Alright, who has actually ever been converted by a shrill supporter of a candidate?

[Zynx]

Have you ever been converted by someone saying "YOU'RE CANDIDATE IS THE SPAWN OF SATAN AND MY CANDIDATE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!"? I know it doesn't work on me. I've never seen anybody be swayed by it. It usually drives supporters even closer to their original candidates as they backlash against extremism.

I want people to be honest here. Then, if you say no and you are doing it now on this message board, ask yourself why are you doing it.

[Redstone]

1. Excellent question. No that it will slow down the vitriol, but good question nonetheless.

Redstone

[Zynx]

3. I know it won't but maybe it will at least get some people thinking.

[Peregrine Took]

16. Very true. Even when I'm 100 % for a candidate I can still be swayed when

hearing something about he or she that I wasn't aware of.

[AlCzervik]

2. i don't think conversion is the goal.

[Zynx]

4. What the hell is the point then?

Polluting the political process?

[Inspired]

7. It's all about demoralizing them. It's actually kind of sick. n/t

[Zynx]

10. That's nothing short of an authoritarian tactic.

Which is what I wanted to expose here.

[AlCzervik]

9. general rant, feel good flame bait, one upping etc.

it never convinces me either btw and in general it makes me think less of the poster.

[Zynx]

12. It makes me think less of their candidate too.

Which makes things much more difficult when we have to decide a nominee.

[salin]

5. keeping other people riled up and agitated

seems to be the point.

[Zynx]

8. What does that accomplish?

Except for sadism?

[salin]

18. I caught on to this last go round

some one from some camp insults the candidate and perhaps the candidate's followers.

The follower/camp attack feels so slighted that they feel self-righteous in delivering a blow to the candidate of the first camp.

A different follower(s) of the first camp are so agitated and take personal the swipe (and don't realize or care that it was in response to a previous swipe made by one of their own) get all riled up and feel self-righteous in going after the other candidate or his/her camp.

That is one dynamic where the participants doing the agitating get to the point where they think have righteousnes behind them to go and take a retaliatory blow.

The second scenario is a form of agitprop. If folks are so distracted and the divisions get so deep the hope is that the organization gets weakend or distracted by it and therefor less effective.

I think we see most of the first dynamic, but I am pretty sure I have seen some of the latter as well. Fortunately many of the latter get identified and tombstoned.

[Zynx]

23. All I know is the longer this goes on, the worse it gets.

[Deja Q]

6. Or vice-versa; how many candidates with reasoned discourse get responded with heaps of pithy vitriol

[Robbien]

11. It never works

But it is the nature of the beast.

That is all I can come up with.

[Trajan]

13. HA ! .....

I was once convinced to buy a threadbare pot holder by an old women, simply because she hit C7 while she was yodelling ....

To top it off: She added a wicked vibrato ....

Yippee ........

Hey: your message is sane and reasonable ... and hence why it wont do anything but piss off those it identifies, and reinforce those who are tired of the shrill cult chantings ....

[Zynx]

14. I've been shrill in the past. It just made me tired.

[Peregrine Took]

17. True again.

[pmbryant]

15. Excellent question

I am baffled by this behavior. It does not reflect well upon themselves or the candidate they support.

--Peter

[salin]

19. pmbryant!!!!!!!!!!

smooches! Its been eons - so great to see you!

[pmbryant]

21. salin!!!

Great to see you're still here. Yes, it's been a while!

--Peter

[AntiFascist]

20. It depends...

on how substantive their argument is. If they resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks then of course they will only piss you off, but if they point out something that makes you question your candidate or see them in a different light then the debate may be constructive. This is a democratic forum, after all, and I welcome lively debate. If a DUer is consistently shrill you can always put them on ignore.

[Zynx]

22. Lively debate is not the same as fanatical screaming.

[salin]

24. common, there was fanatical screaming four years ago as well.

and the taunting. Today I think we are seeing more taunting and intentional poking at each other (the candidate supporters) with sticks than fanatical screaming.

[Zynx]

27. Oh yeah there was. I was there. I even did it.

That's like saying there is less murder today than two decades ago.

[readmoreoften]

25. YOU WOULDN'T ASK THAT QUESTION IF YOUR CANDIDATE DIDN"T SUCK SO BAD!!!!!!!1!!!

oh noes.

[Zynx]

26. ??? Was that sarcastic or serious?

[salin]

28. who knows... but does it help that I have no idea

who you are supporting? Meaning - you are not clearly visiblely in a camp based on my read of the candidate war and taunt threads over the past couple of days.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Tell it to the candidates who devise ingenious ways to trash their opponents.

And, consult their consultants about negative campaign ads.

[Zynx]

30. Well, consultants don't know what they're doing.

They prove that time and time again.

[rucky]

31. I don't think converting is on the agenda.

they just want to pump-up their own egos. as if.