We Bernie supporters have something that needs to be addressed here on DU, imho....

[KoKo]

Last edited Thu May 28, 2015, 09:27 PM - Edit history (2)

Just throwing this out for thought.

Today on DU saw many posts about Bernie. Many were unfavorable and they did get Push Back...but, they were ugly. Accusing Vermont's population of being made up of "White People" or that "Bernie is Old" and will never get the Youth Vote. Plus other disparaging posts going back and forth.

Question Is:

Does Countering these attacks cause more attention to those who want to disparage Bernie's Run..and therefore distract us from posting his message and how it counteract Bill & Hillary's DLC Revisit for 2016? If we "Take the Bait" and try to engage the very partisan DLC'ers we just have long threads with posts back and forth distracting from what Bernie is all about. If we Ignore the Anti-Bernie Posts then we allow DU to be overun with more vicious attacks against him.

Those DU'ers who've been there since the early 2000's remember the ugly "Mess" that DU became in those years over Candidates for Dem Party. Many of us supported different people but the Lead was always what the DLC threw their support for and OUR candidates ended up (for reasons of their own like John Edwards scandal or that Kucinich was too short and thought there were Extra-Terrestials that he thought might be real, etc. that smeared him.)

I guess what I'm saying is should we counteract the "Anti-Bernie Posts" or just ignore them and post the POSITIVE we CAN about Bernie's Campaign and the issues he is bringing to the ForeFront for the Democratic Party.

Many of us Bernie Supporters want to REMAKE THE DEM PARTY to SEIZE it BACK from DLC rightward drift to REPUBLICAN VIEWS & POLICY.

If we get into these DU "GD" BAITING Posts disparaging Bernie ....it takes time and energy from our efforts to show WHO Bernie is and WHY Dems should vote for him.

I'm wondering if we should COUNTER...or IGNORE?

Just wondering what the rest of you think about this....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I think the posts that are false should be countered,

but without taking the bait. No disparaging of Hillary or her supporters. One of these people will be our nominee and the ultimate goal has to be keeping the GOP out of power. I realize that this sort of squabbling goes on during every primary but it's stupid and destructive and we shouldn't succumb to the temptation to wallow in the mud with whoever started throwing it.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. That is the adult attitude, and...

I wish there were more of it.

I don't "support" Hillary, Bernie, or anyone else yet, but all of them are good people, one of whom will be our nominee, and one of whom I will vote for in the primary-- next year. I'm pretty sure who that will be, but not sure enough to fight over it now.

And I prefer to save any venom I have for the Republican. Next year.

(And local Republicans this year.)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. Yes save the venom for the Republicans!

It is to be expected. 'Eating one's own' before the primary. Hopefully whoever the Dem candidate is they will go after the GOP.

[byronius]

53. +10000

[Scootaloo]

31. +1

As I told another person, if these people want to flame out... let them. There's no need to let htem catch you on fire, too.

[sabrina 1]

93. They should be countered, but not in the false threads. If you want to counter false information

the worst way is to kick such threads and your comments get lost anyhow. The best way is to start a thread of your own with positive facts, and since Bernie has so many positives, that is not difficult to do. They WANT people to repeat those negatives even if it is to defend him. He needs no defense, what he needs most is for people to keep on talking about all the positive things there are about him.

I would not even refer to those posts in a new thread. Just let the negatives drop out of sight. And they will because an overwhelming number of DUers SUPPORT Bernie. So we don't have to worry about the few who don't, posting anything negative about him at all.

[Scuba]

101. I agree with most of your post, but ...

... the ultimate goal is not keeping the GOP out of power. The ultimate goal is electing a President and Congresspersons who will act on behalf of the vast majority of people of this country and not just the billionaires.

If we elect a "Democrat" who supports bills that benefit only the billionaires, we've still lost.

[chev52]

103. We haven't really lost.

I think it's important to have a Democrat in the white house, Hillary or Bernie (my first choice). Lots of supreme court justices reaching retirement age and republicans would put in more Alitos and Thomases.

[Scuba]

107. If we have a "Democrat" who names conservative justices, we've still lost. The goal is ...

... to have good governance and good nominations, not just a "Democrat" doing the naming.

[bvar22]

122. The Supreme Court is MORE Consevative NOW...

..than before Obama made his appointments.
He replaced an avowed, strong, dependable Liberal (JP Stevens) with a "moderate", Elena Kagan.

See how that works?

[dreamnightwind]

117. This post goes to the heart of it, and what the big DU fight is about

I am on your side of this all the way.

There are a few arguments that support the need to elect Democrats regardless of where they stand re representing corporate and monied interests vs representing the rest of us. I don't think they are sufficient to continue to support anyone with a D after their name (edit to clarify: I mean it is insufficient to use the D after a person's name as justification for support), the benefits are too few and the costs are too high.

SCOTUS is one of the valid arguments in favor of supporting corporate Dems, though I believe that one is overstated. Both justices Obama appointed were more conservative than the ones they replaced. That doesn't mean they were more conservative than a president Romney would have appointed, but it still says a lot about the long downward slide we've been on while supporting the least worst choices presented to us by TPTB.

The SCOTUS argument I often see (and I realize there are other legitimate ones) is that Hillary would (supposedly) appoint justices who would support overturning Citizen's United. That may or may not be true, and it ain't nothing but it also isn't all that it's made out to be.

Our political financing system was FUBAR BEFORE Citizen's United, CU only made it worse. Repealing CU would be a step in the right direction, but we'd still be electing, for the most part, the candidate who had the largest campaign funding, rather than the ones who will support our needs the best. We need more radical change than that, and we need to support candidates who are committed to that kind of change.

I actually see corporate Democrats getting legislation passed that favors corporate interests more easily than Republicans can pull it off. We fight back when a Republican is in power. When a corporatist with a D after their name supports these policies, a few of us make noise about it but most of the country figures the Dem has their interests in mind, which is sadly often not the case.

The status quo is demonstrably not good enough. It will not rein in the banks, the runaway national security establishment, push for the radical changes we have to make to prevent the worst effects of climate change, it will not fight the corporate model of moving labor forces to the least regulated most desperate workforce on the planet (in fact our corporate Dems work hard to enable exactly that), it will entrench rather than remove profiteering in our health care system, it will continue to support corporate resource grabs all across the planet using our taxpayer funded military as the enforcement mechanism, etc etc. Having a D after your name is not enough.

We have been ushed back to the edge of the cliff by supporting corporate sponsored Dems, and it is from this place that we need to make our stand. Preaching to the choir here, I realize, but your post and the one you responded to are exactly what the great DU debate is all about.

[Scuba]

118. It's bad enough when we get Republican policies. It's worse when Democrats take the blame.

[dreamnightwind]

121. Yes, and TPTB miss no opportunity to play it that way

pointing out "Hillary supported the war too, it couldn't have been so outrageous", or blaming us for Heritage's approach to healthcare, or for the TPP.

It invalidates the Democratic Party in the eyes of many people, and it entrenches the right's policies as acceptable, when we should be fighting like all hell against those policies (to educate the public as to what is wrong with the RW policies, and to show that they are not our policies) even if in the end we have to compromise away from some aspects of those positions to get something done when Republicans control congress.

It's also the path to reclaiming Congress. Show the people we stand for policies that benefit them, show them a clear difference between the parties, and we'll get our support back.

[Scuba]

124. +1,000

[NYC_SKP]

2. I feel obliged to counter mischaracterizations with fact.

But to do it in as nice and civil a way as possible.

I sometimes have trouble with that second part.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. +1000 !!!!

[TDale313]

62. Yeah, me too.

[kenfrequed]

73. Me too

I think we give them the facts in a reasonable, measured way. Some Hillary backers are going to change their minds once they realize there are other options that are valid. We have to be respectful and inviting towards them.

I have trouble with this too but it is important. We know why we favor Bernie over Hillary. Bernie will be far better in terms of progressive economics and going after the banksters. That really cannot be debated.

But maybe we should trumpet his positives more and not talk about Hillary quite so much. She has enough press.

[840high]

88. Thank you.

[salimbag]

3. Stick with Bernie's plan

No negatives. Counter lies with truth. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Be cool! Go Bernie!

[donf]

80. Agreed

Please - let's all do our best to follow Bernie's example: keep the messages positive and issue-focused. We can win this race by bringing people together around policies that will benefit all of us, but attacking our opponents (rather than their views on policy matters) will drive people away. And it looks immature as hell. If other candidates' supporters engage in that behavior DON'T BITE THE HOOK! It's a waste of energy, and doesn't serve our candidate, our party, or our country. It isn't the easiest path to walk, but nothing about transforming our political process is going to be easy. Bernie doesn't have enormous financial resources; what he does have is US. Bernie deserves the best representation we can provide for him!

[Warpy]

4. I'll bet I've trashed over 50 threads in the past couple of days

That seems like the best thing to do for the really stupid, low blow threads.

Some things really don't require attention, time, or trouble.

[kacekwl]

44. Seems like a

poor use of your time. Much rather see ways to get the message out than fighting the wall.

[Warpy]

94. It's just nicer to get rid of the flame bait

that seems to haunt the board forever since people feel compelled to reply and keep jumping the post count. Better to eliminate it right out of the gate.

It makes this a much nicer place when the keyboard warriors are elsewhere.

[Maedhros]

5. Counter with facts showing Bernie's stance on the important issues.

I think we should be posting with lurkers in mind. What will an undecided third party take away from the exchange?

[Trajan]

6. Well spoken ...

I rarely let an insult go unchallenged, but, in this case, I am finding it best to avoid the blatant baiting that is going on recently ...

As far as I ask concerned ... and speaking as a life long Democrat .... Bernie is the Democrat we wanted and needed for at least two decades ... I am so glad he has begun his 'intrusion' into the political process, because this may take a few election cycles to move the electorate ...

GO Bernie!

[FlatBaroque]

8. Never, ever feed trolls. They win when you reply.

When I want to see a food fight I log out and browse. When I want to engage in discussion I log in and my ignore filter keep most of the nonsense out of my sight and mind.

[L0oniX]

9. Let it be known. The admins are not for Bernie and are actively working for Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=7277

[TBF]

10. I didn't find that a surprise -

but I don't think it really affects anything. Skinner always states "it's up to the juries" and from what I've seen he stands by that - for better or worse.

So, we correct blatant falsehoods & let the rest drop? I think that is what most are saying and I will try to adhere to that as well.

[KoKo]

18. yes....there is this that we need to be aware of..

That those of us here on DU might have differences with the DU Admins supporting Hillary is an issue that we will need to adjust ourselves to in the coming months.

I think the monetary factor might allow them to try to be fair....but, not sure if that will be true as we go "down the road." The "DU of Today" is somewhat different in the "Wild West Days" of the past where sites like this were trying to get established and controversy brought more eyeballs....Although, for "DU" to survive the "Eyeballs," bringing in Revenue are actually a bigger factor than in the past.

We have "The Discussionist" which many, myself included, took a look at and said "NO WAY" but still probably brings in Revenue to the DU Enterprise. There's nothing wrong with DU Admins expanding to make money out of this site into another enterprise to engage RW'ers and take resources from "Free Republic" because they've certainly done hard work keeping Original "DU" up-to-date and taken a lot of Flack for it for years.

So.......we who use and support this site.....are going to have to find better ways to navigate...or we could be overwhelmed by the "PTB" going forward.

How do we compromise with DU Admins about THEIR Vision/Goals for this Site and OUR Vision/ Political Hopes and Dreams to move the Dem Party Forward to the LEFT that may bring prosperity to the DU Admins and the rest of Us if we are still allowed to be here and Debate?

They can make much money out of a Hillary Administration.....but will they lose viewers with those gravitating to Newer sites that will be the "Voice of the Future" if they follow the Old DLC VISION of so much of our Dem Leadership today who still want to Control the Debate in the Dem Party for their own goals and visions which seem to be falling apart at the seams?

[L0oniX]

26. .

When/if the coronation takes place I'm going silent but will return after the bus gets warmed up by all the bodies.

[davidpdx]

104. +1

I'm going to lock myself out of DU on purpose if it happens. Will probably do it shortly after my state has its primary.

[appalachiablue]

40. The new 'Hillary Mojo' forum certainly is an attractive and comprehensive support site,

launched today, May 28, 2015.

[KoKo]

56. I missed that...

You mean a new DU Group? or something offsite?

[appalachiablue]

77. The link is in #9. The new project, http://www.hillarymojo.com.

Here's the DU link about it posted in the HC Group. It's a very well done effort:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=7277

[malokvale77]

51. I just tried to send you a PM...

to suggest a little about DU funding. My PM was waylaid with a message to speak to elad.

[SusanCalvin]

55. Oh, so PMs are monitored?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[L0oniX]

68. Wow ...we have our own DU NSA?

[MissDeeds]

83. Unbelievable

Isn't that the kind of thing we're supposed to be against? I hate this new world order.

[glinda]

92. wow

[malokvale77]

69. I'm thinking they may be.

I was surprised.

My PM did go through after my post to KoKo.

I got an OP locked today for letting DUers know they could block people from their DU mail without blocking them on the board.

[SusanCalvin]

100. Wait, whoa.

Locked for mentioning a site feature? Guess it was a bug......

[TBF]

108. I've seen it on other boards -

admin can get into anything whether they admit it or not (have been admin on other boards - not at DU of course).

[KoKo]

57. I got it.....

but that's interesting. I guess he read my reply, then. Which there was nothing that he would have found offensive, if he did read it, and neither was your pm...imho.

[delrem]

63. The question is, with such real time monitoring,

the same as that w.r.t. NSA real time monitoring, really.
It acts as a deterrent. As an ever-ready threat. And it totally contradicts free political discussion.

[KoKo]

71. DU-3 Rules clearly state our PM's to each other are not Private.....

like the old days. So, we should assume that whatever we PM each other is open for read if the need occurs. Good, still, to delete PM's and Replies that give personal info so it doesn't hang around here in archives...or don't post or send any PM's if one is worried about privacy.

Sadly...it's the reality these days--everywhere.

[delrem]

60. Oh. That changes my understanding of things. Radically.

Unless I misunderstand, that speaks of a very concentrated real-time control/monitoring system.
Monitoring/censoring PMs for keywords?

[malokvale77]

72. I think you hit the nail on the head.

I doubt the admins here will ever admit it.

[delrem]

28. I noticed that, and that the same thing didn't occur in '07/'08.

That was my *first* thought: the same thing didn't occur in '07/'08, when not so much money was being freely handed around (eta: but the *same* candidate was running). It isn't a small difference.

Bernie (and every potential candidate) is up against a +$2billion machine. A machine that will be entirely geared to getting the message out *first* to secure the primaries, *then* to secure the general election. So the first target will be Dems, obviously including activist Dems, and DU must certainly in the cross-hairs. $2billion dollars buys a lot of loyalty, and once a target is bought it is forever turned.

$2billion is more than most people including me can really imagine.

KOS will also most certainly be in the crosshairs, for pleasant donations, ad buys, however $2billion finds a way to grease the wheels. Likewise other internet media sites.

With that much money at issue I don't think this is a small thing. Nobody on the left dismisses the power of the internet in 2015, if only as a possible counter to the MSM, and I doubt that a $2billion campaign machine will overlook it. Not by a long shot.

[Scootaloo]

33. Oh well. Keep on doing as we do, is all I have to say to that in public.

[Gore1FL]

37. I'm OK with that. I've been here since 2001 and find the admins to be reasonable and even handed.

I am not concerned about the difference or possible bias. Not only do I trust them, but it would be a horrific business decision if they made decisions that created divisions.

[MissDeeds]

49. Based on the link above

in post #9, they've already made decisions that will create divisions. I left MoveOn for choosing a candidate and actively promoting him before the primaries were over and the people had selected the party's nominee. I think it is very bad form, and frankly unethical, for the admins of a site such as this to push their chosen candidate. I signed on years ago believing that Democratic Underground was a forum for ALL Democrats. Apparently that is not the case.

Perhaps there will be a backlash as a majority of the posters here - according to DU polling - favor Bernie over HRC by a considerable margin. It is sad to see DU come to this, but politics can be dirty business. It was once a great forum for all Democrats to come and freely share ideas and opinions, but with the increasingly heavy handed tactics of the admins, that is no longer the case.

[SusanCalvin]

59. Yep. nt

[malokvale77]

75. This exactly. (nt)

[malokvale77]

39. This L0oniX

I am greatly bothered by this. To suggest that they are sorry to have put anything about liberal in the TOS is very dis-heartening.

The admins must be profiting a good deal from corporate policy.

[L0oniX]

45. *

I had thought they would not takes sides up until the primary is over. Not a smart move IMO.

[kenfrequed]

66. It is irrelevant

If most of the people are right about sanders backers being 90% of DU then all the little side Hillary stuff will just end up being overly elaborated empty spaces.


Also, lets not get into this kind of talk as it just makes people angrier and more apt to snap out negatively. I say stay positive and keep talking about the issues. Some of the Hillary people are going to inevitably change their mind. It would be good to have an inviting attitude after they hear a few debates.

[Gregorian]

123. I very much agree with this. Keep our moral compass pointing in the best direction.

The rest will follow.

It's easy to panic when we have such vivid images of what a good society looks like. Haha.

[Capt. Obvious]

112. I wouldn't say they're actively working for her

They just figured out another revenue stream.

You can see from the rules in play of no overly negative attacks on Republicans allowed that this is being set up for the general population with an eye toward a big audience during the general election.

[L0oniX]

113. Oh so there's a BernieSandersMojo too?

[Capt. Obvious]

114. Your eye rolling smiley suggests that your question is rhetorical

There's also no ChafeeMojo.

If any of them were to win the primary you bet your ass there will be.

[L0oniX]

115. You know Hillary has not won the primary so why the false equivalency?

If any of them were to win the primary you bet your ass there will be.

[Capt. Obvious]

116. Skinner thinks she will

He's setting up his gravy train.

I pretty much said all of this in my initial response to you.

Are you going to ask me to say it a few more different ways?

[pa28]

11. Don't have a whole answer but I can make a suggestion that could help.

A common trolling tactic on DU used against the left is threadjacking.

I've seen it most recently on some very positive and informative Bernie Sanders threads. A small and very special group of people (you know who they are) will immediately hop into an OP and post something inflammatory, divisive or assert something that simply isn't true in an effort to derail the discussion with outraged responses.

Unfortunately the tactic usually succeeds in pushing any meaningful response to the OP past the bottom of the fold and strangles the discussion before it ever really gets started.

I'd suggest just ignoring that first post and letting it twist in the wind. We all know exactly what they are up to including the person who posted it.

Like I said. Not a complete answer but something that might help today.

[KoKo]

22. Threadjacking is a huge problem..leading us off into paths that counteract new news and ends up in

squabbling and sometimes causing hard feelings with DU'ers who actually want change...but, get drowned out. But, that leaves the fact that there will always be people who post inflammatory OP's who can get a discussion going on where the opposition gives helpful posts, links to info that others might find hopeful and can be a counter.

It's a difficult question.

We need to realize that "Social Media" plays a larger part these days in Political Dialogue than it did even when Obama was running. DU Original Posters and even Some Newbies tend to be hard core political people who don't do the TWITTER/FACEBOOK and tend to like interaction with being able to post more than "140 Characters" in an OP or In Reply or just doing a quick "Like" on FACEBOOK and then getting out of there.

How do we keep theDU Dialog and Interaction that we like here without the Warts and Stuff that we put people on "IGNORE" for?

It's a New Media World...but, there still needs to be places where people can "Get Into It" and do discussions minus the fighting and wars that have broken out in the past leading to hard feelings and people leaving?

[MisterP]

30. and yet on the other hand Bernie's campaign--and the future of the party itself--

are all about knocking down this method of keeping the voters in line while the political class frolics with Republicans and billionaires

all the blather and insinuation is how the party is RUN since "Nader did 9-11"; the gales of blatantly false accusations that are meant to be forgotten after a month doesn't just keep everyone off-balance but is part of the party's structure, the same way redistricitng and monkey business during primaries are used to keep out "wrong" candidates even at the expense of the general election (Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, now Wendy Davis and Grimes)

in the bigger picture the party and Congress have been rearranged to block and corral things that 70-90% of Americans agree on--much like how gun bills that the vast majority of NRA members want passed is blocked, or how Southwest and Day's Inn were given liberum veto over Texas HSR by Austin's statehouse in the 90s; it's a party and a national political system run like a sweatshop: "if you complain about low wages and bad conditions, there's the door" becomes "if you complain about us passing GOP policies, people won't vote for us and the GOP will win": it doesn't convince anyone, it just delays a response

so tackling the culture of political guilt and total erasure of party history is crucial to making Washington work for 80% of Americans instead of .008%

BTW nothing I wrote here is meant to deny any of your points: we have to find a way to reconcile both approaches!

[Jack Rabbit]

47. Learn to recognize a red herring and don't eat any

What is a red herring?

Please click here.

In fact, that website, or one like it, is a good thing with which to become familiar.

The best way to prevent threadjacking is to stay on topic and if your opponent employs a red herring to get you off of it, get him right back on it.

[pa28]

52. Another one. The 15 rule of web disruption

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/11/the-15-rules-of-web-disruption-2/

How to Spot – and Defeat – Disruption on the Internet

Among the many highlights:

1. Start a partisan divide-and-conquer fight or otherwise push emotional buttons to sow discord and ensure that cooperation is thwarted. Get people fighting against each other instead of the corrupt powers-that-be. Use baseless caricatures to rile everyone up. For example, start a religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”. Accuse the author of being a gay, pro-abortion limp-wristed wimp or being a fundamentalist pro-war hick when the discussion has nothing to do with abortion, sexuality, religion, war or region. Appeal to people’s basest prejudices and biases. And – as Sweeney explains – push the author into a defensive posture:

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

..............

10. Protect the rich and powerful by labeling any allegations of criminal activity as being a “conspiracy theory”. For example, when Goldman gets caught rigging markets, label the accusations as mere conspiracies.

The following 4 tactics from Sweeney are also still commonly used …

11. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

When you know what the tactics are they become instantly recognizable.

[Jack Rabbit]

74. Very good

Bookmarked for future reference.

I recognize some of those. For example, (user name redacted) (I don't mean to call him out, so don't confront him unless he does this to you) is very adept at calling anyone who doesn't support whatever Obama is for "RW". Don't let him push you button. You might instead ask him what his definition of right wing is, since he supports passage of the TPP, which will give inordinate power to an elite class of people (my definition of right wing), while most who support Senator Sanders oppose the TPP for precisely for that reason.

Also, may I suggest we not engage in anything like that. After all, we are the face on DU of a candidate who likes to boast that he has never run a negative campaign ad.

[pa28]

85. Agreed. Following Sanders own example is probably the right answer here.

He points out that his opponents may use gossip but he always sticks to the facts and stays on message relentlessly.

You can say so when it's happening but you don't need to engage the people doing it. You correct as quickly as possible and move on.

[hedda_foil]

109. THANK YOU, pa28. This is a fantastic counter-trolling method. Here's how to use it.

Skippping to the end of the list of trolling identifiers,

Postscript: Over a number of years, we’ve found that the most effective way to fight disruption and disinformation is to link to a post such as this one which rounds up disruption techniques, and then to cite the disinfo technique you think is being used.

Specifically, we’ve found the following format to be highly effective in educating people in a non-confrontational manner about what the disrupting person is doing:

Good Number 1!

Or:

Thanks for that textbook example of Number 7!

(include the link so people can see what you’re referring to.)

The reason this is effective is that other readers will learn about the specific disruption tactic being used … in context, like seeing wildlife while holding a wildlife guide, so that one learns what it looks like “in the field”. At the same time, you come across as humorous and light-hearted instead of heavy-handed or overly-intense.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/11/the-15-rules-of-web-disruption-2/

[enigmatic]

120. I've been posting on poltical websites since the mid 90's

This is spot-on. especially this passage:

"Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. "

We just had a poster go on time-out who threw the words "radical/extemist Leftists" into a good chunk of their posts as buzzwords; it was pretty obvious that's exactly what they were doing.

[aspirant]

12. I vote to counter.

Untruths become future talking points.

John Kerry's swiftboating speaks to it directly.

[Paka]

19. Exactly!

Counter untruths with truth civilly. Let the ridiculous sink like a stone.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. I saw some very good countering comments.

People who posted his ACTUAL incredibly long record of supporting racial justice under an OP that juxtaposed his launch with talk of slavery and police posing with a 'trophy' black man and complained he was out of touch with the needs of PoC. People who posted the numbers from various organizations such as the NAACP, showing that his record on minority issues was actually far better than Hillary's.

And we've seen where ignoring the 'swiftboating' gets us - Our candidates 'took the high road' and lost the elections. You can't simply ignore the lies, you have to show them for what they are.

[TM99]

17. I agree.

This is how I always fight back against the lies, smears, gossip, and bullshit.

But yes, it must be countered.

Sanders will not gossip or go dirty like that, but he is still extremely passionate in his criticisms of bullshit. He will fight with facts and figures. He will stand in front of the chamber and speak on important positions for hours if necessary. He fights. I fight for him. He fights hard with facts. I will do the same.

[KoKo]

24. Yes...Agree that is a Positive...but, it takes up time weeding through the Fighting to get to

those Informative Counter Posts that hope to Inform. Not all can spend the time going through it all and those posts take up "Real Estate" that distract from other posts that give the same informative info...that end up being in the middle of a blood bath war like a "Street Fight."

I said in another post that there are Pros and Cons of those Controversial Posts. But, in all my years on DU, I've found...that in the end what happens is that Posts are Locked, People are thrown Off DU (now by Juries, before by Moderators) and we lose voices in the Overheated Arguments that those Divisive Posts bring to the Table.

That's why I'm asking. Are these Divisive posts more helpful in the end..and should we pile on with Information....or in the End to the Divisive Posts Suck ENERGY out of Positive Posts and end up being more harmful?

[Scootaloo]

35. What I thought was interesting about that post...

Beyond the stale reek of desperation... was that even a lot of Clinton supporters were disgusted with it.

I think we have the same problem we had in 2008. We have two groups of people behind Hillary - genuine, honest men and women who are for Clinton. We might disagree (even loudly and rudely) but they're really what they say they are, and good for them.

Then you have these other people. Who seem to support Clinton only so much as Clinton is an option against "That One." They spend all day here, throwing shit at walls and hoping something stick, then they run and hide behind the earnest Clinton supporters, using htme as proverbial human-shields, trying to get the two groups to come to blows.

You can see it big-time in the Hillary Clinton Group, this same cluster of posters constantly making OP's about how much "anti-Hillary hate is on DU" - there isn't, except in their posts, but the goal is to get the actual Hillary supporters riled up and defensive.

[malokvale77]

78. This is what I have seen.

You can see it big-time in the Hillary Clinton Group, this same cluster of posters constantly making OP's about how much "anti-Hillary hate is on DU" - there isn't, except in their posts, but the goal is to get the actual Hillary supporters riled up and defensive.

It reminds me too much of the BOG, except HRC is not the POTUS.

[Pooka Fey]

98. The John Kerry 'Swiftboating' smear tactic worked very well

Our candidates 'took the high road' and lost the elections. You can't simply ignore the lies, you have to show them for what they are.

Excellent post, I saw some very good countering posts on that nasty OP as well.

It was also interesting to see which comments the OPer ignored, such as those by Nadine showing the facts about Bernie.

[Half-Century Man]

14. As tempting as it is to fire back, it is nonproductive

We should follow the good example set by someone we respect, Bernie, don't lose focus about what is at stake.
The issues are most important. To resolve them will require all of us. Let us peacefully figure out the best method.


However, knowing my personality, I apologize in advance.

[Wilms]

15. Great OP. Great thread.

Thanks, KoKo.

It may have to get pinned for future reference!

[NRaleighLiberal]

16. bookmarked so I can return to this OP tonight and add my thoughts.

[SoapBox]

20. Good post.

Usually the negative stuff has gotten way out of control by time I find the thread...I usually leave them alone.

BUT...it's getting on my nerves how some long time posters are in the middle of threads with snarky, rather arrogant comments. I've so far completely blocked a couple people and am considering more.

Sheesh...it's this early and the "coronation" seems to have happened. Well I say, don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

[fredamae]

21. Yes, I agree

Bernie set the "game rules" and sets an example I'm willing to follow.

If anything is realized by this bs from the HRC folks who are simply "needling needlessly" against Bernie...it's gonna be to totally turn Me away from moving in her direction if Bernie looses.

I Won't support any candidate who is "ok" with this tactic and I'm sorry, but I do connect that sort of behavior right back to the candidate.

Anyone who isn't willing to grow up and stop the petty, immature nastiness of the status quo campaigning will lose me.... I'll still write Bernies name in for the General.

Alienating the people now that you're gonna Need after the primary won't work for Any of the candidates.
That's my position.
Pick your arguments carefully ... If anything beyond "corporate messaging" comes through...then sure, if it's credible and verifiable we should research and respond, imo

[jwirr]

23. As you all may know I have been concerned about the infighting. But I have not problem with

responding to the anti-Bernie posts. What I would like to see is the we take the high road the way Bernie does. No unnecessary name calling, no insults, etc. I have found that reasonable responses go a long way to understanding.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Here's the meat of something I posted earlier about this issue:

I don't use the Ignore feature, mostly because I like to keep myself aware of my surroundings, but there's nothing to say I have to feed the trolls by actually posting on those threads.

I suggest that whenever some negative Bernie shit hits, we don't post on that thread, but instead start a new thread that just presents the positive information rather than chasing after the crap; just let that stuff sink & claim the home-field advantage by putting our stuff on top. We could maybe even post alerts here when a positive OP goes up.

[KoKo]

48. I'm thinking that might be a way to deal with it...

I didn't post on the threads today, although in the past I might have. I kept thinking "Why do I want to get into this?" I've seen it before and it never leads to much good....just takes up space and turns people off or gets them banned or hidden posts. Also, it seemed that in a couple of the posts there were those who enjoyed that they were disrupting and wanted the whole thread to be about THEM and not Bernie. That happens a lot when Primary Season get heated here on DU. I just don't know if it's worth it to feed egos when it won't change minds getting into these long threaded food fights.

There were DU'ers who posted "Factual Counters" to some of the crap in those posts. But, did it change the dialog? It didn't seem to as those who were anti-Bernie just carried on back and forth ignoring the factual information.

That's when I wondered if sometimes it is best to ignore unless the post is so OTT that it needs to be refuted.

[Jackpine Radical]

84. Why not just post the correct information on its own thread,

encourage a few of us to K&R it, & let the other crap sink into unkicked oblivion?

An old Bucky Fuller precept--"That which is resisted, persists."

[nashville_brook]

106. THIS for sure!

ignore is not friend.

[Cleita]

27. I'm into posting as much positive as I can.

The age, grooming and socialistic fringe candidate accusations simply aren't true as a liability and should be owned by not only us but Bernie himself. As far as the all white accusation, that's just stupid. Everything Bernie stands for will benefit people of color and working class whites, not the elitist banking class the rest of the candidates stand for.

[madfloridian]

34. Nice post. Okay with most stuff, but when he is called racist it angers me.

I really have to bite my tongue then.

[Caspian Morgan]

36. I am having a flash back to how it was when Dean was doing well

and the leadership went along and threw him under the bus.

[Ford_Prefect]

38. I get sooooooo tired of the anti-Bernie threads used to constrain the real debate over issues.

I feel like I'm watching a bunch of 6 year-olds declare that their dad is better, or taller, or cooler, or whatever than any one else's dad. In one remark the dialog is limited to who can yell louder and meaner about whatever petty quality is shouted in the original howl.

I'm equally tired of name calling on Hillary supporters, when the facts are more than sufficient and really do define the issues more clearly.

I have a hard time NOT responding to the obvious horseshit: like the racism allegations. I am white. My parents and many of our white friends who lived in Philadelphia were very active in civil rights and the anti-war movement. Some were arrested for it. I know the kinds of people who put their lives and their careers on the line in 1959, and 1963, and 1969, and in 2001. Some of them were on the line in Baltimore recently. The claims that we white people are not concerned enough with the world people of color must live in holds no water with me. It was said in 1963 just as it was said last week as a lie to undermine the real community of those who care and have put their feet on the ground in harm's way. It's like the debate about who's black enough. Horseshit!

The debate and indeed our party should be about the real life and death issues we face in the near future. If we cannot have that kind of discussion here then we need to get some new moderators who can steer that difficult course. QED

[appalachiablue]

95. Good post, great how your friends were so committed to Civil Rights & Anti-War.

Agree we are encountering new powerful issues like oligarchy, Citizens United big money, gross and widening income inequality, steady middle class decline and job losses, and severe hardships among many people like illness and poverty that must be faced, huge as they are.

The horrible growing racial injustice and police brutality must be forcefully addressed also and hopefully should improve some as the other major problems are recognized and fought. It's a lot, but the way it is, and built up for 35 years. The faux claims of racism about Bernie and VT just about sent me around the bend- reprehensible.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. I would politely counter

There's no need to get nasty. I used to moderate the I/P forum and if I don't think nasty is necessary after an experience like that, then you know it isn't necessary.

For example:

Bernie is too old to be credible with young voters.

Reply: I really have to disagree with that. For one thing, he isn't that much older that Hillary Clinton. For another, he is addressing issues that concern youth much better than Mrs. Clinton. Bernie has a plan to relieve student debt. If Mrs. Clinton has one, she hasn't shared it with us yet. Bernie doesn't have a record of sabre rattling rhetoric concerning the Middle East. Any war in the Middle East would be a war for oil, not whatever reason an establishment politician says gives to the contrary, and Bernie does not see any reason to sacrifice America's youth for ExxonMobile's bottom line.

[Rhiannon12866]

42. I support responding to falsehoods with facts, backed up with links or whatever...

And staying away from nastiness, even in response to something nasty, since we're seeing way too much of that lately and it benefits nobody.

[kacekwl]

43. Ignore

Had enough negativity . Bernie is my guy and I can argue with my self if I feel the need.

[totodeinhere]

46. I think the best strategy is to remain about the fray.

Bernie has said that he will say no ill about other Democrats and I think he is setting a good example. Now after having said that I need to be careful not to contradict myself, so let me just put this in general terms. When you run for president you need to expect that you will have opponents who will not observe your same high standards. There are candidates who have been known to play dirty and they probably will do it again, especially as Bernie gains more traction. Hopefully the voters will see that for what it is and it will backfire.

[gregcrawford]

50. Compared to you, KoKo, I'm but a mere Babe in the Woods on DU...

... but in real terms, I'm approaching the end of my 7th decade, and let me tell you, I've seen some shit. I've met Bernie, I've followed him since he was the mayor of Burlington, and I've spoken with him several times. He's the real deal, and God fuckin' help anyone fool enough to disparage him in my presence. I'm gettin' old, but I can still punch like a mule going uphill and I won't stand for it.

There are weasels in every group, even among those we think are kindred spirits, so to speak. I don't trust many people, and even fewer politicians, but I do trust Bernie Sanders. And I will fight for him, literally or figuratively.

He's the man this country needs, even those of limited intellectual capacity (read Teabaggers) who don't - indeed, can't - even realize that those they support would sell them down the river for a bagel and a shmear in a New York minute. Sociopaths like Cruz, et al, can drown in their own manure for all I care; I wouldn't cross the street to piss on them if they were on fire.

But I will fight for Bernie.

[KoKo]

64. Definitely....

my post was about how do we keep from getting bogged down in entanglements/fights that we don't need to get Bernie's Message across to those who are new here who are interested and looking for information and not food fights with factions who don't want Bernie's message to resonate or even get across to new people coming a website that is called "Democratic Underground" but is really supporting Hillary Clinton.

[NRaleighLiberal]

54. my view - and what I'd like to see....

as many said here, politely and calmly present facts to correct the distortions and inaccuracies. Avoid stooping to the level of insults, adding to the polarization - stay classy, stay above the fray. I personally am very fond of DUers from many points of view, and have been saddened and shocked to see some of things that I've read recently.

What I do NOT want to see is cheerleading, cult of personality, or hero worshiping - or blind following. Our country needs more than that - we need to be better than that. I don't want to see big lists of blocked DUers - I personally think it is silly and embarrassing that a liberal, open minded site would have long lists of blocked members - reminds me of what I hated about high school, cliques and clubs.

That's my two cents worth.

[KoKo]

79. ...!

[NRaleighLiberal]

82. .

[carolinayellowdog]

58. reply without reacting

There are some real drama queens with more than a hundred thousand post count, who MUST ALWAYS have the last word. Let them have it sooner rather than later, and never get dragged into long back-and-forth personality-driven exchanges. Keep it short, to the point, and factual. (And no "appreciation threads" where the biggest trolls get rewarded with praise from all their lesser admirers.)

Easy for me to give free advice when in practice I just put them on ignore!

[kenfrequed]

61. Operation Ghost town?

We could all just agree to ignore posts by trolls and Hillary backers that are obvious bait. If we do make up 90% of DU they would just sort of whither away.

We could agree to post nothing but positive posts about Bernie I suppose.

[MissDeeds]

67. Or we could put the worst offenders

on ignore. Then they would only have an echo chamber.

[kenfrequed]

87. similar function

Still, I think we could just agree to keep putting up positve bernie stuff and pay no attention to Hillary posts. Let them drop down the charts completely. The only ones that make the greatest list or feature prominently are flamebait anyhow. We deptive them of our attention and they disappear.

[Doctor_J]

65. I've been feeding the trolls way too much.

Going to start trashing thread and using the ignore function.

[kenfrequed]

70. I have too

I think we should maybe all just try to counter twice with open, intelligent, and factual posts about the issues and if you see a pattern stop. Just stop and say something to the effect that you aren't interested.

If you see a pattern of posts by someone (I can think of about a half a dozen names) just stop. If you see a fellow Bernie supporter getting thread jacked or getting sucked in we could just gently email them and let them know they aren't alone and that it is ok to just drop it.

[Jamastiene]

76. Take turns.

Send one person in to counter them, then leave them to their own devices to have their little party. That way they do get countered, but it doesn't take up all our time. The leaves the rest of us to do other things.

Or maybe the hosts here could put up a FAQ that counters some of the things that are said and add to it as the insinuations get more and more vicious...and they will.

Either way keeps us from getting mired down into the muck and leaves them to talk amongst themselves and waste their time instead of ours.

[onecaliberal]

81. I've been trashing threads left and right.

[nashville_brook]

86. Al Gore and John Kerry both tried being "above it all" and it didn't work...

as the ground troops, I say respond how you feel motivated to respond. we've not staffers. it's not our job to be on point. but maybe folks who are doing that kind of work can learn something from the discourse they observe here. so let's have the discussion in the fullest manner possible.

[kenfrequed]

89. this is isn't the general election.

This is a message board that works on feedback. The more times we post or interract with troll posts and flamebait the higher those posts rise. There are not enough Hillary supporters here to keep their posts kicked and recced.

If we just keep putting up positive, issue based Sanders posts they will rise to the top easily.

[blm]

102. ^^^THIS^^^

Most of the posts attacking Sanders with overthetop charges are pure drivel, and most of those are probably from RW operatives sowing discord….just as they have been doing since DU's very first primary cycle.

[Pooka Fey]

99. +1

[sabrina 1]

91. We should NOT kick those posts. In my opinion the goal is to GOAD people into doing so. Let them

drop out of sight and post FACTS about Bernie. THAT is how to respond to them. They are intended to keep people from doing that.

No need to engage people whose goal is to sew dissension.

Bernie is the overwhelming favorite here on DU, on DK, on Reddit and elsewhere. So keep in mind that those negative posts represent a very few people here and elsewhere.

So I agree with you completely, ignore them and keep on posting the facts.

[efilon]

96. Bernie and the youth vote.

I have 3 children in their mid 30s. The 2 who actually care about politics are very excited about Bernie as are many of their friends. They've both donated to Bernie's campaign several times and are the most excited I've ever seen them. I hope that they are the rule and not the exception.

Edited to say, sorry, I think I misunderstood the original post. Just don't want to delete and have anyone think I'm some kind of troll.

[stage left]

97. I would say don't let the naysayers get to you.

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

Johnny Mercer wrote it, the Andrews Sisters and Bing sang it and I was very, very extremely young when I heard it.

[grahamhgreen]

105. Stick to the issues FTW. Sanders is against the TPP. I am too.

[KoKo]

111. We forget to recommend the serious posts about TPP, Voting Restrictions, etc...

when they are posted. I think we can get drawn into the "Train Wrecks" too easily. Serious issues often scroll through GD while the battle rages on one or two posts. Sometimes I go to page 2 & 3 in "GD" just to look for posts with serious, useful info that might have been missed and give a kick to the post so more can view it if they missed it the first time.

It's human nature...but, hopefully we can do better in this election than to get caught up in some of the worst of the posts that are obviously click bait, flame bain or disrupting actions. There are a few long time posters who have done this for years around election time. I don't think they are necessarily "Trolls" but that they just seem to get off on picking fights or being "devils advocate" and we (myself included) can fall into getting involved and wasting time. Sometimes the posts are just too hard to resist posting in but in the end it accomplishes nothing but hard feelings and jury alerts.

Not saying that confronting false information about Bernie isn't necessary, btw. Just the posts that seem designed to cause disruption.

[hedda_foil]

110. I'm stunned to see this coming from you,KoKo.

Isn't what you're suggesting leaving the door open for swiftboating?

[dreamnightwind]

119. I think vigorous push-back is appropriate

We can pick and choose when and where (the push-back doesn't have to happen in the thread we don't want to support), but it needs to be made.

We support real change of direction, not just a slowing of the collapse or a cushioning of the fall. Silence is taken as complicity, or whether it's taken that way or not, that is its effect.

That is also my argument against a recent NanceGreggs OP suggesting we all refrain from saying anything negative about our primary opponent. In theory it is a nice sentiment, and our goal is not to enable Republicans by trashing Democrats, but in practice, not calling out Hillary or any other Democrat when they serve the interests of their campaign donors rather than the interests of those of us who don't have enough money to buy their support, is enabling the status quo, and it favors the front-runner.

We are upstart underdogs, and as such we need to nip at the heels of power at every opportunity. We can do so respectfully, without personal enmity, but pulling punches for fear of damaging the well-financed front-runner is only asking for more of the same triangulation and rightward slide we know all too well.