General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould DU allow rightwing propaganda to be promoted here?
Apparently there is a very pronounced divide in this community.
One segment takes the maximalist "freedom of expression" approach, that says it's wrong to hide content just because it is something people here would disagree with. One sees this in juror comments all the time "if you don't like it, don't read it" and things like that. The theory goes that silencing dissent is bad, and that the only cure for bad speech is opposing speech. Trying to silence viewpoints is bullying and authoritarian, especially where the rightwing material targets the President and thus is really just an attempt by sycophantic followers of the President to silence dissent.
On the other hand, there are those (including myself) that believe that if you allow wingnut propaganda to get mainstreamed and promoted, then there really is no point to DU's existence. One can go to discussionist, or the Yahoo! comments , or anywhere else in the Internet universe to find wingnut propaganda being promoted. If the rule is that all viewpoints are considered prima facie equally valid, what the heck is this place then? Communities are defined by their rules, or lack thereof.
So, should teleprompter jokes, Ann Coulter columns, allegations of Benghazi cover-ups, sneering comments about President Obama bowing to foreign leaders, disparagement of 'socialists' in the Democratic party, repeated reference to the "Democrat party" etc be considered within community standards at DU?
So, which comes closest to your viewpoint?
| 48 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Freedom of speech should be the primary rule, only hide in extreme cases e.g. blatant racism | |
11 (23%) |
|
| Promotion of rightwing propaganda is a per se violation of community standards. | |
37 (77%) |
|
| 4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randys1
(16,286 posts)at first wasnt sure if i liked that but actually I think we cant allow the liars to post lies...
rock
(13,218 posts)which supported right-wing ideas, except there aren't any. They don't seem to think that truth adds any value to what they say!?
randys1
(16,286 posts)the time
I dare any con to test me on this..
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I think that's probably more accurate. 
-Laelth
randys1
(16,286 posts)since LBJ
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)I suppose this is the reason that political ads no longer require any of their statements to be true. None. Political ads can consist of nothing but lies. You simply can't sue a political ad for falsehood. Handy for the reppigies.
ismnotwasm
(41,971 posts)I come here to get away from that shit.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Put me down for no right with ya.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)it so I don't have to anymore. They sure as hell don't have to lend it legitimacy by bringing it here.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)RKP5637
(67,101 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)forum there might be a point to that but since there are other places to go and wrestle with right wing crap there should be a place for people to get away from said r.w.c.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Journeyman
(15,031 posts)
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)this IS a site for the promotion of Democratic ideals.
So I don't have a problem with not allowing RW propaganda
What I do have a problem with, however, is that some here even want to ban different ideas from people who vote Democrat, but don't pass some sort of litmus test for what's considered a "good" Democrat.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)if they're doing something that strays from progressive values.
Of course, such material can also cross a line (e.g. calling for impeachment) but in general of course such material should be given a FAR wider degree of latitude than stuff that originates from the rightwing reptilian id.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)People so invested in their candidate that they can't understand someone else's desire for improvement within the party itself.
justgamma
(3,665 posts)And people should also be free to praise the President and other Dems when they do something right. Without being called names.
Goes both ways
Or, let's say it should go both ways...
Skittles
(153,138 posts)yes INDEED
Tikki
(14,554 posts)Tikki
greatauntoftriplets
(175,729 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,729 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)You take a moment, then just shake your head and move on from some posts and OPs. Because if you bother to refute it with facts, that won't be responded to, ever, and TheIdiocracy© wins.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)There are some issues where progressives and libertarians seem to come together:
1. Dislike of the overweening national security state.
2. Drug policy.
3. Anti-interventionist foreign policy.
Is that what you're talking about?
Because other than issues like that, I don't see much support for libertarian ideology. I don't recall seeing a lot of posts arguing for lowering taxes on the rich or cutting food stamps or stuff like that here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)find a way to praise/defend Ron and Rand Paul but never criticize them, and are 100% negative about President Obama, that does raise questions, no?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Maybe during the next presidential election cycle, when I expect young Rand to make a serious play for the nomination.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)by any stretch of even the most vivid imagination. Libertarian is an all-purpose slur adopted by the BOG toward those who dislike the president's pro-corporate policies. Very similar to the way Hate Radio uses the work liberal.
Tikki
(14,554 posts)All below is a part of the Libertarian Platform that I have seen support for on DU
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING
Gun rights, check the libers stand.
Environment: Oil, nuke, chemicals…not the problem to them.
It's all about Free Trade with them…yes and all repugs and some dems.
HEALTH CARE…and this is a big one..Deregulate the Health care system…and vouchers for nearly everything.
Tikki
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Gun rights--also supported in the Democratic Party platform, with "reasonable regulation." A lot of Democrats like their guns.
Environment--Of course the LP is terrible on this issue. A lot of Democrats aren't that great on it either.
Free Trade--It seems like all the parties are for free trade. I see the occasional free trader around here.
Health Care--Of course the LP is terrible on this issue. I don't recall ever seeing anybody here calling for deregulation of the health care system. It might have happened, but definitely a minority opinion here.
Tikki, it seems like you have some problems with the Democratic Party, too. So do I.
Tikki
(14,554 posts)Some libers here try to make it sound like they are contrasting the repub speak with indignantly posting their talking points.
Seems like you might have less problems with certain libertarian posts than I do.
Tikki
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)They're probably pretty good on reproductive rights, too, at least if they're consistent libertarians. But I don't really know about that.
That other stuff, the economic libertarianism, I find anathema.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Just finished reading Erik Prince's book explaining the "Foundation" of Blackwater. An interesting read from the founder of the company.
Those three items you listed are where he's at today. He no longer identifies as a Republican - he's a Libertarian now. Has been for some time.
Not totally off topic but I wonder - would we welcome him here?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Just like Rand Paul. Even though he's not on our side, he may vote the right way on some issues. That doesn't mean he should have our support--except on those issues.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Who gets to judge?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and outside community standards, then so are teleprompter jokes and Benghazi conspiracy-mongering, no?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)In a heartbeat.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Does that mean President Obama? Andrew Cuomo? Joe Lieberman? Joe Manchin?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Go read for yourself.
http://www.thirdway.org/
Yes, many of our elected Democratic officials spew third way ideas. They may as well run as Republicans imo.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)from the page to which you linked:
...
Third way has its problems, but it's not in the same category as the bleatings from John Boehner and Louie Gohmert.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)They are a large organization that addresses many issues. Chances that I will disagree with ALL of them are slim to none.
My personal primary objection to 3rd way is in regards to their economic views.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Would you be banning yourself, then?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)on CC or Freeperville. If there is, should it get posted here? I consider third way as toxic (if not more so) than those other groups, as it has the funding and resources to actually get their ideas put into action.
Third Way represents Americans in the “vital center” — those who believe in pragmatic solutions and principled compromise, but who too often are ignored in Washington.
Our mission is to advance moderate policy and political ideas. Our agenda includes: a series of grand economic bargains, a new approach to the climate crisis, progress on social issues like immigration reform, marriage for gay couples, tighter gun safety laws, and a credible alternative to neoconservative security policy.
Unlike traditional think tanks, we do not house scholars who work in silos on academic research. Instead, we are built around policy teams that create high-impact written products and innovative trainings to influence today’s debates.
Our ideas have been used by the President, members of Congress, governors, mayors and countless political candidates. Based on our record, the media has labeled us “the future of think tanks,” “incorrigible pragmatists,” “radical centrists,” and the “best source for new ideas in public policy.”
http://www.thirdway.org/about_us
No where in this "About Us" do they even claim to be a Democratic group. So, imo, that puts them in the same category as Ron Paul Libertarians and Freepers.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)That will come as a surprise the the Snowdenistas & Greenwald worshipers.
Just what is it about 3rd Way that you dislike? Is their support for strict gun control? Gay rights & marraige equality? Economic juctice & a minimum wage increase? Clean energy & ending our dependance on fossil fuels? Abortion rights & gender equality?
Or is it just that they're successful in getting left-leaning & center-left candidates elected?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Did they get Sanders into office? Please elaborate on these supposed left candidates that they back.
Social issues are not the major problem with this nation, fascism is. Fascism has been hiding behind progressive social issues for quite some time now. I am against fascism.
3rd way economic justice? WTF does that even mean? Are they proposing massively increasing taxes on the wealthy? Progressive taxation of ANY form? Confiscatory levels of inheritance taxes? Please help me understand.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And here I thought Tea Baggers were delusional.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Did the poster mention Clinton and Kerry? Why do you always do this? Putting words into other peoples mouths?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)This is something Tea Baggers are fond of doing.
Not baiting, exposing the real agenda.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I am the furthest from a tea-bagger there is on the political spectrum. 3rd way is closer to teabageer than I.
Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #196)
Post removed
treestar
(82,383 posts)So they would ban people who supported a Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2008. That would not be Democratic Underground! Make a new board I say to that.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Gun Violence Too Close to Home
by Sarah Trumble
Until last weekend, I thought I understood better than most that so long as gun laws remain weak and rife with loopholes and our mental health system continues to let people fall through the cracks, gun violence can happen anywhere. After all, I’ve been to Newtown and met with the Sandy Hook parents in a neighborhood that looks just like the one where I grew up. And the Navy Yard shooting last fall that claimed 12 innocent lives took place only blocks from my Washington, D.C. apartment. But it didn’t really sink in until I woke up Saturday morning to discover that overnight six students at my alma mater were gunned down or stabbed to death in Isla Vista, California, with another 13 injured. It happened in the neighborhood where I lived for years as a college student at the University of California, Santa Barbara; in the neighborhood where my brother lives now as a post-doctoral researcher at that same university. Victims who were targeted for being young college women, just like my little sister—who only decided at the last minute to attend UCLA rather than UCSB.
In two weeks I am flying back to California to watch her graduate—but now six families just like mine will be attending funerals, not graduations. I don’t know what cracks the shooter fell through in our imperfect system that allowed him to pass a background check and purchase guns. But I do know now that current gun laws are not sufficient to keep me and family and friends safe.
......
http://perspectives.thirdway.org/?cat=4
So, should all articles from this site be banned from DU? Or only the ones that you happen to disagree with?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)or only the ones you happen to disagree with?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)you provided the link to thirdway.org.
Which implies that you think that everything from thirdway.org should be banned from DU. But now you appear to be backtracking somewhat from that stance. However, it is still not entirely clear exactly what you mean when you say "Third way should be banned from DU".
And on your questions about the comics, I don't think any comics should be "banned from DU". I do believe, however, that juries should vote to hide comics that they believe contravene DU community standards.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)that third ways economic agenda is so toxic, that they should be banned. I will not allow these other issues that they address offer cover for the republican disaster capitalism to be implemented be people supposedly "running on the left."
I think kos had it right.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260388/-Third-Way-s-congressional-enablers
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Markos (rightfully) banned any money raised by official DailyKos fund raising to go to any candidate that actively participates in the Third Way Democrats.
The explicit purposes for the existence of DailyKos is to elect more and better Democrats.
This is why DailyKos will do things like support the primary challenger for Democrats like Joe Lieberman, whose state was very much to the left of Lieberman on most issues and would never send a Republican to the Senate (e.g. Better Democrats)
DailyKos has also raised funds for Democrats who may espouse some very 3rd Way ideas (but never served on any board of 3rd Way) when that Democrat is running in a very red district or state. (e.g. More Democrats)
MArkos is usually very pragmatic and will always go with the most liberal Democrat that has a shot and will go for what could be termed a " Blue Dog" Democrat when the only other option is to let the Republicans take the seat.
The first priority in legislative bodies is the numbers. If you do not control the voting majority in a body of a legislature, you cannot set the agenda. From there, you must push that body constantly to the left.
For me, a Democratic controlled Congress (both bodies) is of vital importance because once you gain that, you can begin pushing the party further to the left to get the agenda you want. But having Democrats that support your agenda in the Congress is not enough if the Democratic Party is not in control of the Congress.
For my part, I am a liberal realist. The Democratic Party will never be as far to the left as I would prefer, so I realistically take what I can get and do my bit to push them further to the left whenever opportunity presents itself. Marriage equality is a perfect example of how this functions. It took a decade, but we've almost closed the gap and it has put the Republican Party on its heals because their base of support will not tolerate a change of the old position on marriage equality.
These sorts of movements take decades, but the more we do this together, and the more we are willing to tolerate those amongst us who may not 100% support our positions on every issue, the more likely it is that we will be able to set the agenda and get some truly progressive policies enacted.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)That nonsense gets thrown around all over the place, mostly w/o context.
It has become a lame throw-away line at this point.
treestar
(82,383 posts)include President Obama, Harry Reid, Pelosi, etc.
They want to make the board left wing enough to ban some Democrats? Not going to happen. That would change the basic TOS which says to be for Democrats.
Leme
(1,092 posts)I have been here a few weeks and post what I know, or think I know, or guess. I post my reasoning as needed. When any emperor has no clothes, I do not keep that silent. ( I am not necessarily calling President Obama an emperor, just some of his actions are quite questionable.)
-
Few people who think will lockstep with everything from an external entity/person.
-
I get things wrong. I try to be civil.
-
o well
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)For DU, the rubber hits the road not at political point of view, but at party loyalty. Party has always trumped issues, and always will.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And I've ALWAYS found the folks frothing violently here about Third Way to be 1000 times worse than any position I've seen espoused by this organization.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)They were more opposed to what they considered "third way" Democrats than they were to Republicans back in the mid-2000s
At this point, I pretty much view anyone talking about the Third Way in the same manner that I view folks who rail against the one-world conspiracy, the tri-lateral commission, or the illuminati.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)And the folks railing about the Third Way rail about this group considerably more than I've ever seen these folks rail about Republicans. That says everything that needs to be said, imo.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)In order to counter conservative viewpoints, you first need to be familiar with them. So I have no issue with posters bringing in excerpts from Coulter or Facebook graphics or e-mail forwards in order to discuss them, dissect them, and discuss their flaws and weaknesses.
Anyone who was truly offended by the teleprompter cartoon should be tombstoned for being too humor-impaired to safely be on the interwebs.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's one thing to criticize it "Chris Christie says xyz, what a dumbass" as opposed to promoting such material.
And, with due respect, many of us object to rightwing attacks like that cartoon. We do not share your extreme libertarian willingness to see rightwing propaganda promoted here.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)I really don't give a damn what you think either - bless your heart.
The cartoon was not an extreme right wing attack. It poked fun at our President (whom I voted for twice and to whose campaign I sent money) (and I have the CD, the car magnets, and the thank you letters to prove it) and his talent for being able to read from a teleprompter.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That sir/madame, is a rightwing talking point, and coming from someone with a short track record, mighty suspicious.
-- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), quoted by the New York Times, mocking President Obama in 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-mock-obamas-teleprompter-use/2011/10/18/gIQA6hEivL_story.html
Republicans mock Obama’s teleprompter use
Picking up on a theme that has been rippling through GOP circles for two years, Republican presidential candidates are trying to use President Obama’s reliance on teleprompters to deflate one of his biggest strengths — his oratorical skill. If Obama can’t give a two-minute speech without a screen telling him what to say, the critique goes, it’s a sign that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and can’t be trusted to do his job.
“Obama ruined the teleprompter for the rest of the politicians,” said Fred Davis, a media strategist who advised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in his 2008 presidential run and, until this summer, Republican candidate and former ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr.
“If you use it now, you’re like Obama,” Davis said. “It’s a negative because it’s a sign of inauthenticity. It’s a sign that you can’t speak on your own two feet. It’s a sign that you have handlers behind you telling you what to say.”
To claim that use of a well-known rightwing meme by a rightwing propagandist was not a rightwing attack, and to defend that cartoon using wingnut talking points itself, things that make long-timers go hmmmm.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Be careful - there are moles everywhere.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)...and I have a short track record here, so I must be one of them?
WillyT has over 55,000 posts. Is he a bad DUer? Is he a diabolical spy from Free Republic who has infiltrated DU to lower our morale through posting a cartoon of our President speaking Chinese because his teleprompter was hacked? Horrors! -- next he'll be linking to a live stream of Hannity.
I'll use short, east-to-understand words here: I.Have.Been.A.Registered.Democrat.All.Of.My.Voting.Life
..and.that.is.more.than.Elizabeth.Warren.can.say, pal!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/elizabeth-warren-i-created-occupy-wall-street.html
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)blatant rightwing propaganda, advancing perhaps the most well-known rightwing meme mocking the president from a prominent, rightwing cartoonist who has used that very meme to advance rightwing attacks on the president many times.
it takes quite a bit of willful ignorance, or bad faith, to proclaim that the teleprompter meme as deployed by rightwing hacks is not a rightwing attack
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)WC Green's impending loss is more important that this dumbass argument.
Stop assuming the worst -- not just in me, but in others. It's not willful ignorance. Do folks on the right joke about the President's use of teleprompters? Yes they do. So do centrists, leftists, and the apolitical.
It's like his big ears -- it's just a topic of which he takes some ribbing.
A lot of people on this site need to be slightly less paranoid. If you don't like something, just ignore it and move on. There's plenty here to read and discuss. It's like Disney World for those left of the center. Not everything is jury-worthy. Willy T deserved the benefit of the doubt.
Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.
I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jorel to save the Planet Earth.
Many of you -- many of you know that I got my name, Barack, from my father. What you may not know is Barack is actually Swahili for "That One."
And I got my middle name from somebody who obviously didn't think I'd ever run for president.
Barack Obama Oct. 16, 2008
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-al-smith.htm
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Doesn't mean the post shouldn't have been hidden.
Denying that the TelePrompter is a rightwing talking point is not a reasonable position to take.
Squinch
(50,934 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts) 
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I know I didn't. I have been told that ignorance is no excuse, but I have a life outside of DU and politics, so I must have missed the news about teleprompter jokes being always right wing. I read it as the Chinese have pretty much hacked everything now. I believe they possibly have. Even online games are hacked by Chinese gold farmers who make millions of dollars off of players by stealing resources, then selling them to players who can't get those resources, because they've all been taken by the hackers already.
I honestly did not know the teleprompter joke was a right wing meme. I don't think right wing stuff should be allowed on DU, but to me some things might be interpreted either way, at least by those of us who honestly did not know.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Not sure what the issue is here. Shouldn't the Chineese be applauded? This sounds like a stand-up example of "The American Way tm"
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Gaming companies have taken some of the ones they have caught to court over it. One reason it is against the law is that the people who sell the in game resources in the real world are stealing property from the companies who own the games. The game companies own the games and anyone selling something that is part of the game, is selling what the game companies crated.
Here is one example of it:
http://services.runescape.com/m=news/bot-busting-update-legal-proceedings
RuneScape is made by a U.K. company, but they are suing someone in America who used bots to gold farm. So, legally, companies can sue them for it.
I get your point, though, lol.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)as do all copyright and trademark claims.
edit - maybe I meant "not criminal"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)case study in the penetration of rightwing memes and general awareness thereof, and of assumptions people have.
Personally, I had just assumed everyone knew about the teleprompter thing.
brooklynite
(94,453 posts)Stating that Edward Snowden appears to have committed a crime and deserves to be tried?
Supporting a Presidential candidacy by "warmonger" Hillary Clinton?
Asserting that Occupy was a failed movement?
The notion that "we all know" RW propaganda strikes me as a hard lift.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)reaches general consensus levels, no?
Just because there is disagreement on some material does not mean there should be disagreement on all material.
brooklynite
(94,453 posts)I won't dispute that Third Way is more centrist than most people here. But would you really agree that an organization that six Democratic Senators are Chairs of, supporting marriage equality, mandated contraceptive coverage through ACA, and background checks legislation for gun buyers is "RW propaganda"?
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 1, 2014, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)
No question Reich Wingery and bigotry and Reich Wingery and theocracy are like peas and carrots and peanut butter and jelly but they are not necessarily the same things.
Education? RIGHT same as Jeb.
Military adventures? RIGHT always down.
Trade? RIGHT "Free" trade absolutist.
Austerity? Hard right, leading the fucking bandwagon.
Money in politics? Right, what's not to love?
Privatization of the commons? Hard right. Seemingly the same as Libertarians as in any way you want it that's that way you get it.
Support for labor? Right, as fucking zero and going hard right by joining the TeaPubliKlans in outright assaults.
The surveillance state? HARD RIGHT. Totally kicking it with Darth Cheney and propping and make legal Bush's abominations, including going after whistle blowers with ferver.
Destablizing governments and opposing democracy for profits? Way hard right.
Fighting tooth and nail to maintain the failed and stupid drug war? 110% Right wing.
Pushing devastating environmental policy like fracking and off shore drilling? Down like Charlie Brown. Fucking right wing.
Taxation on the upper class, rich, and the wealthy? ANTI! Right wing.
Union busters? PROUDLY. Right fucking wing.
Hatred and offense at even the call for accountability for the rich, connected, and the powerful accompanied by feverish blood lust for lower caste "law breakers" In FULL EFFECT. Right wing.
All about being the global police at any cost? Right fucking wing.
All about giving cover to phony ass "moderate" TeaPubliKlans to hold districts where a Democrat (often a decent Democrat) c old be viable? Right wing.
Not being a bigot from the stone age doesn't make you anything politically. What it should do is drive you from consideration for the ranks of the arguably sane and plausibly decent.
As for the gun control, that is pretty much where the hat is hung but I've yet to see a compelling argument that actively trying to remove an enumerated right is liberal at all. Doubly so when it has come to light that there is little love for any of the rest of rights either save lip service for voting rights (as not to screw up their path to power more than anything else and even that talk, sometimes double talk as the same types go along with the out and open right wing efforts).
Again, yeah. Ayn Rand herself was an outspoken atheist. Alan Keyes is crazy right wing as shot but maybe not racist exactly. The Log Cabin Republicans are guy but otherwise so far gone that they vote to support hate against themselves.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I've always thought that the Catholic religion was a crucial part of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s thinking. A quick search turned up this, from an article in U.S. News about atheists at CPAC:
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)With that said, I do not believe all criticism of the president (I adore Obama, but do not believe he is above criticism) or the party and its members (again not above criticism) should be "shut down" ... I realize it is a fine line and sometimes difficult to distinguish "bashing" and criticism" ... but right wing nuttiness and right wing memes of the day have no place
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)President being silenced. I certainly don't think it should be.
But wingnuttia, imo, should be something approaching zero tolerance (along with racism, homophobia, sexism/misogyny, and transphobia).
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I just wanted to express my opinion of the kind of place I want DU to be.
I actually think we have a serious problem with racist, sexist and homophobic stuff surviving jury scrutiny. While the vast majority of DUers are not racist, sexist or homophobic ... we have a sick and vocal minority of these folk
Again, not in any way insinuating anything about you or your positions on anything ... just taking the opportunity to describe how I feel
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)should be allowed.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)JJChambers
(1,115 posts)I've seen civil posts, espousing solidly centrist but still Democratic points of view, hidden again and again. It is just a crapshoot lottery of who ends up on a jury. I would like to see an appeals process added to the jury system, in which each poster is permitted to appeal one hidden post per week, however a successful appeal doesn't count against them -- so if you have a post hidden and it is overturned on appeal, you still have an appeal for that week.
I would also like to change the way the jury system works so that the identity of the poster being alerted on is kept from the jurors. I have seen a lot of our feminist posters targeted for alerts, and then their posts hidden, largely because of who they are here and not what they wrote.
ancianita
(36,009 posts)mote or hinder useful discussion for the greater good. Some really do know the intent of the poster and judge by that. Not me. I don't care if I like or don't like a poster or alerter, I used different standards.
Some jurists are thoughtful and consider post contexts, others take words out of context and 'hide' just on that slivver of meaning.
Not all jurists carefully review the context of the thread, but I do. I was also hidden once when the context of my post was ignored. I apologized to the person I responded to, but she said I didn't need to apologize one bit and quite understood the rhetoric I was using to illustrate a point. So, that's sometimes the breaks.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)You? Skinner? MIRT?
All this sounds to me too much like the ol' 'Purity Police'. It seems to me that the system here at DU works pretty well, the BS stuff is mostly caught. But keep in mind that what you personally consider RW propaganda may be someone else's reasonable criticism of the Administration. And it is well established that DU allows criticism of Democrats. It is not an Echo Chamber.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to be outrageous.
There were many vile insults hurled at people who voted to hide that cartoon.
If people want unrestricted wingnut propaganda allowed, that is what discussionist is for
n2doc
(47,953 posts)I don't think people should be hurling vile insults at those they disagree with. But I've been caught up in the moment too, and can't say I'm blameless.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)why people here would object to a teleprompter cartoon from a rightwing cartoonist.
I mean, does it really need to be explained why people would get pissed at that?
It's the kind of stuff one encounters in Sarah Palin speeches.
I can see why people might have not been offended, but those who did object had very legitimate reasons, and it seems that there was virtually no consideration of that.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Where to draw the time is hard sometimes. You obviously were offended by that post. I personally wasn't bothered, I saw it more as a shot at chinese hacking, and Stantis has done others on that subject. Enough people on the jury felt like you and it was blocked. System worked, in my opinion. The OP didn't choose to consider the objections, and was punished.
I've posted toons that have been blocked, I didn't see the objections, or sometimes I've been pissed off enough to not care. Maybe that happened here.
If you really want to see something vile, go look at Michael Ramirez' latest, also on the teleprompter/war stuff. Although I wouldn't recommend it for blood pressure or stress reasons.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)but a lot of people felt very strongly that it didn't
bluesbassman
(19,366 posts)It has been explained to you many times how that particular cartoon was interpreted, and that it was in no way meant as a RW meme. In the original OP many members voiced their concern about the issue, as is fitting for a discussion site, but unfortunately a jury hid it before the posting member could respond and continue the discussion. That happens.
What you are doing now, is continuing this Meta grinding in an open forum. The system works geek, and what you fail to grasp is context, nuance, shades of gray, etc. We see this from you in a variety of subjects. You want an echo chamber, not a place where people are free to express themselves (and take their lumps if it's warranted). DU is a place where we can engage in lively and thought provoking exchanges of ideas, but if someone crosses the line we have mechanisms to deal with it. You want to take those mechanisms to an entirely unacceptable level. I for one object to that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of us who think such stuff should not be tolerated, but not for us to push back?
"the system works"--well, there was obvious disagreement on that yesterday and today, with many claiming that hiding a rightwing cartoon was 'bullying' authoritarianism that had a goal of either being a personal vendetta or silencing all criticism of 'dear leader'
And your post indicates that you still are trying to portray those objections as authoritarian
bluesbassman
(19,366 posts)What I am most certainly pointing out is that you, and some others in those threads related to the issue are casting people that disagreed with the hide and the "RW meme" POV as something less than acceptable DUers, and you have the gall to whine that people are pushing back against that?!
This is not a rational discussion. You are way over invested in your own viewpoint at this time and have made and are continuing to make accusations against fellow DU members based on your own POV and it is not painting you in a good light at all.
So in your opinion it's ok to trash the motives and intentions of members who disagree with your POV? See how that works? Go back and re-read through those threads, with an objective view if possible, and then come back and answer my question.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and trying to determine which actually reflects site consensus.
bluesbassman
(19,366 posts)It's pretty transparent and is on par for you. You have displayed this type of tactic on many issues. You express your POV, somebody disagrees, and you then start hammering the "RW", "NRA", "MRA", etc. nails as if you have some kind of omniscient ability to understand each and every poster's intent, understanding, and personal history. And so here we are again, with a new outrage du jour for you.
BTW, you didn't go back and read all those nasty insults from YOUR side in the cartoon threads did you? Too bad, it may have helped you to understand things a little better.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as the cliche goes, sir, takes one to know one
bluesbassman
(19,366 posts)OK, I'll play: I'm rubber, you're glue...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with very little loss in momentum, expressed in absolute terms, and consquently impacts upon you and forms a surface-level adhesive bond to your person
bluesbassman
(19,366 posts)This other side? Not so much. But do carry on and have a great weekend. 
grasswire
(50,130 posts)
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)a certain segment of this website last night that needed equal pushback.
and people here deserve to have some clarity as to whether rightwing propaganda is ok
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)We spent hours on this last night.
This is beating a dead horse.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I am noting with 100% accuracy that what he posted was rightwing propaganda. I have repeatedly said that I have no doubt he did not intend to post rw propaganda, that this was an innocent mistake from which we should draw no negative inferences about him
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Can't get more rightwing propaganda than that, especially considering what has been learned in the last 50 years.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)If anyone posts against the rightwing line, "Oswald acted alone," they get the Alert.
Which is odd, as the liberal line is "We don't know what happened. But we want to know. Yet the government refuses to honor the law and the people's right-to-know."
Always amusing!
Now knowing a dickhead named Lee Harvey Oswald shot John Kennedy is "right wing propaganda"!!!!
You crack me up!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Here's something you may not know:
The OCTOPUS in Dallas: Poppy involved in JFK Assassination
There are many more instances of Bush family treasons, including Poppy's own father, Prescott Sheldon (there's that name, Dude!) Bush, Sr., who tried to overthrow FDR:
The people who tried to overthrow FDR in 1933 had kids.
Then there's Poppy's son, George Walker Bush, who lied America into war on Iraq, among other treasons:
Know your BFEE: Bush Lied America into War
Now Poppy's other son, John Ellis "Jebthro" Bush is readying a run for the presidency, not that there's anything wrong with that if one is a repuglian.
JEB Bush - - BFEE Kingmaker & Big-Time Crook
Where have you contributed anything to what we know about the Bush Family Evil Empire, SidDithers of DU?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Then, again, the world has changed a lot since Nov. 22, 1963.
For those interested in learning what's happened to the United States since then:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)places like Fox News and Stormfront then I agree.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)If a poster wants to post right-wing dreck from right-wing sources, let 'em do it at Discussionist.
Sid
Lars39
(26,108 posts)it gets harder and harder to keep up. I used to be able to keep up with everything *in depth*. Too many scandals and outrages to do that any more. You are castigating a long time DUer for essentially forgetting a teleprompter scandal and for not knowing a rw cartoonist. Be honest...you're just wanting WillyT gone.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to get shitcanned for one mistake.
you are awfully eager to ascribe nefarious motives to people who objected to that cartoon
Lars39
(26,108 posts)You've been pretty obvious in working these threads.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it was an innocent mistake
but you seem unwilling to consider that DUers of good conscience could have had a legit objection to it
Lars39
(26,108 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who simply cannot conceive of why people would object to a rightwing cartoon from a rightwing cartoonist.
Y'all had not one but TWO rec list diaries with people acting as if someone dog's had been shot because a bad post got hidden
it wasn't the mistake, it was the really dumb outrage expressed by others at what was a good jury verdict
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who are the one who just cannot imagine another motive.
indeed, i think it quite accurate to suggest that had it been a newbie poster who had posted that, they would have gotten a hide and there would have been general consensus that it was the correct decision, with very little dissent, certainly not with those angry at the result dominating the top of the greatest page
you would do well to look outside your own narrow frame of reference, and be open to the possibility that maybe people think and have motives for which you are not aware.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Do you secretly suspect that Tom Tomorrow is a right wing libertarian merely pretending to be a lefty comic artist to get his digs in, too? How deep does your rabbit hole go?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
what next, comparing George Will and Paul Krugman?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)willy is not a rightwinger.
do you understand how both of those statements can be true?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)just posted something from newsbusters (a rightwing website) attacking the president.
after voting in the poll here that we should allow rightwing sources.
gonna argue that one was persecution/a lynch mob too?
or, maybe just maybe, posting partisan rightwing attacks on a Democratic president is not a good idea at Democratic underground.
you could ask Better Believe It and dkf about that
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Huh?
Sounds like you folks are keeping way too much score on happenings here.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I once had a post hidden here for merely copy-pasting a rec list into the thread it was about Juries can be fickle sometimes.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Last edited Sat May 31, 2014, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)
used to post at Kos, where the analog is "rec list"
This shit-stirring thread ought to be locked.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)There are many many threads here that I would never even click on.
There are many many opinions here that are in my estimation absolutely right wing.
And what exactly do cats, cat, cats, cats have to do with Democratic principles and values?
For those people who may by chance read this comment - I am really only saying you should be able to express your opinion in a respectful way (and recognize you are on a left-leaning Democratic blog, where left-leaning Democratic monitors will ban you), and I am just kidding about cats (see, I have a dog avatar?).
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Though, TBH, we do need to put some limits on some of the fringe-left crap that's been thrown around as well; stuff like "all men are potential rapists" or "PoC can't be racist, period, because....." are violations of Community Standards themselves as far as I'm concerned(especially the former, because it basically comes across as bashing men, but the latter as well, because it's just nonsensical, and is sometimes used as a trolling device).
And, btw, I mean no offense to any of the good people here who may find themselves on the farther end of the spectrum.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)A lot of people were very nasty and angry towards the jurors who voted to hide that post, without bothering to think for a second if there might be a legit reason to vote to hide.
That indicates a very real divergence in community values.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)willy was not the major problem. he fucked up, innocently, took his lumps, that should have been the end of it
but what we got were two rec list diaries full of people going into convulsions of outrage, launching really nasty personal attacks, and concocting absurd and juvenile conspiracy theories as to why a rightwing cartoon from a rightwing cartoonist got hidden.
you should really learn to be able to tolerate people talking back to you and disagreeing, especially when they have been proven correct
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)presented, especially when you and yours are shown to be in error.
witness, the two rec list threads full of people besides themselves with grief over a 100% good jury verdict, concocting juvenile conspiracy theories about Obama cultists forming sock puppets in an attempt to bully the real, true, pure progressives into not posting rightwing propaganda, with some making asses of themselves by insulting the intelligence of those who were knew more than they did and recognized a very famous rightwing talking point (Obama so dumb he can only say what's on the teleprompter) from a well-known rightwing hack who uses that attack to make that point about the president with some regularity.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025026909
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025028638
I know it grieves you and yours to have those who disagree retain the privilege of starting their own threads to state their disagreement with you, alas, free speech is not just for people in one largish clique.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Or maybe 3rd.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)because I might get on somebody's "list."
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
wandy
(3,539 posts)One of the reasons our Right Wing 'friends' are so often confused is the manner in which information is presented to them.
Headline:
"Liberal Senators attempt to abolish the first amendment"
This is followed by parts of speeches taken out of context and in some cases highly edited video.
Of course the real story has to do with ending Citizens United and fixing the One Dollar = One Vote mess.
We are then surprised and sometimes entertained when the fools start screaming.
"Not only is Obama coming for you're guns, he is going to take away you're free speech.
Foolish, yes. Laughable, yes. Ignores the danger of misinformed masses, yes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
I feel it important we understand that things like 'Operation American Spring' are the result of the problem not the cause.
Then and again sometimes they are comical.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)However, joking about a teleprompter isn't 'propaganda', and while I guess Democrat Party sounds odd in some tenses, we don't exactly call ourselves 'Democratics' either so I'm not sure how that one became a right-wing thing (I'd be open to a history lesson on that though, maybe its just something I haven't heard often -- I just know someone told me it was a RW thing. It can't be too big of one, given my familial background).
I guess the whole teleprompter thing would depend on the context (I didn't see the cartoon that I know this thread is based on, so maybe it was particularly bad or something), but comparing Ann Coulter, Benghazi, the whole Commie/Socialist canard or something to it seems...a stretch.
And no, I don't support shutting down a conversation based purely on where it came from unless that rag/author has -no- journalistic integrity whatsoever (aforementioned Coulter for example), especially in cases where just saying 'b..but thats something a right-winger said once!' is all the evidence there is. I don't let the right-wing dictate my thoughts, so I don't see why we should only be allowed to discuss on ground they haven't staked a claim on yet. But right-wing propaganda? No. No place for it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)As an example, I support the Citizens United decision, and many DUers would classify this position as "right-wing". But the ACLU also supports Citizens United. President Obama enthusiastically supports free trade. Many Democrats support the death penalty and the right to bear arms. And so on.
The nice thing is that the jury system takes care of this automatically, so nobody need agonize about what should and should not be allowed or send long lists of grievances to Skinner. For example, if juries started hiding my pro-Citizens United posts I would stop posting them; but so far, not one of those posts has ever been hidden by a jury. The community has judged that this is an acceptable position to take on DU. On the other hand, sneering references to Obama as "Barry" (for example) do tend to be hidden by juries. I think the jury system is ingenious and works very well.
knownow
(53 posts)Obfuscation of that general brand is how Phil Robertson became so darn popular and plus Phil looks like the physical ideal of a retributive God, I'm sure he thinks so too. The Grand Old Poops stink bigger and louder than ever. They sure scream about evil this and God-forsaken-that and truthfully I'm sure old Phil puts way too much thought into what gay men do when alone together. Homophobes are the ones that are always GOP, I have plenty of balanced information and I don't need old Phil coming on here and spouting hateful things. I come to this site for a little amusement and to laugh at the incredible and unbelievable. The world could do with fewer grampy Phil types.
PFunk
(876 posts)If it's truly,obviously RW crap then ban away with gusto as other stated there's enough of it outside of this site. Let it not come in here. However it it's RW crap meaning to inform/and critique (after all one must know what the enemy is up to) then I think it should be warily allowed. Still that should not be an excuse to flood DU with it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sat May 31, 2014, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)
And the Third Way's "full-time" Orwellian spew is not only tolerated here, but protected.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025006297#post344
woo me with science (26,106 posts)
344. You know, the very first time someone tried to label me as a "Right Winger" at DU,
it was after I had posted an article specifically criticizing Obama for continuing so many BUSH policies.
The title, the entire thrust of the article, decried his BUSH policies.
I nearly died laughing. I thought I had run across some delusional poster who didn't understand what "right-wing" meant, or who Bush was.
Later, of course, I realized that this is a Third Way talking point, like all the others that deal in utter absurdity: for example, trying to pretend that the agenda I detailed above is not right wing itself, or that opposing it is even remotely "Right Wing."
Trying to pretend that these aren't policies, across the board....mass surveillance, "Kill Lists," drilling, fracking, deregulating, corporatizing...to make a true "Right Winger" salivate.
It's a shame that posts like this OP ("CUT THE CRAP: Your month in review from the most "progressive administration ever!": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025006297#post344 are needed. After all, we all witness these betrayals every day with our own eyes, and our families are suffering the effects of them every day as our middle class is hollowed out and our Constitutional protections dismantled.
The only reason summaries like this are needed, is to highlight the utter absurdity of talking points like the one you just repeated.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Libertarian bullshit is "right wing," and those bastards don't vote for Democrats. Yet that doesn't stop the Paulbot brigade from shovelling that garbage here incessantly.
Those 3rd Wayers you keep whining about DO vote for Democrats--so get over it.
The party has a big tent, we have Blue Dogs and Wellstonian Dems, and everything in between, deal with it. You're not the arbiter of what constitutes a Democrat. Party registration and how the person votes determines that.
This website IS about "electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans to public office," not about your purity tests. Frankly, your demand that people march to YOUR tune is divisive and disruptive, as well as intolerant and rude.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Always, always watch the policies, not the color of the jacket.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Look, you are clearly angry that not everyone in our party thinks like you. Too bad for you. You're not "the decider" even though you clearly want to be.
Here's a pro tip--you want to lead? You want to be a "decider?" Get out there and run for office. Win people over with the force of your ideas, instead of pulling people down for not being "pure" enough. Stop griping and scolding on the internet about how you're smarter/better/purer than the people out there doing the work. Try doing it, for a change, and see how easy it is. You might be surprised.
Even the most ardent progressives compromise -- it's how politics works. Give a little, get a little. That's the name of the tune.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Okay, it's all just obstruction and necessary compromise, from the endless parade of crony appointments to the extensive lists of proactive corporate assaults.
This administration is just FORCED into its agenda of mass surveillance, "Kill Lists," predatory trade policy, corporate health insurance, murdering net neutrality, right-wing appointments, warmongering, toll interstates, *and* environmental and educational assaults!
And the Third Way crew here defending it all are the most liberallest liberals ever!
War is Peace!
2+2=5.
(And a Pantload is a Pony.) 
You win! 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014336360
The record shows aggressive, proactive pursuit of a corporate agenda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395
CUT THE CRAP! Your Month in Review from the most "progressive" administration ever.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025006297
http://m.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can post all of your deepest thoughts, and then respond to them. You and you will be the bestest, most pure posters EVER!
It'll be a real humdinger of a discussion, I'm sure.
Number23
(24,544 posts)BOY, is that putting it nicely!!! 
No doubt. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)The TOS is pretty clear.
Hasn't ANYONE read it? It starts out like this:
Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
Rightwing propaganda should be MOCKED here, if it even comes up. Beyond that, take that crap to DISCUSSIONIST.
Iggo
(47,545 posts)
Unh, unh, unh, mmf, mmf, unh, yeah!
bluesbassman
(19,366 posts)
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)On the DU, the inmates have taken over the asylum.
If you say "rightwing propaganda" shouldn't be allowed here, pretty soon the nutcase crowd will start declaring that mainstream Democratic positions are "rightwing propaganda". To a large extent, they already do. Obama is routinely bashed as a warmongering authoritarian "corporatist" (i.e. capitalist), and those who defend him are alerted on constantly.
Then, based on the luck of the draw, slowly whittle all actual Democrats off the site.
To a large extent, this has already happened.
To me, what should happen is this: Skinner should limit the ability to alert on a post to once every month. If you do it more than that, your motivation isn't to eliminate racism or egregious violations of the TOS. It's to use the shit-flinging-monkeys-taking-over-the-zoo situation here to make the D.U. even more of a platform for anti-Democratic agitation than it already is.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I'm talking about stuff like teleprompters and 'bowing' jokes and sites like The Weekly Standard and Newsbusters.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)But I still think the jury system is being abused by the kook brigade, so I'm not terribly in favor of it.
I still think the better way to handle this is to call people out when they post Republican/Libertarian drivel.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS. You will not force me to see FIVE!
Mz Pip
(27,434 posts)I actually like to read the comment discussing the various right wing talking points and latest smears against Democrats. We used to have apropoganda debunking group where articles, chain emails, etc could be debunked.
Years ago I had an OP hidden because it was some RW article that I wanted refuted. Apparently, even opening it up to be trashed wasn't okay. It seemed a bit of an over reaction. How do we fight them if we aren't even allowed to see what they are saying?
TBF
(32,029 posts)for 1/2 an hour and it will tell you what you need to know. There is no need to bring that garbage here - we are inundated with it not only on FAUX but also a fair amount in the mainstream media as well.
TBF
(32,029 posts)defining "right-wing" can be open into interpretation. When I served on MIRT there were multiple times I saw right-wing arguments but others I served with saw them as centrist. One of the issues was "disparagement of socialists in the Democratic party" which I fought very hard against with no success. Others on MIRT refused to see that as a problem. And the website is only as good as MIRT/hosts/jury system. In comparison I think we had a more progressive community when it was a moderated site. JMHO.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)between progressive policy criticisms and rightwing memes, talking points, and propaganda
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Let's stop all of the support we see on this site for right wing policies like fracking, privatizing education, kill lists, Fourth Amendment violations, etc., etc.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)indicating that it has merit and is worthy of consideration on its merits
grasswire
(50,130 posts)What indicates that the poster intends to "promote" it, as opposed to simpley present it for discussion? You'd better be specified if people are getting locked out for not adhering to your unofficial standards.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as promoting, yes.
if someone had posted a cartoon of Elizabeth Warren as Pocahantas, with a "lol" we would not be having this conversation, as you would not be objecting to what would be a 7-0 or 6-1 hide.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)because she is a well-liked, and walk-the-talk Democrat.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)She's a Dem through and through.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)to decide who comes and goes. So I don't worry about It's.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)DU's under no obligation to tolerate RW nonsense being posted here in violation of its rules.
That in mind, I'm not surprised at all by some who voted Yes.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)had Discussionnist, if they want fight with Libs.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Truly disgusting.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it would seem that those of us who believe that rightwing propaganda is a per se violation of community standards are the big majority.
you are obviously free to disagree, as you indicated in the poll
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)witch hunt filth?
Good lord.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)How about rhetorical questions and push-polls?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat May 31, 2014, 12:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Should DU allow rightwing propaganda to be promoted here?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025030258
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is meta, but far worse, it's part of a continuing stalking campaign against WillyT. Enough is enough.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 31, 2014, 12:41 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Jesus Christ, you alerted on this? Maybe putting down the meta and stepping away from the drama would be a good idea.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: gotta agree. put it on his record.
bad boy. meta. stalking. bullying.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't like this thread at all. One could say those who bash the "hard left" here are using right-wing propaganda as well. Still, I don't think this thread is bad enough to hide.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree that this is only slightly veiled disruptive meta. There are a lot of good liberals, democrats, and progressives who have some position that is also consistent with a RW stance.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I agree that this is disruptive, simplistic, shit-stirring meta - and at least a quasi-callout given the obvious inspiration of WillyT's post - I am more aligned with the mindset that GT is railing against (although the OP's criticism is lacking nuance and laced with strawmen). Accordingly, I'm voting to leave, with the comment that this is an excellent candidate for a Host-Lock and an even better candidate for a Thread-Trash.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And then complain that they're being "unfairly maligned for their faith" by people who point out their ties to the Christian Right?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but not others?
Or are we going to be consistent?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I do find it a little funny that somehow Christian Right cluckturds like "Morality in Media" or Judith Reisman are suddenly supposed to be given a free pass on their fucked up ideological bend, because they're 'bravely speaking out about the danger of pornography'.
alp227
(32,013 posts)Let's review the TOS:
The 2nd excerpt is a perfect description of lots of right wing media, unfortunately.
Ohio Joe
(21,748 posts)Gun nuts, MRA's, supporters of the pauls, supporters of citizens united and much more right wing crap is allowed at DU.
Not only do Juries allow it, they allow it to get worse and worse.
I don't like it and I vote to hide it.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Some of it is apparently acceptable. Stuff along the order of "The far left hates America" and "Blame America first" are right wing propaganda of the highest order, but raise few objections.
FWIW I think none of it should be allowed.
I also consider "White people/men are the real victims." and any of the assorted "cute" nicknames for feminists to be right wing propaganda.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't think anyone should get away with quoting and praising the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck or any of the other current assholes and idiots that make up most of conservative radio and television. (I used to work for a conservative radio station, so I have excellent reasons to be even more opposed to those three idiots I named than most people do)
If people are quoting them verbatim as if they were in perfect agreement, well, yes. I don't think though, that severe or obvious RW propaganda ever really gets a free pass here. I think there's a lot of debate about what is acceptable from "good democrats", or "true liberals" and such - and the frequent accusations that get thrown around are annoying... especially as, under the TOS, we're really not supposed to paint with broad brushes or accuse people of being right wing trolls and such.
The few times I've come across what I'd call real and obvious right wing propaganda here, it was quickly dealt with. That said, there is no conservative notion, no right wing propaganda, ideal, notion, thought, action or statement... that we can't seriously beat the shit out of. Not in my experience.
I'm not familiar with the cartoon which this debate seems to be centered around, but I think most things should be open for discussion and debate. I think we should be careful not to mislabel or misjudge a poster or a poster's intent.
Obvious right wing propaganda? Ban it. I don't want it to read it here either. Everything else? That's why we have juries.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)so I voted for the second option which as far as I can tell is how it works. My strong preference would be to expand the SOP to include racist sources and RW attacks on Dems. But they ain't in there now.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)After all, DU seems to have no problem with right-wing talking points on issues like: gun control, the death penalty, the gender pay gap, violence against women, feminism, and race.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Is it something personal you have with Willy, or not? Despite your assertion that you didn't want him banned, you seem determined to keep the issue alive. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025028638#post83
pecwae
(8,021 posts)If someone thinks it is they're trying too hard. "Trying to silence viewpoints is bullying and authoritarian..." works in many ways.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)If you had asked who was offended by WillyT's cartoon, and who was not offended by it, I think it's safe to say there would be a very different result.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)because you will end up acting just like them...
frogmarch
(12,153 posts)that I, an atheist, should feel I’m exercising my right to free speech by popping into a church service and giving the congregation a piece of my mind.
In other words, NO. Right-wing crap doesn’t belong on DU. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply here, any more than it would if a bigot or a bagger came into my home or yours and started spewing crap.
People need to bone up on what "freedom of speech" means.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Obviously, if a person doesn't even believe in any kind of limits on what people can say here, they should not be serving on juries, because they obviously do not even believe in the entire purpose of the jury to begin with. It makes no sense. They are gaming the system by serving on juries if they will never vote to hide anything and know that already.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Your whole poll is based on a logical fallacy that's such a classic it has a name in Latin: petitio principii or, in the vernacular, begging the question.
You simply want to assume, as a given, that the cartoon that still has you in such a lather was RW propaganda. In a couple of your posts in this thread, you've used the term "100%" and you've said or implied that there's no possible basis on which anyone could reasonably disagree with you.
Back here in the real world, people who agree with the general proposition about not promoting RW propaganda will, on occasion, disagree about applying that principle to particular cases. I thought the cartoon was primarily about Chinese cyber-espionage, not primarily an attack on Obama. It's very unfortunate that you persist in refusing to recognize that anyone could hold that view.
Particularly striking is your comment in #107: "you should really learn to be able to tolerate people talking back to you and disagreeing, especially when they have been proven correct". That's a classic statement of the authoritarian mindset, cloaked, with presumably unintended irony, as a call for free and open discussion. This infects your whole poll; I'm not going to sign on with a Yes vote because of the significant danger that you'll interpret Yes votes as going way beyond the text of the poll and incorporating your view that you can be and have been "proven correct" on a subjective issue where many DUers disagreed and continue to disagree.
You should also tone down your complaints about unkind things that were said about people on your side of the disagreement. There were a lot of excessively harsh comments from both sides. The bottom line is that you and your allies got the post hidden. In light of that, your focus on your status as victim is more than a little off-putting. Nobody likes a sore winner.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is a signifier of Republicans and wingnuts, one of the memes they share to indicate to one another that "hey, I'm one of you."
It's one of their standbys, along with Benghazi and birth certificates and calling him a socialist.
It's like how we would reference My Pet Goat in reference to Bush.
It was a staple of CPAC and RNC and campaign stump speeches and debate answers.
It was so prevalent on their side that in the 2012 race all of their Prez candidates made a show of not using teleprompters to avoid being compared to Obama.
Ignorance of that fact is not as valid as awareness of it. Especially when it is noted that the author of the cartoon (a) a wingnut and (b) has used the teleprompter meme in cartoons before to launch rightwing attacks on the president.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You left out Marco Rubio attacking Obama by telling a teleprompter joke -- a joke Rubio read off a teleprompter. At least I think it was Rubio. I sometimes get these right-wingers mixed up, and the point isn't important enough for me to bother checking it.
As a general rule, it's risky to assume that everyone who disagrees with you must be doing so only because they are ignorant of the facts.
When you have posted your final post inspired by this cartoon incident (which I hope will happen soon), I urge you to step back from this one dispute and ponder the broader methodological point that I've boldfaced above.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)1) you know the teleprompter thing is a rightwing meme;
2) you know that Stantis is a rightwing hack;
3) you know that Stantis has used it as a rightwing attack on Obama in the past;
4) you know Stantis likes to comment about how China owns Obama
5) you think Stantis's use of it in 2013 was perfectly innocent and wasn't meant to be a rightwing attack on Obama
your antennae need adjusting
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The cartoon was posted several days ago, it was alerted on, a majority of the jurors agreed with you, it was hidden, and the poster was temporarily PPR'd as a result -- and you NOW propose that we continue debating that one particular hide?
If I have any of those facts wrong, please enlighten me.
If I have all of those facts right, then, IMHO, your priorities need adjusting.
For my part, I'm running low on the carcinogen-laden diet soda that I swill in unhealthy quantities. I prioritize going to the grocery store over debating last month's hide with you.
If your thirst for a recriminationfest continues unslaked, I've had two posts hidden and I thought both hides were unjustified. Let me know if, when the cartoon ceases to get your juices flowing, you want to start a poll about one of those old hides.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
At least he has several posts that sprouted up about him, even though he served his time out for a cartoon that most of us thought was about hackers and not critical of Obama.
WillyTgeek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Which was the point, NOT personalities.
This became a thing only because a lot of people complained how unfair it was. A teachable moment.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Bill Maher 10/3/12 commenting on the first Romney/Obama debate
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81998.html#ixzz33PIp5i1Y
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to deny that the teleprompter meme is a rightwing meme. Sell that bullshit somewhere else.
It's hard to believe that people who read nothing but DU would lack awareness of it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=teleprompter+obama&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com
It's generally a flag for someone being a troll, that's how obvious it is. Willy is obviously no troll, but his case is the exception and an innocent mistake.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)He contributed heavily to Barack's campaign.
Mostly, I felt the need to make another teleprompter post after the bet you made with MadFloridian. MadFlo is a great DUer who has written eloquently about the ill-effects of so-called "education reform" foisted on us by charter--school crazed Republicans. And she's done this back to DU 2 (chew on that for a moment - how would this poster I think is a troll know that?). To see lectured-to about what a "teachable moment" this is made me throw up in my mouth a little.
I got down in a knock down-drag out with Rhett-O-Rick the other day over Hillary vs. Elizabeth; however, given that I'm on his side and MadFlo's side on this issue convinces me I'm on the right side of history. I may argue with Mr. Rhett, but truth-being-stranger-than-fiction, I respect the Hell out of him.
For the record: I have over 10K posts; I've been here since before the 2008 election; I've never had a post hidden. I'm not a sockpuppet. Skinner knows who I am. I'm here legally. Your treatment of low-post count DUers is eye-opening.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
Awesome rant, and thanks.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Keep up the fight for quality public education (and may other issues you support).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the teleprompter thing is a rightwing meme. A widespread meme on the right, pushed by the right, associated with the right.
no honest person disagrees with that.
it's their way of implying he's too dumb to think for himself.
I can see someone somehow not finding out about this (as I believe madfloridian honestly was(, but it's just plain dishonest to sit there and pretend it's not a rightwing meme, and to pretend that somehow liberals, moderates, and conservatives all use it equally or even close to equally.
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+teleprompter&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com
Just because one asshole libertarian name Bill Maher uses it does not make that fact go away. (Maher has a long history of racist, sexist, and Islamaphobic commentary, btw, are you going to call those liberal traits too?)
Just what was your username before--Tellurian?
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Every reasonable person knows that Barack Obama can, indeed, think for himself. That said, he's far better at reading prepared speeches (of which he is a master) than speaking extemporaneously. If you want off-the-cuff, Bill Clinton is your guy. He can speak off the cuff, brilliantly - and do it for hours.
OK, so WillyT reposted a political cartoon that was drawn by a winger that showed an imaginary President Obama quoting Chinese from a hacked teleprompter. So what? You keep saying "it's a right wing meme" "it's a right wing meme". Yeah? So? Was the post sexist, racist or homophobic? No. Did it overtly advocate a right-wing viewpoint, including but not limited to - repeal of the ACA, the election of GOP candidates, the banning of legal abortion? The worst that can be said was that it insulted the President, and DUers insult Barack Obama all the time, and rail against his policies all the time. It may have violated the letter of the law, but in spirit, the cartoon was harmless. If you were honest, you'd admit that.
What's next - we're going to ban DUers for grabbing a quick snack at Chick-Fil-A? Drop a ban hammer because -- out of a million unfunny things Dennis Miller says, they got a chuckle out of one of them? Obviously some DUers want to live in that world -- like being in a Florida gated community where the folks with the matching belts and shoes come out with a ruler to measure your grass, and delight in telling you you've violated the covenants of Del Boca Vista.
As for my user name. My username was "Ineverhadoneposthidden". I see you've had three hidden in the past 90 days:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=144296#
...and had a dustup in the Men's Group that had you banned there for a bit in 2013.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=6905
So, being completely honest about it, I'm not sure you should be lecturing me or anyone about good behavior here on DU. Certainly not WillyT. Certainly not MadFloridian.
I'm done with this thread. I have better things to do, like going to greet Taterguy and call him a "dumbass".
RKP5637
(67,101 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Just saw that a horseshit article from Newsbusters was hidden. Glad to see that jurors don't like the use of right-wing sources.
Sid
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Some people just never learn.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Do you make posts of your own? Will have to look it up. Sometimes people here use sources that they are not aware are right wing.
The two of you laugh and giggle whenever you can catch someone in a mistake.
It's childish, and it's not very kind.
I have seen some of my longtime favorite people here treated almost like criminals if they ever ever make a mistake in spelling or punctuation or a source.
It hurts the forum, it hurts all of us.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No one is asking you to constantly weigh in on this or harassing you .
You're now following me around about this. Why?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I have two OPs going right now, and good discussions. Not many recs because I didn't say F**K or have a bunch of explanation marks.
But I research and I post.
I jumped into this because what has happened to WillyT is happening to all of us now who ever ever say a negative word about Obama's policies.
I have to watch every word I write, be sure of every source, spell everything correctly, never make a mistake or I have my own little private followers just waiting in the wings to "get me".
As I have said, it is called "gotcha". It's a game people play when they don't know how to post OPs that make sense.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)citing rw sources?
Two posts were hidden. Two. Out of thousands that criticize the President every day.
Because they were promoting rw crap,
No one should be feeling sorry for themselves over two measly posts getting rightfully hidden at a progressive, democratic website because they violated the spirit of the community.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Another post started in on someone for using another site. It was hidden, but the stuff just kept on.
Sometimes people inadvertently use a right wing source. They don't need people starting thread after thread admonishing them.
Anyway almost any site, any person, that ever criticized the president is likely to be called right wing now. I even had someone attack a link from WP Valerie Strauss. Ridiculous. And no one dares mention Firedoglake, which has some pretty decent bloggers. The words Greenwald and Snowden are good for some very long posts which are hijacked even with good points.
Once I had a post locked because someone said Alternet was not permitted here. I was able to get it unlocked a few days later by sending admin a list of the writers there.
I hate seeing good people here held up to public scorn over and over.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The fact that pouncers are ready to alert in such mean, bitter ways is chilling speech, just as you say. It's a vendetta on those who don't conform to the groupthink.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)I can't believe people don't realize this guy is a RWer to the max.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Anyone who can google "glenn greenwald 2005 immigration culture" will verify this.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)and supporting whistle-blowing against surveillance. Nothing to say that a right-winger can't be a whistleblower; indeed someone who is involved in security or surveillance work in the first place, and therefore in a position to blow the whistle on such issues (this as such refers to Snowden rather than Greenwald, but obviously Greenwald is a strong supporter of Snowden) is probably more likely to be RW than LW. It is possible to support their whistle-blowing, without thinking that they have the right views on everything, or that they should be supported if they stand for office.
And if you check my posts - I have been warning of the dangers of Paul-type right-libertarianism, and progressive alliances with right-libertarians, since at least 2007. This still does not affect my view of whistle-blowing.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)This should never be one of them.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Obsess much?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12596026
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)but I realize that there are then problems with defining 'RW propaganda'. Not everything that is critical of the Democrats is necessarily RW propaganda. My view is that if a site is devoted to promoting the Right against the Left, then it shouldn't be cited, at least without lots of caveats. And I do think that in most such cases, a couple of minutes inspecting the site will tell you that the source is of that nature; and it is not unreasonable to expect posters to expend these two or three minutes on a new source, instead of reflexively posting anything that relates to a certain topic.
As regards 'freedom of expression': not being able to post something RW on a progressive site is not the same as having no freedom of expression. There are plenty of places where one can post RW ideas, probably more than places where one can post LW ideas.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
