General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEarly to mid 2000's I spent a lot of time posting on right wing boards as a liberal
Although I can climb into the head of a wingnut well enough to post a pretty good spoof that will slide by most Poe detectors it doesn't come naturally to me and that makes it more work than I care to engage in for something I do mainly for entertainment so I almost always just posted as a liberal in enemy territory.
I was told I had Bush Derangement Syndrome and that I was just a hater more times than I could possibly count. What I really found most interesting about the experience of posting in enemy territory though was that if I was abusive and slung insults and was generally an asshole then most of the time I wouldn't get banned from commenting. No, what got me banned very quickly almost everywhere was being calm, polite and rational, using logic and posting links to published articles or news items backing up what I had to say.
Authoritarians want to make everything about personality, personal animus and emotion, they really can't help themselves because that's the way they see the world. In the end authoritarian followers want a leader from whom all wisdom flows, someone to tell them what to think and how to think it, it's a difficult thing to comprehend for those of us who aren't wired that way and I think they have an equally difficult time understanding someone who is not an authoritarian follower.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Tangential comment: it gets back to the old saying that goes something like small minds talk about people, average minds discuss things and brilliant minds discuss ideas.
Gossip and smear campaigns and cult of personality is almost 100% distraction from the real issues.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)I thought it was stinkin' obvious that I was sarcastic, but a lot of DUers took it seriously and posted angry responses... even though my very next post said "yes, of course I was only kidding".
Over the years and still today we've had some insincere, fake DUers who rely on the Poe factor (timeforpeace, anyone?). Also, some obnoxious female personas who were most likely men.
At least 3rd Way Manny lets you in on the spoof, and lets you share in the irony.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Why? Because they stood up to you?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)We used to have the forum called Meta. That's about all I feel like explaining. I don't know whether Meta threads are still available to read, but you would find the information there.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Did you have a point, or is this just some more unfounded and unsolicited snark on your part?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Have I offended you somehow? I don't remember we've ever had a conversation before, so you will have to refresh my memory.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)But if it was meant as a joke, I'll take your word for it, and we can leave it at that. It's not a big deal.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Says YOU.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)You let me know I haven't somehow offended you, so that's all I care about. If you are interested in me naming names regarding the couple of banned DUers I am referring to, you'll have to PM me. Otherwise, I'm going to leave it at that.
Towlie
(5,307 posts)OneGrassRoot
(22,917 posts)i know cons who think he's one of them
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)it is impossible for him to say something so ridiculous that repuke wouldn't agree with.
lyonn
(6,064 posts)Let's face it, Texas is possibly worse.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)one of them?
MADem
(135,425 posts)People who are abusive are "winners" on the internet?
Don't bother with facts? Scream, yell, be rude, characterize people (as 'authoritarians' who follow a leader...or a cult-like mysterious "truth-teller" ... or something worse?) and that's the key to not getting banned?
I am not understanding the full flavor of your post, I fear...!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)There's nothing mysterious about it. It is not cryptic crossword clue, MADem.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)It inspired me to think about gossipy small-minded people and smear campaigns by mean spirited people, in general terms. There are no wrong answers in how you interpret this OP.
I know it has mostly to do with the NSA issue, but even so, it can be applied to both sides of the argument.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Barack Obama Group?
Or trash ProSense?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)It does not require any expertise. It's in plain English.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Those who coined and popularized the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" are and were more comfortable with vituperative personality oriented argument and less so with calm reasoned argument based on facts and logic.
If you disagreed with Dubya you were a deranged hater, they were fine with you if you came across as a deranged hater, if you came across as calm and rational they couldn't deal with it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)than people who put the brain in gear before they start typing?
I suppose "fare better" is a relative term--meaning don't get banned, or sanctioned?
I think that might be more true on an "authoritarian" type board, like the FR one that some people will troll on occasion. That seems to be a very "top down" site, where the path is chosen and there isn't much deviation.
I followed a link over there a time or two, and I found the quality of discourse rather poor. It's distressing to see so much ignorance. I can't imagine how you stood it, posting at places like that. A brain-pain, I should think.
Perhaps the people who couldn't deal with your "calm and rational" approach were fearful of learning something that would challenge their world view? When people are shouting at one another, they are often as not shouting PAST one another. It's just an exercise in venting. More about chest beating and hollering how wonderful one thinks oneself (or one's views) might be than actually trying to make and sell an argument.
I like a good hearty debate, but I don't like the "you must be a ....." characterizations that sometimes substitute for argument about the issue at hand. I've seen that here, too.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Those of us with tens of thousands of posts have seen every variation of every argument, the temptation to just cut to the chase gets pretty strong when you know what the other guy is going to say before the first tap on the keyboard, some of us are remarkably predictable.
It's like that old joke about the prisoners who had numbered their jokes since they had all heard them innumerable times and just called out the numbers when they wanted to tell jokes to each other.
"I guess you have to know how to tell them."
MADem
(135,425 posts)We all have stuff we feel strongly about.
That said, I always have to admit that I learn something new here every day. It's a good place to pick up info, better than many, I'd say!
NJCher
(35,423 posts)When I read your post, what I immediately thought is that you were experiencing the elaboration likelihood model of thinking/interacting with the world. I teach it in my upper-level communication theory classes.
From the link below: "The peripheral route is a mental shortcut process that accepts or rejects a message based on irrelevant cues rather than actively thinking about the issue."
It's a very interesting theory and I think it explains at least some of your experience.
This is something I've known about conservatives and liberals, though, for quite awhile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaboration_likelihood_model
Cher
PuffedMica
(1,061 posts)Ad hominems and baseless accusations seem to flow all to freely between people who claim to be on the same side.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)of a liberal who was emotional and hostile and that's why preferred that personality to the rational and calm one.
You are right. I tried rational and calm once. I was banned pretty fast.
svpadgham
(670 posts)tavernier
(12,322 posts)Why?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)It is actually about bonds. Reading is a much better use of an evening.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576602435/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)The subject of discussion was ostensibly history and not belief systems per se, but the minute that historical information became threatening to religious beliefs, out came the scornful, threatening, disruptive behaviors. I took a fair number of insults but the main targets of abuse were believers who weren't fundamentalist enough-- who talked rationally with the skeptical historians in the forum.
The more evidence and reasoning you offer them, the more abusive they become in rejecting ALL reasoning and evidence. Just as today's political authoritarians refuse to acknowledge that there is any such thing as authoritarianism, insisting it is merely an abusive label devoid of content, those online aggressors always refused to acknowledge that fundamentalism existed, even while displaying it to the max. In both cases many volumes of social science research have been written documenting and explaining the phenomena, for decades now.
pampango
(24,692 posts)This sounds like confirmation that 'facts have a liberal' bias. You were tolerated on a conservative board as long you posted fear, emotion and (conservatives would assume) "wrong" liberal personal opinion.
As soon as you you resorted to logic (fact) and backed up your posts with fact-based links ... well that kind of behavior could not be tolerated at a conservative forum.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)NJCher
(35,423 posts)I'd be interested in checking this book out.
Cher
chervilant
(8,267 posts)and I think all activists should read it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Sounds ideal considering the posts of the last few years from the "progressives."
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Which is your prerogative of course but some of us notice these things.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Maybe Obama could have gotten single payer or at least a public option is the legislature was only to debate and approve legislation proposed by the President.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)azureblue
(2,131 posts)for proving the diarist's point so well.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It makes sense, since the Bolivian President is more powerful and has more authority than the American one.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Some of us here lived through the Dubya residency and remember just how powerful he was.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)OMG
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)attributed to Anti-Authoritarians and Libertarians as well.
Authoritarians appeal to emotions
anti-Authoritarians don't=bullshit.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)and certainly the neoCONs, though they would prefer lorded to overshadow.
But, again, not disimular in words to how our nation has divided it's government.
treestar
(82,383 posts)of the way Congress should be.
Ligyron
(7,592 posts)Was never rude, always relied on facts and was banned within a week.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Don't know how you survived.
azureblue
(2,131 posts)"Authoritarians want to make everything about personality, personal animus and emotion, they really can't help themselves because that's the way they see the world. In the end authoritarian followers want a leader from whom all wisdom flows, someone to tell them what to think and how to think it, it's a difficult thing to comprehend for those of us who aren't wired that way and I think they have an equally difficult time understanding someone who is not an authoritarian follower. "
And this is the same mind set as most church goers. They want somebody to tell them what is right and wrong. And, since this somebody holds a Bible, then he or she is not to be questioned or doubted. The GOP is the party of the easily fooled, the willing sheep, and the blissfully ignorant. All the GOP leaders have to do is to act like preachers, preach fear and distrust and martrydom, and proclaim that they can "Save" them and the flock follows them reflexively.
ananda
(28,782 posts)BigDaddy is always right no matter what.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)We're both on the same wavelength!
See my post below.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Or maybe it should be the Teenager Syndrome.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I think we've all seen the big three personality traits of Authoritarian Personality Disorder:
1. Authoritarian Submission
2. Authoritarian Aggression
3. Conventionalism
They come out of the woodwork anytime anyone questions their daddy-figures.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,786 posts)Read it some years ago when I was in the middle of my quest to understand how right wingers so frequently get so much so wrong. Altemeyer's studies and analysis made understanding them so much easier.
I just saw the Abstracted version, which is only 27 pages (about one tenth the original) and find it to be a very good summary and exposition of the many insights his work provides.
http://sociodynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Bob-Altemeyer-The-Authoritarians-Abstracted.pdf
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I find this interesting because I see it primarily in those criticizing the administration on the NSA issue. There is a massive amount of emotion and personal animus in posts criticizing Obama and the administration over the NSA issue.
The moment you try to address the facts and point out some of the facts that do not go along with what those folks are saying, you get emotional responses full of personal attacks and incorrect restatements of your points that are attacked, also known as straw men.
I said in a post to redqueen the other day that I have always believed that the liberal and progressive ideologies were rooted in a bedrock of fact and reason. Sure, we get extremely emotional about some issues, but the fact and reason come first and inform our emotional response.
That is sorely missing from those who attack the administration on the NSA issue. The emotion comes first, those who disagree are subject to personal attacks full of and based on logical fallacies, and facts are rarely applied, ignored or ridiculed as if they don't matter.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but it definitely cuts both ways. If you are claiming that those who jump to Obama's defense at every perceived slight are not being emotional, well then, I cannot agree with you there.
Also: when people continually present so-called "factual information", but bend it to their own preconceived result, well that is not presenting anything "rooted in a bedrock of fact and reason". We are seeing it right here on DU, where again and again we see posters saying that nothing untoward happened in the Morales incident, that his plane just had to land in Vienna for mechanical reasons, nothing to see here, move along... All this in spite of the fact that so far, at least France and Portugal have admitted denying overflight permission to his plane, and the President of France has already apologized. So to try to handwave the incident away by linking to an audio of the pilot as he stated his reason for needing to land, is disingenuous, to put it kindly. Or more realistically, it is underhanded and downright dishonest.
I will say this: I do not apologize for having emotions. I am a human, not a robot. I do not aspire to be a robot. Emotions can serve as motivating factors and also help us to sort out right from wrong. If someone will persist in a lie, then I am liable to get emotional in response to it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1. I would never say "Don't be emotional". I would say that the facts have to be there first and inform the emotional response. If I tell you that person X and person Y died, in general, we would agree that anyone dying is a sad thing, but without knowing more, just how sad we should be is in question. If person X is Nelson Mandela, we would both be very sad, but I think we would also celebrate a life of immense good and accomplishment. If person Y is a 3 year old girl raped and murdered by a pedophile, our reaction for her is likely going to change to shock and extreme anger.
2. The reactions of those on one side of the NSA issue has been extremely emotional and has limited basis in fact. We still dont know very much, quite frankly, about whether the assertions raised by Snowden are factual, and we knew even less in the initial few days after the story broke. What facts we do have relate to the history of national surveillance and how that has been treated by the courts. That information is factual, but it has been universally dismissed by those on one side of the issue. I think that is an important point. The one set of rock-solid facts we have, have been dismissed by one side.
3. I think the response to this post is a good example of what I am talking about http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3167452
Take a step back and look at the responses, including yours. My point by that comment is that once a country like the US makes that request, it's up to the other countries involved to take actions if any. Yet we have seen on DU massive criticism against the US for the actions taken by several EU countries. How is that explained, exactly? We have a person who has committed crimes here in the US and we made a request that is pretty standard. How is what the EU countries specifically did here our fault?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...about the cherry picking and skewing of so-called "factual" information.
But leaving that aside, regarding your point #3: When the US "requests help" from several foreign allies, and the help includes denying overflight privileges to a head of state, then yes, it stinks to high heaven, both from the point of view of our own involvement and from the point of view of the huge breach in diplomatic protocol.
Sorry if you don't think that's factual enough.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Where is your evidence that the US specifically requested that Morales' flight be denied overflight privileges? Or, is this yet another example of something that is assumed because people simply want to think that?
You talk about cherry picking and skewing? Virtually everything coming from the critics of the administration on this issue has been assumption and skewing. I can't even call it cherry picking of facts because I havent seen virtually anything factual coming from that side.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...is a very good starting point when sorting out public stories like this.
The fact that 4 countries decided at the same time to refuse overflight and/or refueling privileges to the plane of a head of state, implies very strongly a coordinated effort. Since the US is the country that wants Snowden, it makes sense that the US was involved.
My criticisms of this incident are not focused on this Administration per se. My criticisms are focused on the US state apparatus in general. I have no doubt that US actions would have been similar under Bush, and I'd be criticizing them loudly. But we're not under Bush anymore, are we? We're well into Obama's second term. Therefore, he gets to take the heat. It's part of being the President of the world's most powerful country.
But your last sentence gives away the game, doesn't it? "...I havent seen virtually anything factual coming from that side".
No problem, we know where your sympathies lie, and mine as well. We are both reflecting the huge divisions that have occurred on DU over this issue, and we have both sorted out the narrative as it seems to make sense to us. I am trying awfully hard to remain civil today, as yesterday I had a bit of a meltdown and got a post banned (deservedly) for the first time ever. But it is hard. One of my big problems with many of the posts on the Morales incident, is the claim that his plane landed in Vienna due to mechanical problems having to do with the fuel gauge. People latch onto that as though it puts the lie to Morales' story. But it doesn't.
You want to see some cherry picking and skewing? okay, here you go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023161401
entitled: "BOOM: Austria says Morales' plane landed for fuel and audio from the plane confirms it (hahahaha)"
Now you will note the extremely factually-focused headline (BOOM) (hahahaha)
and the strained attempt to parlay the pilot's concern with needing to land somewhere, into something that negates what happened. Why, again, was the pilot asking for permission to land in Vienna? Oh yeah: because his plane -- a plane carrying a duly-elected head of state -- was denied overflight and/or refueling privileges along its planned route. So this is an example of a post that presents factual information in a very, very slanted way.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The simplest and most logical explanation is that the US made the typical request and these four countries went ever so slightly overboard. Mind you, the only thing that makes their action overboard is that the head of state of a county was on the plane, which, by the way, those four countries may not have been able to verify independently from the ground.
There it is, simple.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...of various Western states has NO IDEA when heads of state are flying over.
Yeah.
Sure.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)again, that has no bearing on whether the US is responsible for this which is my main contention since most of the animus here is aimed at the US.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They post for one reason only: to score points for their side. I honestly don't think they REALLY believe that (e.g) Evo Morales somehow manufactured this international incident. But they comb the Internet finding and then posting articles supposedly bolstering their argument - usually an opinion piece analyzing the same information but with a pro-Administration spin - and when those arguments are countered from the opposite viewpoint, they then engage in elaborate semantic arguments (e.g. Morales wasn't "forced" to land - his plane did so of it's own accord!) or simply begin sneering at their opponents.
What is interesting about this crew of posters is that they do this for every single issue. What are the odds that the reporting of every single bad act by the United States is actually just a smear job by a cabal of conspirators out to destroy the President? Quite low, actually. They don't post this way because they actually think these are elaborate attempts to attack the President. They do this because they view all issues through a partisan lens. Public perception of events is more important that the events themselves. The actual issue (e.g) of the violation of the diplomatic rights of a South American head of state means nothing to them. However, the fact that the incident might cause the President's approval rating to drop means everything. Therefore they must do everything they can to prevent that from happening, including misdirection, character assassination and mockery.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)I don't know how one can say Obama defenders are jumping to the defense of Obama - when after a story comes out wrongly pointing blame at Obama and watching ones here jump on the story with their hair on fire first.
When this jumping happens the media most all the time has a few gray areas in the story so they can point blame toward Obama. And that's when Obama defenders come in - after the premature jump on the BS story to show some facts. The reason one jumps on a story right or wrong is because they don't "think" for themselves. Conservatives don't think, and any facts that are presented to them are thrown out the door - including the one with the facts on RW boards.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I get the impression you've never been seriously betrayed by someone you considered a friend or even a love, it's a world shaking experience that you will not grok in fullness until it actually happens to you.
Many of us here on DU thought that we were voting against large scale government domestic spying programs when we went to the polls for Obama. Having someone you don't feel is on your side or someone you don't care for (eg Dubya) treat you badly can be hurtful, having someone that you really care for and feel is actually on your side doing the same thing is far more devastating. Ask anyone who's been on the end of a bad divorce with a cheating spouse.
Personally I knew where we were headed with Obama and surveillance when he broke his promise to vote against the FISA bill that had telecom immunity written into it so I'm not in that particular category but I know that a lot of DUers didn't pick up on that clue and are now feeling as if they have been systematically betrayed by someone they thought was on their side.
There's been plenty of "personality, personal animus and emotion" on both sides in this but one side feels that they have had their trust betrayed by someone a lot of us really expected to be better than that.
Being spied on induces a visceral reaction in many people, being spied on by someone you trusted is far worse.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And, as I have pointed out several times, I wrote an article in 2007 criticizing Bush for warrantless wiretapping. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_071028_republicans_turning_.htm
My request in that article was to go back to using FISA, you know, the law that Ted Kennedy submitted and Jimmy Carter signed? The law that the ACLU credited Kennedy with when he died as being a piece of landmark legislation that protected civil liberties? http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/american-civil-liberties-union-mourns-senator-edward-kennedy
And guess what, Obama went back to using FISA, just like I had requested.
So, you will understand how I do not see that as any kind of betrayal.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)It isn't that I don't appreciate that Obama restored judicial review, but I am not confident that our surveillance concerns have yet been adequately addressed. My cynicism stems from the numbers. Eleven denials from more than 34,000 requests makes me uneasy. Add to that that only the government has the right of appeal, and I suspect that the average citizen's interests are not adequately served, to phrase it mildly.
Having said that, I did find James Carr's suggestion intriguing.
http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/a-former-fisa-judge-s-solution-to-restore-confidence-in-the-court-14506.html
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that this kind of surveillance is within Presidential powers as long as the ultimate target is a foreign sponsored or inspired group. That is the reason Carter and Kennedy wrote and signed FISA to begin with. They noted those decisions affirming the President's ability to wiretap without a warrant and wanted to create a process to provide some review over those requests.
I have as much confidence in those courts as I do the Social security administration having those records, or US Mail to deliver and not read my mail, or any other institution.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)The Citizens' United decision sort of scuttled the image of impartial courts for me.
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)and aren't feeling betrayed are somehow authoritarian followers? I'm guessing that's where you were going with your OP?
Many of us here on DU thought that we were voting against large scale government domestic spying programs when we went to the polls for Obama. Having someone you don't feel is on your side or someone you don't care for (eg Dubya) treat you badly can be hurtful, having someone that you really care for and feel is actually on your side doing the same thing is far more devastating. Ask anyone who's been on the end of a bad divorce with a cheating spouse.
You do realize that we face a lot more issues than NSA practices, right? I'm sorry that that was your one and only issue and you feel betrayed. Personally, I'm glad that Pres. Obama, not John McCain or Romney, is currently in charge of SCOTUS nominees and holds the veto pen (since it appears that fake progressives are planning to sit out another election). Many of us live in reality and are happy to get at least 70% of what we want as opposed to 0%. Now who's calm and who's the shrill one here? (Hint: I'm calm)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I've also defended Obama when most of DU was on his case.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1480985
What on Earth makes you think this is the only issue I care about?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)you would never get from the accusations being made against me that I attacked the administration on my radio show for two weeks straight regarding the social security and medicare cuts he attempted to make.
No, according to the people who disagree with me on the NSA issue here, I defend him blindly no matter what.
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)and there? Of course! But I didn't morph into an angry, woman scorned type. There is no such thing as a perfect president (or spouse). I think a lot of people would be a lot happier if they understood that.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I believe you mentioned abortion in your earlier post, you do know that Roe v Wade was decided largely on privacy rights? No right to privacy means no abortion rights either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy
By no means did I personally feel betrayed by Obama recently, I already had him pegged before he was elected and yet I still defended the man when the great majority of DU thought he choked.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)THAT IS THE PROBLEM
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It's hard to follow anything when one comes to understand that most things were erected and built by deceit and or lies. I no longer worry about it though, i made it past fifty and now it is all downhill and sometimes an easy downhill.
It's not hard to understand how and why an authoritarian mind works, it's mostly because the world is delivered to them or they think it will be eventually. The only problem they have is getting people to see it their way. Or that is at least that is how this poster see's it
Remember to say "Hi Mike "
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)and since there are no other sane parties for people who tend toward the authoritarian end of the spectrum, these centrists feel right at home in today's Democratic Party.
There is nothing wrong with having conservatives, centrists or liberals in any given population-- but since the GOP became unrecognizable to traditional Republicans, and the Democratic Party's embrace of center- right, the left is now being framed as extremist or hair on fire radicals-- and being pushed out. We need EVERYONE in the discussion--with dignity, place AND representation for everyone.
So what is the ''real' Democratic Party? How can we all find representation when we are marginalizing people within our own party--a split party ends up in a perpetual standoff, while opposing (or competing) parties are free to petition more directly for representation.
I say: no blame no shame, just embrace who you are, but don't ignore the numbers-- liberals voted in the last 2 elections, thinking we found representation. Now we are being framed as too radical, laws have changed making us potential criminals for our principles, so what are we supposed to do now?
I really hope I'm making sense.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I know a person like this. She's a fairly well-informed former activist Democrat. She was ahead of my curve before I started to untangle the accepted message. As she's gotten older, it's harder for her to grasp what's going on behind the scenes, so she craves easy answers that are presented in a way that makes her feel good.
Her parents were Reagan Democrats. I saw them do the same thing, and slide further and further to the right until Limbaugh became their source of news.
In contrast, I'm like the fictional Gregory House- I want the facts: the cold, painful and ultimately healing truth. That burns people who are looking for comfort, and they don't want it. They'll do anything they can to get away from it.
What keeps me looking for the often unkind truth is the understanding that ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Climate change is happening. We've poisoned large portions of the Earth. Capitalism is a large part of how we got here and why we won't fix it. The people in charge have gone insane in trying to keep their power and fortunes. Various religions are blocking forward scientific progress.
These things don't go away by ignoring them...in fact, they get worse.
Don't get me wrong, though- I don't think the people who want to believe are bad(although some of them certainly are), but they are following bad leaders who are leading them and everyone else straight to hell. If you must trust: "Trust, but verify."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)tell them what to think and how to think it, it's a difficult thing to comprehend for those of us who aren't wired that way..."
Of course the right wingnuts are all wired that way. Cant or wont think for themselves. But a bigger problem is that we have Democrats slithering into our tent spouting authoritarian crap. "We must trust Heir Clapper unt Heir Mueller unt Heir Alexandar." These DINO's are pledging allegiance to Republicans.
Transparency is essential for democracy. Authoritarians hate transparency.
indepat
(20,899 posts)Germans.
GETPLANING
(846 posts)If you post facts, you quickly get blocked. They like to keep their "reality" the way they like it.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... book there.. No? Call it "The Wingnut Mind"
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)they boggle my mind, that's for sure.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Really?
You think this is unique to "Authoritarians"?
And at this point the use of the word Authoritarian has been stretched by quite a few DU'ers to the breaking point.
It seems as if a bunch of 2 year olds are posting who are stuck in the "no" phase and can't stand any authority at all. Okay, not 2 year olds but maybe 14 year olds
or adult who never matured past the point where ones identity is held in contrast one's parents.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)We all know that the NSA spying story would be a very different conversation on DU if only Mitt Romney were in the Oval Office, no one here would be defending it beyond maybe a few freeper trolls. All of DU would be locked into the "14 year old" pattern if Romney were president just like it was when Smirk was resident.
In other words, one side of this argument would change their position 180 degrees depending on who was authorizing the spying and it wouldn't be the emoprogs.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)talking points. I had never heard of such a thing until then. How so many of them all sounded the same, I finally asked about it, 'why do you all say almost exactly the same things, use the same words'? When I found Dem forums it was such a relief, people spoke normally, they didn't use talking points, not then. That began on 'Left' forums in my observations, around 2004, That was when the 'left' operatives began flooding forums I was reading and participating on. I recognized them immediately, same talking points, slightly altered, but not much, a lot of attacks on 'liberals' just like the right wingers, a bit more subtle, but not much.
I guess they think we are stupid, as there isn't much effort to disguise their disdain for the 'left' when they operate on Dem forums.