Well, congratulations, DU...

[PCIntern]

Yeah, I know that it is against the rules to 'whine' about DU on this thread, but I'm not 'whining'. I'm stating a fact...

The fact is that the RWers who populate our site with varying degrees of efficiency and efficacy have finally managed to incite a 'mild-to-moderate' Civil War here, or, if you prefer, a War of Right Wing Aggression. Like Vietnam, it has been waged stealthily and carefully and I for one have become increasingly frustrated with the act of posting here, which is exactly what the bad guys wanted to occur. Lately we have had some outbreaks of epic scale of 'internecine' warfare.

The way I see it, an individual posits an idea, thought, observation, interpretation, commentary, breaking story, highlight, idiosyncratic occurrence, anomaly or other statement and the race is on! The battle begins to rage disproportionately over a turn of phrase, a word used 'questionably', a point of view, a regional opinion, a perceived prejudice, or other aspect of the OP or the response. The first poster, who had no intention of getting into a battle over that aspect of his or her post is then 'forced' to defend him or herself on this point, the larger context being completely forgotten. Others who do not want to enter the fray refrain from posting altogether, and the thread dies a sad death, a different version of the petit mort. Or, worse, scores of posts are placed in anger and antipathy grows.

This week we have had a controversy involving a long time member making an angry and vituperative post with hundreds of responses and many associated threads. This is what the Army ants are waiting for: a chance to swarm and go wild as we peck each other to death.

I can just feel many who read this getting ready to type a negative response. Tell me, before you do, if you have been here a while, do you notice that your thread or response is basically hijacked, turned away from its destination like a certain flight from Malaysia was, and you wind up attempting to defend your honor, your legitimate self-righteousness, and begin to wonder why you ever wasted your time on the post to begin with? I have been here since 2004, and was quite familiar with the angry tropes of the old days, but that was open warfare. These, as I stated before, are guerilla tactics and I'm not going to stop posting, just so you, whose mission it is to disrupt, know.

I (eagerly) await the expected and occasionally somewhat-contrived backlash...now I have to go forth and heal some sick people.

[In_The_Wind]

1. Those of us who love DU will move past these problems.

May your day be filled with peaceful moments as you help those who need you.

[Trust Buster]

2. And we've seen what the Right wing civil war wrought on them...

[OKNancy]

3. I really don't think the right-wingers or stealth trolls are that big a problem

most of them out themselves eventually and don't last that long. The nastiness is because of folks who should be on "our side", but for various reasons of politics or personality MUST argue and be negative about most any subject.

This includes those who see the world in black and white, those who are in the "perfect is the enemy of the good" crowd, and those who are politically naive. The last group are those who think red state districts should nominate a loser left-winger instead of a possible winning Democrat with less than progressive stands on some issues. I'll add another group too. This group are anarchists at heart and bristle at rules, authority and anything they see as controls on behavior. They just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

[PCIntern]

5. The clever, insidious ones don't 'out themselves'...

some of them have been here for years and pick and choose battles very carefully. don't ever forget that St. Ronald of Reagan, who was the Union President of the Guild, was an FBI informer for years, as per the The New Republic article from decades ago.

Reagan never left the Democratic Party as he was so fond of saying...he was never rally IN the Democratic Party.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Isn't that exactly the kind of remark that is likely to stir up bad feeling?

You're inviting people to look at long-term DUers and wonder if they're 'insidious'.

I can't tell, from your OP, which group you are calling 'right wing'. Since the big fight this week has been about the ACA, are you calling its defenders 'right wing', or those attacking it?

[treestar]

83. I agree with that too

If they manage not to be outright hostile and have enough fans not to get their posts hidden, they can stay a long, long time.

[Whisp]

329. yes they do, but in stealth ways that can't get their asses booted off.

they've had years of practice to stir the pot to juuuuuust the right frenzy and use words juuuuuuuuuust this side of discovery what they really are.

we all know them.

[Cha]

8. That's my take, OKNancy.. thanks for stating it so well. There are some

blatant Putin pushers.. I don't know what they'd be called. Putin is admired by the rw when they aren't talking about bombing. They think he's a manly man.. all tough and stuff.

[zeemike]

36. Nice example of what the OP was talking about

Now the conversation has changed to Putin lovers.

[Mojorabbit]

93. yep. nt

[Catherina]

119. +1000 n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

122. OH yeah. This is EXACTLY what the OP was talking about. What's more,.....

this tactic is an OLD, OLD RW tactic. I've seen it for at least a decade.

Before DU, I used to post a lot on a political board that was open to all persuasions from neo-Nazi RW to, *well*, me. As you can guess there were some epic battles over the policies of W as this was in the early to mid Aughts. ALL of the RWers on that board, from the neo-Nazis to the neo-liberals, used to use this tactic. They would find some minor, off hand comment in the post, a comment that had nothing to do with the main thrust OF the post, and pound it until the thread was disrupted. And they were especially disruptive if the main thrust was something that they COULD NOT REFUTE on it's own merit. Or if the main thrust of the post was a popular position.

I finally got to the point of not even trying to defend the off-hand comment being attacked, even if defensible on it's own merits. I'd just say, "Nope, not going to be distracted..." and pound the main point that was being made. The tactic would still disrupt the thread, but at least the MAIN point would be made over and over again.

[joshcryer]

327. I consider Cha's post a "minor, off hand comment."

Where does that put the entire subthread who responded to it?

[socialist_n_TN]

347. The mnor off hand comment made by the poster.........

WAS an example of the tactic because it had nothing to do with the thrust of the original post and was probably meant to distract the discussion into another area, i.e., Putin.

Now just because it's a hoary old school tactic of RW disruption doesn't mean that EVERYONE who uses the tactic is a RW disruptor, but, as is said, it is what it is.

[Jazzgirl]

136. ^^this^^

And another one further up.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

160. seconded. n/t

[rhett o rick]

212. Excellent example of what the OP is speaking of. You either support the USofA "Standing Their

Ground" vs. Russia (which means military action if necessary) or you Love Putin. Typical Black or White thinking. Any and all criticism of the Pres must smote, with no holds barred.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Your post is exactly what the OP is talking about

I think.

1. Nobody on DU is a Putin pusher.
2. This is derailing the OP.

[MrMickeysMom]

82. That is right… eom

[joshcryer]

326. Says the guy who just called Obama a sociopath.

Seriously, my eyes are about to fall out of my head.

[okaawhatever]

334. Amen to that. nt

[sheshe2]

352. +1!

[malokvale77]

303. You just proved the point of the OP

Derail is the name of the game. Way to go. Putin lovers, that's the ticket.

[Cha]

322. LIke I said, Nancy.. thanks for stating it so well.

[Eleanors38]

11. I think you are closer to the truth, esp. Re GD. nt

[Skidmore]

25. Well said and agreed. nt

[lillypaddle]

28. + 1

Right on.

[onlyadream]

30. 100% agree

I don't post much and when I do it's sometimes just not worth the fight. Those that see the world in black and white are the problem. They made DU turn into FU. It was my place where I could rest my weary head, but no more. A few bad apples are just waiting to jump in with their claws out. Sad.

[reddread]

52. black and white? where was the grey area on invading Iraq?

To be anti-war is black and white.
To assent to the ultimate corruption of death and destruction
is crossing a line some people cant.
"OOPS, they fooled us again"
doesnt cut it.

[treestar]

81. Good analysis

That's what it amounts to.

[frazzled]

84. I think you've artfully constructed an ideological map

of a large segment of the board. I might also add another group: those who see themselves as liberals but are in fact more closely aligned with libertarian principles. Unfettered free speech and pot seem to be the main interests here (leading to a lot of unintelligible cursing at times), as well as isolationism and the belief that "individual rights" are the hallmark of liberalism (they're not).

It's hard to engage in conversations with many of these segments. I usually don't even try because there's really no chance for real policy discussion. And then there's always the ploy of being dismissed a "corporatist" if you disagree with a post in any way. That's a playground retort, unaccompanied by any analysis whatsoever: but the bullies do succeed in driving dissent away with such sloganeering. After dipping my toe into such threads, I almost always regret it and retreat—a shameful situation, because it gives the poster the impression he or she has "won" the argument, when in reality it's just a question of shrugging one's shoulders and realizing you can't talk to teh obdurate or teh crazy.

I do think the level of nastiness has reached unacceptable heights here of late. I had a poster respond last night with a threat of "tell the bitch to die" and a jury didn't even blink. It stayed. Go figure that one.

But I think the OP is right that this kind of behavior is intended to drive people away, even if it is coming from the general direction of "our side" and not trolls. Loud, brash, and insulting always wins the day over boring analysis.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. or "authoritarian"

[MrMickeysMom]

89. You have pointed out the compliments of the group well...

And, I believe this is why the Democratic Party "system" (if you can call cat herding that) fights among itself so often.

This whole thread is teasing this out, and it's probably a good thing to realize that sometimes, I find it good to argue (not for the sake of arguing, unless it's a RW troll, who is likely short term on this forum), but to make the "alternative view" think or bring them over to what I see Sid referred to as "left wing trolls"…

It's all subjective, now, isn't it? The very people who post consistently and argue consistently are grounded in their own beliefs. I've accused some here of having an ideology because of those arguments. I could be wrong for they could be wrong.

This is the Democratic party, and it needs to work itself out, as evidenced herein.

[OKNancy]

103. I agree. Also I've always wondered if some really want to change opinions

To me, if you want to persuade me to your way of thinking, angry words, invective and insults aren't going to do it.

[MrMickeysMom]

108. Oh YEE-AH?

Who's angry words?!?!?!? (heh-heh…)

[LWolf]

95. No, actually, THIS is fuel to fire of the problem:

The ubiquitous practice of labeling those who disagree with the policies, direction, or personalities of mainstream , neo-liberal Democrats as "the perfect is the enemy of the good crowd;" calling us "politically naive;" suggesting that "left-wingers" are "losers."

It's all a very well-established part of whipping the left into line to vote against left-wing issues, and it fuels the division referred to in the OP.

[madfloridian]

257. Wow, yes! "well-established part of whipping the left into line to vote against left-wing issues"

My late hubby and I were called losers, fringe, purists, enemies...when we were Dean supporters.

It's happening again, only in the context of today's issues.

There is no listening to any disagreement with policies...like dismantling public education, pushing a destructive pipeline, pushing for the TPP with so many unknown dangers.

It's just that if we question or point out how things happened, we are labeled and treated with disrespect.

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. they HATE all Democrats....and will trash any of them if you try to say anything positive about one

yet they are allowed to stay....and here we are about to go into the midterms...a crucial crucial moment to boot.

[freshwest]

317. I have gone on and one about this... I'm sure they hate my guts. IRL, people don't have time for it.

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:15 PM - Edit history (2)

They are running a lot of people off from here, and have been for years. People who want to work on solutions do not come to DU anymore, they are spat upon.

It is because Libertarians and anarchists do not want us to find solutions, they want government to fail. They claim it's for true liberalism or progressivism, but it's the same thing that Rush has said he wanted all along.

It's the results, the end of the process, not the words used to hide it that matter. They never, ever offer any solutions to fix the system that will work. When asked, they move the goal posts to the clearly unachievable and stand their ground and refuse to budge on anything that is less than perfect, as they know it will never be achieved.

Thus furthering their goal to destroy democratic government in favor of temporary anarchy which some know will be followed by a conservative government made up of those they support by attacking democratic processes which they call weak, spineless or sell outs, when they are the ultimate in selling our ideals out.

After a while, as Wellstone said, maybe they don't believe in what they say they believe. Half the quotations they use from old time Democrats, would never employ such nihilistic tactics but we hear them every day here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

333. You are right the end result of both sides of the pendulum are ultimately the same....

destroy the govt to "make it better"....throw out the baby with the bathwater and let the good be the enemy of the perfect. They are honed in on tearing down the Democrats and want to blame them for all the ills of society yet they do seem to ignore the big picture in that there is no magic way to get to their position...and to them that means it is fine to just burn it down to the ground....realists know the wheels of progress turn slowly....

[Kurovski]

356. Things actually happen very quickly when folks mean for them to happen.

A women's right to a safe abortion has vanished in some states. And in two years.

Voter's rights are being dissolved and blocked...overnight

Just look at the trajectory of marriage equality. When people (pols) want things to happen...they make them happen.

Over the years here at DU the trolls who have come and gone have said the same things over and over and over and over.

And repetition of message is one classic way to spot them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

357. I didn't say wheels of "change" I said the wheels of "progress" that is quite the opposite...

and marriage equality didn't happen overnight ...far from it...and women's access to abortion didn't happen overnight either...rarely does progress happen quickly. Tacitly calling me a troll non-withstanding...

[TreasonousBastard]

130. That's pretty much it...

but I'll add that someone should study why any of us get upset about what's said on an anonymous board. There's something about having to have the last word.

I remember Usenet battles that ended up in physical violence and also remember the rising bile that I felt when attacked by a bunch of electrons designed to simply get a rise out of me and others. Once in a while I get pissed around here, but it's easy enough now to just walk away from a nasty thread.

But that's it-- it's only electrons making marks on a screen. I remember meeting some of you, and few of you that I met were that much like your onscreen personas. At the meetups everyone had a great time, no fights, no arguments (at least not nasty ones) and then we left and came back to the usual fights.

We had some meetups in several Usenet groups, too, and the same thing. The really bad actors never showed up and the arguments we had online were suspended while we ate great barbecue and drank good beer.

Compounding everything is whatever is going on in the personal lives of posters. We all read posts and sometimes wonder just what happened to this person to push him or her to this point. Sometimes they tell us, and we might wonder if they have anyone in the own lives to talk to, and sometimes they don't, so we're left to wonder just what caused this concern. And then we see a pile of posts with a strange progression and wonder if there's a drinking or drug problem.

Anonymity is a good thing because we're not confused by appearance or other things. We often don't even know the gender of the poster, much less race, weight, age or anything else that could influence us positively or negatively and we can concentrate on the words alone. But those words, those electrons on the screen, still fail us so often.

[yowzayowzayowza]

139. Concur.

Ideologues of all stripes bleat like self righteous banshees when reality inevitably runs over their dogma.

[Bobbie Jo]

144. Agreed. nt

[steve2470]

198. you nailed it

The perfect is the enemy of the good. I'll take a Blue Dog who votes with we progressive Democrats on things like ACA, versus an asshole Republican who will almost always vote against us. Should purplish and red districts eventually elect more progressive Democrats ? Of course. However, a rural Alabama House district is NOT going to elect a Bernie Sanders any time soon. Just not going to happen. The best we can hope for in rural Alabama or rural Florida is someone like, oh, Mary Landrieu.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

321. When two people use the same language, and express the same point of view

Where exactly am I supposed to notice a difference?

[Cha]

325. Like I said, Nancy.. you stated it well.

[canoeist52]

4. I beleive this tactic is to stifle dissent.

Making the people afraid to share opinions and ideas is an agenda as old as politics. I hope it isn't successful here.

[Sheepshank]

68. Well, I've heard this same sentiment almost daily

actually from both sides of every heated and rehashed debate here on DU. I don't think is a mjor concern, since thousands of posts later everyone is speaking their mind anyway. I certainly don't post here on DU to pad out my "feels good". I do agree that a thicker skin is necessary when posting on a political board.

[SidDithers]

6. Right wing trolls get banned...

"Left wing" trolls live on and on.

Sid

[Whisp]

7. +++

[Cha]

9. BBI finally got it.. I don't know what he was besides..

"Enough is Enough".

[PCIntern]

10. BBI is/was whom?

sorry...

[Cha]

13. That's okay.. Not everybody knows those initials..

Better Believe It.. Back in the day for years..

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

[treestar]

86. It is really very clever

to use the left wing as a means of trolldom. Real left wingers would know they are on the extreme and don't get anywhere by alienating the liberal and moderate Democrats.

Some people genuinely don't like anybody and politics is the means of attempting to live peacefully with others and not agree on everything. Thus they don't like any of their fellow men or any of the people they elect.

[AverageJoe90]

338. Try telling that to the climate doomers and more fanatical "white privilege" theory promoters.....

they STILL don't get it.

[TheKentuckian]

137. So do Centrists trolls, in fact they seem the most persistent variant by many country miles.

[malokvale77]

306. Are "left wingers" now considered trolls here?

I thought this was a Democratic forum.

[phleshdef]

339. Anyone can be shit stirrer, ideology doesn't always indicate who will or won't be.

[malokvale77]

348. I wasn't asking about shit-stirrers

i want to know if left wing liberals are now considered "trolls".

The Democratic Party used to be left wing liberals.

[phleshdef]

349. Troll and shit stirrer are the same thing in my book.

And yes, there are people who are of the left wing liberal persuasion that make posts here trying to stir some shit.

[malokvale77]

350. Get a new book (nt)

[phleshdef]

351. That made absolutely no sense.

[BeyondGeography]

12. What Sid and Nancy said

[Cha]

14. ..

lol

[SidDithers]

15. Well played!...nt

Sid

[OKNancy]

18. LOL! I approve of this post

'cause I'm a sex pistol.

[Hoppy]

16. Most of us share the same values....

Discounting wingers and trolls, the disagreement is how to get to the point where our values are supported in government.

So, do we criticize a "DINO" Democrat? Do we criticize the president when his actions don't support our values?

Does D.U. become Pravda? For the young'uns, Pravda was the C.C.C.P. news organ that knew whatever the polit bureau said was certainly correct and there were no other opinions stated. It was their Fox News.

(For the even younger young'uns, C.C.C.P. were the initials for the name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a.k.a., Soviet Russia or The Russians, called themselves.)

Lets promote a free exchange of ideas even if it contradicts some of the feelings we have about the title, Democrat.

[PCIntern]

19. Uh-huh...

no question. I'm not referring to interchange of ideas - I'm referring to the automatic gainsaying and negating of postings or verbiage utilized therein.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. for some it is all about criticizing all things Democrat it seems...

[Mojorabbit]

164. I disagree. I see a small vocal faction well to the right of most of the board

disrupting threads every day, day in, and day out whenever the least criticism of a policy or politician is made.

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. ahahahahaha...thanks for proving my point...

"well to the right"

My point exactly...anything the slightest degree to the right of Bernie Sanders is described as "well to the right"

Thanks again!

[Mojorabbit]

173. Thanks for yet again putting words into someone's mouth. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

175. didn't have to...I used yours....

no one "well to the right" lasts long in these parts...but thanks for playing...

[Mojorabbit]

177. The op must have hit a nerve considering all your posts in it. Good day. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

178. Mine must have hit yours....you felt it necessary to post that crapola....

but thanks again for proving my point...

[JVS]

17. BRING BACK BLOCK!

Frankly, I prefer the old moderating system and actual rules to the "community standards" based alert-mongering, because the jury system has devolved into an unending king of the mountain type struggle to impose one's own standards on the community or remove offenders from the community. This is extremely disruptive to threads and would be mch improved if the OP had the ability to exercise some level of moderation by excluding those who have a history of disrupting his or her threads.

[loudsue]

64. I agree 100%. If I was able to block the ones that consistently disrupt threads,

and slide/slither in with their very typical right-wing-personality-types of posts, then we could see once and for all who the disruptors are.

One other problem: If you criticize the juries, your post gets disappeared. Funny how that works.

[Kurovski]

358. :"very typical right-wing-personality-types of posts" that's a good way to put it.

Calling "hate" and "haters" was an extreme right-wing ploy we saw throughout the Bush era. Designed to take the discussion to it's lowest right at the start.

Telling people what they feel is another dishonest RePuke technique. Hell, basing a discussion on emotion is the perfect Puke "patter-splatter", facts can be avoided altogether.

[L0oniX]

105. ^^^THIS^^^

Increasing the list of those you choose to blocking from jury duty from 15 to 30 would help ...or enough to block everyone from the BOG and the history of feminism group.

[Catherina]

106. I prefer the jury system but agree about giving us a BLOCK feature

I prefer the jury system but agree about giving us a BLOCK feature to prevent disruptors from maliciously derailing threads.

[bluestate10]

184. So, I write an inflammatory OP then block anyone that disagrees with

it. What a brilliant idea!!

[JVS]

200. So what? It will be pretty obvious to anyone.

Who needs to heed the advice not to feed the trolls when the trolls wire their mouths shut in such a fashion?

[Bobbie Jo]

205. More like....

I can post all manner of misinformation and half-truths, unimpeded.

[cui bono]

222. Most people welcome a good discourse on the issues.

This would allow blocking of those who add nothing but smarmy retorts and smileys. I'm sure you would agree that would be a good thing, who wouldn't?

Besides, there's groups who do that on here. People can go to them if they want unchallenged threads.

[Bobbie Jo]

226. I find the "smarmiest" retorts

to be those of the backhanded variety, don't you?

Funny that you would suggest that some would prefer unchallenged threads in a subthread advocating the practice of blocking members from their own.

Blocking capability already exists, it's called "ignore."

[cui bono]

247. No, I don't agree with that.

Do you not agree with what I said about smarmy retorts and smileys? Do you think those add to the discussion? You expressed concern that dissenting opinions would be blocked so I expressed my thoughts that mostly it would just be posts of only smarmy retorts and smileys that are blocked. Most of the people on here actually do like to have a good discourse.

As to using ignore instead, I believe that is dangerous. It doesn't block, it just hides. So whatever is said is there to be seen by most, and if everyone who disagrees with it "ignores" it it stands unchallenged. That is never a good thing. Even if it's a position one agrees with. Every idea should be challenged. If it's a good one it can only get better from it.

[Bobbie Jo]

258. Smarmy is in the eye of the beholder.

Personally, I find retorts laden with a self-righteous, holier than thou layer of arrogance do absolutely nothing to further the discussion, beyond giving the member a certain sense of superiority.

To suggest that those who might disagree aren't engaging in, don't care for, or aren't capable of "good discourse," is about as smarmy as it gets.

[cui bono]

264. So would you like the ability to block those posts? You would be able to.

I think blocking post by post is better than blocking a user from a thread. Then your concern about blocking opposing viewpoints is lessened. And one should have to ability to alert abuse of blocking if they think they are being unfairly blocked. Does that make it seem more fair to you?

"To suggest that those who might disagree with aren't engaging in, don't care for, or aren't capable of "good discourse," is about as smarmy as it gets."

Where did I say they aren't capable of good discourse? I looked at my posts in this exchange and didn't see it.

But there are many posts that have no reference to the issue being discussed. They are just smarmy retorts and smileys. That is just a fact. If people post those it is clear they "aren't engaging" in good discourse, the post speaks for itself. And if they choose to make those empty posts then it's fair to assume they "don't care for" good discourse. No one is forcing them to post those types of posts. Well, someone could be but it's highly unlikely.

[Cha]

294. Girl, you nailed that. the holier than thou self righteousness is

fucking swarm personified. But, "giving the member a certain sense of superiority".. yeah, in their head.

[KauaiK]

315. Agree with JVS k/r

[KharmaTrain]

20. FWIW...

...I don't see right wing or left wing trolls...just a bunch of people who have let this website turn into a clubhouse. So one of the cool kids posts something to get attention and pro or con this place will take any issue and turn it into a massive blow out. Seems like it's a daily feature around here now...from Sports Illuistrated covers to ECigs and petulant rants, this place seems to thrive on drama and cliques. I'm certain once this latest game is finished another will follow...more outrage and if you aren't outraged then that's outrageous!

I have always felt one's private life doesn't belong here...that's why we use screen names and suposssedly can speak out freely, but that's not how DU seems to work anymore. But then I'm not one of the cool kids here...and honestly don't really feel a part of this site anymore. It's sad...DU used to be a great resource, now it's a distraction...and much of the damage here is not from trolls but self-induced...

[randome]

27. I'm with you.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

39. Hey I think you're cool, KharmaTrain.

".. So one of the cool kids posts something to get attention and pro or con this place will take any issue and turn it into a massive blow out. Seems like it's a daily feature around here now...from Sports Illuistrated covers to ECigs and petulant rants, this place seems to thrive on drama and cliques. I'm certain once this latest game is finished another will follow...more outrage and if you aren't outraged then that's outrageous!.."

Well done.

[treestar]

88. I agree that private things

are not really fair. We were supposed to go "aww, poor Will, now we changed our mind and Obama is a bastard."

Why do people expect a Democratic board to jump on that bandwagon? Is their goal to have a board named Democratic Underground be something the Republicans can point to and say see? The Democrats have no support. That helps them with the soft middle and the ones who don't care enough to vote in midterms.

[hunter]

146. What? "One's private life doesn't belong here?"

Seriously???

As an adult I'll decide how much of my private life I choose to expose here.

I don't give a fig if anyone else thinks I'm being too anonymous or venturing into that uncomfortable TMI zone.

It's my choice, and often personal stories are the best illustration of what's wrong with our political system and our society.

[KharmaTrain]

195. Knock Yourself Out...

...yes, it is your choice to put up whatever you want to on here. It's also the choice of others to take that personal info and use it against you; including a couple of websites that are constantly monitoring this site. There's the sad story of Andy Stevenson that us older DUers remember all too well. There are members here who've had their private lives invaded by goons who have nothing better to do than troll this place and run over to their little shithole of a website and post even more personal info that has cause members here lots of grief. So, sure...put all you want to about your life out here and then don't be surprised if it's picked up and twisted around.

You also aptly demonstrate how anything on this site can and is used to start a fight. Let the poutrage drip...

[hunter]

239. ???

I'm not trying to start any fights.

And I'm not going to pay much attention to the masturbating shit flinging monkeys on other websites either.

I was bullied as a kid. I'm not going to bullied as an adult.

What are you trying to say to me? That I should censor myself for fear of stirring up shit on another site? That's not going to happen. I don't even censor myself in the "real world" (which has, admittedly caused me some real problems.) I certainly don't censor myself here on DU. I own all the shit I've posted here the last twelve years; the good, the bad, the crazy, and the ugly.

I'm so thick-headed-and-cock-sure of myself I'm certain nobody has ever accused me of "poutrage."

Look, if you have personal information to protect because you are not living in a position of security, please protect that information. This is the internet, word gets around. It's also civil behavior to protect the personal information of others to the extent they want that information protected.

I saw Pitt's post and moved on. I have a white hot hatred of the health insurance industry, would like to see a national health plan, I'm certain plenty of people with multi-million dollar salaries should be in prison for screwing people over when they are sick and injured, but I'm decades past my first bad experience with health insurers and medical debt collectors, so far into the hole with no credit rating that I can't even manage the outrage to tell anyone to "fuck off."

Fighting with health insurance companies is just another kind of shitty day in my life.

[KharmaTrain]

256. A Matter Of Style...

...you're proving my point on how things go from zero to anger in a one post (one that was an observation) and some kind of personal attack (of which it isn't). I didn't say what you could or couldn't post or to "bully". Far from it. My intention was to point out how personal posts can be picked up and abused by others. In Andy Stevenson's case, many here believe it ended up costing him him precious time and treatment. Others have had their names, addresses and phone numbers exposed, employers called and other forms of harassment. If people here want to expose their lives that is their right but it also comes with risks and consequences.

As far as Pitt's poutrage (which is what I saw it to be)...there were other ways he could have put out his frustrations or asked for help. Instead it was an attention getting rant that could have been presented a different way without calling the President names. Many of us have had health and insurance problems...and I'm extremely sympathetic to anyone who has a loved one who faces illness and other health problems as I've had to deal with them in my real life. There are plenty of helpful and resourceful people here and, in the end, it appears he was able to resolve the problem using some of that assistance. What's followed around it is a lot of egos that seem to relish in the shit stirring that is way to common here. I used to be able to visit this site and get information about upcoming elections and networking. Not any more...it's become its own insular world that seems to be more detached every time I look in.

Here's hoping you're able to resolve your insurance company issues. I've had to endure plenty of mine over the years and am in the process of helping a loved one in trying to deal with a devastating illness; navigating through this byzantine new system, but it's better than what she had previously: nothing. The ACA is not a cure-all for everyone's health matters...it's a start...and to fight about it rather than work with what's there and improve it risks losing what progress has been made. It won't be improved by screaming on a website, it will be by working in getting better Democrats elected who can push for greater reforms and hopefully into a single payer system...

[marions ghost]

223. The personal stories

--esp how political decisions affect people--this is an important aspect of DU.

"They are best illustration of what's wrong with our political system and our society." Could not agree more. GD is the place for them. There's lots of other straight news to be found on DU.

Because this format is effective, disrupters are a fact of life.

[steve2470]

199. you're a good guy KharmaTrain

Your posts and PM's about NPR are invaluable.

[KharmaTrain]

203. Thank You Steve...

...I've always enjoyed DU when it is serves as a place to exchange ideas about building a better party and country. Since it's gone Meta it's become about some people and groups on DU and not about the world outside. That's not my thing and a major reason I've taken long DU vacations and will probably continue to do so...

[steve2470]

204. Skinner has more patience than I do

Maybe we can go back to Meta but very heavily moderated. Maybe I'm dreaming. At least it would get all meta type stuff out of GD.

[malokvale77]

312. That pretty much sums up my thoughts

Heaven forbid one would want to have a discussion on this forum. It will always be derailed with silly innuendos.

DU can still be a great resource, it's just a matter of picking through the fluff and garbage. That can be quite exhausting.

[brush]

332. So true — self-induced by the "cool kid" ranters. nt

[monmouth3]

21. You are correct again PC. Many of us don't post much anymore..n/t

[canoeist52]

29. And this is the agenda - intimidation leads to self censure.

And so the quality and diversity of information and ideas and declines.

[Glitterati]

22. You're exactly right, PCIntern

the behavior is quite clear. Instead of addressing the poster's points, these people rape the comment, accuse the poster of offending their American Idol and ignore the entire intent of the poster.

They stomp their feet, wave their pom poms and run around alerting like it is their weekly vote for their Idol. The gang behavior is pretty astonishing.

It has turned DU into a very unpleasant place - a mirror of freeperville.

[TBF]

23. This is a good post -

because I think you've hit something very important. There are certain very wealthy people who have an interest in keeping the status quo. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the disruption we see is from PR firms hired to do just that. And I would argue that we don't even come close to PPRing as many of them as we should - I see them posting crap every day to stir up GD as opposed to actually addressing issues.

The interesting thing, though, is that people have used this thread to bash leftists. I'm not sure what you all get out of that. We are the ones who work on the campaigns, at least try to protest in the streets to advance us (hello Occupy - the first incarnation did ok & they will come back stronger and more experienced), and are not willing to bend to the status quo no matter who is talking. We are not praising TPP - which will cut our access to the Internet and take away more jobs. We are the ones who will actually talk about pushing back in a way that goes beyond sending a tweet.

Socialists are not exactly on the same page with you. We hate capitalism. We don't want a kindler gentler version. We want it replaced with an economic system that is people-friendly and not just focused on crumbs we can shake out of the billionaires. If you think we are "politically naive" I urge you to do searches on the Haymarket Affair and the Palmer Raids. We are willing to do what it takes to enact change.

[OKNancy]

111. I do think that it is naive, or maybe I should have said unrealistic. You know that I respect you

and consider you a friend. It is my opinion that as of now, we must work within the system.
It's better for Wendy Davis to win in Texas even though she probably is very much a capitalist.

You hate capitalism, but that is what we have and it's what we have to work with.

[TBF]

118. Yes - we are a good example

of a democrat and socialist working together. I definitely consider you my comrade and sister (that's a compliment!).

I'm willing to work within the system as long as it's still standing ... but I'm also going to go the extra step and give it a little push if I have a chance.

[OKNancy]

123. Good. We need fighters like you

I wish for the same things you do.

I had a Republican friend. She worked for me actually, but I considered her a friend and she was a damn good ballet teacher.
We got into it a little about gay equality. I told her, "liberal ideas always win in the end, so what we are arguing about now is just how long it will take" LOL - that was 5 years ago. I was right!

[Earth_First]

24. Honestly, it's mostly a General Discussion problem...

This isn't happening in the sub forums.

[In_The_Wind]

35. That's true most of the time.

[Whisp]

100. I think closing META so suddenly may be part of the creation of the GD mud pit.

Meta gave people a certain kind of freedom of expression that wasn't allowed on DU previously - but most of that was wasted on personal attacks and vendettas. I'm not being holier than thou on this because I was a small part of that as well. When Meta suddenly snapped shut without warning, all that freedom to express your rage had to leak out somewhere, so it leaked into GD.

But, saying that, moderators from the older DUs say it's always been nasty here but we didn't see it because it was behind the curtains.

[lillypaddle]

26. It's true

I hardly post any more, unless it's to say "K&R" or "sorry for your loss," or some such. I can be relatively combative myself, but there is some real nastiness going on that I don't even want to deal with. Frankly, just these last few days have been rather shocking, and that isn't an exaggeration. I intend to hang in here, hoping it will pass. It's a little embarrassing, though, for a democratic posting forum. I've stopped linking to DU or encouraging others to stop in.

[JNelson6563]

32. Wow, same here!

I never cite DU by name, merely "a forum I frequent". I now go to Kos for more grown up discussion AND am not embarrassed to recommend it to others.

Julie

[Divernan]

44. Me too. I google for another link to a story/info cited in DU, and cite that on FB.

A fair number of my FB friends would be shocked/offended by the nasty posts/crude insults and language on DU and would associate that with me. No thanks.

[JNelson6563]

31. Yep, I agree.

DU has become incredibly small and insular.

Julie

[reddread]

33. consider who is more motivated to be here

hard core "liberals", "progressives" "activists" "Democrats"
or conservative elements, motivated by chicanery and/or a deep seated desire to
steer the debate, derail discussion, demonize the left?
I think the answer is pretty obvious, and the response needs to be
indefatigable resistance and absolute solidarity among peace and justice minded Democratic voters.
Most of the conservative trolls need to be ignored, some need to be hammered.
others delivered in 30 minutes or less.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. The obvious answer is 'hard core "liberals", "progressives" "activists" "Democrats"'

are more motivated to be here.

So, having answered your question, what's the rest of you post about? Why does that need a response of "indefatigable resistance and absolute solidarity among peace and justice minded Democratic voters"?

[reddread]

50. no trolls under the bridge?

I think you gave the wrong answer.
Maybe you know a different breed of online conservative.
If I need to spell out the difference between peace and justice minded policies
and interventionist corporatist theft, profit minded, taxpayer funded, mortal tragedies,
which play out over and over,
maybe I just wont waste my time.
In my world, liberals and compassionate activists dont waste their time arguing with conservatives online.
Yet, conservatives have little else to do but jerk chains and further their agendas any way they can.
conservatives abound here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. You asked who's more motivated

The answer is people who enjoy being here, who get to have proper conversations with each other, exchange ideas, and be pleasant to each other, ie progressives. Normal human nature is to want to spend more time being happy than angry.

Do you think you're more motivated to go to right wing sites and troll there? Do you spend more time trying to disrupt a conservative conversation? I very much doubt it. As you say yourself, " liberals and compassionate activists dont waste their time arguing with conservatives online". The same goes for them - they're more motivated to post on sites like Free Republic, where people agree with them, and they can be themselves. There are a few people who enjoy trolling as a way of life, but they're outnumbered by people who want people to say 'I agree' to an idea they genuinely hold.

[reddread]

55. I thought I was trolling a right wing site? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Damn, the instructions must have got mixed up again (nt)

[reddread]

63. theyre pretty clear, actually

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4560097

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. As a punchline, that's a bit of a failure (nt)

[reddread]

92. as a joke its not funny

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. You were serious in #55? (nt)

[loudsue]

80. I think the response to your post showed exactly what the OP was talking about.

The ones who want to diss the liberals show up everywhere. Some of them have been around for years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. I'm not dissing liberals; I'm saying that we liberals are more motivated to post on DU

than conservative trolls are. There are a lot more of us than trolls, and we post more.

I'm saying the vast majority of us here are genuine liberals. I'm saying the site is more united than the OP claims.

[CJCRANE]

58. Not necessarily. The RW mantra is "perception is reality"

and they spend all their time trying to create the perception they want.

That's why RWers buy up TV and radio stations, newspapers and thinktanks. That's why they fan out onto the political talk shows. That's why they repeat the same things over and over.

Perception is everything to them because they don't have the facts or the moral high ground on their side.

So, of course, there are closet conservatives here on DU, it's obvious and we've seen a few examples of long-term DUers who fit the bill such as dkf, BBI etc.

It's human nature for some people to go to the place where their rivals are to engage them and try to knock down their ideas. There have been closet liberals who go to FR who go there to stir things up.

This has been an issue since DU started and why traditionally DUers used to be harsh to newbies, because we've had plenty of experience of RWers coming here and trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. But there aren't very many of them

The apparent politics of dkf and BBI were quite different. dkf was always on the right wing side of an argument; BBI was a great defender of the Chinese government - not classically left wing any more, but not the normal 'right wing' in American politics either.

DUers still are harsh to newbies. But this argument is about people who've been here a long time. The fight about ACA coverage is basically between people who think it's a good law, because Congress wouldn't have passed a better one, and those who think the US needs a public option, single payer, a national health service etc. and that the ACA was giving in to the health corporations. I don't see where the 'closet conservatives' are.

[CJCRANE]

65. Another tactic is the "all or nothing" approach

which might apply in the ACA debate. I won't go into that here because that's been hashed out.

The basic idea of "all or nothing" is a kind of wearing down of any policy that doesn't deliver 100% of what everybody wants or needs. For example, why put a health warning on cigarettes? It won't solve the problem of smoking, it won't stop everyone from smoking. So there's little point in doing it.

Using the "all or nothing" approach is a way to block incremental change. It superficially makes sense because you focus on the downsides without acknowledging that doing nothing is worse.

[VanillaRhapsody]

121. You know those things aren't mutually exclusive right?

If you support the Affordable Care Act (please get used to using the proper name...we need them to hear Affordable) can also hope for Single Payer, National Health Service, Public Option in the future....but if you DO support the Affordable Care Act...you are accused of NOT wanting a Single Payer, Public Option or National Health Service...when quite the opposite is true. To me it is a fight between idealists and realists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

166. That's why I said "because Congress wouldn't have passed a better one"

that's the realist point of view; and yes, I agree the others are idealists, because they want the ideal solution right now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. and it won't happen before the midterms...

sometimes you have to play defense...and history has shown in the Midterms...THEY have control of the ball.

[notadmblnd]

34. I haven't stopped posting, but I have stopped posting OPs

Not that I posted that many anyway. I ignore much of - I guess I would call it noise from those whose only contribution is rage. Personally, I don't know where some of these people find the time to patrol posts and rant about their perceived offenses they find there.

[Divernan]

38. Most likely they are paid a bonus to be 1st to negatively reply & thereby derail an OP

I don't think it's a question of "finding time". I think they are working shifts.

I have often noticed that a thoughtful, fact filled OP which includes a direct or even implied critique of the current administration's policies or actions, is replied to immediately (a minute or two) with an enraged attack which completely fails to refute any facts or otherwise engage in debate on the primary substance of the OP. That response is typically insulting enough to provoke a response from the OP or move others to defend the OP, and bob's-your-uncle, the whole thread is derailed.

I truly wish someone would do an expose of the paid troll profession. Not just on DU and not even just on political websites, but also on newspaper's websites, and sites like Urban Spoon, where it appears that competing restaurants post as disgruntled customers. Are they paid by the word? By the number of posts? Bonuses for immediate responses? Number of views? How does the technology work? NSA level sophistication scanning for key words?

It's actually a tribute to the influence of DU in its earlier years that it has attracted the number of disruptors which we currently see. I do miss the passionate, yet civil, thoughtful and nuanced discussions of the earlier years.

[Glitterati]

48. Yep, the Gang of Bullies

I still want to know if they have cheerleading uniforms with short skirts and all.

[treestar]

91. Why would supporting Democrats feel like you are being bullied?

Why would anyone pay to get Democrats onto this board? Seems more likely to pay those trying to undermine the Democrats. The right wing is more zealous and likely to do such things.

This is Democratic Underground. "Cheerleaders" are to be expected, but people who find nothing to praise in any Democrat are not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

124. ^^^This^^^

[TheKentuckian]

161. Because you are doing no such thing regardless of intent.

What you are doing is alienating Democrats by shoving corporate enabling policies, austerity, declining wages, militarism for resource control, and making a mockery of essential civil liberties down our throat as the only functional answer to the theocratic laissez faire absurdity of the TeaPubliKlans under the guise of supporting Democratic politicians.

You aren't building our brand but rather eroding credibility and choking hope. There are ever too many reasons to even try and no fights worth having unless it brings an immediate win. No use even presenting an argument that isn't at least near, if not past consensus. Just cede the broad arguments and try to make some difference smoothing the roughest edges.

And the love for lack of accountability for all politicians is the worst advertising for responsibility and responsive government possible. The notion is preposterous, by definition actually building trust and being responsible are off the menu for those with the actual power and authority under the law when you go that way save by their own volition.

[reddread]

187. see, this is why i cant put them all on ignore

because i would miss perfectly formed intelligent statements like this, and feel even more isolated by the self generated tidal wave of yammering conservatives.

[grasswire]

210. excellent analysis. nt

[cui bono]

225. +1,000,000

Well said.

The OP says RW posters I guess, but to me it's RW tactics and mindset that has made DU almost unbearable. But like the OP said, that's what they want so they can have the floor uninterrupted and move the party farther right. Maybe it is RW posters then.

[Catherina]

230. +1 n/t

[City Lights]

237. Well said!

[treestar]

282. Nice word salad

No one is being bullied (starting to misuse that word to mean "disagree&quot by supporting Democrats and thinking they are the best alternative. We live in the actual real world with an actual federal and state government and "corporate enabling policies" seem to be something most voters aren't scared of.

By all means don't vote for the Democrats. Vote for the Greens or the Socialists. They won't end up in power to shove anything down your throat. You only have one vote and the "corporatists" are going to tire of begging you for it when they can get so many votes from others.

Everyday we get things "shoved down our throat." This is called living with other people. We don't get all we want, only what a majority wants, defined as doable or not by the courts interpreting the Constitution.

Even if you get a Socialist representative in Congress, what's he/she going to do, yell at the other 437 for not being pure? Call them corporatists? You expect the Democratic party to cater to you in some way that a majority of Democrats aren't OK with.

[TheKentuckian]

288. Absolutely indicative of my point! Thanks for clarifying that what you are doing is intentional

That is refreshingly forthright even if I am left with no positive explanation for the tactics employed in light of this response.

[phleshdef]

340. That wasn't what he was saying at all and you know it.

He is saying that, on a day to day legislative level, we have to deal with the political realities on that day, get what we can and be optimistic about getting more in the future. FDR couldn't pass healthcare, he wanted to, but couldn't. But he did manage to pass Social Security, which was a very small program at the time. That's what we did back then, we dealt with the political realities of the day (which honestly were a whole lot more in favor for us back then) and moved on. Eventually Johnson managed to pass Medicare and Medicaid. And all of those programs were expanded/changed/improved throughout the years.

After the 1980s, America took a big dive into capitalist worship. And that's just the nature of things now. We don't have the same America we had back then. So yea, until we can find a way to dismantle the cultural change towards those sorts of things, we have to work with it and around it. That doesn't mean we stop looking for a way to better out of this cultural situation. But it does mean we have to make the best of the bullshit mindset the country has been in, and make progress where we can.

[TheKentuckian]

344. That isn't what they said, if you feel that is what they meant that is your option to flesh it out

with such an understanding, I do not so elect nor am I responsible to nor am I seeing what the basis of such an interpretation is when the poster is clearly telling voters they do not want their votes and essentially to fuck off if you don't want what is given.

I think you are over extending your account on how much evolution applies to legislation yourself. Social Security has been less inclusive of fields and has been less comprehensive but at It's core program worked the same way it does now, at no point was it a mandatory private for profit system that slowly turned into what it was now. It was added to yes, eligible occupation has been opened up, sure but this pretense these programs just become something other than what they start out is not very strongly supported, and to be taken as more platitude to inspire hope and beg for patience than fact.

They said what they said, your interpretation requires a lot more fleshing out and words unsaid than mine and I tend to think simpler is better.

As for your argument that you'd stead for their's.

Yes Social Security and Medicaid have changed and become more comprehensive with time, no neither has evolved into a structurally distinct program than they began. Sure as hell neither were private, for profit systems that became public systems that is a con job that proves once again that a small kernel of truth stretched enough becomes a big ass lie.

Hell, I bet you'd scream bloody murder if someone dare outline an evolution that actually reflects the structure and nature of the law that makes it work to enshrine the insurance cartel as the for profit gatekeeper and cost increasingly shared with consumers.

Hell, some get puffy about CBO projections being a more likely projection than their statements of faith. Hell, the reality is subsidies will have diminishing impact and will have to be addressed and a fight to be avoided.

There are a shit load of moving parts and a lot are a hodgepodge of things not designed to work in concert, I do not think the comparisons to other efforts are particularly good or accurate even if fair marketing.

[malokvale77]

314. Beautiful (nt)

[okaawhatever]

335. Agreed +10,000 nt

[lillypaddle]

151. Several of your responses in this thread

have referred to cheerleading (up thread, "those waving pom-poms around&quot . Seems to me the only ones called cheerleaders at DU are those who mostly line up behind President Obama. These seem like obvious digs, and might be construed as trying to get a rise out of some people here. "short skirts and all," is pretty demeaning. Just an observation.

[Glitterati]

245. Here's what's demeaning

A gang of cheerleaders who run around this community screaming "ODS ODS" at anything THEY decide is derogatory to Obama.

That belittles the entire community.

[lumpy]

254. You do a better job at belittling fellow Dems by posting derogatory but silly accusations against

them by calling them cheerleaders, pom pom wavers as though the only thing they are interested in is worshiping Obama. Don't you realize by deriding us you are not working in the interests of the Democratic party and contributing only negativity to it's members?

[lillypaddle]

297. I think that's what

s/he is meaning to accomplish. Divided we fall ...

[lillypaddle]

296. Now there is a mature

post. PC's OP is all about you.

[lumpy]

248. Agree. It is not right to accuse (deride) Obama supporters of idolizing Obama: pom pom wavers,

cheer leaders etc. It is not only demeaning but a try to indicate that those supporting Obama are clueless and thoughtless automatons. Why would they want to deride fellow Democrats? In my opinion these 'pom pom' people do it get response to their posts. Maybe they have little else to contribute.

[okaawhatever]

336. ^^^^^^^What she said^^^^^^^^

[MineralMan]

60. I haven't seen anyone I think is being paid to post on DU.

Maybe I've missed them, somehow. So, who are these paid trolls you mention?

[Divernan]

66. Jeremiah 5:21

[MineralMan]

71. OK, here it is:

21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

King James Version.

So, how do you suppose that answers my question? It does not, and if you read on in that chapter of Jeremiah, it makes even less sense.

If you don't have an answer to my question, why just post an irrelevant Bible verse?

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. I think there was a DUer that went by that screen-name. eom

[MineralMan]

128. That could well be. I don't remember, though.

I always have a problem when someone just cites some Bible verse as an argument, and doesn't even bother to copy and paste the actual content of that verse. Of course, I can look it up almost instantly, but it's a weak argument to just post a citation.

In this case, it had nothing to do with my question or comment.

[woo me with science]

73. Very well said.

Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Liberal discussion and 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.

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

Online Propaganda - Invisible Tool of Secret Government
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024689867
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

The influx will continue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4216987

[treestar]

94. You find it natural for Democrats to want to criticize first?

Their own elected politicians?

Maybe you are just negative. The criticism here is not well thought out.

And we should not expect constant criticism on "Democratic Underground." Some people think it's unfair that anyone pushes back at their constant criticism!

And positive posts are attacked too!

[TheKentuckian]

268. Of course! How is anyone going to bring around or if need be break the opposition when our own house

is divided with some folks as deeply devoted to what we are fighting as those openly in opposition.

If you are so focused on the opposition that you become a version of them in the process then only losing is possible no matter how many contests are won because selling out and internal rot have been allowed to rule the day.

[Catherina]

115. The only solution I see is to allow OPs to block certain people from their threads

Intelligent disagreement is one thing but we rarely have that anymore. Instead any post that doesn't fall in line with the status quo is immediately derailed with childish , vicious insinuations, blue link spam that has nothing to do with the OP, moronic posts from people whose main contributions to DU are childish snark and things degenerate from there.

It's made DU a much less thoughtful place.

[cui bono]

227. Sing it sister!

That is the absolute truth.

[notadmblnd]

240. I agree, it's got to be what they do professionally

because if patrolling OPs is not what they do professionally- then their real lives must really be pathetic.

[Andy823]

51. I feel the same way

I still post, but not very much. It seems like the trouble makers, trolls or angry posters out number those who actually want to discuss things. I agree with others here who have stated that some of those who cause the most problems seem to have been here for some time. It also seems like those who complain the most get a large number of recs for their fans, which in turn seems to encourage others to make the same kind of posts so they too can stack up the recs.

Like you I often wonder how some of these posters can rack up so many posts in one day. It's seems like they have to be sitting in front of their computer all day long doing nothing but posting here on DU. I also have a hard time with those who only seem to post negative things, never positive things. Those who run around with their hair on fire every time some "rumor" pops up stirring the fires of anger. Why they can't wait till the "rumor" can be proved one way or the other, but instead rant and rave day after day is beyond me, especially when said "rumor" turns out to be pure BS.

[Bobbie Jo]

179. Exactly. Couldn't agree more. nt

[jwirr]

40. I think I and several other posters were in the middle of one of these troll arguements several

days ago. The troll did not care what we had to say - he/she was right and if we did not all agree with them they started calling us names. The troll even threatened one of us.

The problem is knowing if this is the problem or if it is just a difference of opinion. I honestly do not know how to stop it without making the mistake of casting real Democrats from the site.

[CJCRANE]

62. I see it as three categories: discussion, debate and argument.

Those who want to discuss something might pose a question and ask for advice or feedback. They are generally respectful and here to exchange information and ideas.

The ones who want to debate might have a position that they support and want to persuade others using facts or logic.

Then there are people who just want to argue. The actual issue or facts are unimportant. They dance around the subject, go off at tangents, make it personal etc. etc. all in an attempt to derail the discussion and belittle the other person.

[jwirr]

74. Good description of what we have here on DU. Thank you.

[CJCRANE]

76. Although sometimes it takes self control to stop a debate from turning into an argument!

I've had a few times when I was annoyed by a reply but stopped myself from making it personal and managed to end the exchange on a positive note.

[Catherina]

116. +1. I think allowing posters to BLOCK their disruptors would take care of the worst one, #3 n/t

[Auntie Bush]

148. Hits nail on head!

[William Seger]

153. Bullshit!

N/m, just being argumentative.

[Javaman]

43. Meh. "Trash this thread" is your friend. don't feed the trolls. nt

[RC]

45. You are correct. Look at some of those that are disagreeing with you here already.

Then there are a couple of groups that are nothing more than a swarm of arrogant bullies, that go after anyone that does not toe their impaired outlook on life, when they try to impose their Safe Haven group SOP on the rest of DU.



3... 2... 1... for someone to show up to deny the obvious.

[Glitterati]

47. They'll be here soon

Just as soon as the jury results on their alert allow your post to remain.

Not to worry. The swarm will show up soon.

[RC]

190. It's the weekend

We will probably have to wait till Monday.

[Tunkamerica]

46. I have to blame the changes in membership...

I used to be here every night, now it's once a week at best.

That said, morons (troll has too much implied intelligence) have always been a factor.

[GreenPartyVoter]

188. Something has definitely changed. It's not nearly as much fun as

when it all first started. Granted we were all hating on the GWB regime, so that helped. But I think there is more to it than just a switch over to a Democratic presidency. Changes to the set up of the forum may have contributed somewhat as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

49. No, I think those of us who use the word "etc." deserve what we get

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024675812#post35

Not to mention the sick and twisted use of metaphores:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4620332

etc. and so forth.

[neverforget]

77. they were upset at the use of

etc. ?

[CFLDem]

85. My favorite was when the HoF crowd

raised a stink about me saying my wife was a 'keeper'.

It's one thing to be outraged due to cultural misunderstandings, but certain members are so soaked in their moral indignation that they can't tolerate a common unbiased phrase.

TLDR: Teh stupid, it hurts.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. The problem is that we have people on this board who

represent a broad spectrum on the political scale We're not lock-step and anyone who asserts we should be is on the wrong board. There are members who are jolly good with things like the XL-pipeline and the TPP and there are members who are diametrically opposed. There are members that are somewhere in between. Frankly, I don't WANT to post to an echo chamber. It's boring and it doesn't stimulate my brain.

You mention that you are "forced to defend yourself." Well, you're really not. Not after a certain point, anyway. Yes, threads get hijacked on minutiae but people aren't required to engage or at least not to the extent that it's more than one or two back-and-forth exchanges. When it gets to the point where it's, "You're wrong," "No, you're wrong" it's time to just move on. I've seen these go on for 40 and 50 posts and it's just round and round and nobody's mind is changed. HOWEVER, there have also been some of these extended back-and-forth exchanges in which the parties are actually providing real information, with REAL links (not links to nowhere) that end up educating us.

Finally, if you don't want negative backlash, I suggest you don't throw it out there. "I (eagerly) await the expected and occasionally somewhat-contrived backlash . . ." isn't exactly inviting a Kum-Ba-Ya moment. Know what I mean?

LTH

[Agschmid]

101. +1

Frankly, I don't WANT to post to an echo chamber. It's boring and it doesn't stimulate my brain.

Though I guess I did just agree lock-step!

[Le Taz Hot]

107. BUT, if I said something with which you disagree

I would expect you to offer a rebuttal. That's not lock-step. Sometimes you're in sync with people's opinions and sometimes you're not. That's just a natural flow kinda thing.

[Agschmid]

117. True...

And if you have seen me around, you know I would offer that rebuttal!

[cui bono]

228. Agree about having disagreement. But disagree that that's the problem.

I think the problem is that there is a faction who doesn't like disagreement with what they think should be. Problem is they won't argue the issues as what they think should be is whatever a certain person does or says. So if one ever criticizes said person they are met not with a disagreement, but simple retorts and name calling.

[Rex]

263. This is just a variation of fried_eggs thread. Seems a lot of people here

hate Wills guts. Had no idea how many until now. The authoritarians sure do love this OP, funny that. They seem to love any thread that revolves around hating on others. Like moths to a flame.

[rock]

56. I have practically no problem with them

It's simply a matter of keeping your priorities straight. They depend almost entirely on you confusing them.

[MineralMan]

59. Who are these long-term DUers who are right-wingers?

I don't think I really can recognize anyone here who fits that category. Your post is pretty open-ended and vague, which doesn't seem to me to be likely to stir up anything but disputes. Sorry, but I can't go a long with you on this.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[Nye Bevan]

114. I've been accused of being a troll for being pro-free trade (as Obama is)

and favoring the Citizens United decision (as the ACLU does). But I have always been open about these opinions so I guess at least I am not "invidious".

[MineralMan]

126. Accusations of trollery are pretty common on DU.

They seem to arise whenever someone doesn't completely agree with some other person on DU.

Personally, I simply ignore them and continue on my way, after looking to see if there might be some validity in what someone says.

I understand your situation very well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. anyone who doesn't agree with the far left are considered rightwingers...LOL

or Authoritarian....LOL!

[MineralMan]

132. Really? How silly.

The Democratic Party, in order to win elections, has to include people with a wide range of ideas. This is Democratic Underground. Such accusations of trollery are way out of place here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. Agreed....in the run up to a Midterm election no less!

it should not be allowed.

[MineralMan]

138. I'm no arbiter of what should or shouldn't be allowed,

nor would I take such a position. This is not my website. I am currently on MIRT, but all we do there is keep serious malicious intruders off the site. That's a big job, I am discovering, and some of the worst offenders come back many times a day. Without MIRT, the site would be overrun with horrible people.

But other DUers? I'm content to disagree with the ones I disagree with. I can write a post and explain my disagreement. That's how politics works.

Make no mistake: I've been called a troll here, too. I'm not, but I've been called one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. Yes but this Bash everything Democrat except Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

is not conducive to winning the Midterms...this Bash the Affordable Care Act crowd are not helping us keep the Republicans from reversing all the progress that has been made. This "the good is the enemy of the perfect" crowd are not making us look like "winners" which is NECESSARY to win over the mushy middle who are low information and vote for the party that looks like it will win. What we are doing is acting like losers instead.....by bashing EVERYTHING Democrats do and every single Democrat except for the two previously mentioned (and they both voted for the Affordable Care Act no less). They bash Hillary Clinton they bash Nancy Pelosi....they bash EVERYTHING about the Democratic party....Just like the Teabaggers do to the Republicans....(and we see how that is working out for them...). If we want to not only hold the Senate....but win back the House....WE have to look like the Winners....not the Losers...and the circular firing squad is a losing position.

[MineralMan]

145. I agree with you on all of your points.

When such bashing occurs, I participate in the discussion, trying to be civil about it. As I said, the Democratic Party includes a wide range of political positions. No single faction represents the Democratic Party, nor should it. State-by-state, candidates who run as Democrats also include a wide range of positions. Each state will elect a candidate that seems suitable by the voters in that state. I might disagree with a Democrat from Missouri on a number of issues, but I don't live in that state, and have no voice in that election.

If that candidate gets elected and votes with the Democratic caucus on a large majority of issues, then I'm very glad of that. In my own districts, progressives win. In other districts they would lose.

The Democratic Party is not uniform in any way.

[VanillaRhapsody]

150. Agreed...and the bashing of everything to the slightest degree right of Bernie Sanders...

who many seem to forget is a Socialist not a Democrat (not that there is anything wrong with that) are Rightwingers or Authoritarian Trolls etc. (which is nearly the entire Democratic party...not just the Blue Dogs who actually do vote with Republicans). This means that almost the entire Democratic party and everyone who supports (and works to elect them) are CONSTANTLY being trashed....even on a DEMOCRATIC forum. How is that appropriate?

The problem is between realists and idealists...

realists do not let the good be the enemy of the perfect. And if we are going to win the Midterms...we are going to HAVE to become realists. We have some very real progress that has been made to defend! and WE are weak in midterms...they are the bane of our existence.

[Auntie Bush]

154. +1,000,000 x 100

Well said! Many times I'd like to say something positive about Hillary...but I don't DARE!

[VanillaRhapsody]

165. and THAT proves the problem...

people are afraid to speak about DEMOCRATS on this supposedly Democratic forum because of a gang of the"good is the enemy of the perfect" crowd are bullying the discussion. This is the same tactic the Teaparty uses. They stomp and holler trying to sound like there of more of them then there actually are...all puffed up and sure of themselves as the "righteous" ones....their Internecine war with their own party is tearing it limb from limb and has weakened them...so much so that it is possible for us to take back the House....BUT to do that WE have to look and ACT like Winners. Do we really want to emulate them?

[MineralMan]

170. You should dare. You should say whatever you think with regard to

Hillary or any other subject. Nobody on DU has the power to intimidate anyone else on DU. Some might try to do that, but they should simply be ignored.

[VanillaRhapsody]

172. Oh yeah....the previous poster just SAID so....

so YEAH intimidation IS happening...

[MineralMan]

186. This is an Internet forum. The only way anyone can

be intimidated here is if they allow themselves to be intimidated. Everyone here has an equal right to express their opinion, and should do just that, without worrying about what some other DUer says. If someone's opinion is beyond the limits of this site's SOP, that person will be removed from the site, eventually. Until then, everyone should voice his or her own opinion.

[Auntie Bush]

174. Good advice, MaybeI will.

Is your avatar a drawing of you?

[MineralMan]

191. It is. One of my website content clients had it

done to put on their website on their staff page. I shrank it down to avatar size. I like it, and it looks a lot like me. It was drawn from a photograph of me holding a trophy-sized walleye I caught on the Mississippi River. I was a happy guy in that photo. Thanks for asking.

[lumpy]

262. I understand. The bashers gain very little except managing to insert doubt into some minds.

If they have differences or criticism, it should be dispensed in a level-headed logical manner.

[jeff47]

318. Keep in mind you don't have to read their replies.

Say what you want. If someone wants to discuss it, and you want to discuss it, reply to each other.

If it's a doofus just shouting insults, you don't have to reply.

[treestar]

285. Third Way Cheerleaders for the Authoritarian State!

[lostincalifornia]

67. I have no doubt the original OP knew exactly what he was doing when he utilized the

hate-filled rant against the President, on a progressive site.

It started out as a criticism of the President and a policy, and then in mid sentence turned into a hate-filled diatribe against the President using words that would inflame and cause the exact action that is occurring

The only one who hijacked the original OPs thread was the OP himself, and based on his lack of remorse for the way he phrased it, I suspect he meant every expletive of what he said

[HereSince1628]

78. Yes, I suspect the "original OP" knew what he was doing...

But I've been around DU long enough to know the original OP is a human being and it's not the first time similar expressions of that humanity have emerged.

Righteous impulse can make many of us pull out a flaming sword, too soon. But some of us are looked to more than others, consequently more people get to see the blaze when it lights our hair on fire.

[lostincalifornia]

87. True, however, personally if my family member needed medication, that would be my first concern, how

to get the medicine. If I was to post my problem on a forum, I would solicit suggestions, options, or alternatives, and would leave the politics out of it. That would be for another time. I would NOT want to bring up political distractions until the main problem, getting my family member the medications was done.

Everyone approaches problems differently.

[Auntie Bush]

169. Another good post.

Thanks, you answered my PM.

[lostincalifornia]

183. No problem

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. but most of us are BIG enough to admit when they were wrong about something as vile as that was

This person has done no such thing BECAUSE he has a cheerleading faction with whom he would loose face. So rather than disappoint them...he decides to forswear his own dignity and let the putrid remarks stand.

[HereSince1628]

155. I understand. But as I say, DU has seen it before.

The original OP has owned a granite pizza for similar sounding things, and yet, come back apologetically, to be, again, a high profile username.

Humility and apologies come easier for some than others, and getting to that requires leaving some room for a person to maneuver.

It's hard for both sides, apologizing or yielding space for a person, while facing an environment that seems more hostile than empathetic.

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. and he deserves a granite pizza for that one...

yet to date no retraction...

[HereSince1628]

189. Remember granite also comes in personal slices...

You have the means to customize your DU experience as I have done for years.

After that, as long as you or I log in, you or I are mostly in control of what you or I see... until, as happened for me now, hell breaks loose in GD around a thread that I have hidden. And so, in order to understand GD it's impossible to ignore the kurfuffle.

Good Luck.

[VanillaRhapsody]

218. No that is not a good strategy to me....We have Midterms and progress to defend.

[HereSince1628]

229. I don't see how using the ignore function interferes with defending midterms or progress

Maybe you think the OP's presence threatens such things. I guess I don't see that threat.

[VanillaRhapsody]

234. How did anything I said threaten this "OP's presence"?

I was discussing the content of another OP now wasn't I?

[HereSince1628]

235. I read what you said above as saying he should be banned

I suggested using ignore puts a similar control in your hands.

We may be talking past each other...

[VanillaRhapsody]

246. Not this poster...the other one with the vulgar profanity laced diatribe against the Affordable Care

Act...

[grasswire]

216. you are inventing motive for another person...

....with no possible way to divine the person's motivation. You're saying that Will "let the putrid remarks stand" because he fears the disfavor of his cheerleading faction?

Sorry, but that is so fictional as to be laughable. I don't think Will does ANYTHING to garner favor from anyone. He speaks his mind. Sometimes he's an true oracle for our time. Sometimes he's a brilliant wordsmith. Other times he lets his righteous temper flare. And I doubt he gives a flying fig what anyone thinks, then.

There is a conscious attempt to ruin Will Pitt, both on and off DU. It would be a good idea to read Octafish's thread regarding the use of the Internet to divide, destroy people.

[malokvale77]

316. Well written post.

Octafish is certainly one of the more thoughtful posters on DU (IMHO).

[CJCRANE]

342. Will has a certain writing style

that is designed to elicit a strong reaction.

I don't think we need fancy tables to figure out why his extreme rants get extreme reactions.

FWIW I like a lot of his writing, even his "Parliament of Whores" piece (which I disagreed with) because it stimulates discussion.

But he has had a few misfires too, lately.

However, the main thing is that he gets the best care for his wife, and puts the politics on hold for the time being (which I assume he's doing).

[grasswire]

345. the "fancy table" is an NSA slider

..showing how NSA sends workers to disrupt, deceive, defame, destroy Internet conversations and those who they fear or dislike. That's exactly what's happening here. Piling on Will Pitt in order to ruin him.

[CJCRANE]

346. I don't think this instance has anything to do with the NSA.

I accept that the PTB get up to all sorts of tricks but you don't need that table to explain the reaction he got from everyday Democrats.

This is *Democratic* Underground afterall.

And FWIW the everyday Democrats that Will chose to insult were mostly the ones who gave him useful advice.

The other posters were mostly the ones who simply commiserated with him and used the opportunity to make more political points.

I myself offered Will encouragement and didn't make any political points in the original thread.

[bluestate10]

192. To be treated as a human being, one must be willing to respect other people's

humanity. Calling a person gross names isn't respecting another person humanity. The OP got exactly what he deserved from responding posts.

[HereSince1628]

215. I understand your position.

I do, because this is about a recurrence/relapse of behavior seen long ago.

In humans affective stressors and releasers are not always well controlled. It's a human thing to be vulnerable to anxiety and to defend vigorously against it.

The OP has lived on my ignore list, not because I'm better than he, but because I deal poorly with this.

[Vashta Nerada]

142. "A hate-filled rant against the President"

You saw that?

That's sad.

I saw a man upset his wife wasn't going to get coverage for her medication.

[lostincalifornia]

194. Yes. First of all if it was me I would be doing whatever it takes to get the meds

For my wife, and if I posted in a forum, I would be soliciting options, solutions, alternatives, not political distractions, that could come after I did what was needed to get the meds

Now to your point

People do not call other people a POS, or say "FU from the bottom of my heart" unless there is extreme animosity

I have been critical of different policies of this administration, including the ACA, and have criticized the President, but never with words like the ones that were used

Everyone has had bad things happen to them, including people dying in ones family because it took an ambulance 12 hours to get to a facility 20 minutes away, but not everyone throws blame until they understand whose at fault

[Vashta Nerada]

208. You lack empathy.

Got it.

[lostincalifornia]

214. And you lack context

[HangOnKids]

341. How do you know that Will did NOT do all those things? Soliciting opinions etc?

Do you have a link for this family with an ambulance taking 12 hours?

[lumpy]

269. I saw a man upset about his wife's medication problem and I saw a man spewing hatred that

he must have expected to be accepted by all of us.

[malaise]

70. Excellent post

+1,000

[albino65]

72. In my humble opinion

I have not been here very long, nor have I posted very many things. However, that doesn't make my opinions less worthy. I found DU quite by accident, googling for a forum that was more informative and less loony. I was impressed that there are news articles from many sources and a lively discussion about those articles. I like it so much, that I spend far too much time here.

I have noticed that there is a cliquish vibe at DU. Some of you travel in the same circles and support one another. If someone questions someone in the clique, then you circle the herd like buffaloes to fend off a perceived attack. This is especially true of the gun enthusiasts (notice I didn't say nuts), the Obama bashers, and the ACA bashers. The first group is understandable. You have to be aggressive to justify an untenable opinion to yourself. The last two seem to be of the glass half empty people of the world. Sometimes they will say something egregious that sets me off and I have to answer. That's my failing. A lot of times I bite my lip and move on to a different article.

The angry, vituperative post in question hit me the wrong way. Even though I understood the deep frustration from which it came, I really didn't like the context of the post. I tried to put the poster on ignore, but it doesn't work. So, I just try to read who the poster is when I look at a discussion and decide if I should read it.

If DU is meant to be a club with varying degrees of membership, perhaps the groups or forums should be set up to indicate a person's level of experience and prohibit the less erudite among us from participating. Just because you have been here for years and years, or have a national persona, it doesn't make your opinions sacrosanct.

[narnian60]

152. +100

Well said.

[L0oniX]

75. Reading into what is said something that is not said ---> woopers.

woopers = people who want to cause shit ...as in wanting to woop it up ...add in a little hair on fire about what is wooped up.

[countryjake]

98. That's whoopers...

[brooklynite]

79. Oh, for pete's sake

Assuming this RW conspiracy existed, why would they waste a penny to stir up turmoil in a largely insular political community that has limited influence in the outside world?

[lumpy]

270. Good question

[Bobbie Jo]

90. Your framing is twisted, disingenuous,

and insulting.

Trying to portray one side of the debate as "RW" just demonstrates how the other side will throw out any lie without batting an eye.

It's impossible to have an honest discussion with someone who will stand on a pack of lies and call it "truth."

Your framing is bullshit.

[PCIntern]

125. Nice post...

thank you. I'm quite appreciative,

[bluestate10]

193. She is right. nt

[PCIntern]

211. And everyone else is wrong. Ok. Nt

[Bobbie Jo]

217. "everyone else"

Yet another exaggeration....

[Logical]

238. Are you sort of an arrogant type? Picking that up a little. n-t

[PCIntern]

289. Projection: a primitive defense mechanism. Nt

[Rex]

265. On this we agree 100%.

nt.

[NorthCarolina]

96. And they won't stop until you relent and finally accept the inevitability of

a Clinton candidacy (no others need apply), TPP, the Keystone pipeline, chained CPI for Social Security, NSA spying on US citizens (for their own good of course), and that Free Speech is acceptable ONLY when it does not contradict the Status Quo.

[Catherina]

110. +1. It's malicious and deliberate. n/t

[loudsue]

97. I agree with everything you are saying, PCIntern: and this thread proves your point

perfectly.

The dissent to what you said is insidious, sneaky, and of no use except to argue, and further make your point without realizing it. There are several people on this thread that would be on my ignore list, for that very reason.

Most liberals have a visceral reaction to posts that are not of the same mind. That doesn't meant posts that hold a different point of view....just posts that reek of the republican mind-set and attitude. To me, they stand out like a big red circle on a white background. And that type of person is all over this web site, and I just feel sick when I see how successfully they have learned to "live by the rules of DU", and infiltrate. The same way the democratic party was infiltrated after the Powell Manifesto started taking hold in the late 70's / early 80's.

Some of the infiltrators even have posts that are designed to encourage and further our cause every now and then, to try to win our trust. Others are just here to sling their feces.

It is scary, really: look what these people have done to our country, and our world. And we can't find a safe haven even on an "underground" web site, because they slither into every corner of our lives.

[PCIntern]

149. Exactly...

even though I do not post OP's as often as I used to, I read most threads most of the time. I know the difference between differences of opinion and incitement to riot, because I have been around the block a few times myself.

There are people here with whom I differ on many many issues, but my opinion of them is that they are honest folk with honest opinions and are reasonable and I have the utmost respect for their viewpoints and their mechanisms of discussion. Then there are the others.

As the Monty Python Group once performed:

"An Argument isn't the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says."
"Yes it is."

[jeff47]

319. Minor problem with the theory

and this thread proves your point perfectly.

This thread has multiple factions insisting PCIntern was talking about their chosen "enemies". In many cases, both sides insist the OP is about the other side.

So no, it doesn't look like some sort of "infiltrators" - they would always be the same side of an issue.

IMO, we're the same disorganized big-tent we've always been. That's going to result in some people vehemently disagreeing with others.

[Inkfreak]

99. There's always someone around waiting to shit on another's point. (nt)

[LittleBlue]

113. This is a political forum, argumentative people gather here by nature

I'm not seeing right-wingers behind every disagreement.

The OP seems like an attempt to stifle dissent.

[bluestate10]

197. There are some here who want to see and read only posts that agree with

their point of view. Their tactic is to attack the political leanings of anyone that has enough guts to challenge their opinions. Their tactic is a form of bullying, insidious, but bullying all the same. When their attempts to put posters on ignore don't work because more broad based minds read all points of view, the bullies try more aggressive tactics. I read one post where a poster waxed admiringly about the day when an OP could block any reply to his or her OP that was disagreeable to the OP, what absolute bullshit, why not bring back Pravda.

[LittleBlue]

201. That's shocking

Blocking all dissenting posts from an OP... wow. It feels like other DUers grew up in a different country than I did.

[reddread]

259. nobody needs red baiting, hippy punching, propagandists soiling their bedding

and some folks just cant help it.
they can always start their own thread...
I never realized there was something better than ignore.
it would be a nice feature in GD.
maybe not use it for LBN?

[rrneck]

120. This is a political board

but what kind of politics are we talking about here? Are the politics that are designed to have an actual impact in the real world, or are they the politics of affectation? The former will actually mean something to others, the latter is just a consumer product.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. Interesting ...

Most agree with what you have posted ... but everyone is pointing to the other guy/gal as the offender; but no one is willing to consider themselves (or their clique) the problem ... That is the biggest part of the problem.

[ProfessorGAC]

134. No Strong Response

I just think you're wrong.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

141. I'm surprised this is considered 'new' here.

On the other blog I've posted on for years, this is pretty standard behaviour that appears under any even mildly controversial posting. (Ie, political, religious, etc.) I don't think it's even necessarily 'trollish', behaviour as much as simply human nature.

Just like the namecalling in the comments above between the more left and right wings of the Dems as they fight, calling each other 'naive purists' and 'rw sellouts'. People who think the best path to lasting electoral victory is to elect people who stick closely to the ideals of the party vs people who think the best path to lasting electoral victory is to elect people who are most similar to the current electoral voting patterns.

Personally, I'm on the 'elect better' side, because really, if all you want is 100% Dems, all you have to do is recruit every Republican to run as a Dem. 'Expand the tent', then declare victory. I actually don't care who gets elected - I care what the outcomes are. The farther 'left' the people who run are, the 'better' the likely outcomes. I don't want to simply elect people who have a (D) but don't agree with me on the things I care about. That seems rather pointless.

But to return to your original point, I don't see why you don't simply respond to the people whose comments cleave to what you feel was so interesting or important about your post, and simply ignore those who go off on tangents about which you don't care?

I haven't been here long, but I'm certainly not reading every single comment - as soon as somebody goes off on a tangent that looks uninteresting, I stop reading that subthread.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

176. human nature….that's how I'm looking at it too, lately.

Generally speaking, there's probably less conspiratorial strategizing in secret "war rooms" than people think. It's human nature….aggressive personalities, arguers, tangential thoughts……..

the thing of it is, some personalities tend towards aggression. Some add in underhanded behaviors. Add on too many anti-social character traits, and you've gotten to The Right Wing end of the continuum.

Sometimes, I gleefully jump right in to the crap--human nature, like I said -- but after awhile, that gets
*ahem*unproductive*ahem* (Blanche, I am speaking to you.)

[Autumn]

143. I have no choice but to recommend this.

[Blue_In_AK]

147. I stay out of many discussions for this very reason

and there are a few people here with whom I refuse to engage because I KNOW how it's going to end. Life's too short to waste my time.

[jsr]

157. +1

What George Bernard Shaw said.

[GreenPartyVoter]

185. Yep. I've become a lurker because it's all gotten so old. I'll read the news and try to

skim past the poutrages of the day, whatever they may be.

[scarletwoman]

236. Yup, silence seems like the best policy for all too many discussions here.

I only posted in this thread because I saw that you had.

[Blue_In_AK]

242. Bless you Scarlet.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

156. **the larger context being completely forgotten** <---this

I'd give this a zillion recs if I could.

I've been here since 2003, I think (I was FizzFuzz back then, if that matters to anyone. )

One thing good about the jury system, as compared to the moderator system of those dark days is that the public nature of these derailing aggressive interruptions get big enough to be visible. The more obvious it gets, the more of a "teaching moment" it becomes.

My hot-button is "lady-baiting"---I see it as one among several symptoms of a stupid-level aggressive personality.

Actually, I've finally put some of the worst "lady-baiters" on ignore, finally. As so many others are doing. It adds up over time. Thanks for this excellent post!

"I (eagerly) await the expected and occasionally somewhat-contrived backlash" Well said!

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

159. If threads get too far off track

I hide em or if they're mine, ask them to be locked. Life's too short for on line arguments at a forum where we are all, supposedly, of the same school of thought regarding a particular political party.

[cthulu2016]

162. Wha? Hijacking causes threads to orgasm? ("petit mort")

[PCIntern]

180. the literal translation...

[jeff47]

320. This thread is now about cookies.

.....oh yeah.......

[pharris57]

181. Society Today

The attacks and polarity here are mimicking what is happening in society. People do not leave their hate, prejudices, or personal problems behind when they log on. I believe what we are witnessing is the death knell of the right wing. They realize it and cannot stop it. So their tactics and assertions elevate. I am quite certain even the dinosaurs didn't go quietly in the night.

[bluestate10]

182. If you expect no one to disagree with you, you shouldn't be here or on any

discussion board. The Democratic party is a broad based party, with a big range of views. If you want a tight distribution of views, you should look for another political party and discussion board. This post isn't an attempt to chase you off, I really don't care what you do, but do expect one thing, if I disagree with you, expect me to write why I disagree.

[RC]

202. The Democratic party is a broad based party.

You got that Right, clear over to just short of the tea-baggers. The Democratic Party needs to get back to Center and Left of Center and stop enabling the Right.

[pharris57]

213. My Apologies

I guess I did not make myself clear on my comment. By right wing I was referring to Republicans. I have been a registered Democrat since 1975. I vote in all elections and I am quite proud to be a Democrat. I also know that those type of ultra conservatives troll Democratic and liberal sites just to post their anti whatever views. Sad but true.

[cui bono]

231. bluestate actually replie to the OP, not your post.

Welcome to DU!

[MineralMan]

196. I will repeat my question: Who are these right-wing DUers?

Do you alert on their right-wing posts? How do you identify them? You're casting a very wide net, but we aren't seeing what you are catching in it.

It's easy to broad-brush some unnamed DUers with a term like "right-wingers." Am I a "right-winger," in your opinion. If you think I am, I'm puzzled, since I'm a Democratic election activist, and have been for decades. I believe that the mission statement of DU is terrific, and work toward the goals of electing Democrats to every office we vote on. Is that being a "right-winger" in your mind? In mine, it's being a member of the Democratic base of activists who work toward the goals of that party, in hopes of making progress toward those goals.

This site is called Democratic Underground, and it's stated purpose is to do exactly what I described myself as doing. How is that being a "right-winger?" I've been called that by a few people on this forum. When that happens, I shrug in disbelief and discredit that person's opinion about me, because it's about as wrong as it can be.

[bluestate10]

209. You won't get an answer. For the last few days there have been "avenge"

OPs that seem designed to restore the standing of an OP that went over a moral line with insults and name calling. There was an "avenge" OP yesterday, this OP seems to be the latest in that series. Both "avenge" OPs questioned the political and moral standing of anyone that had the courage to face down the gross OP from earlier. I view the efforts as members of a clique leveling suppression fire against anyone that dared challenge a member of their group of online friends. It really doesn't matter whether a person facing that fire has an esteemed progressive history, that person still gets called something that incites hatred from DU members not aware enough to distinguish what is going on.

[MineralMan]

220. While I'd like an answer, I don't expect one.

I'm not willing to sit by, though, and see good DUers and others called "right-wingers," without even naming anyone. This sort of open-ended name-calling makes DU suck. Anyone on DU can disagree with or refute the arguments of any other DUer. That's the great thing about DU. There are limits in how that disagreement or refutation can be worded, but that's it. You also can't take a genuine right-wing position on DU without getting TOSsed from the site.

When someone makes some sort of blanket statement that some nebulous "group" of DUers are "right-wingers," or makes accusations about DUers being paid to post here, if no DUer is identified, then the statement is meaningless. We're supposed to, I suppose, imagine who is being talked about and put our own names to the accusation.

That is the weakest of arguments anyone can make. It's on a par with the "some say" and "we hear" statement often used by places like Fox News, when they really have nobody they can name who "says" something they want to say. It's weak and borders on cowardly. How easy it is to make some broad statement about some class of people on DU and call them "right-wingers" or "trolls" or something equally ugly. It's easy and it makes no sense at all.

If someone calls me a "right-winger," I'll come to that thread and ask them just exactly what they mean by that. I've done that very thing a few times here on DU. The answer is never anything that makes any sense. Usually the answer is that I disagree in some way with what they are saying, or that I'm not vehement enough about wanting ideals to be achieved or something equally undefinable.

But, I'll still be here, and I'll still challenge people who try to broadbrush some group of DUers. If I disagree with someone's position on something, I'll say so publicly, directly to that person. That is how discussion occurs. It does not occur with accusations of unnamed people on DU, without even an explanation of exactly what makes the accuser so sure about the statement.

It's just weak argument and poor logic. If a DUer thinks someone is taking a right-wing position, let that DUer say so in a thread where that person has taken that position. And let that DUer speak directly to the person being accused, so that person can defend him or herself. That's honest discussion and honest debate. Third party accusations of unnamed people is just weakness.

So, I've asked the poster of the OP in this thread to answer the question of who he is talking about. If there is no answer, that is sufficient answer for me. It is nobody. The OP is talking about nobody. The question is answered.

[PCIntern]

224. Gee, I was not going to name anyone in particular in my OP

but you know that. What you are doing is daring me to post those whom I personally feel are deliberately sabotaging/hijacking threads. If you don't think this action is happening, then that's fine. I really was not posting this to convince anyone of anything, I was posting it because those were my feelings in the matter. Apparrently, I am not alone, since there are 99 Recs so far.

Further, I would not call-out any DUers and violate TOS such that I would be suspended or banned.

But you know that as well.

Thank you for your input.

[MineralMan]

253. Ah, I found the post you referred to.

Still no names. As an alternative, you could post your objection in the threads that offend you. My point still stands. Open-ended general accusations are pretty much worthless. They may make you feel better, somehow, but do not inform.

If you see a DUer espousing right-wing positions on DU, you could confront them with that right there in a reply to that post. If it's truly a right-wing view, that would violate the DU TOS, so you can also alert on the post.

This thread is little more than a broad-brush accusation of people you won't or can't name. That makes it much less than useful.

I did see that it got almost 100 DU Recs. I can almost certainly predict who at least 60% of them are. That's a good rec result. However, I was not one of those recs, and I have explained why more than once in this thread. I don't rec broad, nebulous attacks on unnamed DUers. Your mileage may differ.

[PCIntern]

272. Pretty glib...

fact is, the RWers to whom I am referring are much too clever to post anything which might get them alerted/banned. Secondly, why can't I generalize? Virtually everyone here does this everyday. Believe me, this OP would not have generated this interest/recs (I normally would not have brought this up but you did)if it weren't generally thought to be true by many. So I do not believe that my thesis can be dismissed so off-handedly. So because you can predict who 60% of these people are, does that invalidate my point? Do you think that I'm so stupid after 10 years here to accuse anyone of the euivalent of DU sedition? You are goading me and it won't work, my friend.

[MineralMan]

298. Clever or just writing what they believe?

How do you know? How do you know they are right-wingers?

[PCIntern]

302. Because it is purely disruptive and cleverly so...

such that it skirts the rules but utterly and completely disrupts the thread...and I mean the thread of the conversation. It is a bad debating tactic for which you lose points in a structured environment, but this is not a formal debate. It is consistent and highly predictable. It even occurred in this thread. As it always does.

[MineralMan]

304. Links, please.

Show us.

[PCIntern]

307. Here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024707988

[oldhippie]

271. Call outs do not violate the TOS ......

Further, I would not call-out any DUers and violate TOS such that I would be suspended or banned.

... at least not anywhere I can see in the TOS. Can you point one out?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Kurovski]

359. A call-out would be alerted on regardless. A member could get into trouble ie; banned

with enough alerts and juries deciding so. It falls under the "personal attack" rubric.

The techniques pcintern speaks of are well known and we can see most all of them. I've been here for one dozen years. As an example election reform forum was a lab where RW trolls perfected the art of pushing some very important members to get banned or just leave.

frankly any old-timer who professes ignorance of troll games is playing a funny kind of game themselves.

[OilemFirchen]

301. MineralMan is absolutely correct.

You're taking the coward's route and, 99 sycophantic recs or not, you do no service to the other 200,00+ members or yourself by cravenly making such a bizarre accusation.

You have no hides in the last 90 days. What's the risk? Name names or give it up.

[PCIntern]

305. Out of the blue of the Western sky...

how presumptuous of you.

[OilemFirchen]

308. Nothing presumptuous about it.

That said, if you're afraid of a hide, link to some posts. Absolutely within the TOS.

[PCIntern]

309. as though I might care what you think...nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

233. I'll ask another question.

Do you think there is any right-left spectrum at all within the Democratic Party? (And this is the last 'you' in this post that's aimed at you, the reader. The rest are general 'you's, and could be replaced with 'one', but that sounds pretty stilted.)

If so, surely then there are those who are farther to the right, and those who are farther to the left.

I do think there is such, and my definition of the 'right wing' of the party are people who support things that are generally supported by people in the Republican Party.

So, in a general sense, the more you completely disagree with Republicans, the more 'left wing' of the party you are, and the more you agree with Republican ideas, the more 'right wing' of the party you are.

Now obviously, everyone falls out differently on specific ideas. You might have one Dem who is as lefty as they come, except for 2nd Amendment rights, for instance, on which they are nearly completely in sync with Wayne LaPierre. Or you might have a 'Lieberman' or a 'Baucus'. I would certainly consider Joe Lieberman about as RW a Dem as they come - which he even proved by leaving the party when it became politically expedient.

So obviously a single spectrum is simplistic, but I'd think the more Republican ideas you agree with, the more strongly you could be called 'RW', even if you proclaim yourself a Democrat.

If you can't even agree that there are 'right' and 'left' stances or principles within the party, I'm not sure that 'right' or 'left' even have any meaning when applied to Dems and Republicans as a whole.

[MineralMan]

243. What I think is that there is a center to left spectrum

within the Democratic party, depending on what issue you're talking about. I see that clearly in my election year precinct walking.

There is also a distinct spectrum that ranges from people who expect perfection on specific issues and people who expect progress toward goals. Generally, people's target goals are pretty much the same, but some people will vote for candidates who can get elected and help move toward those goals over candidates who are adamant about immediate implementation of goals, but who stand little chance of election. A lot of Democrats who are regular voters in every election do not expect immediate results that actually reach target goals. A few Democrats insist on voting only for candidates who do expect such results. They won't vote unless the candidate who is running is one of the latter ones.

Those Democrats are usually disappointed in their expectations. Occasionally, they manage to get such a candidate through the primary process, and then are surprised when he or she loses in the general election. It's not much of a problem in my own districts, where the winning DFL candidates for state and federal legislative office and for local offices are quite progressive. But it is an issue, nevertheless.

Often the people I talk to who are unwilling to compromise on goal orientation and insistence on immediate action or nothing are focused on just one or two issues. Those are the only issues that concern them. No candidate who is not 100% on their side in those issues can ever be good enough to get their vote. Frankly, I don't spend a lot of time talking to those people in my precinct. Nothing I say will influence them, and the DFL candidate will win with or without their vote. But, their votes are often lost for statewide races or Senate races if they don't show up on Election Day. I tell them that, but that doesn't seem to matter to them, if the local legislator isn't 100% behind their position on some issue.

Center to left. That's what I see among voters who generally vote Democratic. Center to right is what I see from Republicans. The issue is where you draw the center line. And that's always the issue. I draw it right down the middle of the bell curve of voting habits. That's the physical center. I don't draw it based on my district or precinct, which is heavier on the left than some. I draw it based on voting habits in my own state, which is where the elections I vote in take place. And that center appears to be very close to the national center of voting habits.

If others draw the center line away from the actual voting center, then their definition is not the same as mine.

Thanks for asking your question. I still wish, though, that I had an answer to the question I asked the OP of this thread. I guess he or she has me on Ignore.

[PCIntern]

249. I have no one on 'Ignore' and you're just not special enough

for me to make an exception.

You may read the answer in my post above...

[MineralMan]

252. Which post above?

Each post has a post number. I'm not going to read the entire thread again. It's just not important enough.

[randome]

260. How about we define 'right winger' as

someone who emulates Ted Nugent-style language and sounds as unhinged as Matt Drudge?

(Although I agree with your main premise, it feels good to get that out of my system.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

261. I can go for that definition.

[grasswire]

311. cheap shot, that nt

[1000words]

206. Please examine your Israel-related posts with the same sentiment.

[PCIntern]

221. What does that even mean in this context?

What does that have anything to do with anything?

Nice try...

[Lars39]

207. Your last paragraph hits it home.

Noticing that happening is what got me back to posting again.
Their intent is to shut down any kind of substantiative discussion that might start out with a negative. For example, posts by people detailing how the insurance is actually working for them in a negative way is immediately pounced on by multiples.
Any problem solver out there knows that you must first recognize the problem before you can solve it, but this group does not want to let problems get discussed at all. Very frustrating, but downright repulsive when it morphed into a scorched earth policy to totally destroy certain posters. And it is trollish behavior that should not be ignored.
Patterns of disrupting like this used to get people banned. Now they seem to run roughshod over people.
They are what makes DU suck.

[grasswire]

219. everyone should read Octafish's thread about online trollery

...specifically, the methods and motives that are carried out by people who are paid to disrupt conversations. This is real stuff, and it's happening. Here's one top secret slide showing just that:

[Logical]

232. "now I have to go forth and heal some sick people", wow, really? n-t

[PCIntern]

250. Yes really...

and if you know me, you know that I'm not really kidding around....

I can upload a pic of a malignancy we just found intraorally in a 93 year old lady. Interested?

[Logical]

267. I know a dozen doctors, not one of them would end a post like that. nt

[PCIntern]

273. Well you do not know me, pal...and as most around here know...

that is my sensayuma.

"Lighten up, Francis"

Oh yes, and on edit: thank you so much for proving my point beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Logical]

275. Well chum, it is 100% pure arrogance but your right to do it if it makes you feel better. nt

[PCIntern]

277. Thread winner! nt

[Logical]

278. Good luck with your career. nt

[PCIntern]

280. You are mildly amusing...

thanks for the encouragement. LOL and a half!

[bobthedrummer]

241. GET SOME!!! n/t

[Rex]

244. Is this a continuation of the fried_eggs thread?

So many variations of that thread lately, how odd.

[PCIntern]

251. As a reply to my own thread....

See what I mean?

[City Lights]

255. Indeed I do, PCIntern.

[Warren DeMontague]

266. There's ALWAYS a mild-to-moderate civil war going on here, over something.

Usually, it's something reaaallly fucking ridiculous.

Go back to last month and see what GD was fighting about, for 3 weeks or so. Look for the 20 or so escalating threads of "harumph harumph harumph how DARE they harumph pttttggghhtttfft fart harumph ARGRGRGG!!!!!!" hair-on-fire outrage.

Then look at the names, and see who now are accusing people of "overreacting" to the calling of a sitting Democratic president, a "***** of **** used car salesman"

Yeah, do the math.

Reason #935898690 as to why I don't take this place all that seriously, anymore.

[Rex]

274. Werd!

I can't remember a day when there was not at least 2 outraged groups spitting nails at each other over some topic! This is just a variation of the fried-egg thread...but not quite as much word salad imo.

[Warren DeMontague]

276. We could have a fight over fried eggs!

Cholesterol is BAD! No, it's GOOD!

[Rex]

279. Typical fried eggs supporter! Go head and kick us scrambled egg lovers when we are down!

Don't lecture me about eggs! Everyone KNOWS scrambled eggs are the BEST!

[Warren DeMontague]

281. You got some huevos on you, buddy

I'll grant you that.

[Rex]

283. I take it back, you're a good egg in my book!

[Warren DeMontague]

284. I was fine until Justin Beiber threw me at his neighbor's house.

[Rex]

286. Well we always knew he was a rotten egg.

I hear Canada is trying to find a nice blackhole to drop him in, let some alternate universe Canada deal with him!

[steve2470]

313. and very few minds are changed....

It's mostly two or more camps, lobbing volleys of.....stuff at each other, and almost no one changes their mind. You rarely see anyone publicly stating their opinion was changed. If anything, opinions harden into calcified positions.

Pointless, to me. Dialogue includes the possibility of learning something new and maybe changing your mind. First I want to learn the relevant facts about an issue. If I can't learn something new from an exchange, it's pointless.

[bvar22]

287. It is clear that some come here not to ADD to discussion and debate,

but to disrupt.

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

It 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.
---woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

[Catherina]

295. +1. The disruption problem is killing DU. And it's not getting extra votes for the party

if anything, it's turning people OFF. Most democratic party voters pride ourselves on an ability to think and reach an intelligent decision about which vote is best for our country. What's been going on here lately, as some people feel they've lost control of the new message discipline, is a huge turnoff. There's no long term vision towards goals at all, just rude, desperate short term squelching pushing people away from this new democratic party that can't tolerate any criticism. What kind of representation is that?

People want representation not mimeography and the last thing independent thinkers will tolerate is enforcers of *message discipline*. It may work for the Republican Party because they actually have a platform they can point to no matter how greedy, racist or evil it is. Our platform has degenerated to "We're not them" or "We suck less" (take your pick) . The last thing you want with a platform that vague is *message discipline*.

[mike_c]

290. this is exactly why I post less frequently than in the past...

...although, to be honest, I think that's a good thing. I've learned a lot here over the years, and one thing I'm learning now is that I don't have to spam the world with my opinions every time someone invites a response on DU or elsewhere. So maybe that's a good thing.

[Catherina]

291. And a huge shame that is because 1 intelligent post from you

is worth 1000 of those stupid. mocking smilies.

The level of discourse here is at all-time lows and the traffic stats reflect that. People come here to read thoughtful commentary, think and try to intelligently discuss. Comments like *Putinista!*. *Obama-hater!*, and (among the milder assaults) don't qualify. No one needs to spend their time wading through that crapola. SO DU's traffic goes down, donations dry up and worse, many intelligent people are left with a bad taste in their mouth about where the current democratic party is headed.

If DU wants to represent the democratic party and get more votes, or at least keep the ones it has, I dare suggest a new tactic is in order.

I wish you would post more because I love your posts because they make me think, even if we're not always in agreement.

[mike_c]

292. I was a real hot head in the early years....

Of course, with W in office fire-breathing was in vogue, LOL. But seriously, this community has taught me a great deal about civility, even when telling someone I think they're full of shite. It's a sort of moving average of online mostly liberal thought though, and lately that average seems to include more DUers who resort to incivility or just plain bull headedness in their first responses. And the terrier sorts who'll kick a dead horse forever. I've seen it change before-- remember all the post-primary season blood baths?-- and I suspect that I only avoided a tombstone a long time ago by learning to tell mean people that they suck without rancor. And just letting the meanness go.

[Catherina]

300. What I'm learning is that it's not worth it

I remember the post-primary season blood baths all too well. I also remember, with rancor, how many lies paraded as principled opposition only to find out later that that principled opposition was only principled against Bush hence the current "incivility or just plain bull headedness in their first responses".

You've let the meanness go but it makes you post here less. That's not win for DU. People can go anywhere to read and other stupid snark but there was only one place to come to read commentary like yours. I hope you post more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

293. Yup, why I leave the serious stuff for off site anymore

[calimary]

323. You'll get no criticism from me, PCIntern.

You make a worthy point here. And it feeds into an issue that I think I'm gonna get awfully repetitive about in the months ahead. WE HAVE TO STICK TOGETHER! AND WE HAVE TO VOTE! Because it's awfully easy just to throw up your hands and say "screw it, why bother to vote? Won't make any difference…" And this election cycle especially, we simply cannot afford to do that! We can't afford to get discouraged and give up! We just CAN'T! And we can't decide we must stay home in a huff because the "perfect" candidate we favored didn't get very far and we're left with the lesser of two evils and so somehow that is an unacceptable choice and not worth voting for. WE CAN'T!!!! We can't afford to do that!!!! Cooler, more level and more logical heads MUST prevail here. And as I've said before, I'll take a shitty Democrat over ANY republi-CON, even a "good" one (yeah, good republi-CON my ass!), ANY DAY.

I've had, thankfully, a very few small run-ins with folks here. I am grateful that somehow, despite my own assholishness and annoying people with my longwinded opinionated bushwa, most people here have been patient and forgiving and tolerate me kindly. Awhile ago, I gave myself a nickname for it - the insufferable bloviating schmuckette.

[jeff47]

324. IMO it's not "right-wingers". It's not that consistent.

One week it's an attack from the left, the next it's an attack from the right (right for a Democrat). We're a big tent. There's a ton of differing opinions.

What we currently lack is a willingness among many to discuss those disagreements. Instead, it's ad-hominem attacks and "you are just saying that because you mindlessly love/hate _______".

If one disagrees with a poster, discuss the disagreement. Find out what they think by asking. You might be surprised at what you find out. Usually there's a ton of commonality with a difference in nuance or tactics.

But that's harder than attributing various evil to the poster you disagree with. So it isn't happening all that often.

[Vinnie From Indy]

328. Maybe I am unique,

but I am simply not that concerned or invested in what random strangers have to say about my posts. There are a few dozen here that I like to read for a variety of reasons and some whose opinions I value and will ponder. There are some topics I simply won't engage in here as they are designed specifically to get people fighting with each other over silly shit.

I am glad that you are not dissuaded from posting even though you appear frustrated with some of the responses to your posts.

The last thought I have about your post is to offer that people come to DU for many reasons. Many of these reasons have nothing to do with being a progressive Democrat and discussing issues. That is the inevitability of building a community of human beings which Skinner & Co. have done quite impressively.

I like reading your posts!

Cheers!

[hopemountain]

330. exactly my sentiments, pcintern

thank you for sharing your truth - and candor.

[Maraya1969]

331. I think you are spot on and it really bothers me.

[AverageJoe90]

337. It's possible you may be on to something.

I've only been here since 2011 but I've noticed a bit of a swing in things such as particularly fanatical "white privilege&quot including even from a few of the people from the "only whites can be racist" school of thought) defenders, false accusations of racism, climate doomerism, fawning on the Pauls(particularly over that failed wannabe "whistleblower" Eddie Snowden), etc. over the past year and a half in particular. And it does make me wonder, personally, if we do indeed have a few RW trolls in our midst.....

[XemaSab]

354. What percent of your posts contain the words "climate doomer?"

80%? 90%?

And yet here you are in this thread, like a fly drawn to shit.

[AverageJoe90]

355. I see someone 's not happy.....nt

[ozone_man]

353. I think DU is very middle of the road.

And if you are left wing (or right wing), then it may be frustrating to deal with all the blue dog democrats, Obamanauts, trolls from free republics, or wherever the infiltration comes from. It is a broad tent I guess, and if you post, it has to be with that in mind. There are other websites that may be less dogmatic in ideology and that may be more suitable for enhanced discussions, where people listen to each other, and don't resort to ad hominem attacks.. All in all, I think DU has some great discussions made possible by those who have decided to stay, though they take their fair share of lumps and bruising..