HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » moriah » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

moriah

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Arkansas
Member since: Tue Jan 8, 2008, 09:18 AM
Number of posts: 5,806

About Me

I'm a weirdo ginger from Arkansas who hates trolls.

Journal Archives

Until someone can link the actual 78 page report, can we limit the dupes?

Seriously, I've clicked every damn thread people are posting on this and not one has the report, which is what I want to see.

Of course, I'm sure there were tons of dupes about the "beauty contest" primaries. So really, I guess carry on, but if you do find the actual report, could you say so in the title? I'd sure appreciate it.

Have a great day. It's been thundering all morning here.

So, one of our three critters successfully dispatched a rodent.

The unlikely suspects:

1) Sandy, an eight-year old, 10 lb long haired dapple dachshund who has some predatory instincts, but to her owner's knowledge has never actually caught anything.

2) Hazard, a partially deaf, extremely chill cat my roommate found wandering as a kitten in the middle of the road. He still has fighting instincts when cornered, but apparently doesn't notice anything from keys jangling to vacuums. He did, however, freak out majorly from fireworks, so he might have some hearing in unusual ranges (maybe even the rodent range).

3) Ash, the kitten I adopted from the shelter long before his mom would have taught him how to hunt. He's much more of a "cat", and has always enjoyed thrown or moving toys and attacks them viciously, but usually would then bring it back for me to throw again. It could have been him, but if it was I think I would have woken up to the rodent on my bed, deposited there because it stopped playing but Mommy can throw things and make them move again.

It wasn't eaten, just killed. All three critters are well-fed, and got treats since we couldn't tell which slew the dragon.

Old, but worth a read... "More Than Likeable Enough"

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/saying_nice_things_about_hillary_clinton_has_become_a_subversive_act.html

More Than Likable Enough
I like Hillary Clinton. And I’m convinced that saying so can be a subversive act.

By Sady Doyle
My affection for Hillary Clinton is hard to explain. It wins no fights and earns you no friends to admit feeling actual warmth, even protectiveness, toward this impossible, frustrating, contradictory, polarizing, disappointing woman. My finding Hillary intensely “likable” is weird. It doesn’t signify universal approval of her decisions. I can and do disagree with Hillary Clinton, regularly and strongly. But some part of me also hopes that Hillary Clinton is having a nice day.

I’ve come to believe that saying nice things about Hillary Clinton can be a subversive act. I recently spent some time sorting through Clintoniana dating back to the early 1990s, looking at the nasty things people have said about her and common narratives that have formed about her personality. I got a better sense of the pressures that she has to live with—even on days when Donald Trump isn’t using words such as disgusting and schlonged to describe her—and how those pressures have informed her decisions.

Unless you really take a look at those pressures, the narrative around Hillary Clinton’s “likability” is doomed to be inaccurate. Trying to parse Hillary Clinton without also parsing Hillary hate is like trying to drink water without touching the glass.

Here is one of those pressures: Hillary Clinton absolutely cannot express negative emotion in public. If she speaks loudly or gets angry or cries, she risks being seen as bitchy, crazy, dangerous. (When she raised her voice during the 2013 Benghazi Senate committee hearings, the cover of the New York Post blared “NO WONDER BILL’S AFRAID.”) But if Hillary avoids emotions—if she speaks strictly in calm, logical, detached terms—then she is cold, robotic, calculating.


I saw this, and I have to agree. People think her support among women is "voting with their ovaries", but it's from a different source. Just as men aren't being sexist, nor are women betraying feminism, for supporting Bernie -- just because they disagree so much with her policies doesn't make them sexist.

But if elected officials can be sexist enough to, as a "joke", suggest an amendment to a law about exotic dancers requiring them to be young and height-weight proportionate.... just because it's not coming from Progressive Bernie supporters on DU doesn't mean it isn't happening out in the world.

This "Bernie Sanders Glowsticks" Meme Was Made by Someone Who Wants to Kill You

Edited to delete link to picture just to make sure no one here falls for it.

http://mic.com/articles/143020/bernie-sanders-glowsticks-chlorine-and-isopropyl-alcohol


Someone wants Bernie Sanders supporters to feel the burn — in their skin, filling their nostrils and in their lungs, even to the point of death.

A short infographic pulled straight from the Anarchist Cookbook called "How to make Bernie Sander's Glowsticks!" found its way to Tumblr, DeviantArt and Reddit in the past 48 hours.

Ostensibly, it's a guide to making small, blue glow sticks. It's even stamped with a fake "Bernie Sanders approves!" message at the bottom.

These instructions do not tell you how to make glow sticks. These are instructions for how to make a deadly chlorine bomb.


Bad, bad 4channer!

Seriously, this is awful.

GD:P Meta Lesson 101: Trolls: Don't feed them, don't accuse them.

At some point everyone has to be responsible for their own behavior, and remember that "s/he started it" wasn't a good excuse for bad behavior even in gradeschool. Civility should be the ideal.

But not everyone is civil. Some, as the article on this subject I'm highlighting mentions, are just assholes online because it's easier to be an asshole when you're not face to face and we all gotta vent somewhere. Sometimes there are genuine disruptors, often referred to as "trolls". The meme that there is a mighty Clinton paid troll brigade doesn't help -- those are not trolls, but shills, and accusing Clinton supporters of being either for having the audacity to express their opinion is REALLY GETTING OLD... uh, sorry about that. I'll moderate my volume....

Still, the way of dealing with both is the same. Since you can't control their behavior, you control your own.

There are three rules to remember if you think you're dealing with a "troll":

1) Don't feed the trolls. If they're doing it for personal amusement, they are just going to get enjoyment from your responses. If they're a volunteer or paid brigade supporting or opposing a candidate, your reply gives their arguments a kick and more visibility, which accomplishes their goals for them. Disruptors thrive by disrupting. If you ignore them, they can't disrupt anyone, get bored/told by the imaginary payroll manager to move to another forun, and go away.

2) Don't accuse them of being trolls. Not only is that feeding them, the article points out that sometimes it's hard to tell a real troll from J Random Asshole. Remember what opinions resemble -- we all have them, at least one person on the Internet thinks ours stinks, and usually vice-versa. Plus, it's a really lame thing, to go ad-hominem when you can't find another reason to say why they're wrong. Lastly, it's a personal attack, and recent Ask the Admins indicate there will actually be RULES here after the primary is over! Which is to say, better to start practicing new arguments. Just not with trolls.

3) Report suspected trolls to the Malicious Intruder Removal team. Even if the troll has been subtle/prolific to not be caught right away (the vast majority of Obvious Trolls are Obvious), if circumstances warrant they can get Admin to make the call if needed. Don't try to play detective on your own, especially not in public forums.

Remember, the idea of "trolling" came from fishing. If you think someone's a troll, don't take their bait!

Why Trump v Clinton will be an unpopularity contest -- TheGuardian

Why Trump v Clinton will be an unpopularity contest
A Clinton-Trump face-off in November looks more likely than ever. With both candidates having high disapproval ratings, victory may go to the least disliked

By Mona Chalabi, Guardian US data editor
Wednesday 4 May 2016 12.34 EDT


After Tuesday’s Indiana primary, it seems inevitable that in the presidential election in November, Americans will choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

...


Trump’s unpopularity has been pretty consistent. Often, when he appears to catch Clinton in national polling, it’s not so much about a Trump surge as a Clinton dip. And since November, similar polling for the former secretary of state has found that respondents are less inclined to say they have a favourable opinion of her.

Clinton’s falling popularity has been so steady that last month she was considered more unfavourable than favourable – just like Trump.

That conclusion – that neither of the two candidates Americans will probably have to choose between are viewed favourably by the majority of those Americans – is important. It could affect turnout, especially if there is a particular lack of enthusiasm in one party.



-----

Read more at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/04/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-general-election-analysis

Let's be clear: You are no longer a progressive if you are supporting Trump in the General

And also, clearer: not having a good enough clothespin, sufficient antiemetics, a barf bag, and enough intoxicants available after to be able to vote for Hillary in the General does not make you "not a Progressive", "not a Democrat" or "supporting Trump".

Edit to add: I was trying to say that even if people couldn't manage to vote for Hillary in the GE, they were still Democrats, Progressives, and not supporting Trump unless they were casting a vote for him.

Maybe I should have worded it that way.

Congratulations, Bernie supporters, staffers, and volunteers!

They deserve a round of applause from everyone.

Remember, the Primaries are not supposed to be a fight, but more of a job interview with each voter.

Congratulations, Bernie, the voters in Indiana chose you.

An honest criticism of Paul Thompson's email scandal thesis.

First, I do admire efforts to vet our candidates. I am glad that someone decided to attempt to analyze this to make sure it really wasn't as big of a deal as the GOP wants it to be (because we all know they won't be satisfied until she's burned at the stake).

1) The statement she made under oath very carefully avoided any charge of perjury. Hillary was always a much better lawyer than Bill.

"I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done."


2) Being in IT, my biggest concerns over this issue, from the beginning, was why it was ever allowed at all, how it was approved, and if there is any evidence Hillary used undue pressure against State Department IT personnel. Because, see, as was pointed out, using private servers was nothing new, and if regulations had not yet been passed forbidding them, it's entirely possible that she simply asked, IT *STUPIDLY* signed off on it without question, and then it was already there. If so, then the breaches of security are at least as much IT's fault as anyone else's. I would rather hear the truth from any involved under immunity, even if they were *STUPID*, so the fact a tech involed is testifying under immunity doesn't disturb me. I would love to hear what he has to say.

Jumping to conclusions that the request was made nefariously, however, is premature. And undoubtedly while traveling, which the Secretary did a lot of, her BlackBerry was crucial. Since emails on OpenNet, the only kind Hillary could access at all via her BlackBerry, were not supposed to ever contain classified information, yet apparently enough has been found retroactively classified from multiple sources, not just Clinton aides, that suggest either a wide problem with discussion of classified information over OpenNet itself, a breach of the current policies itself, or that many documents have been retroactively classified unnecessary.

3) As an IT person, the difference between a format of a server and a dedicated "wipe" (obvious attempts to sanitize a server) and the ease at which the FBI has been able to retrieve all emails suggests any "wipe" done by Clinton was probably the type designed to simply make the data inaccessible to anyone who attempted to boot the matchine.

One is much less suggestive of malfeasance than the other, even if the best solution had been to *not have the farking server in the first place*.

4) The reason I have to come down on IT is that it's IT's duty to enforce security rules on every luser, even the boss. Many times I've been in the unhappy position, as a contractor so no job security, dealing with district managers for a Fortune 10 retailer in my state, of saying that a certain request couldn't be done because it was an IT security violation, even if it had been that way for years. Usually it was something that had involved sharing his password with his secretary for certain uses/applications, and only discovered when the upgrade I was doing made it clear passwords were being shared.

I carefully explained that the rules didn't permit sharing of passwords, but I was sure there was a way to accommodate their needs within security rules, and tried to work with them. I only got pushback once, at which time I said, "Sir, if you'll pardon me, I need to call my supervisor for guidance on this. Thanks!" Stepped out, called the project leader who was an actual employee of said retailer, explained the situation. He said to go ahead and move on to the next person, and that he would take care of it, for me to come back after about an hour.

I was profusely apologized to, and we found an alternative. Later my boss told me that I had absolutely done the right thing, and that if I hadn't it would have been my job, not the usrrs.... not because they were permanent employees, but knowing the details of IT security wasn't their job -- it was mine.

My boss had my back, and IT security trumps even supervisors, even Secretaries of State. Wherever that chain broke, I want to know. And then hear ther testimony with immunity granted from the start so no undue pressure not to simply tell the truth.

I want to hear from the techs, most of whom probably were left over from the Bush Administration. So may have been rules.

5) Sid Blumenthal's "intelligence" has been described to be very shoddy and questionable. Still, it was the Republicans who refused to let us hear his deposition. Why?

This has all been, admittedly, become a talking point as a direct result of a vendetta against Hillary.

Vetting is good, and yes, the FBI knows it all.

But I, personally, want to wait (kneeling on broken glass as I do praying that if anything substantial had been found earlier that a Democratic-run Administration would have not let the Primary process continue, so hoping there is nothing and revealing that is the October Surprise this year) until they make official statements.

Blast from the past: DU's old rules!

https://web.archive.org/web/20110721225652/http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

For Civility (talking about and to members of Democratic Underground)


The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.


I can see why Skinner thought we should grow up some and not have to live by a ton of "thou shalt not"s.

Too bad we haven't....
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »