|
I'm literally wasting hours at the computer poring over the more vapid anti-Kerry threads (which is more my fault than anyone else's). But I think through the experience I've learned something.
Most of these have the same basic structure (paraphrasing):
Here is a list of poorly connected and factually unsubstantited interpretations of Kerry and Kerry-related entities that I ask you, the Kerry supporter, to refute with links and facts. Further, I will cry foul if you complain that it has been posted before. I will also declare victory if you leave without answering all of my follow-up questions, even if you have seen and refuted THOSE before as well. After you supply me with all the links and facts, I will turn around and use the same argument two threads down the road. Thanks!
It's just the way the cookie crumbles--Kerry's "on top" (for the moment) and his supporters are VASTLY in the minority, so many threads will need a response. But I admit I can't keep up with the pace, and it is way too demoralizing to take time to politely refute a petty and uninformed post with links and references only to see the same poster use the same argument again later without a care in the world.
It's this way because the goal in some negative posts is not to "find out" or "give information" about the candidate. The goal is to SMEAR the candidate. Therefore once you take the argument to a "stalemate" or a victory by putting the facts on the table, the poster may well abandon the thread to spread his/her same misinformation elsewhere.
But there are some quite valuable anti-Kerry threads (as there are with any candidate). There are threads that bring to light information that even some stringent research will miss. wtmusic's post concerning the Byrd amendments is one such example, seventhson's posting of the Boston Globe article with an overview analysis of Kerry's early political career is another.
But I really despair to see threads like "Kerry voted to confirm Ashcroft! How do you answer that Kerry fans!?" (he didn't). These facts are readily available.
I tried posting general information threads about Kerry, but that didn't generate the number of responses that a negative thread did, and the same arguments continued. In frustration, I posted a compilation of cited quotes from critical articles lambasting Dean's spotty environmental record in Vermont. I did this to try and put paid to the "Kerry is corporate, Dean is not" posts. That got responses, but the argument continued.
So I think the right idea is to ignore the worthless negative threads entirely. If someone doesn't take the time to look things up and check their facts, why should you? Especially considering that there is a good chance you will see the same argument from the same poster later on.
Why were you so stupid as to respond to these threads anyway, jpgray? Dunno. But this election is SUPREMELY important to me. If I see ANYONE saying "I won't vote for (any likely nominee)", it really upsets me. Those of you who have read my two threads on why this election is so important know why I feel this way.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
