Why is it when some DUers disagree with a point ....

[butterfly77]

they suddenly start calling those who think differently about particular subjects, racist,anti-semetic,or homophobic...I thought that we were here to discuss ideas and I don't believe that we all think the same on all subjects because we may belong to a particular political party.

I feel that in some cases, the person is so angry because they have something to gain or lose, maybe they believe that some others minds may be changed about a subject...I know that in some cases there are some who post here who are some of the things I listed but sometimes it gets in the way of a subject if the person is so angry that they begin calling names. :hi:

[TahitiNut]

1. Uhhh... because it's so persuasive?

No. That can't be it. :dunce:

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Castigation syndrome , shrubs got it.

[TahitiNut]

3. Because it makes them look smart?

Nope. That can't be it, either. :dunce:

[bdrube]

4. Small minds are quick to resort to name calling. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

5. DUers?

It's waaaaaaaay bigger than that.

[TahitiNut]

8. Ah-hah!! That's it!

Because it makes them feel like Part of Something Big!! Got it! :dunce:

[TahitiNut]

6. Because it makes them feel brave?

Nope. No sane person would believe that. :dunce:

[Bluebear]

7. I can't remember the last time someone responded "You're a racist!"

Or an anti-Semite, etc., outright "name-calling". Can you provide an example of what you mean?

[The Straight Story]

13. I could, but it got deleted - see it was a trick question

And I am pretty sure I have seen that in the IP forum as well, where such things are also deleted.

[butterfly77]

20. Last year I asked a simple question concerning ...

the Jewish people and palestines, I was along the lines of what lines were drawn way back when and how it got to this point and I was jumped on as though I was taking sides and was called anti-semtic and I couldn't understand it...

[Bluebear]

24. LAST YEAR? Has this been festering all that time?

[butterfly77]

26. No I did a post earlier today and I was called a ...

bigot and a racist, because some disagree with my thoughts...

[Bluebear]

34. Well you started a hotbutton topic without much backup of facts

I won't call you are a racist or bigot, I don't know your motivations or background, but that thread topic pretty much goes against progressive ideas.

[butterfly77]

37. I don't have any particular motives...

you read what I said, If you didn't like the question don't post any talking points I gave two examples there is nothing more to say...

[Bluebear]

38. You mixed up immigration with outsourcing

But if there's nothing more to say, cool.

[butterfly77]

42. I have some more to say...

I didn't mix up anything, I don't agree with either but I was talking about Illegal mainly...but I don't want to start up what is going on in the other post in this one too...

[Karenina]

75. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to make cogent point

rather than simply repeating "Close the borders!" and spewing all kinds of unrelated xenophobic gobbledygook, unsupported by any facts, into the mix: IMMIGRANTS! OUTSOURCING! TERRISTS WHO LOOK LIKE MEXICANS BUT ARE REALLY FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!!! ASIANS AND OTHER RACES COMING OVER THE BORDER!!!

Your poorly-considered pronouncements are what got you the red-ass, dear.
Other DUers are not at fault here. There's no one to blame but yourself.

[crispini]

9. Because sometimes you have to call a spade a fucking shovel.

I have never, EVER had a problem on this board when I have posted a different opinion, or doubt, and posted with the approach, "I don't understand," or "educate me." And I have in fact posted some things are of a different opinion.

The thing is that some people insist on posting bullshit, and instead of listening to other's opinions, get really annoyed when they get called on it.

[Bluebear]

10. Indeed.

Bravo.

[11 Bravo]

31. You rang?

OK, I'm not a stalker, I just wandered into this thread.

:hi:

[orpupilofnature57]

11. As soon as people stop being comprehensive ,they start getting subjective.

[TahitiNut]

12. Do you mean like this? (Interesting perspective you have there. Educate me.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=172556&mesg_id=173097


Then there's what I call "The Post of The Year - 2006" by a long-time DUer, lovingly and respectfully discussing the dangers of second-hand smoke ....

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Shut up, crybaby
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5325562#5333519
5333519, Shut up, crybaby
Posted by ******** on Fri Nov-11-05 01:33 PM

Go cough up blood and die.

[BlooInBloo]

15. OMG - that's the best post EVER!!!! bwahahaha!!

[crispini]

17. LOL. Okay, I was being hyperbolic there, a bit.

Yeah, ok that's rude. :rofl:

There are rude jerks everywhere -- I have plenty of 'em on ignore ;) -- but when I have approached an issue with open-ness and being willing to learn, and posted accordingly, even if my opinion is different, nobody has ever seriously called me racist, sexist, etc.

But there IS a persistent refusal on this board on the part of some people to refuse to even try to see other's points, and to be rude, and I can kind of see why some people may resort to the shock value of just saying, "look, that's racist, sexist," in order to cut right to the chase.

Not particularly my style, but there are a lot of women on this board who have gotten branded as "jerks" because they continue to insist on calling people on their shit, and I admire them for being willing to stand up for it.


Edited to add: And if I may point out, I believe the posts you are referring are just garden-variety rudeness and namecalling, whereas the OP was referring to calling people racist, sexist, etc. Different things, IMO....

[butterfly77]

23. And some people talk BULLSHIT when they disagree ...

with a post...

[crispini]

35. Of course there is a certain amount of that going on.

I have zero context on this, but it sounds to me like you got called on something and you don't like it. :think: You know, if you have one random asshat being mean or weird, that's one thing, but if you have a large contingent of DU'ers telling you something, you may want to give their views some consideration.

[butterfly77]

41. No, I don't like it when someone doesn't like an opinion...

and they have nothing to say they think that you are against a certain group of people. I don't care if the whole contingent of Duers disagree, I took their thoughts into consideration and still disagree, but all who posted didn't disagree. For the record I didn't like it because I have been reading posts all week about a dumb ass commerical about a candy bar and people were called homophobic if they liked the commerical, I didn't post anything because it didn't matter one way or the other and it wasn't going to change any minds...

[patrice]

14. Because their personal need to hurt someone is more important

than their desire to persuade.

Why is that? Because they are afraid and they've been hurt too.

[Turbineguy]

16. Maybe it's time for the Three Rules

1. Smart people talk about ideas

2. Average people talk about things

3. Stupid people talk about other people.

I need to be reminded of that myself from time to time, so I'm not pointing any fingers.

[jonnyblitz]

18. are you asking why do the people on the recieving end of the

racism , anti-semitism and homophobia here at DU complain about it? I am not sure what some of these vague out of context complaints like yours are SPECIFICALLY referring to because there ARE racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic comments made here that need to be called out. :shrug:

Is this another complaint about political correctness?

[Bluebear]

21. Yes, because not enough threads have been started about the victims of PC nt

[jonnyblitz]

39. they are getting a bit oversensitive wouldn't you say?

I don't know if i will support their cause anymore. :crazy:

[butterfly77]

25. My point is I don't believe in being politically correct...

I believe what I believe and I will change my thoughts if necessary, some who disagree have been using their ignore button a lot lately. Some here are halleucinating in some case about racism,anti-semitism, or homophobia, and some are not...

[Duncan Grant]

65. What *are* you trying to say?

"Some here are halleucinating in some case about racism,anti-semitism, or homophobia, and some are not..."

That statement doesn't make any sense. Please stop beating around the bush and just say whatever it is that's bugging you. Is it PC? Is it gay people? Is it racism? Is it what constitutes 'offense'? Is it free speech? Is it the right to be an insensitive jerk?

I suspect you're confessing that you're an ethnocentric 'mind-reader'. How else could you possible know that some here are hallucinating about racism, homophobia, or what's offensive, etc. My point is that you should reserve judgment about things you don't understand.

edit: 1st sentence

[Pithlet]

19. It is against the rules on DU to do that.

However, I do see racist, sexist, anti-semitic and homophobic posts on DU from time to time. I respect that DU has rules against calling someone a bigot to maintain civility, but generally speaking I don't have a problem with calling it like it is. It usually gets to the name calling point after the person refuses to admit that they've made a mistake, or claims the person calling them on their bigoted viewpoint is the one with the problem and just needs to get over it. The "get over it" posts are people who probably aren't interested in an exchange of ideas.

[GirlinContempt]

22. I'm more interested to know what compels people

to start new threads to complain about their treatment in old ones.

[butterfly77]

28. Maybe , because they want to understand why some here are so

sensitive because others disagree with them...

[GirlinContempt]

32. You seem just as sensitive as a lot of people I see around here

especially going on to start a new passive-aggressive thread. And, frankly, when you pick one of the most contentious issues to argue about, and bumble along with it, people will get offended.
Should they be mean? maybe not. Does this new thread read as a thinly veiled attempt to get back at them? Yeah.

[butterfly77]

43. No, the sensitive people go crazy over a...

candy bar commerical. I don't care if they are mean they are irrational. You have my thoughts on that subject and I have not tried to change any minds I wanted to get the thoughts of Duers, and as far as I am concerned there needs to be some thoughts on some contentious issues on here instead of talking about a candy bar commerical or Anna Nicole...

[jonnyblitz]

48. there's the problem right there. you say "just a candy bar

commercial" without mentioning context or CONTENT of the commercial.

if there was a candy bar commercial implying african americans were lazy and jews were cheap would you say it was "just another candy bar commercial" in an effort to buttress YOUR status as victim of political correctness?

that comment you made, which others have made here, too, is very telling. the "it's just a candy bar commercial".

[butterfly77]

54. I can see that some would be sensitive too it but ...

it gets ridiculous when a majority of the posts are about this one commerical when there are more important things that could be discussed.

[Porcupine]

52. Please explain "passive-aggressive" nt.

.

[GirlinContempt]

53. Passive aggressive

Cecil Adams writes: "Merely being passive-aggressive isn't a disorder but a behavior — sometimes a perfectly rational behavior, which lets you dodge unpleasant chores while avoiding confrontation."

Passive-aggressive: Pertaining to behavior in which feelings of aggression are expressed in passive ways

Such as feeling upset about something, and starting a new thread to get back at the people who upset you, instead of confronting them.

[butterfly77]

55. I want to know how I am getting back a someone...

I wrote this post because lately, I have seen in the media and on Du when certain subjects are discussed sometimes the post may or may not relate to the issue but if a question is asked or an opinion is stated there are some who jump to conclusion that a person is bias or prejudiced against a particular group...In some cases, the argument is ridiculous ex: banning the N word, I may get some argument on this but we all know damn well that if someone wants to say it they will...

[GirlinContempt]

57. Yeah well

seems to be pretty well timed to go along with your immigration thread. But, whatever.

[nolabels]

72. Passive aggressive is a way some live their entire lives

Also don't worry about it too much, any crusade to stamp the practice out would be also futile. Almost all people do this type of behavior to one degree or another. Having the luxury of living in family of habitual users of the practice it's easy to spot. Spending years trying to equip a toolbox of responses to handle it before i knew what was going was kind of a trying time. To the degrees of success on finding ways to counter act it i was bumping my head against a rock many times. The first and biggest one was always the ignore but this is not a good one. The best one to use and to understand is the person that is doing it is trying to fish for ways to get to you.

They often use the trick of a hot and cold lure of thinking they would be subject to changing if you would give into their wishes first. They often do it subconsciously a lot but to be sure there is no real plan on any substantive change for themselves in their mind, it's just deceptive manipulation of the supplicant. They just want to get what they want using this a complex set of interactions which are often hypocritical. It's sort of like a dance that you have to be cued into to be cured of. It's a big head game they play but spotting it gets easier everyday with practice.

My number one rule is only you can change you and you are wasting your time trying to change others that have no will of changing on their own.
Buck up and get accustomed to personal interactions, it's how personal interactions work. :argh:

[GirlinContempt]

74. Oh for sure it is

I was using it descriptively, that's all.

[hfojvt]

67. it is not entirely their treatment though

If it is a larger question about reading threads that degenerate into name-calling. Not necessarily about one person's experience.

[11 Bravo]

27. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

On the other hand, this is a progressive message board. Asi I have learned tonight, a PM can clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

[MedleyMisty]

29. Depends

What are the issues being discussed?

If someone says global warming is real and another person says that it's not and the first person calls the other person a racist or homophobe, then yeah, that's kind of weird.

But I can see some leeway in issues that actually deal with race and sexual orientation. If someone says that gay marriage should be legal and someone else says it shouldn't, then...is there any other reason to not think that it should be legal?

But even there it still depends, because maybe the person who says it shouldn't be legal is aware of their homophobia and is trying to deal with it and learn and evolve, or maybe they think that America in general isn't ready for it although they say that they personally are.

I'm young, female, relatively poor, and from the South. So I'll admit that when I see people who post things that paint all young people as violent or apathetic or whatever, or making jokes about rape, or equating being poor with being stupid and lazy, or painting every single person in the South as a fat racist white male fundie Nascar fan, then yeah, I get upset.

People in a group are going to be more sensitive to perceived slams against that group. Personally, if I posted something that baby boomers took offense at and they called me ageist, I'd really look at what I said and at my attitudes. If after that I didn't think that their perception had any validity, I'd calmly state my case, leave the thread, and if anyone started stalking me put them on ignore and perhaps talk to a mod.

People are going to disagree with you occasionally. They may even point out what they perceive as prejudiced attitudes. I think there are better ways to deal with it than starting new threads like this one and the too PC one.

[butterfly77]

44. I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing

with me that is what I expect and that is why I post to hear differing opinions...

[TahitiNut]

30. My advice: Alert. Alert. Alert. Alert. Alert. Alert. Alert.

If DUers used the 'Alert' function on every post they saw being rude, snarky, and insulting to ANYONE (not just themselves), then we might enjoy a civil, respectful, self-policed discussion forum.

Read the rules. Understand the difference between an attack on the subject and an attack against the DUer. Call 'em.

If you'd feel insulted if a boss, coworker, subordinate, son, daughter, or spouse replied to YOU in that way, the chance are it's rude and insulting. If 'you' is the subject of too many sentences, the chances are that it's the PERSON being attacked and not the message.

It's not "tattling" or "squealing" - it's participating in keeping this place civil and respectful ... and it helps the moderators! When I moderated, 'Alert' was the best thing a DUer could do to help us. That's why it's there.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Awesom Post Tahiti!

I couldn't agree with you more, on all fronts.

Hey, quick question though; when you alert on a post do you fill in the 'body' part of the alert usually? When you were a mod did you want that part filled in? I feel like I'm supposed to and often do, but then afterwards always feel like I'm babbling or they're just not readin it anyway LOL. Do you fill that part in?

[TahitiNut]

60. As a mod, I found it helpful if the specific rule was referenced, HOWEVER ...

... the DU Rules were undergoing a GREAT DEAL of change at the time. We had rules specific to particular forums (not just I/P) and some threads operated under "special provisions" - it was the 2004 primary season.

When I alert, I try to always give a reason - usually "personal attack" since that's the most common violation, imho. If I think it might not be clear, I give a brief explanation and (sometimes) quote the rules. Moderators will then discuss and reach a consensus ... but all the help they can get will be (I think) appreciated.

They are, after all, DUers like the rest of us. :dunce:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Thanks For The Info. I Always Had Visions Of Them Readin My Shit Thinkin "Will He Shut The Fuck UP

already!" LOL

Personally, I love the mods. They maintain their cool even in the most spirited environment. Always so smooth. Some have pissed me off a bit lately because I'll see posts that I thought that absolutely should get deleted as personal attack, but weren't. But I also know that they know what they're doing, so if they considered it to be not worthy then I trust them. Cause overall, these mods rock; and even when delayed, they still come through.

God bless the DU mods that have to put up with our shit. God bless em.

[William769]

33. "racist,anti-semetic,or homophobic"

Because it usually is.

[etherealtruth]

36. I think if a poster consistently finds themselves being ...

... called a racist ... sexist ... homophobe ... (whatever), perhaps THEY should consider their view point (or at very least, how they are expressing their particular view). Sometimes it takes a little introspection and the awareness that everything we find with-in ourselves is not (always) all good.

[butterfly77]

45. Well, I don't have to worry about that ...

because it hasn't happened to me but twice in the years I have posted here,and they were wrong on both counts...But I do think that everytime someone disagrees about a particular subject they should not jump to the conclusion that someone is a bigot,homophobic or any thing that they think pertains to a particular group...

[etherealtruth]

47. Not saying that you do ...

However, if a poster finds that they are frequently being accused of some kind of bigotry ... it would probably be a good thing for them to look inward. We all have our personal frailties and biases ... me, you ... everyone.

Alternately, if a person sees s bigotry (when it doesn't appear anyone else can find it), it's probably a good time for some introspection, as well.

[Marie26]

40. What is this about specifically?

ETA: Oh. "I think that the borders closed and immigration should be stopped for a while..."

[butterfly77]

46. Wrong ...

Its about a candy bar and Anna Nicole...

[Marie26]

49. Hmmmm.

I doubt that - this was posted about the same time as your other OP, and seems to be basically inspired by the reaction that thread received. I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt, but you have to expect that posting something like that will have some negative reaction on a liberal board. It's like if someone wrote an OP entitled "Go Israel!", or "Global warming is a hoax", or whatever. If you believe that opinion, defend it, but writing a seperate thread to complain about the reception of the first is a bit lame.

[benny05]

50. When I see comments like this one on Freeper blogs

And hit alert, with no answer, I am disappointed. The rules on the DU say if you are a freeper that you will be banned.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Poster got his comment from here:

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/from-iowahawk-th...

[k_jerome]

51. because given the overwhelmingly large percentages of each of those types of bigots...

they have an outstanding chance of being right?

[butterfly77]

56. or wrong...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Simple. Because They're Too Weak To Debate Their Points Legitimately.

They're so insecure with their arguments that at the slightest hint that someone is saying something that doesn't align 100% with their position, they get all knee jerk (and I stress JERK) defensive because they feel threatened that their too frail position cannot withstand the intellect of an opposing or even slightly differing view. Therefore, they get into ultra defensive mode which is generally acted upon by throwing out the most horrible labels they can in order to completely delegitimize the poster confronting them, in an attempt to persuade others into believing the differing opinion carries no credibility.

It is a desperate defense that is engaged when one does not have a strong and intellectual enough argument to present back and therefore are only left with hoping others will be manipulated into believing that the person who is besting them is in fact guilty of the labels thrown at them, thereby minimizing the factual or legitimate value of the opinion. It is as weak a style of debate as can be used, and is always a sign of someone who lacks the skills, intellect or position necessary to offer legitimate counter point.

This applies to far more than you put on your list too. It applies to almost any argument that can be found here. So many here have been called a freeper at some point or another just for having a differing view, when they clearly aren't. The above description fits that scenario perfectly, as it does for the things you've seen as well such as calling people racists, or homophobes, or sexist, or anti-semetic, or god knows what else.

Whenever you see it, view it as it should be viewed: As an admission of defeat by the person who was desperate enough to only have such weak tactics left in their arsenal.

[Duncan Grant]

69. I can't give this sort of lazy thinking a pass. Feel free to debate my counter points.

They're so insecure with their arguments that at the slightest hint that someone is saying something that doesn't align 100% with their position, they get all knee jerk (and I stress JERK) defensive because they feel threatened that their too frail position cannot withstand the intellect of an opposing or even slightly differing view. Therefore, they get into ultra defensive mode which is generally acted upon by throwing out the most horrible labels they can in order to completely delegitimize the poster confronting them, in an attempt to persuade others into believing the differing opinion carries no credibility.

Where do you get this gobbledygook? It’s full of judgment and emotion; not exactly the attributes of a “credible” argument if you catch my drift. You know what’s really amusing to me? You observe people resorting to “horrible labels” in order to discredit another’s discourse. If that’s true, why are you calling people JERKs?


It is a desperate defense that is engaged when one does not have a strong and intellectual enough argument to present back and therefore are only left with hoping others will be manipulated into believing that the person who is besting them is in fact guilty of the labels thrown at them, thereby minimizing the factual or legitimate value of the opinion. It is as weak a style of debate as can be used, and is always a sign of someone who lacks the skills, intellect or position necessary to offer legitimate counter point.

Sometimes less is more. The above is pretty convoluted for someone of your intellectual superiority. Wouldn't you agree that "besting" is in the eye of the beholder? In other words, it's subjective. And for what it’s worth, I think there are weaker styles of debate.

This applies to far more than you put on your list too. It applies to almost any argument that can be found here. So many here have been called a freeper at some point or another just for having a differing view, when they clearly aren't. The above description fits that scenario perfectly, as it does for the things you've seen as well such as calling people racists, or homophobes, or sexist, or anti-semetic, or god knows what else.

You said a mouthful. Got any evidence to support this analysis? Since you’re interested in debate it seems a legitimate question. Links please, anecdotal evidence doesn’t carry much weight around here.

Whenever you see it, view it as it should be viewed: As an admission of defeat by the person who was desperate enough to only have such weak tactics left in their arsenal.

You’re encouraging a lot of nice folks to take a superiority trip instead of reasoning their way through a complicated argument. A real exchange of ideas is a two-way street. Based upon what you’re advocating in this post – you prefer a very one-sided discourse; one in which you abdicate any responsibility for your actions or opinions. Fascinating reading...

edit: punctuation

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

62. because some people are racist or homophobic or sexist

I have no idea, since you provided no links, if the situation you are refering to is a justified calling of racist, homophobe or sexist, or it isn't.

On edit: I found what you must be talking about. Frankly, I wouldn't have used the word racist. I would have used ill informed. You clearly don't know that out sourcing and immigration are different things. Nor do you know evidently that we don't give non citizens any schooling above high school unless they pay full freight.

[seabeyond]

63. my nieces boyfriend tonight. i talk long and hard about how i feel about

the republican party last hand full of years. i told him, i dont even want you to tell me you agree with me politically. all i want from the republicans is to say.... yes she is a christian, yes she has family values. screw everything else, ... but go against the repug statement that a dem does not have family value and christian value. stand with me to declare, i too am christian all the while still able to support your party. he couldnt do it. couldnt. makes no sense to me.

[EFerrari]

64. DUers have a way of calling a spade a spade.

:hi:

[B Calm]

71. Especially when it comes to Nader supporters who fail to recognize

Nader is supported by the GOP.

[last_texas_dem]

66. I figure it's usually

Someone who doesn't want to debate the facts, either due to their lack of knowledge or lack of skill in debating, and figures they can piss off the poster who they disagree with or who made a strong point that they don't know how to refute by calling them a name of some sort. Then they can still get to participate in the conflict that they enjoy participating in so much, but not actually have to engage in a debate of the facts. And they figure that they can perhaps even get the poster they insulted pissed off to respond with something even more offensive and then somehow blur the lines of who initiated what, and have this poster banned or get a bunch of other DUers to turn against them, etc. because the person who they attacked was being so "offensive" and out of line.

Oh yeah, and there's also the whole "tag team" thing where a group of posters all gang up on one poster who they happen to disagree with, often on some fairly minor issue or on something that there is no generally accepted liberal view on, and pummel them with the same questions phrased in different ways or attack them with similarly insulting names simultaneously. Employing that tactic always says such great things about the posters who do it.:sarcasm:

[conscious evolution]

70. the whole "tag team" thing

I ran into this the other day
I was willing to discuss the topic in a rational manner til the tag teamers ganged up on me.I was willing to continue till some of them resulted to insults that had nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
I'm not the only one this has happenned to either.I have seen the same group do the same to others here on DU.
Just because one does not agree with another groups primary objective in political matters does not make them homophobes,bigots or racists.What the attacks result in is is a desire to no longer have any desire to help out or participate in the attackers isssue area.At least here on DU.I know I personally will ignore their issue here on DU.I will continue to do so in the real world,just not here.

[Kickin_Donkey]

68. Hey, if the shoe fits ...