General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsis there some significance to what looks like a fly some people have crawling at the bottom of post?
thanks.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pintobean
(18,101 posts)is infested with roaches.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like a roach.
IOW: It's undemocratic to demonize those with whom one disagrees.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)It was a joke, fish. Some people on two sides of the primary war are using some form of it.
It doesn't take long for Godwin's law to kick in when you're around.
Rex
(65,616 posts)to post a reply? Kewl story by him and the thread starter. 
We conspired, obviously. 
Good one, Rex!
Rex
(65,616 posts)I love how you think disruptive meta threads are fun.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)"tombstone" anyone?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)all. by. himself.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He should have sourced Stormfront to smear a Jewish democrat. Like a clinton supporter (not banned) did.
Or he could rant and rave about how trans-women are sexual predators. Like a clinton supporter (not banned) does.
He could have advocated violence against Muslims under hte logic that "it's the only way to control them" like a (not banned) Clinton supporter did.
He could rant about how marriage isn't an important right and that gay people have enough rights already and ought ot be thankful for that much - a direct, specifically-named TOS violation - like another (unbanned) Clinton supporter has done.
He could maintain a host of sock puppet accounts used to game the alert system, another specifically-named ToS violation performed by a (not banned) Clinton supporter.
He could openly talk about stalking, harassing, and doxing other DU members in order to hound them away from the community, like a number of (not banned) Clinton supporters have done.
He could have gone on an epic flameout ranting about the inherent pathological evilness of an entire ethnic group, like another (not banned) Clinton supporter did.
Instead he linked to an article about people pledging to use Bernie Sanders as a write-in candidate, and got bounced out instantly for it.
No one's saying it's not his fault. An argument could be made that his linking to such an article was a TOS violation. The problem is the chasm of difference between the treatment of Sanders supporters vs. Clinton supporters on this subject.
uppityperson
(115,686 posts)Orrex
(63,430 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Orrex
(63,430 posts)Then stop linking to them for your source material.
Also, since you've clearly sought me out to reply here in this thread with an irrelevant and flaccid attempt at insult, you should perhaps be careful when you're accusing people of being obsessive and delusional.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)That makes you a smear artist.
Orrex
(63,430 posts)What the fuck is your problem, by the way? You blunder into this thread simply to spray your musk all over the place? Isn't it enough that your fawning acolytes praise your content-free posts every time you vomit them onto the forum?
What a small and empty existence you must endure, if you can't tolerate criticism of your ideas.
Unlike you, I don't presume to diagnose mental disorders, but like anyone else I can speculate on the factors that drive you to such pettiness.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)That's what people who say what isn't true do.
Orrex
(63,430 posts)Otherwise, it's clear who's lying.
Orrex
(63,430 posts)Show me where I'm wrong. Hell, enlist your fawning acolytes to help you, if you want.
What's the point of having an uncritical mass of followers if you can't get them to do your bidding?
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)you honor someone by having a fly cross your post?
and if no one understands it, except the insiders - then how does it honor?
well, no matter - not of any great importance, I am just a curious person.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MH1
(17,726 posts)I only came into this thread for the potential entertainment value, but will shortly be leaving to give my eyes a rest. That f*cking bug is very annoying on serious threads.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)election if Hillary wins the nomination (a TOS violation). He had that annoying bug in his sig line. The bug became a part of the primary wars.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)L0oniX copied and pasted, without any comment and with a link, an article from a liberal website that suggested Sanders supporters, AS A PRIMARY STRATEGY,* sign a pledge to write in Sanders in the general. The pledge, of course, was non-binding. The jury voted to leave and L0oniX was PPR'd anyway.
*That signing the pledge was a primary strategy was expressly stated right in the article.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)see the error of my ways and not mischaracterize the contents of another post the same way in the future.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7316073
Or are you trying to tell me that something posted on another board alters the facts of what actually happened on this board months later? Good to know!
*I see that the post was hidden, but I am not sure if that happened via a jury or in connection with the banning. I thought someone had posted the jury results voting to leave, but I could be mistaken. Either way, the contents of post fit my description of them.
MH1
(17,726 posts)even if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. (Go to the FAQ link on the Wordpress site that Loonix linked to in his post).
Maybe Loonix did not understand this, but I read it closely and it's pretty clear to me that it is meant to be a serious pledge.
The Admins had stated that if you successfully convinced them that you really meant to not vote for the Dem nominee in the GE, that would likely result in you being banned. Most people throw out a statement here and there that's taken as a non-serious whine, so they don't get banned for it. But shilling a website that someone has clearly put A LOT of attention into, that clearly says "pledge" and discourages breaking that pledge, is pretty convincing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and you're telling me an internet pledge is supposed to be serious?
The Admins had stated that if you successfully convinced them that you really meant to not vote for the Dem nominee in the GE, that would likely result in you being banned.
In which part of a cut and paste from another website did L0oniX so much as hint at how he or she personally intended to vote?
I've seen posters here flat out state they will not vote for Hillary come hell or high water, including if she's the nominee. And the operative part of the admins statement has been that people may change their minds once the nominees have actually been chosen. Please tell me how L0onix's post was more convincing than those statements.
Sorry, it you don't see that banning as selective and not consistent with past actions, then, IMO, something is wrong with your perception.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In error, I had provided a link to L0onix's final DU post. This is the link to the fateful post that supposedly caused the banning. http://www.democraticunderground.com/128068973
And here is what is said at the source L0onix linked about the reason for the pledge:
Rationale: Bernie is the underdog, and he’s going to be vastly outspent by Secretary Clinton. 96% of the time, the candidate spending the most money wins a race. If he’s going to secure the Democratic nomination, leverage and insurance will be needed. 1,000,000+ voters pledged to write-in Senator Sanders will be a compelling argument for some Democratic primary voters. Bloomberg Politics reports, “in Iowa and New Hampshire, with four-fifths of likely Democratic voters in both states saying they think Clinton is destined to be the nominee.” A write-in campaign is designed to undermine that “destiny.” Call it arm twisting, call it “breaking eggs,” call it compellence; we call it leverage on Democratic primary voters and insurance against corrupted super delegates “pledged” to another candidate before one primary vote is cast. A write-in strategy is an innovative idea to help a candidate secure a party’s nomination. We are convinced that if this strategy is not employed, there is very little possibility Senator Sanders will secure the nomination
Clearly, the reason for the pledge was leverage for the primary. Obviously, you don't get leverage in the primary by negating the pledge in your next sentence. but the reason for the pledge was very clearly stated and equally clearly about the primary.
Also, let me get this straight: Posting an excerpt from another website with no comment = shilling for that website now? Just how far to the other side of the looking glass has DU gone?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Based on the Terms of Service, we have grounds to ban anyone who states that they do not intend to vote for the Democratic nominee in any general election. There is a popular misconception that the "Vote for Democrats" rule only applies after a nominee has been chosen, but that is not correct. The use of the term "never" is intentional in the section you quoted above.
So the next question, of course, is why so many people have been permitted to claim here on DU that they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, and have not been banned for saying so. The reason is because the admins believe that most people who say this in the context of a contested presidential primary don't actually mean it. Some of them say it because they think threatening to withhold one's vote might be a persuasive argument in favor of their preferred primary candidate. (It isn't.) And in other cases they say it because they really believe it at that moment when they are caught up in the heat of the primary campaign, but once the primary is over they suck it up and do the right thing. We have seen this over and over again on DU after previous contested primary campaigns when the vast, vast majority of people went on to support the nominee.
The DU Terms of Service actually gives a nod to this and contains a clause that a certain amount of ambivalence toward Democrats is understandable:
During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.
I want to be clear that that the Terms of Service remain unchanged, and members are still permitted to express their ambivalence about voting for the eventual nominee. The DU administrators have been allowing members a significant amount of leeway in our interpretation of that clause, but is a limit to how far we are willing to go.
Unfortunately, there are some people here who who say they won't support the nominee and actually won't. As we explained above, our feeling is that we want to give people the benefit of the doubt. But if you convince us that you actually mean it and you really aren't going to support the nominee, then we're going to treat you like you actually mean it. That person who started the OP telling people to sign the pledge that they won't support the Democratic nominee was very convincing, and is no longer a member of DU.
From the Terms of Service:
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.
That's the bottom line.
merrily
(45,251 posts)not what Skinner said in general. ( I believe the particular statement you quoted was made in response to a question by randys1 and not in connection with L0oniX's post.) L0onix's fateful post, being a copy and paste about a primary strategy, said nothing at all about how L0onix intended to vote in the general. o
I am not sure what your specific point is about L0oniX's hidden post.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)As you might have noticed, DU gets completely insane around primary time. This time the Hillary and Bernie people seem worse than factions have been in the past, although that my be my imagination.
Anyway, LOonix had the bug crawling around his sig line, and after he was thrown off, presumably for being too anti-Hillary, some added the crawling bug in solidarity.
But, others changed the gif to show the bug being swatted, not exactly a friendly gesture.
Just the tip of the iceberg about how how nasty it can get around here. The place is much easier to read if you trash the primary and candidate forums.
There was once some fantasy about DU working together to get Democrats elected. I wonder what happened to that...
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)petitions, coffees, emails, phone calls,
strategize, focus groups,
a lot more I'm sure.
casting shit on DU is not one of them, lol...
but hey, if that is someone's thang, go ahead and have a ball.
Repeat after me:
THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM. THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE.
It is really important to know the difference. 
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)this was important in the grand scheme of things. Just here on DU.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)it's kinda funny....
Well said!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Have the fly swatted in their dig line.
ileus
(15,396 posts)and they had that goofy bug thing....
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)ellenrr
(3,864 posts)so says some anthropologist..
hummmm....
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Including my own dissertation... Semiotics: it's not just for breakfast any more.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Motivated me to turn off signatures in my settings.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)that will save me a LOT of annoyance.
thanks.
I didn't know that could be done.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Select "remove" on "User signature lines on posts"
I learned about this from the other thread on the crawling flies. Unfortunately, all signatures are now blocked but that's the price to pay to get that annoying, distracting stupid fly off your screen.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)thx!
cwydro
(51,308 posts)But I had to turn off sig lines too. I'm not fond of flies.
MH1
(17,726 posts)I thought it was only for star members so didn't look very hard.
DU is much better now.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)I thought that referred to my own signature.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It was a sig line of a poster here who worked against getting democrats elected. They were banned for ratfucking.
Orrex
(63,430 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,193 posts)Not exactly ratfucking, but I can see why overprotective HRC fans wanted him gone.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Its funny at this point.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Interesting to me that they are standing up for someone on this board who was fighting against women's rights, minority rights, sensible gun legislation, unions, etc.. That is what said posters was doing by advocating for a policy that would DIRECTLY benefit republicans. And now this poster is saying it is overzealous Clinton "fans." Their intentions are becoming more clear by the day.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I remember when their agenda became clear to me. I knew it was a matter of time before they woukd reveal themselves to all and sundry.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Here's the one posted by Loonix, that got him banned:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128068973
Here's the ATA thread where Skinner explained why the post was a TOS violation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598967
Here's why some posters have the bug in their sig line, to protest the banning:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027321381
Sid
BlueMTexpat
(15,388 posts)with that bug! 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Flies are disruptors in my household. I try to get rid of them.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)To whom do you report?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)who happened to be a Bernie supporter got ppr'ed for posting an OP about what some folks offsite are doing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
Says a lot more than the bug itself.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is funny to see the high and mighty declare themselves way above it. And the super sensitive who find it so bothersome they have to turn the sig lines off. I'd hate to be that sensitive. Though I shouldn't say that, as someone may have/claim a real condition affected. If that's the case, I would say we should turn them off.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Thanks! 
randome
(34,845 posts)...I turn them off. It doesn't bother them but it does me. My mind is automatically drawn -for just a fraction of a second- to reading those words and it's distracting.
Same for the obnoxious bug GIF. It is distracting.
Same for poorly designed web sites where every few pixels is some meaningless splash of color. They do that to draw your attention because it works.
Same for poorly written code.
But unneeded subtitles, unneeded bugs and unneeded graphics are all the same -distracting. And they do nothing but turn a good number of people against those who think it's 'funny' to be obnoxious.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
tavernier
(12,517 posts)Did you hear about the maggots that made love in dead Ernest?
Maggots... Flies... Get it??
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)But you knew I would. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And anyone who has a problem with that particular tombstoning can take it up directly with admin. Anyone who has a problem with the term rat fucker can look up its precise historical context. It refers to someone who is deliberately advocating for people not to vote.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Who in particular do you want to exterminate?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)
As protest in the very unequal enforcement of the rules. I could have as my dog that line from Animal farm about some pigs being more equal than others, but the fly that Lonix flew for years is similar.
Alas the discussion of this ahem serious problem here is currently starting. That is good.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Yawn...
It's a moving black dot. Nothing more. Remember that you're looking at a computer screen.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Kewl story.