Seriously, don't participate in the really silly threads in DU. Let them sink.

[mmonk]

Set any falsehoods straight and nothing else. Then let the stupid go. GD ought to be about real issues, not contrivances like Hillary's emails and Bernie's imaginary racism. Have a good day and grow up a little. America has real problems it needs to address.

[jeff47]

1. Yeah, look how great that worked for Kerry

We even invented a new verb for it because it was so destructive.

[99Forever]

2. Just curious....

Precisely WHO is in charge of deciding what is and isn't "silly?"

[MineralMan]

5. DU Juries can decide that, if they want to.

See what Skinner has to say about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026745686

[99Forever]

6. I see.

So only approved subjects allowed.

Could you please list those so I can be careful not to offend?


Thanks in advance.

[MineralMan]

9. Not my call in any way. Like most DUers, I serve on

a jury about once a day. Most of those juries aren't about flamebait posts, anyhow. I generally vote to leave, except for blatant personal attacks. I can't remember the last jury I was on that was about flamebait topics, frankly.

So, I'll be unable to give you any sort of list. You could ask the admins, though, over in ATA.

[99Forever]

11. This OP is in GD.

So it would seem to make sense to ask here. I don't know what might be offensively silly if it isn't public knowledge. How will I properly self censor myself if I am not aware of which topics are forbidden?

[MineralMan]

12. Yes, it is. Maybe Skinner or one of the other admins

will weigh in.

For myself, I take hidden posts as a sign that I've gone too far in some way. Then I try not to make that mistake again. Is that self-censorship? I don't think so. It's just staying within the common boundaries of the place. It doesn't keep me from voicing my opinion at all. It sometimes moderates the nature of how I voice them, though.

With few exceptions, I manage to avoid having posts hidden. The very few times it has happened, I have understood why, and try to avoid making the same mistake again.

I don't think there are any topics that are forbidden, other than the ones listed in the TOS. The rest is just a matter of not attacking others and discussing things calmly. That's not all that hard to do, really.

[cyberswede]

23. Each person decides that for themselves, right?

If enough people think a post is silly, and they don't post in it, it will sink. Seems elementary to me.

However, there's a reason some posts turn into flamefests...despite many people recognizing the post might be "silly." I think those are the posts the OP is talking about.

[Capt. Obvious]

25. I'm continuously amazed

at the ability of one member in particular to post bait intended to troll a particular subset here, and have members of that subset take the bait every time. It's a giant train wreck every time.

Once in a blue moon no one will take the bait so it's left for the trollers to reply to said bait with "kick."
That's actually enjoyable to watch.

[99Forever]

31. That's what I would have thought myself.

When I read a post that seems silly or not interesting to me, I don't bother with it. Seems self correcting to me.

But as best as I can gather from the OP, they expect others to be guided by what they think is "silly" without even defining just exactly what that is.

[LanternWaste]

47. I thought it implicit in the OP that each reader decides that for themselves.

I thought it implicit in the OP that each reader decides that for themselves.

Most people recognize the Three Stooges are silly-- but no doubt, a handful of dogmatic dullards will analyze it as classical drama if that suits their bias. While yet another handful will demand to know who is in charge of calling the Three Stooges 'silly'.

[seabeyond]

3. i will set straight then let it go. the imaginary is you and others suggesting anyone thinks sanders

is racist.

that is not and has never been the conversation. purely fabricated. false.

[boston bean]

13. What was the guy's name who got TS'd who started the Let It Sink campaign?

[seabeyond]

14. i dont know, do i? eloydude was tos'ed today. but i do not know that i know what you are

talking about.

[boston bean]

16. back in 2008 primary wars... can't remember his name for the life of me.

[seabeyond]

17. lordy woman, i have a togh time remembering a month ago. 2008, is fuggin' fuzzy. nt

[boston bean]

21. I finally got it!

sniffa... remember him?

[seabeyond]

26. vaguely, lol. huh. i am glad you got it cause it is irritating when something

sits there tickling your brain.

[LanternWaste]

49. You tempted me to look up his old posts. Reading the first few was like that weird taste in your mou

You tempted me to look up his old posts. Reading the first few was like that weird taste in your mouth you get fifteen seconds before your surprise yourself with an epic puke.

[mmonk]

34. I guess my eyes deceived me this morning.

My bad. Those words like "real world" and "lily white" were hallucinations I suppose.

[seabeyond]

35. yes, your eyes did. no one called sanders a racist. noone. the lily white? was a snark op, at anyone

suggesting sanders is a racist. which no one suggested he was a racist.

so you seeing lily white, without looking at the OP and attributing it to some one saying sanders is a racist, ..... is WRONG. lyin' eyes.

the other one, you will have to help me out.

so, let me reiterate for you, since you are part of the problem continuing a fabrication. no one called sanders a racist. no one.

[m-lekktor]

38. yeah that link to the miss smartypants blog was a big group hallucination.

with racist pictures include for special effects!

just because it wasn't a full out accusation does NOT mean it wasn't implied.

[seabeyond]

43. you get to make the decision if implied or not, doe not make it fact. nt

[mmonk]

39. The real world one was about the makeup of his audience of his announcement in Vermont.

The other related to their ethnic makeup.

[seabeyond]

44. no one is alowed to discuss demographics all of a sudden, cause you do not want to hear it?

a perfectly legitimate political discussion, trash it and accuse people of calling sanders a racist to shut them up?

so, fabricate bullshit, cause you do not wnat to hear it. what i said...

no one

called sanders a racist.

[mmonk]

50. I understand. Insinuations mean nothing if you can use it.

Even if the pretense is false. Oakie Doakie. I still stand by my op. Non-issues.

[seabeyond]

52. this would be an example of fabricating, totally 100% fabricating, something nasty to shut

some people up.

hold on tight, to the whole world accusing sanders of being a racist, because some reason, you need that comfort.

you do not even admit, the "lily white" thread you referenced was in DEFENSE of the man not being racist by showing a picture of him among diversity. yet still, you use it as a weapon for your defense of making your argument. how dishonest is that?

kinda like your hold on the claim.

[Rex]

4. The ones that bash our democratic candidates, I am going to call out in those threads.

Tired of seeing ALL our candidates getting bashed on a progressive website.

[7962]

32. Who in the world calls out ALL of them?

I guess i miss a lot since I tend to stay in the LBN area. But what negatives can you throw out about Sanders? Havent really seen much negative against O'Malley, but I'm not that familiar with him.
But Hillary, well, regardless of supporting her or not, anyone who doesnt think she has the most negatives is fooling themselves. call it "right wing conspiracy" or whatever, much of whats said is a real issue.
Find the same stuff about Sanders. I dont think its there.

[NCTraveler]

7. K&R nt.

[Avalux]

8. I love posts like this, done it myself.

I've also been active here for a loooong time, and they fall on deaf ears. It's like the angel warning Lot's family to not turn around and look back as they fled Sodom (or Gamorrah, can't remember), then Lot's wife couldn't resist, looked anyway, and turned to stone.

People just can't help themselves.

[Capt. Obvious]

15. It's the wet paint sign conundrum

What do you do when you see a wet paint sign?

[mmonk]

40. LOL. Yep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Actually the emails are not contrivances

but not because of Issa. But hell, I am a fan of history and archival explorations. And the emails told us a lot of the continuity in foreign policy from administration to administration. Now, if you are a partisan...I can see how some would prefer if they were destroyed.

[7962]

33. Its viewed as a "contrivance" simply because its a negative.

It should be a very simple test for everyone: Switch the party of the person involved in whatever is going on. If Hillary was a republican, would it still be "contrivance"? I doubt it. Look at the drone program. Some here blasted Bush for using drones, but have no problem with Obama doing it. And on a MUCH larger level.
Like you said, if you're a partisan......

[mmonk]

42. I have some issues with the alternative server my self.

But witch hunts and wild speculation is what I was referring to, like Benghazi.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Yet, after going over them

I have a question for Issa... why the hell did he not go after the pay out from State after the car wreck? (For the record, those pay outs are like Tuesday for the State department, but most folks do not know that in the United States.)

Yes, I am evil that way... but after they found zero stand down orders... that was like a gimme if you are into scandal searching. Oh the waste!!! Government giving money to FOREIGNERS, can you believe it?

because somebody will
a) take offense
b) not get it
c) All of the above.

As I said, I did write and others posted here, in good reads. a piece on the emails. What the material told me about the continuity of policy from one administration to the next was far more problematic than the make believe scandal that is quite alive and well at Fox still.

But I know that kind of analysis is not wanted here. Why I did NOT post it, but when others said cane we? sure. I just won't post it.

In fact, the story I am working on right now, which is a round up of the races and where they all are... includes Republicans, will not be posted on Democratic Underground either. I discovered a while ago that policy is not the way this place rolls.

On edit, though I did post a LINK to the State Server for those who have any interest. It was THAT thread that told me fully just how real honest discussion is wanted.

Oh silly season will be lots of fun...

[mmonk]

51. Yep. The silly season is upon us. But it will be over in a little more than a year.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. I am just grabbing the popcorn

Now I should call the computer repair shop to see if it is going to be done today.

I feel silly, but sharing so it might help others. And this little foray into fraud land has cost me quite a bit of time this week. At least I trusted my gut a tad and the pay pal account I used has no links to any banks... and my debit card was reissued today.

http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/05/28/an-adventure-in-fraud-land/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. This is never going to work because some people just come here to start fights...

eom

[Sheepshank]

19. I suppose we could actually participate in and by default bump threads with substance....

and a decent discussion?

Like this thread, I just bumped it

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. How about this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026744035

Silly enough?

[cyberswede]

24. Indeed - but that one is silly in the GOOD way

[gordianot]

22. This next two years is not the time to attack any Democrats.

No matter the contrived or perceived flaws we cannot afford a Republican President or Congress. Republicans are fair game and there is no need to make up anything.

[Fumesucker]

41. Exactly, any discovery of flaws in the Democratic candidate should be done by the Republicans

Done by the Republicans in the General Election.

Because we all know the party of Karl Rove would never sandbag during the primaries in order to face the candidate they have some really primo dirt on.

[sabrina 1]

27. I agree, except for 'set the falsehood straight' in silly threads. All that does is to keep them

going. If a lie is being told about any candidate, start another thread with facts without referring to the 'silly thread'.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. Precisely. (nt)

[woo me with science]

54. [phone]

[jtuck004]

28. K&R. n/t

[Cryptoad]

29. Is this Satire?

[Fumesucker]

36. Some of the sillier threads are among the most entertaining

Where would we be without the Moon Bombing threads?

[Skidmore]

37. I just turned down participation in a jury

for the reason that I get tired of people alerting with blatant whines about people who have a difference of opinion with them. I will participate in juries adressing more egregious violations of personal attacks or for racist or sexist language. However, I will not participate in juries where someone is calling for censorship based upon the posting of an opinion at odds with theirs. It happens a lot and people need to learn the difference.

[kentauros]

46. Just be sure not to come into the Lounge via its escalator:

[KG]

48. kick!