The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*

[woo me with science]

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:56 PM - Edit history (2)

Their purpose is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.


___________________________________________
*which is why the arguments need not be consistent or even logical... (edit add: Nov. 2013)

[notadmblnd]

1. +1000

[bananas]

169. +1000^1000

[ProSense]

2. Chomsky Says Young People Don't Care About Surveillance -- Is He Right?

Chomsky Says Young People Don't Care About Surveillance -- Is He Right?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023156365

Someone doth protest too much

DU used to have a much higher level of discourse and therefore influence. It was not unusual for threads to reach a level of depth and detail that garnered many hundreds of recs. Substantive posts made today are quickly drowned in garbage talking points, vitriol, and mocking.

It is no accident that the small propaganda brigade here starts at least half of the new threads on DU each day, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange. Their goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that DU used to offer, and to keep us busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

Always accusing people of spreading "propaganda," and always rising to absolve Republicans of any blame.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358030#post19

[Mojorabbit]

7. Surprising you showed up here to address propaganda. nt

[ProSense]

12. Which part is "propaganda"? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Which part is "propaganda"? n/

[heaven05]

213. +10000

and 'woo me' also.

[WatermelonRat]

231. The part where his worldview was contradicted

That's what "propoganda" means these days, after all.

[jazzimov]

23. Wait a minute, didn't you just do

what you accuse others of doing?

I find it really surprising after your OP, especially since ProSense is one of the few here who actually backs up their statements with links.

The Truth isn't just what you WANT to hear. Sometimes you have to dig a little to find the facts, and sometimes others will cherry-pick facts and spin them to confuse you. This is a famous RW technique.

[JimDandy]

34. The links she posts are to HER OWN POSTS.

If you click on one (bless your heart) go to the top and hit view all by the thread title. You'll see why there are thousands of posts on DU warning against doing so. Just a heads up to a relative newbie.

[ProSense]

38. The first link is to someone else's post,

but OMG, a link!!!!

[NealK]

70. And the second link is to one of your posts.

[Peacetrain]

81. Not to wade into this too much

but if you have said something once, twice whatever.. you get a little sick of typing it up again..and hitting a link you have posted about before that is similar.. is a time saver.. especially if it is relevant to whatever the conversation is that is going on now..

[Mojorabbit]

91. I don't click on her links which I have told her many times

The generally lead nowhere. I don't want to spend my time here clicking all over the board only to hit more links and more links that lead to nothing. I engage in the thread I am in. I almost never get any kind of straight statement from the poster, just talking points.

[Marr]

138. I agree with you-- engage in the thread you're in.

Linking out to your own posts is like going to someone's party and inviting everyone over to your house.

[ljm2002]

153. ProSense "backed up" her own post here...

...with links to posts on other threads that are not germane to the OP, one of which is HER OWN post, which is par for the course.

Or maybe you didn't follow the links. Maybe that is why people continue to give ProSense credit for backing up statements with links?

[reusrename]

173. You're completely wrong in assessing what you are clearly seeing.

Yes, something is very off in the beginning of this thread.

Look more carefully.

Post #2 is EXACTLY the behavior that is discussed in the OP.

Instead of a conversation about the behavior, and how it disrupts discussion, the poster merely engages in the disruptive behavior.

And folks, perhaps folks like you, buy into the disruption.

I believe it is a serious issue and I've seen the best discussion board fall prey to this behavior.

A very serious issue. My hair is on fire over this stuff. It really is the reason we cannot organize any strong opposition to the criminals that are running the show.

Most folks are good and decent people and they don't want criminals running things like the banks and the military industrial complex. We'd rather have law-abiding citizens running things.

[sabrina 1]

175. The only links I've ever seen her post are links to her OWN posts.

The truth is thruth, even when you don't like it. Although I can't see why any Democrat would not like to see the end of Bush's egregious, Constitution destroying policies. But to each their own I suppose.

[chimpymustgo]

24. And here you are! We will not allow discussion of the spying and lying to be shut down.

The truth is stronger than the lies and propaganda.

Edited to add massive K&R for this OP.

[GeorgeGist]

100. Equal blame ...

I think is the term you're looking for.

[ljm2002]

151. Neither of the links you provide...

...are germane to the point being made by the OP.

Your reply itself, however... very germane.

[NuclearDem]

180. "Always rising to absolve Republicans of any blame"

Oy, that bullshit again...

[Brewinblue]

181. You just demonstrated the OP's point as no one else could.

Your post comes from out of left field for no purpose other than to create static and divert attention from the important issue at hand. Two shiny blue links to give the impression of a well thought out and supported argument, but they essentially lead to nowhere. If it came from an unknown source, it would be next to impossible to surmise any logic behind your post, because there clearly is none other than disruption.

[laundry_queen]

242. +1 nt

[Junkdrawer]

3. K&R

[get the red out]

4. Yep

I have wondered this on many boards and many topics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Yup

I recommend the silent treatment to these shills. (And they might not be real people for all we know)

[LuvNewcastle]

8. Yes, don't respond to them. n/t

[sabrina 1]

13. That is exactly the best way to handle it. Don't feed it or try to reason with it by kicking

those threads. We noticed this when it first began, at least when it became very obvious, back in about 2004. It created huge disruptions on some major Democratic forums, which was probably the intent. Many liberals who have a tendency to see through these deceptions better than most, were banned by the thousands. Another goal of the propagandists. To shut down those voices. But it hasn't worked. There is a desperation in them now, after all these years of trying, to do what they will never succeed in doing.

They need new tactics. The old ones are way too recognizable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Shh, new ideas they don't need

[sabrina 1]

84. Old habits die hard, as they have proven over and over, throughout the years. Not much

'thinking' going on with these shills, they have a job to do and clearly the originators of the tactics are not too creative either.

[Catherina]

53. +1,000,000 n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

93. That is exactly right.

Leave them talking to themselves, as their own echo chamber. That looks pretty obvious. Usually the same point that would've been a reply to them can be addressed to a genuine person instead, or to the OP itself, so it's still there in the thread.

The old adage still works, "don't feed the trolls".

[randome]

94. If you don't debate and engage, by definition you form your own echo chamber.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Violet_Crumble]

191. I wish they'd put people on ignore, rather than just claiming they do and then attacking other DUers

I'd rather see 'echo chambers' than the vicious attacks on DUers a few folk claim to have on ignore. But then again, I'd also rather see people discuss the actual issues rather than running round accusing anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with them of being an a) apologist b) sock puppet c) troll and/or d) paid shill.

I'm all for those who can have a civil discussion with people they disagree with keeping on doing that, and the ones that can't do that actually make use of the ignore function and stop talking about how vile and nasty people they supposedly have on ignore are...

[randome]

193. Debate on DU -like Democracy itself- is a messy process.

The Ignore function makes it too easy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

97. More and more, I am thinking that you are absolutely right. nt

[Mojorabbit]

6. I just posted something similar in another thread

Great op and then the gang showed up and jacked it with specious arguments and no further meaningful discussion could occur.

[stillwaiting]

9. K&R. This thread has already touched a nerve I see. Good OP. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. Yup. Anti Obama liberals better start a secret Google group

So they are not polluted by dissenting views which are so obviously government propaganda (PAID) and/or computer programs.

This line of discussion is pointless.

[Mojorabbit]

17. Feel free to abstain from posting in the thread if you feel it is pointless. nt

[jazzimov]

27. Isn't that limiting discussion?

Are you suggesting a "discussion board" or an echo chamber?

I suggest informed discussion. Please notice I said "informed" discussion.

[Mojorabbit]

82. Of course not. If the poster has some points to contribute

that is awesome but it seems a waste of his time to post that the discussion is pointless. on edit of course at the end of the day, it IS his time to waste.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. No. I want my opinion heard that this is a ridiculous direction to go at DU

To say a significant % of push back on your world view is the work of computer programs.

[rhett o rick]

177. Blind loyalty is the wrong direction to go. It's not Democratic. nm

[nashville_brook]

29. i've noticed you take issue with this line of discussion. "pointless" you say.

but, disruption of legitimate political voices thru bullying and cluster attacks are nothing new to the internet. they're clearly not pointless or else these tactics wouldn't be employed by those hoping to shut down discussion.

managed personas whether automated or functioning as part of a PR effort are a reality that everyone who participates in social media must deal with on an increasing basis.

[Generic Other]

44. I notice that many of the articles I read the first comment is weight-loss spam

I see what seem like vanity links posted by paid shills. To be honest the dumber the websites I click on the more likely I am to see them. But it does tell me there are people earning money this way. They probably don't even write the copy.

So between these obvious corporate spams and the disinfo campaigns -- what percent of the internet do you suppose we can trust to be sincere? Anyone?

[nashville_brook]

48. maybe looking for a % of trustable social media interactions is the wrong metric

maybe it's going to be a more qualitative thing than a quantitative thing. i might see .0000000000001 % of the entire internet in my entire life. of that, .0000001% is something i even pay attention to. of the stuff i pay attention to there might be .01% of engaged users i might pay attention to. and of those, there might be 10% that i can actively pay attention to.


point is, we already self-select for authentic interaction. we don't click blindly on every google ad. and we already self-select for those voices which resonate with ours. the percentage is useless. finding the tribe that empowers you, that's everything.

[Generic Other]

55. I just wondered if anyone knew how many people are actively engaged

in this "industry."

on edit: too many typos! My keyboard letters are disappearing!

[nashville_brook]

60. social media "optimization" is being used every PR campaign

so, one way to see it is as encompassing the existing marketing communications industry and reaching well beyond.

aside from that, it might be difficult to get a head count.

[Generic Other]

62. Seems like they should have their own agency then

I saw an article connecting Booz Allen to the sockpuppet industry. It got me wondering if the NSA has a sockpuppet division, or if that's the CIAs thing.

[TheKentuckian]

117. Almost certainly, I worked for a small internet provider and part of my day was spent

on related forums talking up our product from the perspective of happy as a clam consumers. I usually played the role of knowledgeable tinkerer so I could give helpful advice to those having trouble and through much irritating trial and error and research knew everything about the product.

I kept neutral appearances by pointing undesirable (see high bandwidth) customers away.

If that backward ass outfit had that wherewithal several years ago to leverage message control in social media then you know any major entity does it and has done it for years.

[rhett o rick]

176. Pres Obama embraces the Patriot Act and domestic spying. I am anti Patriot Act. I assume you are pro

Patriot Act, domestic spying, drone double-taps, and indefinite detention. I am against force feeding prisoners, I am guessing you favor torturing prisoners via force feeding. I am against trade agreements like the TPP, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. Apparently you favor those agreements. I should point out that all the conservatives side with you and Pres Obama. Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, Mueller and Comey are not friends of freedom and liberty but I bet you worship the ground they walk on. I support whistle-blower that dare speak truth to power, and I support those that are brave enough to protest this authoritarian government. And I know where you stand. Do you call yourself "politically liberal"??? Really???

[Blanks]

245. To assume that someone holds equal and opposite positions from you...

...on every issue because they disagree with you on a single point isn't using very good logic.

I don't oppose trade agreements because I've never supported an 'american isolationist' policy. That isn't the same as saying I think that we should allow large corporations to exploit the people of other countries while destroying union jobs in this country.

I don't agree with isolationist policies because those policies kept us out of both world wars while our allies, which could have benefitted more from our involvement (earlier on), suffered. We provoked Japan in WWII by stopping trade.

Conceptually, I support trade agreements, but just like anything - 'the people' need to be represented in the negotiations. I don't agree with shutting ourselves off from the rest of the world.

The fact that I feel that way doesn't give you the right to define my positions on every other issue. I don't support the Patriot Act or torturing prisoners or any if the other things you 'assume' that I am for because I don't oppose the TPP.

You paint with broad black and white strokes on a canvas that really should be huge patches of different shades of gray.

[Divernan]

11. Spot on! PsyOps Writ Large. or rather Posted Large.

[Fumesucker]

15. I gotta admit the signal to noise ratio here in GD is pathetic these days

Decoding alien transmissions from halfway across the damn galaxy would be easier.

[Generic Other]

45. What's the frequency, Kenneth?

[woo me with science]

163. Look at what they are accomplishing more broadly, and this fits right in.

Silence Occupy with clubs and pepper spray.

Deter ordinary citizens from joining protests as a result of the brutality toward and surveillance of protesters.

Criminalizing behaviors that define investigative journalism and silencing journalists and potential sources with surveillance and lawsuits.

Legalizing propaganda aimed at US citizens as journalism is being silenced.

Silence whistleblowers by targeting and pursuing them even to other countries.

Requiring governmment employees to inform on one another when dissent is suspected.

Waging lawsuits against whistleblower protections.

Preventing DHS employees from reading news about the NSA.

The massive surveillance system which chills free speech and free association and has the capability of identifying and suppressing any dissent before it even takes shape.

And polluting the remaining public spaces for discussion and organizing online.



What have I missed? Put it all together, and it's a chilling portrait of a government focused on eliminating the avenues for serious dissent.

[nashville_brook]

16. precisely -- so glad the jury system here seems to be holding up!

we have to protect these spaces. it's about more than anyone's desire to chat. democracy needs a gym to do it's workout.

and you are spot-on about Occupy. there were also disruptions carried out within groups, which originated outside of occupy. Same idea as pepper spray, but more effective.

[snot]

18. The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.):

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5 :

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of an internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Details at the link.

Every DU'er should famliarize themselves with these techniques; they're used here all the time.

[rwsanders]

51. Read a little, it's like reading "The Screwtape Letters"

[bbgrunt]

52. very informative link. thanks.

[Generic Other]

66. Sounded like Barney Fife wrote it

Seemed like very low level cop writing to me. They misused "there" for "their."

Any clue to the original authorship?

[sabrina 1]

141. Thanks for the link, bookmarked for later ...

[NuttyFluffers]

152. Absolutely Essential Link to Read!

playing bingo with it is far too easy nowadays here. but there seems to be a strain of inoculation going about, which is good news. focus on the positive and ignore the disruptors; all they want is wasted time and energy. there's too much work to do to bother with their antics anymore.

[Catherina]

215. Excellent. I just bookkmarked it. It's invaluable

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. 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.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. 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.

6. ...

[Gman]

19. They've been on DU for many years now

I suspect many are paid. Even more just think they're doing the world a favor

[PETRUS]

20. Yes, collective action is alwasy to be stopped, but better yet, prevented. nt

[felix_numinous]

21. K&R It is happening here for sure.

Another method is to try to wear us down with repeated posts with the latest talking points and hammer those until something else is run up the flagpole.

Which is why I am joyfully happily reccing this post, we all need to be savvy to these methods during times like this!!! Thanks woo!!!

[Th1onein]

132. You mean like the posts on Greenwald and Snowden?

[forestpath]

22. K&R

[Fearless]

25. Which explains several nonsensical arguments

Made around here lately.

[caseymoz]

26. Did you think of this yourself?

Or did you find this from another source who actually has some evidence that this strategy is being followed?

It's not bad hypothesis, but the problem is--unless it's followed up by some kind of evidence or proof that this is the strategy--it just spreads paranoia needlessly. Everybody will be asking "who's the mole?" I could especially see this in divisive issues like the Snowden affair where witch hunts can become rampant. The suspicion about this needs to be restrained.

There's only a limited amount of labor available from a "small group." How many of them are able to post propaganda that seems to be in answer to a discussion, and answer many threads getting "the last word"? Do they have software that enables them to be string together pat phrases? More importantly, are the being paid to do this? They generally have more time to do it if they're being paid, so a small group can be stretched.

[hfojvt]

32. uh oh, my bad

I had my sockpuppet post the same talking point too close to my other sockpuppet.

quick, try to make a joke out of it. Retreat, regroup, exterminate. Retreat, regroup, exterminate.

[caseymoz]

147. You should start drinking after five a.m.

It doesn't take much to make some people babble incoherent.

[snot]

36. See, e.g., this:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20130727-fake-social-media-profiles-part-of-dallas-pension-funds-public-relations-fight-with-nasher.ece?action=reregister . Close to $1 million spent on under-handed p.r. services including sock puppet commentary in a local publication just to try to influence the outcome of litigation between two buildings.

The stakes are MUCH larger w.r.t. national politics, and DU is a MUCH more influential forum. I can only imagine how big the budget is for psyops here.

[snot]

39. See also this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242 (with thanks to Catherina!):

. . . . in some of the emails, HBGary people are talking about creating "personas", what we would call sockpuppets. This is not new. PR firms have been using fake "people" to promote products and other things for a while now, both online and even in bars and coffee houses.

But for a defense contractor with ties to the federal government, Hunton & Williams, DOD, NSA, and the CIA - whose enemies are labor unions, progressive organizations, journalists, and progressive bloggers, a persona apparently goes far beyond creating a mere sockpuppet.

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

Persona management entails not just the deconfliction of persona artifacts such as names, email addresses, landing pages, and associated content. It also requires providing the human actors technology that takes the decision process out of the loop when using a specific persona. For this purpose we custom developed either virtual machines or thumb drives for each persona. This allowed the human actor to open a virtual machine or thumb drive with an associated persona and have all the appropriate email accounts, associations, web pages, social media accounts, etc. pre-established and configured with visual cues to remind the actor which persona he/she is using so as not to accidentally cross-contaminate personas during use.

And all of this is for the purposes of infiltration, data mining, and (here's the one that really worries me) ganging up on bloggers, commenters and otherwise "real" people to smear enemies and distort the truth.

[caseymoz]

158. Okay, thank you. Those are great sources.

Now I have a better idea.

However, the question I'd like answered, and the thesis of the OP is that the purpose of this is to actually crowd out the "natives" of the board, or is it direct propaganda? And how can software argue a point so well that it always has the last word?

What we're dealing with is nothing new, it's called spam. I more sophisticated spam, but it is the same thing.

It's a real problem either way. There may be a solution depending. Freeware might become available that does the same thing to conservative sites, or at least detects it. Some of it is already available free. Have a look at this:

http://www.fakenamegenerator.com/

I'm a fiction writer, so I have use for fast generation of names, however, it's not just names it generates in a snap: it's a whole dossier. If you notice, the site suggests an email address that you can click to activate!

These companies are recruiting from a pool that has a lot of liberal progressives or potential Snowdens to snitch out or sabotage the operation.

In other words, it's not hopeless, and it's likely not going to make whole boards useless.

[LondonReign2]

201. "And how can software argue a point so well that it always has the last word?"

From what I've seen, it posts a snotty reply title followed by the ROFL smilie

[caseymoz]

225. It could, but that's just noise.

It reduces the problem down from a threat down to a nuisance.

[sabrina 1]

88. There is no need to pay everyone. Just get 'the ball rolling' and others will chime in

for free. As for proof, we have lots of evidence that this goes on. There really isn't any doubt anymore.

For me, whenever I see people regurgitating talking points, particularly when they have been around for years, attacking 'liberals', I know I am talking to someone who is not thinking for themselves. Been watching it for at least nine years now. What gives it away is they have never changed the talking points 'ponies', 'martyr' 'reality based community'. What sincere person talks in 'talking points'? Ordinary people use their own language to express their opinions. Shills use talking points.

[Th1onein]

133. "Attack the messenger ploy"

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. 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.

[caseymoz]

159. Non sequitur ploy.

I don't follow you. Did you attach this to the right message? If so, I'd say you either didn't read what I wrote. Otherwise, I'd say you're trying to baffle with bullshit.

[Th1onein]

166. Welcome to my ignore list, caseymoz.

[caseymoz]

200. Since discussion with you was worthless

I think that's best.

[hfojvt]

30. seems to me

that another easy way to disrupt discussion would be by sowing distrust among the membership.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. So that would apply to all the 'look at Greenwald, he's gay' threads and the

endless defenses of Rick Warren and the folks who kept saying gay people wanted 'a pony' when demanding equal rights, to those who accuse others of 'poutrage' for not bowing to the heterosexualist majority? That sort of sowing of distrust? Because that has defined DU as long as I have been here. One of the early Obama hard cores told me LGBT people had been replaced (this was 2008) by 'the faith community' and 'Obamacans' who it was explained to me were Republicans who support Obama!!!!! That's why, I was told, the Donnie McClurkin rallies were going on to prove Obama's 'bona fides' by hosting an anti gay hate preacher Obamacans!!!!!!

[jaysunb]

123. +1000 ! n/t

[Phlem]

31. K&R

Didn't some government anti propaganda bill just get overturned?

-p

[Zorra]

33. Thanks, woo. K&R nt

[ProSense]

35. If you disagree with someone, just claim she/he is a sockpuppet spreading propaganda

If you disagree with someone, just claim she/he is a sockpuppet spreading propaganda
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023360017

Thanks for the tip!

[Zorra]

41. No one is going to accuse someone of sockpuppet propaganda for supporting labor unions here.

If they support an authoritarian surveillance state and or control of government by wealthy private interests, well, why wouldn't Democrats suspect that person of being a RW troll or a sockpuppet?

If you don't want to be suspected of being a troll/sockpuppet, don't post right leaning bullshit here.

Trolls here at get tombstoned for posting RW bullshit, not for supporting and posting traditional Democratic ideals.

[shawn703]

49. Advocating for the apprehension of an individual

Who has been divulging national security information to foreign countries is hardly right leaning bullshit.

Assuming that people you disagree with are agents of the government spreading propaganda - well that's right leaning bullshit straight out of the pages of your local survivalist or militia manual.

[Mojorabbit]

86. Sometimes the shoe fits. nt

[RC]

98. I'd say that that depends on what that someone reveled.

Exposing the wholesale spying by our government, the gathering of all the secret electronic communication, of the general public. 'Hoovering' being a very good descriptive adjective of the unconstitutional gathering and storing of the citizens private communications. No one can deny that Edward Snowden didn't expose just that. In any case, he did get it in the public conscience. How can that not be good?

And if Snowden actually had nothing to expose, then why hasn't this died down and gone away yet? Why does what is coming out, just keep getting worse. If he had nothing, this should been yesterdays news already. Even Zimmerman at its height, could not swamp out what Snowden exposed. So yeah, Snowden does have something big.

I do suspect that those that keep buying the government explanations, hook, line and sinker, without question, and regurgitating the talking points, trying to diminish and down play, the full extent of our government's latest over reach, are being something other than truthful and up front, as to what and who they really are. Surely they can't be that slow witted. Not after all this time.
It's OK because it is "legal"? Stop insulting our intelligence.

[shawn703]

116. If he only released

Information pertaining to warrantless surveillance on American citizens by the American government, he would have a lot more sympathy from me. When he went further by telling China, Europe, South America, etc., IP addresses of foreign machines we are snooping on - that's what makes me think he needs to be apprehended. I don't need any government talking points or explanations to understand that revealing details about spying to other countries is wrong.

[RC]

121. Other countries... or the whole rest of the world, as to what our country was doing wrong to its

own citizens?

The whole rest of the world, is pretty obvious to me. Basically Snowden exposed a bad guy, doing bad things, namely our own government engaged in information gathering for the eventual total control of its own citizens. Why else would our own government go to so much trouble and expense to gather and store so much seemly useless information on the general public at large?

[shawn703]

128. Like I said in my post

If he only released information about surveillance on American citizens by the American government, I'd have more sympathy for him. Of course the whole world would know about that, it's not like American media is only accessible to Americans.

When I was talking about what he revealed to other countries, I was referring to what he revealed about what information we are collecting on them. That's where he went wrong.

[RC]

130. Domestic and foreign are one and the same. NSA is collecting information on everyone, everywhere.

It is hard to separate the two when they route phone calls and E-mails out of the country and back in, just so they can "legally" collect and store that information. There is no real difference.

[shawn703]

155. What did that have to do with IP addresses of specific machines in China?

There is no acceptable justification for that act as an American citizen.

[RC]

172. What are you talking about?

Of course China has their own block if IP addresses. So does every other country.

[shawn703]

186. What exactly are you arguing?

Because you seem to be purposefully avoiding my argument. Unless you're saying you're anti-foreign surveillance too? Domestic surveillance is understandably controversial, but I didn't think that foreign surveillance would be causing people heartburn too. How do you think the Battle of Midway would have gone if we didn't spy on the Japanese?

[RC]

198. The battle of Midway was almost 70 year ago. We were actually at war. We were attacked by them.

Now WE are the attackers.
Maybe if we would stop our "War on Terror" by being the biggest, baddest terrorist on the block ourselves and start helping people, instead of killing innocents and calling them terrorists, interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and toppling duly elected governments, we would scale back the spying to something reasonable.
Why are you OK with the status quo? We have the technology to scoop up the whole Internet. and that is just what we are doing. Just because we can, is no reason we should.

BTY, what is you argument, anyway? I don't see actually see one.

[shawn703]

202. That foreign surveillance is in our national interests

As it would be in any nation's national interests to know what their neighbors are up to, capable of, etc. If our avenues to keep an eye on them are cut off because they now know about those avenues, that introduces risk that we don't know as much about what's going on as we should.

[RC]

205. How is hoovering up the Internet in our best interest?

That is something paranoid totalitarian dictatorships would do.

[shawn703]

216. We're talking about two different things I think

When you refer to hoovering up the Internet, I assume you're talking about the PRISM program.

I'm talking about the targeted hacking that the NSA did on specific Chinese computers.

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/06/14/edward_snowden_reveals_details_of_hong_kong_and_china_nsa_hacking.html

There is a cyberwar going on - Chinese sponsored hackers attack US interests and we attack theirs.

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/05/china-hackers-pentagon/65628/

Snowden provided details about our tactics, targets, etc to China. You believe this was a good thing he did, and I believe it wasn't.

[RC]

217. You are going kind of far astray from the OP

Maybe if we hadn't started hacking into their computers first, they wouldn't be doing ours, Huh, ya think? What goes around comes around, Karma and all that, donchano?

Oh yeah, we did. We taught the Chinese by example.

[shawn703]

221. The post I replied to

Had to do with accusations of sockpuppetry and what is considered right-leaning bullshit on this board. All along I have been arguing that wanting someone apprehended and tried for the release of surveillance information to the Chinese is hardly right leaning bullshit or could only come from a sockpuppet.

Any technological advancement is going to be used to someone's advantage, and I'm not going to fault our government for wanting to have that advantage all the time. I'm sure as soon as China and the USA could ping each other they were both busy trying to figure out how to get into each others systems. I doubt we taught them a thing or that karma had anything to do with it.

[RC]

222. You seem young and have much to learn.

Wait a few decades.

[shawn703]

223. And there's the ad hominem

[TheKentuckian]

228. I don't believe China has any legitimate right to my communications so I don't believe we

have any right to be combing through their private communications either.

Clandestine operations against another GOVERNMENT is one thing, treating the private citizens of the world as suspects without specific and articulable cause is a horse of a different color.

The exception you espouse would mean there would be no way to really deal with even our domestic communications securely because all we'd have to do is have an ally do the snooping. We could try to button this up legislatively but the extreme secrecy and inability of Congress to force another country to to testify honestly or provide effective oversight, making the whole deal an uncheckable farce.

My best recommendation is requiring an individualized warrant to touch any personal communication.

[shawn703]

235. Not a whole lot of information made it to the press

about the Chinese computers that were being targeted by the US government, other than there was a list of IP addresses that Snowden said belonged to private citizens. And how do we know these are really machines of private citizens without government ties?

Mr. Snowden told the newspaper that the computers were in the civilian sector. But Western experts have long said that the dividing line between the civilian sector and the government is very blurry in China. State-owned or state-controlled enterprises still control much of the economy, and virtually all are run by Communist Party cadres who tend to rotate back and forth between government and corporate jobs every few years as part of elaborate career development procedures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/world/asia/ex-nsa-contractors-disclosures-could-complicate-his-fate.html?hp&_r=0

Could these IPs have become interesting to the NSA because they were sources of cyberattacks on national interests? There could be specific and articulable cause you're looking for, we just don't know what it is.

[TheKentuckian]

239. I invite them to get an individual warrant if that is the case, which of course we don't know

so if they have a case they can make it.

[Th1onein]

135. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT

THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING. IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT THE SPYING.

[shawn703]

156. You're right, and the quicker he is apprehended

And out of the news, the quicker we can forget about him and concentrate on the spying.

[Th1onein]

165. LOL! Who do you think you're kidding?

Welcome to my ignore list.

[shawn703]

185. Don't forget to take your marbles!

[Th1onein]

134. Advocating for the .........is CHANGING THE SUBJECT

from NSA spying, to who told us about it. And, once again, the issues don't get resolved. Nothing moves. No one does anything.

[winter is coming]

227. I'm not even sure I'd use the term "advocating".

There are a handful of people who pursue the topic with such relentless zeal that I find myself wondering if Snowden kicked their puppy.

[ProSense]

59. So

"Trolls here at get tombstoned for posting RW bullshit, not for supporting and posting traditional Democratic ideals."

...sockpuppets are "trolls" who get "tombstoned for posting RW bullshit"

Some of them fool a lot of people before they go that happens

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023080227

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293&sub=trans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=280518&sub=trans

[Zorra]

154. And some of them don't fool anybody, but are still here.

Some of them...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=280518

[Bluenorthwest]

43. You are right!n What good people do is repeat what was said to them and add some

emoticons.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/razzing

[treestar]

67. +1

Rovian to blame you for what they are doing. You better believe it!

[Union Scribe]

167. Activate crisis management mode! nt

[bemildred]

42. Correct. On the internet, if you get mad, you lose. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. K&R. Exactly.

[msanthrope]

50. That might be your funniest post, yet. nt

[Populist_Prole]

47. I don't see it as much here, but on a lot of other forums

DU does a pretty good job of isolating trolls, but other forums of various other hobbies and interests that I view can be infested with RW trolls. I've been noticing, in non-political subjects and topics, the same people constantly putting a right wing spin on things, and they're all over the forums like a rubber stamp; posting gish-gallop replies after every rebuttal at all hours, always trying to get the last word in.

[Notafraidtoo]

69. I notice RW trolls all the time.

I read a lot of video game forums and when a company releases a bad product players take to the forum to talk about the things they do not like about the game and there is always and i mean always on popular subjects a right wing troll calling everyone entitled brats for wanting the product to work properly, The Trolls try to silence consumers by shaming them.

[backscatter712]

102. Try going to the comments sections of newspaper web sites.

The right-wing propaganda spewing is completely out of control. The admins at the newspapers have zero motivation to control it, and the owners have every interest in letting it run wild.

[Populist_Prole]

107. How true. Online newspaper website comments sections are the absolute worst

The selfishness and hatred on display is astounding. Like a whetstone for sociopaths to hone their long knives on.

[Enthusiast]

113. Yahoo articles........nt

[Coyotl]

54. And I thought they were here to improve their English and spelling

You can readily recognize the writing level as elementary and the vocabulary as low-IQ, so I just assumed they were here to emulate higher functioning people

[Catherina]

56. This is where I love the ignore list

Propagandists should not be allowed to consume our time. If we leave it up to them, we'll soon have to be justifying the grammar we use and quibbling over commas vs periods.

[randome]

92. You forgot the period after 'vs'.

Ah, who am I kidding? I'm likely on her Ignore list because I like to think for myself.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

189. "I like to think for myself." Thank you for the early morning laugh.

That was great. Literal laugh out loud and totally unexpected. Thanks again.

[Savannahmann]

57. Of course it isn't.

The wave of Propaganda that is being pushed here and on other sites, we've all seen it, is not to sway opinion, but to stigmatize those who hold differing opinions. To make us look like kooks for opposing the NSA spying for example.

If we are shouted down, we can't make our case, and they win by default. It's working too, because the polls are already slipping back to show a majority who support such intrusions. We have two hopes to hold on to.

1) The ten percent theory. The idea is that once an idea passes a ten percent of the population threshold that it will inevitably become a majority opinion in time. Nearly half believe that the NSA spying is a bad thing, and it is a coin toss as to how the end of that road works out. Either a vast majority will decide that the NSA is a great thing, and to hell with Civil Rights, or the Majority will rebel against it.

2) The courts. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit, one of many, that challenges the NSA spying. Right now the Justice Department is contending that the matter qualifies as National Security, and the Third Branch of Government has no say in how it is run.

Time will tell if either of these brings us the outcome we desire, the end of the NSA program. During the entire time though, the Propaganda will be constant, people shouting that we are horrible for thinking that Civil Rights matter.

[RC]

106. +10

There are those that do think we need to curtail our civil rights to be safe.
There are many are right here on DU, that are trying to tell us we need to curtail our civil rights, by trying to convince us that the wholesale hoovering of our electronic communications, is for our own good and the national security is at stake.
No, it ain't. We as a country have been making our own enemies for far too long to buy into that song and dance.

[Segami]

58. K&R!

Thanks!

[Android3.14]

61. I think their is certainly circumstantial evidence of this

But yet I have never spoken to anyone who has as a job of initiating and maintaining such a task. Yet it seems such an operation would require a fairly sizable workforce, unless there is serious automation and AI applications posting to discussion boards and such.
Just as the start of a hypothesis, what would be some verifiable evidence of this?

[chervilant]

120. What you just did. n/t

[Android3.14]

160. I don't understand.

What did your response mean?

[chervilant]

190. hmm...

You asked:

"Just as the start of a hypothesis, what would be some verifiable evidence of this?"

Posing that question is an example of one of the strategies discussed at the link another DUer provided.

(I'm not saying you did it on purpose -- I just found it ironic.)

[treestar]

63. What about Freedom of Speech?

There is plenty of space on the internet. No one can stop you from discussing anything. You are not getting lock step agreement and now are calling that "disruption." Yes it is disruptive of your authority over our minds.

[leftstreet]

74. Silencing critics of the status quo really supports freedom of speech

[treestar]

76. Nobody is silenced

In fact DU is very tolerant of trashing of Democrats, considering it is a site for Democrats. Very, very tolerant. We have posters here daily criticizing a Democratic President, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority leader, calling them all sorts of things that are negative.

We try to defend them and say something positive to try to keep up support on Democratic Underground and we're the trolls? That's taking it to absurd heights.

[leftstreet]

77. Who is 'we?' n/t

[FSogol]

83. Too tolerant, imo.

[RC]

109. There are principles involved. Truth and facts.

When those principles are violated, when we are lied and spun too, when they violate their oath to uphold the Constitution, we all have a duty to call them on that.
Principles should be held to a higher level than any one person or assemblage. Our nation, our group, our party, right or wrong, doesn't cut it when our leaders are engaged in self-centered actions that hurt the rest of us.

[Mojorabbit]

87. Good one! nt

[HiPointDem]

143. 'woo me' has authority over your mind? how did that happen? I thought it was corporate & big

government power that basically controlled public discourse, not (the apparently all-powerful) Woo.

[DirkGently]

64. More noise. Less signal. Yep. n/t

[Whisp]

65. L.O.L.!.!.!.

[Number23]

241. For real. Didn't this person post almost the exact same thread with almost the exact same

number of recs a couple of months ago?? Paranoia, and repetitive paranoia at that, is stuff I don't mind seeing stifled at all.

[Rex]

68. Let them try and get banned for doing so.

Always nice to see the trash taken out.

[leftstreet]

71. DURec

[midnight]

72. Good to know...

[kestrel91316]

73. 100% correct.

[Evoman]

75. honestly, i don't sees it. Apart from the occasional troll or

Rightwing gun but, I don't see people spreading propaganda on purpose. I see a bunch of passionate people who go to far on one side or other during an argument, which is human nature. I see sometimes people spewing "propaganda" type arguments, not because they are being being paid or are tools, because they are convinced of that arguments veracity.

But that's just my two cents... Which I'll go to collect from the PAC that's paying my wage.

[Skittles]

105. no, that's what it USED to be

now DU has been hijacked by - jeez, IDIOTS - it's like trying to discuss serious issues while a group of five year olds are in the room stamping their feet and crying

[defacto7]

164. You mean like in the religion group?

I would suppose that kind of conversation goes on elsewhere as well. I have to keep telling myself that a lot of people really are 5 or more like 15 year olds trying out their forum wings.

[snappyturtle]

78. K&R

[NealK]

79. K&R

I totally agree.

[Waiting For Everyman]

80. It's pretty easy to detour around the shills.

I think they mostly deceive each other.

One thing's for sure: no shill is going to stand up for the 99%'s interest (except in the rare circumstance when it converges with making Obama look good -- but he doesn't provide that opportunity very often). So that makes them easy to pick out. And even if they do post on the 99's side, that doesn't harm us anhway, so I don't see this as a winning strategy for them.

So really it comes back to the same thing -- all we need to do is stand up for ourselves, and the rest will take care of itself.

I think most of us who post on here very much at all, know who is genuinely for us, and who is for the corporatists.

[leftstreet]

85. +1 Very good points

The shills look ridiculous and immature

The shills pretending not to be shills so they can do their shilling look even dumber


True enough, history shows wherever the people go the rest have no choice but to follow

[ProSense]

90. Question:

"One thing's for sure: no shill is going to stand up for the 99%'s interest (except in the rare circumstance when it converges with making Obama look good -- but he doesn't provide that opportunity very often). So that makes them easy to pick out. And even if they do post on the 99's side, that doesn't harm us anhway, so I don't see this as a winning strategy for them. "

...Do you think these posts are about "making Obama look good" and by posting them makes one a "shill"?

Obama Says Income Gap Is Fraying U.S. Social Fabric
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358509

Obama Says He’ll Evaluate Pipeline Project Depending on Pollution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023355210

[LondonReign2]

204. Oh good, two more links to your own posts

You need to update your AI

[sufrommich]

209. Both are links to NYT articles posted here.

Did you think no one would check?

[LondonReign2]

210. Both are links to her own posts

Did YOU think no one would check?

Yet another in her series of self-referential links that have no bearing on the topic at hand but are meant to clog up the discussion, distract attention, and waste people's time so that they cannot post about the current subject.

[newthinking]

246. Don't pages move higher in search engines when they are referenced from other pages?

So if your job were related to propagandizing you would want to always link to your previous work.

[randome]

89. The one thing that SHOULD distinguish Progressives from Conservatives...

...is to go wherever the evidence leads. And not be led by the nose by vague fears. (Okay, that's two things.)

In the case of the 'surveillance state' you -for whatever reason- want to believe exists, we have no evidence that shows illegality or abuse of the NSA's authority.

So I find it hard to believe anyone is being 'kept down' by a non-existent 'surveillance state'.

Now if anyone can provide evidence of the NSA's culpability, I'm fine with raking them over the coals. But to blame some amorphous 'surveillance state' for society's lack of coordination and protest is ridiculous.

And Occupy eventually degenerated, as a whole, into protesting for the right to camp out indefinitely in public parks. Nothing they did excuses barbaric treatment by local police but they did not set out in a coordinated fashion and the result was disintegration of purpose.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Th1onein]

137. "In the case of the 'surveillance state' you -for whatever reason- want to believe exists..."

In other words, we just "want" to believe that the surveillance state exists?

You've got to be kidding me, Randome.

I'm putting you on ignore.

[randome]

145. I think it's a safe assumption since S&G have failed to provide evidence.

All they have is vague claims. Progressives, I thought, are more open to evidence than Conservatives.

You can shut your ears to others' opinions but as for myself, I have never put anyone on Ignore and I don't see that I ever will.

So which of us is more open to debate?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheKentuckian]

233. No randome , it is YOU AND YOURS that have the burden of proof because you are making the

extraordinary claim.

You are asserting that a secret dragnet surveillance programs, secret courts, and largely unchecked power with absolutely no public oversight are not being abused and have little to no danger of being abused.

All similar programs have been abused throughout history.

The track record for these efforts isn't encouraging and the fact that you are demanding evidence from the wrong party anyway, those running and potentially benefiting secret programs both have uncontested access to all evidence and the burden to demonstrate they aren't abusing it as human history surely indicates.

If you want evidence demand it from the government, they are the gatekeepers and are asserting legality and compliance with the constitution.

Employing these tactics means the it must be the state who is guilty until proven innocent.

[randome]

234. I have no problem whatsoever with more transparency and less secrecy.

I am not a 'supporter' of the NSA. But I refuse to make unwarranted conclusions without evidence.

That's just how my organizational paradigm works. So let's get going with pressing for more transparency and less secrecy. It all has nothing to do with S&G because they have shown absolutely nothing that is illegal or abusive.

I think we have an area of agreement if you could see it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheKentuckian]

240. Yeah, we may not be as far apart as one might think as seen from the surface

But there is a gulf. The very existence makes about any accusation that is possible is pretty much reasonable to my mind. More transparency is fine but when you start with willfully less than zero then there is an assumption of bad faith and I am being crazy kind to leave it at that.
Willful betrayal and subversion of the oath to the constitution is no joke to me and because every effort was made to bury the whole deal combined with a pretty damning history of about anything even resembling the admitted practices much less any unsubstantiated claims that might be made.
So to me the government is automatically in a sticky wicket, since there is virtually no reason to believe any such system and practices cannot be abused, the only sane response is to assume they are being abused. If they aren't it might be the first time in human history and even then we are probably waiting for the other shoe to drop.

EVIDENCE???

The evidence I need is what the fuck the government is up to, under what rationale, and how to get a handle on too much power in far too few hands and the burden of proof is on the fuckers that are doing things that always turn out badly not on the people saying they are abusing powers beyond what I believe is by definition abuse that many of our supposed representitives not only admit to but seem to pretty proud about.
Okay, I grant you a few critically horrible court decisions and legislative thuggery but is "we'll make it legal" all we are going to be about? If so then tell me how we don't fail to learn from history on a no brainer?

This is maybe the most clearly written part of the Bill of Rights exactly to prevent even the limited reach of their times from getting out of hand.

[blackspade]

211. sigh....

Dude, we are under constant surveillance by both the state and corporations.
That is a fact of the modern world.
The problem that I and others have with the government surveillance is that there is no transparency.
The facts are that the NSA is sucking up phone, e-mail, and internet info on all Americans without a specific reason to do so and has left little if any way to challenge such information gathering in court under the black hole of 'national security.'

[randome]

230. Why do you use the word 'facts' when we don't have any?

We need more transparency and less secrecy but to take S&G's word for 'sucking up phone, e-mail and Internet info' smacks of anti-intellectualism.

Progressives should make decisions based on facts. S&G have shown no evidence of illegality or abuse by the NSA. None.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

238. LOL

S&G have shown no evidence of illegality or abuse by the NSA. None.

You just keep telling yourself that. The evidence from the last 10 years or so makes it pretty clear that this ongoing program is unconstitutional and the only reason why it hasn't been determined to be so is the fact that the government, both Shrub and the Obama, have claimed 'national security' in the face of every challenge.

Your argument doesn't wash and neither does your snarky "Progressives should make decisions based on facts" talking point.
Well, obviously your not that progressive, otherwise you would be open to the new facts and information that has been spilling out about these shitty programs over the last month.

[LondonReign2]

212. You mean no evidence other than the court ruling, right?

You know, the one that stated they had violated the 4th Amendment both in law and in spirit?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-20/court-said-wiretap-violated-constitution-s-4th-amendment

[randome]

229. Oh, you mean the FISA court that you don't trust? That's...ironic.

Granted, a court that operates in a good deal of secrecy should breed a certain amount of distrust.

But courts rein in law enforcement every day. It's how the system works.

But guess what? The FISA court has absolutely nothing to do with the documents S&G stole. The documents they are promoting show no evidence of illegality or abuse. And that was my point, which you did not address.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[LondonReign2]

236. LOL

A court consisting of 100% John Roberts' hand picked judges rules that the NSA broke the 4th Amendment, but that's not proof enough for you. How egregious do the violations have to be that even Roberts judges think they've gone too far?

A series of other whistleblowers coroborate Snowden's claims but you summarily dismiss them. Because the President of the United States routinely forces a soverign head of State's plane down and demands it be searched for a guy that hasn't proven anything.

Laughable. Done with you.

[Veilex]

95. Spot on!

Distract, Derail and despoil... the mantra of the anti-progressive troll.

[backscatter712]

96. Exactly. If I were Skinner, I'd be merciless with the banhammer.

Instead, the worst offenders are protected.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Which makes ya wonder

And I will leave it at that

[backscatter712]

101. You're not the only one... n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

103. Wow. That is quite an accusation

[PowerToThePeople]

108. It is funny

I was just about to post a positive response to nadinbrzezinski, but hit refresh and saw you posted.

Corral all the "real dissenters" into free-speech-zones where those zones could be controlled easily. Free-speech-zone and DU being similar in nature.

I am not saying this is the truth of the matter, but there are many similarities....

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Yup

[backscatter712]

119. Yep. DU is starting to smell like a "free speech zone." n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. If you were in my shoes

You would get it.

[RudynJack]

122. I know you feel put-upon and bullied

but the fact is, people challenge you frequently because you're a know-it-all who seems to not know all that much. You're very frequently wrong on a wide variety of subjects, yet your persona is of a superior, condescending, arrogant "expert" in almost every field.

It's not your politics people argue with. It's you.

[Skidmore]

192. Yes they are and my list of worst offenders

would undoubtedly have little overlap with yours.

[Skittles]

104. I have put the swooners on ignore and I suggest all thinking people do the same

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. Most of them are there, indeed

I know they don't like that

Oh Jeebus, second major fire starting in my town

[Skittles]

124. ???? is it weather related?

BE CAREFUL NADIN MY SWEET

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Oh good question

It's the third today. Two in back country, one to bed. One in urban area, actually in the interface. Editor went, so me listening to two scanners...the third in north county...near a casino. That has a potential for 500 acres +

[backscatter712]

118. +1. Another talking point "Those who like Real Discussion don't use ignore."

How about "Those of us who like talking to real human beings who are here for honest discourse instead of endless flamefests populated by bots, socks and disruptors will damned well use all the tools in our toolchest."

[Skittles]

125. BACKSCATTER712 KNOWS THE SCORE

YES INDEED

[woo me with science]

196. +1

[blackspade]

214. I disagree a little bit on this.

I don't use the ignore button because I want to see what kind of stupid shit is being pushed.
It helps me sort out what their talking points are so when I encounter them on TV or in conversation with my neighbors the talking points have already been through the bullshit screen.

[backscatter712]

220. I do occasionally peek.

Well, I open up an Incognito window in Google Chrome, which is a very quick way to open up DU in a non-logged-in state, which lets me snoop on the disruptors that are on my ignore list.

But when I want to have a conversation with the adults, I leave the trolls turned off.

[blackspade]

226. Not a bad idea....

[spooky3]

168. What? And cut down on the laffs? (n/t)

[Skittles]

170. I no longer find them amusing

they're disgusting me now

[backscatter712]

188. They absolutely are disgusting.

The character-assassination tactics they're using should be a TOS violation, including the attacks against Snowden, and including today's blitz on Greenwald.

If I were Skinner, I'd tombstone every one of these McCarthyist slimebags.

[TheKentuckian]

112. I rec but I think you are somewhat "mis-underestimating" the effort to shift the spectrum of

acceptable ideological discourse to the right while shrinking said spectrum.

This is their strongest use of message discipline, it is consistent throughout addressing ANY AND ALL TOPICS. True, topic for topic they have little interest in changing minds but overall a high level of effort is made to make entire political philosophies taboo and that essentially all meaningful debate in our politics is roughly between a secular/theocratic axis and then to a lesser extent (and usually a deeply conflicted situation at both polls) between pro and anti government absolutism (that again, neither polar opposite can actually consistently support their own argument because they ar both equally ludicrous falsehoods as ideologies).

Issue after issue though and situation after situation these folks don't have to argue convincingly in a winning hearts and minds kind of way to steadily and surely tar about every mode of thinking that isn't firmly corporate friendly and accepting of the status quo as radical and the opposite of beyond the right wing border of what depths of regressive forces they consider to be the far right which happens to be maybe one notch short of the Taliban (if not actually the same thing).

See how they consistently frame the picture? You go one click on the dial toward the left from the Turd Way and you are close to the point where they say the left mets the right and the trip is damn short.

I'm not sure how many notches you can get in before you have reached such a place but it seems pretty certain that if you are a New Deal type Democrat that holds their line that you are a hard leftist, at minimum and arguably a "Firebagger" and obviously any ideas to the left of "New Deal Democrat" put one squarely into the off the map extremist territory to the point that one is just as likely to show up in a tricorn hat demanding lower than historically low taxes and "official" birth certificates as equal rights and choice and if one utters economic justice then they probably makes you a wingnut of some flavor and if you mention civil liberties then it is a cinch beyond question.

It is the eliminationist tactics that work to change minds or preferably to them eliminate such thoughts from forming in an articulable fashion by dragging them through ten swamps and then yes killing all such avenues for such ideas to be shared and discussed.

Our current message controllers would paint the likes of Eleanore Roosevelt as a Teabagger to fit their phony ass narrative. If that doesn't stick then call whoever a racist or some kind of bigot. I'm surprised they haven't got around to chucking Martin Luther King under the bus yet for his economic justice campaign. They have thrown FDR under here with a suit of tar and feathers as a racist because Social Security (they lie) excluded blacks when the truth is more nuanced that the fields most black folks worked in were excluded, along with white folks who did the same jobs as well as the internment fiasco in which they never, ever account for the difference in the times and pressures of an actual existential threat.

We also never can get a description of "political center" even from those who are self proclaimed "centrist" because they are all left of center and rarely is anyone labeled just right of center to contrast. You'd think a Charlie Crist would qualify but he has to be painted as having always been center/center left as to justify how solid of a Democrat he can be considered now. Same for Arlen Specter or any other fence hopper, they were always of the left.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

129. Uhmmmm

That was quite a post. I actually like what you're trying to say....but what you are saying doesn't describe this site at all. Some of those most bat shit crazy conspiracy theories are allowed to stand. There is much support from fellow posters when guys like Castro, Chavez, and Morales are lionized.

You may not like it that there are a lot of Democrats who don't disagree with you, but it doesn't mean you're being shut down or the dialogue is moving to the right.

You are experiencing a shift based on the DU being an opposition board for people whose party was out of power vs. now being a boad for people whose party has been in power for years.

Ascribing things to a mass propaganda or other bizarro explanation does you a disservice.

Oh, and nice that you provide caveats around FDR behavior but are unwilling to for current president.

[nashville_brook]

139. this is perhaps the most distressing sort of comment that could be posted on DU

"You are experiencing a shift based on the DU being an opposition board for people whose party was out of power vs. now being a boad {sic} for people whose party has been in power for years."

This post implies that long-time DU'ers, or the party base, is being pushed out of this forum.

First of all, as anyone can see by the quality and quantity of party base posters today that this is factually incorrect. But the more troubling aspect of this post is the implied approval of such an imagined disappearance.

My democratic party -- the one my family has belonged to for generations, is inclusive and quite able to embrace all comers. There's no "in power" and "out of power." There's the party which succeeds or fails based on representing Democratic principles in a manner that enlists engagement and ultimately, voter turnout.

Clearly this poster in engaged in a drama. This is a dramatic statement. An epic battle for power! But, it's a fantasy and a dark one at that. You don't win by pushing people out. You win by bringing people in.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

146. You missed my point altogether. The person posing this as conflict and drama is you

I admit, I typed that last post on the run in between errands on my phone. So I didn't fill in the blanks of what I meant. I thought it was self-evident as numerous threads have focused on the change when all of us were faced outward with a common goal of getting Democrats in the White House and majorities in Congress. Once those were accomplished, the natural tendency has been to turn inward and focus on what our party in power is doing. This raises the likelihood that there will be competing views often spoken in strong words and escalating to name calling and paranoia.

I'm glad so many from the old days of DU are here and still contributing.

[nashville_brook]

157. i take your point from the totality of your posts...and in that context, I completely got your drift

no backsies.

[TheKentuckian]

237. This effort has been going on for decades, it is Turd Way SOP.

The entire concept is to shift the spectrum to the corporate right and cut off and/or redirect dissent and as much as possible representation from the left save a few weak tokens to provide the color of legitimacy.

You might have an argument if you limited your case to this site (I don't think a particularly strong one, but it would be one of some caliber) but this site is just another form of mass media and just another location for Democratic debate and the Turd Way in all of its incarnations, especially the DLC, is OPENLY dedicated to just the kind of message discipline that I describe.

I'd consider a carve out for Obama if I thought the situation might call for one but it is clear as day it doesn't Al Queada in no serious way poses an existential threat to the United States. If you want to sound stupid then start comparing the current band of dirt farmers pounded by about two decades by the Soviets that are trained and organized mostly due to our own influence and efforts as part of a proxy rebellion to the Axis powers.

Or if you want to look goofy but not batshit insane you can pretend the fear and animosity of the Japanese at the time is not orders of magnitude greater than the job done on the Japanese, an imprint still easily seen generations later that clearly permeated the American culture from word of mouth from those who lived the times, movies, and cartoons. There is nothing like even Merry Melodies treatment of the Japanese people today.

Of course then there is the fact that Japan is a country and folks can be loyal to nations and that we were actually in a declared war with that country, so I think that is a big difference.

We are also in the 21st century with a lot of water under the bridge with a pretty different world view. We aren't as cavalier in general with non-white lives, there has been many decades of progress made in how we look at each other. We are not a country fresh off massacring the natives and slavery, using Asian folks as de facto slaves

I see nothing to suggest a FDR at this point in time would resort to internment camps and just as crucially can imagine a WWII era Obama doing the same or worse based on how he is reacting to a comparatively non-existent threat with the benefit of a worldly upbringing, diverse personal heritage, and the progress of about eight decades.

I see no case Obama deserves any consideration available in the present day. Perhaps in hindsight people in the future will have to consider that we today are not as far along developmentally as they are now and will cut some slack but I evaluate Obama against the expectations of today and I feel he disappoints but you are free to make a convincing argument.

You want to judge FDR by present morality and with hindsight and Obama by the lines of yesteryear then let's guess how Obama's action will be viewed in 80 years, according to those mores. Hard to say now of course but chances are it won't be sunshine and rainbows and still will be virtually no contrast of relative threats.

[indepat]

115. Big brother simply will not tolerate impudence related to exposure of the establishment's

chicaneries, illegalities, or unconstitutional actions nor will tolerate dissent of Wall Street's criminality.

[Change has come]

127. The ignore feature works like a charm.

Think of it as Disruptor B Gone!

[yardwork]

131. The government has been doing this forever. The CIA, for instance, infiltrated universities

at least as long ago as the 1950s. And all activists are aware of the agents provocateurs who infiltrate movements and push them toward violence that will reflect badly on the movement.

And there's always the old Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. I see FUD a lot on the internet. Let a conversation get rolling that might actually lead somewhere and somebody is certain to put a stop to that by muddying the waters and getting everybody mad at everybody else. I figure that these folks are paid by somebody - CIA, FBI, NSA, RNC, DNC - whatever.

[Bluenorthwest]

149. One or two work for groups like NOM, that's super clear. RCC and LDS as well.

They spend tons of time on 'I'm an atheist and my cousin is gay but I am afraid we are pushing this too fast!!!!' posts. That's since they got called out for the 'gays are not to be trusted around children' posts and had to ramp down the 1890's stuff.

[yardwork]

224. Concern trolling 101!

[Vincardog]

136. True dat

[bvar22]

140. Gosh. I thought I was the only one who noticed that!

[font size=1]not really![/font]


DURec!

Not too many years ago, DU was KNOWN for Intelligent, High Level Discussion of Politics, and a large and intelligent population of honest brokers of information and opinion.
Sadly, this is not longer true.

Just a few years ago, a Top of the Greatest Page post could gather over 1000 Recs, and over 100,000 "VIEWS".

"They" are winning,
and that is sad too.

[madrchsod]

162. i've noticed this too

started lurking in 2001 and joined in jan 2002. ya things have changed. that`s one of the reasons some of our best members left.

[Bluenorthwest]

142. A quote from Henry A Wallace VP under FDR:

"The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and power."

[tblue37]

144. KnR nt

[ljm2002]

148. Yes, that's what I think is going on also...

...pollution of the discourse is a very effective tactic, as is the bullying style of debate which we see here a lot these days.

Thanks for the OP.

K&R

[GoneFishin]

150. On a related note, I notice some disrupters have similar posting styles such to make me think

it is a single poster using multiple identities. I wonder if anyone else has noticed this?

[DonCoquixote]

161. Exactly

L. Ron Hubbard once stated that the goal of his many lawsuits was NEVER to win, but to exhaust his opponents, frighten the cowards and intimidate. That is what the modern psy ops do here, regardless of whether they are pro or anti Obama. The goal is to make people give up on trying to discuss anything.

[defacto7]

171. It's true that disrupters are everywhere on the net

but how do we really know who is and who is not? I know many of us like to expound on their vast experience with routing them out and follow their history, but logically, reasonably, how do we know that we know? We don't. For me, it comes down to not wasting time trying to read minds or hunting for the bad guy. If the conversation works I go for it. If it gets sidetracked I dump it. If it seems like bait don't bite. Mind reading doesn't work nor does ESP and the suspicions of most of us are highly tainted with our own prejudice. If you pretend to "know" who bad guys are, then after a while you can actually emote into the very troll you are against simply by magnifying your prejudices; your own remarks become the baiting.

I also think that people have many ways and levels of communication, different language skills, different mental states and ways of envisioning and idea. Creative people are easy to mistake for trolls, new people on the board are also and there are those who actually think differently... are we to just take for granted they are disruptors? I think that rather limits the field to those who think, talk, walk, and speak alike. I think that's boring and unproductive.

There are things that are strong tells, and there are those who have the control button and make decisions when they see them based of facts... IPs, socks, proven reputation, TOS violations etc. Outside of that, there is little to do except give most people the benefit of the doubt and move on to other things if you don't think it's beneficial. But the last thing to do is exercise our prejudice toward people who are different and turn it into the neighborhood watch gone mad.

[susanna]

174. ^this^ OP is spot on. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

178. +1

PB

[Lint Head]

179. KKKKKKKK&RRRRRRRRR!

[mahina]

182. It's easy to underestimate the value of DU.

We endure through the rise and fall of candidates and issues. Though we may not be able to move mountains, that's a powerful tool.

I agree with your post completely.

[Judi Lynn]

183. What you've written is absolutely true. What a shame.

Ignoring them as much as possible seems to be a better way to go, as they adore tying people up post after post. I believe they interpret responses to them as validation of their importance.

Ugly, pointless people, we have never needed them.

They cry out to be ignored, ultimately, as no one really wants to communicate with them, anyway.

[DeSwiss]

184. K&R - Related:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3364257

- Hold fast. Chaos is required for the veils to fall down.

[morningfog]

187. Yep. If a poster is paid to post by an official, they are by definition a troll.

[deancr]

194. yahoo and other trollvilles

Well, my observation of organized trolls is subjective, but check out the comments here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pension-disappear-post-detroit-103015319.html

Talking point on talking point on talking point. I find it hard to believe that so many are driven to comment by citizen driven concern, and that those comments fall so neatly into those promoted by the likes of George Will.

A suggestion. Find these sites and spend a couple minutes a day playing whack a mole. It's easy to hammer down their simplistic talking points and fun! If left unchallenged, the trolls comments paint a picture of universal agreement with right wing memes to the casual reader. The point of their efforts. We wont win an argument on those boards, but that isn't the point. If the message isn't presented, it doesn't exist.

Rush, as an obvious absurdity, was left unchallenged by reasonable people. The results were tragic. This effort on the part of the right seem innocuous, but tell a lie often enough...

[TBF]

195. K&R nt

[bobduca]

197. Pro Smear and the Plus Ones

One ringleader, and about 25 followers to be honest. And they talk like they own the place, literally.

[malokvale77]

232. Yes I've noticed...

one in particular that gets really nasty and tries to shut you up if you ask for clarification on one of their posts. I'm pretty sure they will chime in soon. What ever they post, don't dare question, you will be labeled.

[daleanime]

199. +1

[myrna minx]

203. K&R n/t

[JNelson6563]

206. But look at the valuable service they provide!!

I've seen propaganda type posts from all sides on DU so let's not pretend it's limited to any one group of people.

On to my main point: Let's use the NSA as the example topic. That story hit like a hurricane. I got the jist of the story and got on with my life for the most part, choosing to forego the "discussion" of it on DU. Ok so a couple of days in I check out GD and there are endless threads basically with the useless back and forth most big threads devolve into. I skim but click out once the lucidity evaporates. Still somewhere in there a couple of people must have said they don't have a problem with mass spying by the government judging by the dozens of posts decrying such views.

One person can say something and then watch the pontificating soap-box residents preening in their glorious self-righteousness! Oh and all the fellow self-righteous joining the pile on, dozens of 'em!

So between the troll droppings and the self-righteous pontificating by those on the only true liberal side of things there are seldom threads worth reading in GD as long as the hot button topic of the moment is going strong.

And I don't care what side of any argument you're on, it plays out like this every single time.

Julie

[cecilfirefox]

207. I don't think it's quite that cohesive and organized, but I do think it's an example of how

people often get mired into 'talking' about issues, but not actually doing something about them.

[blackspade]

208. +1000

[backscatter712]

218. Skinner needs to grow a pair and ban the propagandists.

He knows exactly which users I speak of.

[backscatter712]

219. Notice that the organization part has been stifled here. That's the point.

There could be meetups arranged locally. DU could be arranging marches & the like.

But that activity seems to be completely non-existent here because we have enemies in our midst.

The jury system ain't working. Skinner needs to cut loose with the ban-hammer.

[bvar22]

243. Kick to the Top

I was looking for this brilliant OP by woo me with science
to quote in another thread today
where all the usuals are swarm using the techniques above.
(I guess Sunday is a day the whole "family" can gather).

I've often been curious as to WHY they will make such idiotic statements,
and then burn up the keyboard DEFENDING their idiotic statements to the death, when ANYONE can see that thy can't really BELIEVE it themselves.

They do it because [font size=3]The GOAL is NOT to inform,
but to DENY the public spaces to those whose goal IS to INFORM!!![/font]

Sadly, they are winning.

[font size=3]"The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points. "

[/font]

Thanks for this, woo.
You REALLY hit this one out of the park.
I will be quoting this OP in the future!


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Hydra]

244. Thanks for this Woo!

Their stated purpose is to disrupt, mock and derail to the purpose of protecting the status quo.

They've actually said this right out.

DU has lost some of its best voices over the years due to partisan problems and trolls of varying skill. I'm not leaving until I'm formally asked to, though. When it came down to brass tacks, Skinner asked us to come back rather than become a paid DLC noisemachine. I'm honored to answer that call as I can.