Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:19 AM Jul 2013

Early 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.









98 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Early to mid 2000's I spent a lot of time posting on right wing boards as a liberal (Original Post) Fumesucker Jul 2013 OP
What is a Poe detector? Quantess Jul 2013 #1
You know how n00bs are sometimes taken in by Third Way Manny? Fumesucker Jul 2013 #2
I've had that happen to me, too. Quantess Jul 2013 #6
"Also, some obnoxious female personas who were most likely men." Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #70
No. Quantess Jul 2013 #82
We need a forum about reading between the lines. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #88
Okay... Quantess Jul 2013 #89
Trust me. It's been made. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #90
In your imagination, maybe. Quantess Jul 2013 #91
Go back to the first part and see if you can detect the humor. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #92
Eh, not really getting the "humor". Quantess Jul 2013 #93
"It's not a big deal." Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #94
If you want to keep this inane & pointless conversation going, great. Quantess Jul 2013 #95
The Poe effect is why many conservatives think Steven Colbert is serious. Towlie Jul 2013 #23
So true. Never thought of it that way. n/t OneGrassRoot Jul 2013 #30
ugh d_b Jul 2013 #48
He does right wing nut job well... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2013 #69
Many here in OK seem to be Poe People... lyonn Jul 2013 #62
And in a way, why it took them so long to realize that Bruce Springsteen wasn't sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #75
So, what is your upshot, here? MADem Jul 2013 #3
Perhaps you should read it again. sibelian Jul 2013 #5
I read it several times. It's cryptic. Since you're the expert, you tell me. I'll wait. nt MADem Jul 2013 #7
It's not cryptic. It's open to interpretation. Quantess Jul 2013 #9
gossipy small-minded people and smear campaigns… like DU'ers who trash anyone posting in the Barack KittyWampus Jul 2013 #77
Sure, if that's how you interpret it. (no text) Quantess Jul 2013 #83
No, I'm not an expert in that post, MAdem. sibelian Jul 2013 #13
It's OK if you can't manage it--I'm conversing with the source, and getting the blanks filled in. n MADem Jul 2013 #15
Different personalities are comfortable with different styles of argument Fumesucker Jul 2013 #8
So people who play roles, who take on broad-brushed cartoonish personalities, fare better MADem Jul 2013 #10
After a certain point ideological opponents fall back into a shorthand way of speaking Fumesucker Jul 2013 #11
That is certainly true. And it is easy to sound like a broken record when it comes to a pet issue. MADem Jul 2013 #12
it's that and more NJCher Jul 2013 #33
Sometimes you have to wonder about posting as a Liberal on a Liberal board PuffedMica Jul 2013 #4
I think they just wanted an example Shankapotomus Jul 2013 #14
I believe you are spot on. svpadgham Jul 2013 #20
Just one question comes to mind... tavernier Jul 2013 #16
I found a book with grand skepticism about depending on the stock market Kolesar Jul 2013 #29
posting as a skeptic among various types of true believers was a similar experience for me carolinayellowdog Jul 2013 #17
"being calm, polite and rational, using logic and posting links to published articles or news items" pampango Jul 2013 #18
Richard Hofstadter's chervilant Jul 2013 #19
does he juse the comm theory I describe above? NJCher Jul 2013 #34
His is a socio-political analysis, chervilant Jul 2013 #35
What the emoprogs want/admire seems rather authoritarian treestar Jul 2013 #21
Interesting that you came into this thread and started with the divisive language Fumesucker Jul 2013 #25
But notice how strong Evo as executive is treestar Jul 2013 #37
You are the one attributing appeals to emotion as only the province of "Authoritarians". KittyWampus Jul 2013 #78
thank you azureblue Jul 2013 #27
I proved them wrong when they admire Evo and crap on the US treestar Jul 2013 #38
You proved what? It's useful to know what constitutes proof in your head. DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2013 #39
You'll have to go back through the thread/responses to see the point treestar Jul 2013 #59
When was the last time a Bolivian president started a war based on lies? Fumesucker Jul 2013 #63
AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH? Skittles Jul 2013 #56
+1 L0oniX Jul 2013 #58
Go back to the OP. It ascribes attributes uniquely to "Authoritarians" which are rightly KittyWampus Jul 2013 #79
That sounds just like our executive branch's view of congress as well. usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #41
It actually sounds like the DU emoprog view treestar Jul 2013 #64
Yup, I posted on Tea Party Nation when it first started. Ligyron Jul 2013 #22
I posted on the Freep at 4am in 2004, and was gunned down within 4 minutes. leveymg Jul 2013 #24
too true azureblue Jul 2013 #26
I call in the BigDaddy Syndrome. ananda Jul 2013 #28
The Authoritarian Personality! backscatter712 Jul 2013 #32
then there's the TerribleTwo's Syndrome. BigDaddy is wrong no matter what. KittyWampus Jul 2013 #80
Who here hasn't read Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians? backscatter712 Jul 2013 #31
Yes, all should read it. Especially the Abstracted version 27 pages. Thought-provoking, insightful. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2013 #81
What I think particularly interesting about your OP is "personality, personal animus and emotion" stevenleser Jul 2013 #36
There is some truth to what you say... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #40
A couple of points. stevenleser Jul 2013 #42
You have evaded my point... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #45
Where is your evidence for that? stevenleser Jul 2013 #46
Occam's Razor... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #47
Occam's razor supports me here. stevenleser Jul 2013 #50
Yes I'm sure that the Air Traffic Control... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #52
I'm sure we will find out one way or the other. I think those conversations are recorded, but... stevenleser Jul 2013 #53
The "BOOM! HA HA HA!" posters are not interested in any kind of substantive discussion or debate. Maedhros Jul 2013 #71
"jump to Obama's defense"? Life Long Dem Jul 2013 #87
Interesting how we all see the world through our particular lens of experience Fumesucker Jul 2013 #43
Your impression about betrayal is seriously wrong. stevenleser Jul 2013 #44
How confident are you that the FISA court serves our best interests? LiberalAndProud Jul 2013 #96
The reason the court doesnt disapprove many requests is that appeals courts have already decided stevenleser Jul 2013 #97
I truly wish I shared your level of confidence. LiberalAndProud Jul 2013 #98
Why do you assume that those of us who didn't vote for that reason ecstatic Jul 2013 #49
I have over thirty thousand posts on DU, I've posted about many issues Fumesucker Jul 2013 #51
In fairness to that person, many assumptions about past positions is made on both sides... stevenleser Jul 2013 #54
Your use of the word "betrayed." Have I been disappointed here ecstatic Jul 2013 #55
Hell, I thought Obama's FISA vote was a betrayal after promising to vote against it Fumesucker Jul 2013 #57
but in their eyes he IS perfect Skittles Jul 2013 #60
What is wrong with questions? nolabels Jul 2013 #61
Nature abhors a vacuum felix_numinous Jul 2013 #65
It's totally emotion vs. logic Hydra Jul 2013 #66
Well said. "In the end authoritarian followers want a leader from whom all wisdom flows, someone to rhett o rick Jul 2013 #67
Authoritarian followers would seem to make good little indepat Jul 2013 #68
I have been blocked by several right wing boards and Youtube channels for the same reason. GETPLANING Jul 2013 #72
Sounds like you've got the makings of a ... ReRe Jul 2013 #73
Fascinating! BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2013 #74
You don't think anti-authoriatiarns/libertarians use personality, personal animus and emotion too? KittyWampus Jul 2013 #76
BOOM ha ha ha Fumesucker Jul 2013 #86
I was doing exactly what you were doing back then. I learned a lot, mostly I learned about sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #84
K&R DeSwiss Jul 2013 #85

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
1. What is a Poe detector?
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:31 AM
Jul 2013

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)
2. You know how n00bs are sometimes taken in by Third Way Manny?
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:37 AM
Jul 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
6. I've had that happen to me, too.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:51 AM
Jul 2013

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.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
82. No.
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 04:22 AM
Jul 2013

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.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
91. In your imagination, maybe.
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 12:30 PM
Jul 2013

Have I offended you somehow? I don't remember we've ever had a conversation before, so you will have to refresh my memory.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
93. Eh, not really getting the "humor".
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 12:39 PM
Jul 2013

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.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
95. If you want to keep this inane & pointless conversation going, great.
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 01:15 PM
Jul 2013

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.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
69. He does right wing nut job well...
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 10:21 PM
Jul 2013

it is impossible for him to say something so ridiculous that repuke wouldn't agree with.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
3. So, what is your upshot, here?
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:41 AM
Jul 2013

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)
5. Perhaps you should read it again.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:49 AM
Jul 2013

There's nothing mysterious about it. It is not cryptic crossword clue, MADem.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
9. It's not cryptic. It's open to interpretation.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:05 AM
Jul 2013

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)
77. gossipy small-minded people and smear campaigns… like DU'ers who trash anyone posting in the Barack
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 01:42 AM
Jul 2013

Barack Obama Group?

Or trash ProSense?

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
13. No, I'm not an expert in that post, MAdem.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:26 AM
Jul 2013

It does not require any expertise. It's in plain English.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
15. It's OK if you can't manage it--I'm conversing with the source, and getting the blanks filled in. n
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:27 AM
Jul 2013

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
8. Different personalities are comfortable with different styles of argument
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:53 AM
Jul 2013

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)
10. So people who play roles, who take on broad-brushed cartoonish personalities, fare better
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:06 AM
Jul 2013

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)
11. After a certain point ideological opponents fall back into a shorthand way of speaking
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:19 AM
Jul 2013

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)
12. That is certainly true. And it is easy to sound like a broken record when it comes to a pet issue.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:25 AM
Jul 2013

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)
33. it's that and more
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 10:05 AM
Jul 2013

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)
4. Sometimes you have to wonder about posting as a Liberal on a Liberal board
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:45 AM
Jul 2013

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)
14. I think they just wanted an example
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:26 AM
Jul 2013

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.

carolinayellowdog

(3,247 posts)
17. posting as a skeptic among various types of true believers was a similar experience for me
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:35 AM
Jul 2013

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)
18. "being calm, polite and rational, using logic and posting links to published articles or news items"
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:37 AM
Jul 2013

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.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
21. What the emoprogs want/admire seems rather authoritarian
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 08:23 AM
Jul 2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia

The constitution, drafted in 2006–07 and approved in 2009, provides for balanced executive, legislative, judicial, and electoral powers, as well as several levels of autonomy. The traditionally strong executive branch tends to overshadow the Congress, whose role is generally limited to debating and approving legislation initiated by the executive.


Sounds ideal considering the posts of the last few years from the "progressives."

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
25. Interesting that you came into this thread and started with the divisive language
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:17 AM
Jul 2013

Which is your prerogative of course but some of us notice these things.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
37. But notice how strong Evo as executive is
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:15 PM
Jul 2013

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.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
38. I proved them wrong when they admire Evo and crap on the US
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:16 PM
Jul 2013

It makes sense, since the Bolivian President is more powerful and has more authority than the American one.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
63. When was the last time a Bolivian president started a war based on lies?
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:55 PM
Jul 2013

Some of us here lived through the Dubya residency and remember just how powerful he was.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
79. Go back to the OP. It ascribes attributes uniquely to "Authoritarians" which are rightly
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 01:45 AM
Jul 2013

attributed to Anti-Authoritarians and Libertarians as well.

Authoritarians appeal to emotions… anti-Authoritarians don't=bullshit.

 

usGovOwesUs3Trillion

(2,022 posts)
41. That sounds just like our executive branch's view of congress as well.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:35 PM
Jul 2013

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.

Ligyron

(7,592 posts)
22. Yup, I posted on Tea Party Nation when it first started.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 08:32 AM
Jul 2013

Was never rude, always relied on facts and was banned within a week.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
24. I posted on the Freep at 4am in 2004, and was gunned down within 4 minutes.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:07 AM
Jul 2013

Don't know how you survived.

azureblue

(2,131 posts)
26. too true
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:19 AM
Jul 2013

"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.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
80. then there's the TerribleTwo's Syndrome. BigDaddy is wrong no matter what.
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 01:47 AM
Jul 2013

Or maybe it should be the Teenager Syndrome.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
31. Who here hasn't read Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians?
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:48 AM
Jul 2013
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

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)
81. Yes, all should read it. Especially the Abstracted version 27 pages. Thought-provoking, insightful.
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 03:16 AM
Jul 2013

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)
36. What I think particularly interesting about your OP is "personality, personal animus and emotion"
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 11:21 AM
Jul 2013

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)
40. There is some truth to what you say...
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:33 PM
Jul 2013

...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)
42. A couple of points.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:52 PM
Jul 2013

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)
45. You have evaded my point...
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:58 PM
Jul 2013

...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)
46. Where is your evidence for that?
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:03 PM
Jul 2013

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)
47. Occam's Razor...
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:18 PM
Jul 2013

...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)
50. Occam's razor supports me here.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:25 PM
Jul 2013

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)
52. Yes I'm sure that the Air Traffic Control...
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:31 PM
Jul 2013

...of various Western states has NO IDEA when heads of state are flying over.

Yeah.

Sure.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
53. I'm sure we will find out one way or the other. I think those conversations are recorded, but...
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:37 PM
Jul 2013

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)
71. The "BOOM! HA HA HA!" posters are not interested in any kind of substantive discussion or debate.
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 12:20 AM
Jul 2013

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)
87. "jump to Obama's defense"?
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 08:09 AM
Jul 2013

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)
43. Interesting how we all see the world through our particular lens of experience
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:52 PM
Jul 2013

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)
44. Your impression about betrayal is seriously wrong.
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:56 PM
Jul 2013

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)
96. How confident are you that the FISA court serves our best interests?
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 10:48 AM
Jul 2013

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)
97. The reason the court doesnt disapprove many requests is that appeals courts have already decided
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 11:05 AM
Jul 2013

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)
98. I truly wish I shared your level of confidence.
Fri Jul 26, 2013, 11:22 AM
Jul 2013

The Citizens' United decision sort of scuttled the image of impartial courts for me.

ecstatic

(32,566 posts)
49. Why do you assume that those of us who didn't vote for that reason
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:22 PM
Jul 2013

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)
51. I have over thirty thousand posts on DU, I've posted about many issues
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:28 PM
Jul 2013

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)
54. In fairness to that person, many assumptions about past positions is made on both sides...
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:40 PM
Jul 2013

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)
55. Your use of the word "betrayed." Have I been disappointed here
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:42 PM
Jul 2013

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)
57. Hell, I thought Obama's FISA vote was a betrayal after promising to vote against it
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 01:48 PM
Jul 2013

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

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."


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.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
61. What is wrong with questions?
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:26 PM
Jul 2013

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)
65. Nature abhors a vacuum
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:47 PM
Jul 2013

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)
66. It's totally emotion vs. logic
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 06:52 PM
Jul 2013

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)
67. Well said. "In the end authoritarian followers want a leader from whom all wisdom flows, someone to
Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:19 PM
Jul 2013

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.

GETPLANING

(846 posts)
72. I have been blocked by several right wing boards and Youtube channels for the same reason.
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 12:32 AM
Jul 2013

If you post facts, you quickly get blocked. They like to keep their "reality" the way they like it.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
76. You don't think anti-authoriatiarns/libertarians use personality, personal animus and emotion too?
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 01:39 AM
Jul 2013

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)
86. BOOM ha ha ha
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:07 AM
Jul 2013


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)
84. I was doing exactly what you were doing back then. I learned a lot, mostly I learned about
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 04:35 AM
Jul 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Early to mid 2000's I spe...