverglass eventually denigrates this beautiful young woman's appearance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497#post180

In the old days, that was called, "shallow".

could have been interpreted as anything but a call-out is ludicrous -- the fact that the allegation is FALSE makes it unmistakable that this post was made out of malice.

That someone could actually call that post "a method for us to discuss the LGBT condition in America" is beyond belief, unless one assumes that the poster was not intending to speak accurately.

The "google searched results" I had posted in reply were actually something I had completely forgotten about and run across in a search for my own posts about same-sex marriage. In that 2009 thread in the Feminists group, Vanje had made false statements about and malicious comments to me, repeatedly. There is not the slightest doubt that this was a call-out, by a person with an axe to grind, and one of the people who has poisoned the GLBT group here against me for no legitimate reason. No one has supported GLBT rights more strongly (if intermittently) here at DU, including defending the Falwell grave-dancers ffs, than I have. The malice arises out of the so-called sex-positive feminists' long-standing campaign here against women who disapprove of purchasing sex services being legal and of the widespread presence of pornography that objectifies women in our societies. That group have been the thread-stalkers and harassers. (I actually happened on the beauty pageant thread only because I was seated on the jury to adjudicate the alert on the first post rating the women's appearance.) It wouldn't matter if we were all elected to Congress and immediately passed a constitutional amendment banning bans on same-sex marriage and did anything else the group wanted, it wouldn't matter if we challenged every homophobic statement made at this website -- they hate us. Pure and simple.

It is a personal attack for me to respond to a false allegation made against me behind my back, in public?? What bizarre calculus is this?

But it is impermissible for ME to post in the Feminists forum about the personal attacks on myself and other women at this site. Again: did I miss something in my undergrad logic courses?

The hosts of that forum have engaged in further behind-the-scenes vilification of myself. I was quite aware that the PMs I was receiving from Fearless were being framed in such a way as to avoid any appearance of anything but the most mild-mannered impartiality -- all the while he trivialized the concerns I was expressing about rule violations in the LGBT forum by saying I was "aggravated" and referring to my "perception" of the post in question. How is this proper behaviour by a group host -- to intentionally set out to set up another member, and then wave the "evidence" around in public, by characterizing it in the LGBT forum as he did?

What remedy do I, or anyone else victimized in this way, have?

None, so far as I can tell.

But as I said in my hidden OP -- I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with being spoken to and treated in this group as the individuals in question do outside it.