Reply #392: NJMaverick- this reply is a perfect example of a violation of what skinner just posted.

[bluedawg12]

You have mischaracterized and made generalizations about people with whom you apparently do not agree politically.

Here is how you just described people, after what skinner just posted, with whom you apparently do not agree politically:

They post, “Obama bashing threads.”

You claim that according to DU polls DU’ers “over whelming majority of DU support Obama.”

You are setting the predicate for your coming argument to imply that those, whom you will shortly attack, are actually going against the “norm,” as you now defined it. By means of nonrandom forum polls. That bad logic will lead you to other unfounded generalizations, as we shall see shortly.

“I would see polls that showed the over whelming majority of DU support Obama, yet that wasn't reflected by the volume and nature of the posts.- NJMaverick”

“It seemed like a very active and vocal minority were working over time to hijack DU. -NJMaverick”

Good grief. Over generalization, casting those who disagree with you in pejorative terms and you turned them into a:

–>vocal minority

–>working over time to hijack DU.

Inflammatory language.

You have dismissed your perceived opponents as a “minority” view, you cast them as a troublesome “vocal minority” to suggest that their opinions are not only not representative of the majority point of view, but that their activism is some how disproportionate to their presence and numbers here on DU. You are portraying your imagined opponents as disruptors.

Skinner violation: “Just as DUers should be able to support and defend Barack Obama here on DU without being attacked or having their motives questioned, DUers should also be able to share legitimate criticism of Barack Obama without being attacked or having their motives questioned. -Skinner”

“They were flooding the boards with one Obama bashing and Democrat bashing thread after another. NJMaverick”

That’s not political debate, that’s merely casting your imagined opponents as the bad guys.

Were all of the tens of thousands of post on DU flooding the boards with one Obama bashing and Democrat bashing thread after another?

Of course not. But, you generalize in a manner that attempts to intimidate future discourse and debate, with your sweeping generality.

The issues are real and they have merit and they are bound to cause dissent over policy and priority.

Was it all of the posts about: The war? The economy? Torture? Foreign policy? Domestic policy? The environment? Trade? Jobs?

Surely you don’t propose a small, vocal, thoughtless, scheming cabal among Democrats that imagines we all actually agree on those issue long enough to unite and flood the boards, to disrupt and highjack? :rofl:

Dismissive and pejorative and over generalization, which seeks to discredit those who disagree with you as a vocal minority, to whom you attribute a motive “highjacking” and “flooding,” this forum.

Skinner violation: “Just as DUers should be able to support and defend Barack Obama here on DU without being attacked or having their motives questioned, DUers should also be able to share legitimate criticism of Barack Obama without being attacked or having their motives questioned. -Skinner”


“We are not talking thoughtful or reasoned criticism. - NJMaverick”

Really? Is that for you to decide? Poorly reasoned posts will either meet their doom with well reasoned replies putting them in their place or, if out of control will be locked.

Either way, you opinion is derogatory and once again:

Skinner violation: “Just as DUers should be able to support and defend Barack Obama here on DU without being attacked or having their motives questioned, DUers should also be able to share legitimate criticism of Barack Obama without being attacked or having their motives questioned. -Skinner”

“Rather we are talking hyperbole and knee jerk reactions (for example declaring Obama's presidency a bust after a week, month or even 100 days). - NJMaverick”

Good grief. If Skinner wanted to lecture forum members about the quality of posts and their intellectual merit he would have done so and done it better.

In reply to his ground rules you break the rules in sentence after sentence. This wasn’t an invitation to rehash thousands of threads over the last five months and cast the ones you disagree with politically, in the most over stated, generalized unfavorable terms.

Again, who are you to determine what is “hyperbole and knee jerk reactions?” And what is the point of this reply? If this came from Skinner, which it did not for good reason, I would expect it would not be over broad, negative and an over generalization with vague hints at some posts, or many posts, which did not agree with your particular point of view.

This is non-productive and another:

Skinner violation: “Just as DUers should be able to support and defend Barack Obama here on DU without being attacked or having their motives questioned, DUers should also be able to share legitimate criticism of Barack Obama without being attacked or having their motives questioned. -Skinner”

“There wasn't any effort at thoughtful discussion or debate. Rather it had all the earmarks of a campaign with an anti-Obama agenda. - NJMaverick”

You are not the arbiter of thoughtful discussion or debate. Is there some IQ or advanced degree requirement to post here? Nope.

Negative characterization of broad swaths of people who have only one thing in common, they apparently did not agree with you.

You also go beyond attacking “these” people and their posts and you actually attribute motives to them, an agenda.

“...all the earmarks of a campaign with an anti-Obama agenda. - NJMaverick”

This is the type of dismissive and biased reply that causes flame war to erupt and debate to degenerate from issues to personalities of DU’ers. This is counter productive.

Skinner violation: “Just as DUers should be able to support and defend Barack Obama here on DU without being attacked or having their motives questioned, DUers should also be able to share legitimate criticism of Barack Obama without being attacked or having their motives questioned. -Skinner”

Here is how you describe that which you approve of:

“This board also acts as a Democratic think tank which provides many good talking points and ways of looking at things.

So DU was a valuable resource, in my opinion.

Sadly that great character was fading away.

Instead it's now balanced and more reflective of what I would expect.”

Aww come on. Sure there have been heated debates. Yes, dumb things and smart things have been said on all sides of many issues by thousands of people over a period of five months. Skinner is admin., he laid out the rules, and no sooner are they posted then your reply breaks them.

You, NJMaverick, are not, thankfully, the decider of what is “knee jerk,” what is an attempted “highjacking” of this forum, of who does or does not have, “a campaign with an anti-Obama agenda,” of what is and is not “thoughtful or reasoned criticism.”

This is exactly what Skinner talked about and said it much better, “It looks like Democratic Underground has always looked. We have a wide range of people, sharing a wide range of opinions, in ways that are interesting, irritating, smart, dumb, exciting, funny, insightful, friendly, or just plain rude. Same as always. The more DU changes, the more it stays the same. - Skinner.”

This is what Skinner said, when he explained:

“This place still gets tens of thousands of posts every day, we don't pre-screen any of them, we can't possibly read all of them, and we still depend on help from our members -- who can support the moderators by 1) striving to be productive members of the community, and 2) clicking the "Alert" link when you see a post that falls short of that ideal.- Skinner.”

So out of tens of thousands of posts everyday, you post your poorly framed characterization of fellow DU’ers, in a very heavy handed, one sided way that violates the very rules that were just posted.

Obviously this is a touchy subject, as we now have a Democrat in the white house and a Democratic majority in Congress and while we have all hoped and worked and waited for this, we are at the same time a coalition of a variety of subgroups and we must learn how to debate policy rather than attack the person for having a political point of view.

The President himself knows this and does not expect to please every coalition, and every faction in the Democratic party, all of the time.

While I agree with what Skinner said about loose cannon talk and derogatory denunciation of the President and our party, your reply was one that does not clarify the rules, you air your grievances, rally your troops and put a chill in the air on the very topic that Skinner has said is fair for discourse and against the very way he said that it is acceptable to do it.

Your reply, sir, is the kind that does cause flame wars to erupt in reply and the hope vanishes, that any thoughtful thread about the complex issues and policies that are offered in solution degenerates into thoughtless arguments.

You have not defended any policies here, you have attacked those whom you see as differing politically, having done so on a very opinionated basis. This rely that you posted is an example of the problem and is part of the problem and it is not part of the solution.

As an example, as if your reply did not speak for itself, who here is reassured, that if they were to post:

“I disagree with this administration’s policy on relocating homeless hamsters from shelter’s to high rise hamster cages, with swimming pools, a cat free zone and bailouts for entrepreneurial hamsters.”

That those having a pro-hamster opinion will not be subjected to accusations of :
highjacking, a hidden agenda against the President and the party, being thoughtless, and a vocal minority and based on your reply that still sits here, that would be A-OK?

Your reply suggest that you expect ad hominem attacks could be just fine.

Your reply is the kind that often causes flame wars.

Your reply here is appaling and does not lead to discussion about policy, because too often, these very a replies are thrown back at posters for a dissenting opinion, no matter how well framed or articulate. NO matter how many times some says, "I don't dislike the President, this is not a personal attack, I want him to succeed," the NJMaverick style reply, as you just posted, is what they face.

Now, I am aware that some have gone over the line. That's been discussed, that's what Skinner described as unacceptable, that's why he mentioned the recourse, among them, the alert button.

The recourse to dissent in not name calling, the recourse to dissent is not silencing debate, the recourse to dissent is not spiraling down to an ever lower quality of discussion.