Anyone notice recently that DU has become a place for RW talking points?

[bpilgrim]

i.e. - Saddam was evil and had to be taken out
- lefties supported Saddam
- lefties hate Israel
- our policies in the ME are justified.

I know during the run up and immediate after math of the Iraq war we had a LOT of these discussions but why are they happening again, how can we deal with them and should this be considered DISRUPTION?

please discuss

tia :toast:

(gotta go shopping so i will check in when i get back)

peace

[Roland99]

1. Guess I'm not reading up here enough because I've not read that.

[okieinpain]

119. I haven't either

[Roland99]

139. Found one!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3791304

[seabeyond]

2. i have seen it in other topics too

though some may think that of me in recent posts, lol. i like to go beyond the talking points though, into nuance, so i will hope people will see that alone means it is simply how i feel, what i see, not rw

on edit: why galloway isnt held to same standards as lott, with racism

i dont even need to argue if galloway is racist, doesnt matter, he isnt a senator in the United States of America

[undergroundpanther]

7. There are plenty of RW points

Statements like...The poor choose to be poor...

I'm Responsible but you are not, kind of classist bullshit..
Protect the wealthy at all costs kind of talk..you see it here on DU.

I also see all sorts of divisive jabs and bigotry being thrown about directed at fat people, mentally ill,spiritual people who are not harming anyone with it,poor,gays,ect.This kind of shit needs to stop it is not "funny".

People here sometimes mouth RW talkingpoints and RW additudes without realizing what they are saying means in reality.

[seabeyond]

14. spiritual people

example,......i dont believe in victimhood. i just dont. and it has nothing to do with right wing. it has to do with my spiritual path, who i am, how i live. a belief of my own from past experience.

yet.......when i said this i was totally dismissed as a rw talking point.

whatever and i dont care, but i still have my own view on victimization, and how it is hurting our people, our children. bush is one. always the victim. i dont buy into it

[Czolgosz]

131. I think it is the word "victimhood" that originates with the right-wing.

The Democratic Party has never fostered "victimhood," but that is how the right-wing has named any relief effort that does not redound to their personal benefit.

If you are a right-wing idiot who built his home in a hurricane zone and then collected government assistance when the home was destroyed, that government relief was a sensible government program whereas the humanitarian relief after the tsunami was promoting a culture of "victimhood."

If you are a right-wing corporation who ran itself into the ground and then sought the government to assume the financial burden of your default on your pension obligations, the government bailout was a sensible pro-business program whereas the civil actions by your employees who have lost their retirement accounts were promoting a culture of "victimhood."

If you are a right-wing facist whose daughter is gay you may see the justice in allowing civil unions, but your douchebag running mate will say that gays demanding equal protection under the law promotes a culture of "victimhood."

When you say that people have treated your comments about "victimhood" as a right-wing talking point, I'm sure it was only because of your choice of a term which the right-wing has created to devalue every benefit that they don't enjoy. I'm sure that you don't really begrudge people who most need assistance from claiming what is their right.

[seabeyond]

145. Democratic Party has never fostered "victimhood,

but, i think the democrats absolutely do foster the victim mode in many things in life. as i see equally the republicans do it. personally i feel in the 80's in becoming more compassionate and understanding of our fellow man we went a little far in allowing victimization. and i think our culture now is dealing with it. victimization is a human condition for me, it is not a party line. when someone wants to take my theory on victimization out of a human condition and put it into a party line...........then hence the battle begins.

i do not see the person as a victim. example. i was raped. i did not see myself as a vicitim. i would be called a victim, k, i could go with that, but the only way i would see myself as victim if i allowed that rape to change who i was as a person. or if i allowed the rapist to have my power out of fear sadness or anger. i didnt feel any of those things. i did not feel like a victim. he was a pig, he got to own what he did, and i went on with life, and it didnt contaminate my life

and i dont have issue with soemone allowing themselves to be victim. they may need to be in that mode for a time until they could heal

but as you see, my definition of victim is different from others, and has nothing to do with party, let alone rw talking point

[Czolgosz]

151. How do "Democrats foster the victim mode in many things in life"?

From your personal story, it sounds like someone would have to know the target of a crime or injustice to know whether that target was in "victim mode." Is reporting the crime as symptom of being in victim mode? Is prosecuting the criminal a symptom of being in victim mode? Is suing the criminal a symptom of being in victim mode? Is seeking counseling after the crime a symptom of being in victim mode? I'm glad that yo have faced adversity and have not let it change you. I assume that you have some faith, or family, or friends, or other support and coping system to weather that crime. I don't understand how come one method of dealing with a crime is good but another method is succumbing to victim mode. Mostly, I don't understand how Democrats foster this victim mode. Can you help me understand?

[JRob]

122. I've seen the "attitude" in some post for sure...

Some DUers attacking others because they have a different idea, understanding or belief about an issue.

In another thread today a reply stated:

"Face it...the only voters who think this is a bad idea are the sort of idiots who hate blacks, Jews, gays and uppity women as much as they love their guns...and they haven't voted Democratic sice Strom left the party."

This DUer was jumping all over the thread insulting anyone who questioned or differed from his/her position and making other outrageous generalizations.

Sort of RWish...

[Cleita]

3. I usually skip over those topics.

They have been discussed to death and I have nothing to add. I think the RW talking points will get weeded out like they always do. Then there will be peace for awhile until the next onslaught.

I'm waiting for the next barrage of partial birth abortion threads.

[K-W]

4. I think disruptions spiked a few weeks ago, and we are still a little up

Ive also been surprised at the number of 1000 post gold star people arguing propaganda.

Then again, in alot of these cases it may very well be a democrat who is wrong on one issue or another, it does happen. I know alot of the Ward Churchill bashers are honest Democrats who think there is some leftist boogeymen out there. I dont doubt that many of the boys who cry anti-semitism arent honest democrats as well who just cant see issues around Isreal honestly.

And remember, the best weapon against trolls is not mods, it is mature forum denizens. This is a forum that LOVES to engage trolls, and I am as bad as the rest of you, but in the end, if you just ignore posts that clearly arent done in earnest it diminishes thier ability alot.

It takes at least 2 to divert a thread and it takes at least 2 to keep a flame thread at the top of the que. Trolls feed off reaction.

[JRob]

126. Nicely said... We do not always get it right and being able to admit...

that fact is one way in which we differ from the RW.

I'm guilty of engaging trolls, even trollish Dem's (and yes they do exist). On some things we can agree to disagree...

[NMDemDist2]

5. Please people, if you see RW talking points alert the mods.

There are thousands of messages posted every day here and we can't read them all. We rely on our members to help be our "eyes and ears."

Every moderator tries to read through posts in each of their forums as time permits, but we can't catch them all.

Thanks! :hi:

[bpilgrim]

6. there is a FLAME BAIT thread with RW talking points that has been alerted

by a few folks right here in GD...
Why do you hold Galloway to different standards than Trent Lott?

i guess ignoring the trolls is the best but there our 3/4 of'm from the IP basement that have decided to bring their RW talking points up here.

peace

[CatWoman]

8. Yes, BP

I know EXACTLY what you're saying.

Like some have been taken over by Hannity's spirit.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatWoman]

13. I'm not against saying bad things about Saddam

However, I "am" against posting Sean Hannity's lunatic rantings and ravings.

What was that you said about "poor judgement"?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

26. Catwoman.....I love you but youre wrong.

I despise SH (both saddan and sean) .....AS ANY NORMAL PERSON SHOULD.

That doesnt make one a sean hannity clone or rwer.

[CatWoman]

27. and that doesn't make me Saddam, either

:hi:

Love you, too!!!

[K-W]

37. No, you are wrong.

I dont think there is anything in the world normal about working yourself up into a rage about a man living half a world away.

It is propaganda to be constantly insisting that everyone aknowledge Saddam's Badness, because it makes rational discussion about Saddam exceedingly difficult. It is hard to think rationally about things one has made oneself emotional about. Rational people react emotionally, but then think critically.

[geek tragedy]

106. What about worldwide hatred of Bush?

Or Stalin? Or Pol Pot?

Very simply, one must acknowledge Saddam's evil to maintain moral credibility and authority when attacking the Bush administration.

[Just Me]

109. BushCO and the neoCONcorporacrats EARNED hatred.

They have exploited humanity for profit,....for decades.

I don't even view "anti-Americanism" as anything other than anti-US-global-exploiters.

They exploit EVERYONE!!!!! They exploit you.

[geek tragedy]

114. And Saddam, Stalin, Pol Pot etc etc didn't earn worldwide hatred?

Are we not supposed to care about mass murder overseas?

[Just Me]

117. Did they control the US corporatists? NO. The US corporatists profitted,.

off every single one, ESPECIALLY Hitler with whom the BFEE has ties.

You are stubborn, huh? *LOL* Me, too. We'll work this out. We are a member of only one race,...the human race,...and we will arrive at the same conclusion about those who are really taking advantage of our lot in life.

We will.

[wtmusic]

134. Thanks for putting this in some perspective, gt

Finally we've got Bush where he belongs, in the class of the greatest war criminals of all time. :thumbsup:

[JRob]

129. Exactly!

and we need to stop handing over our money (as much as is possible).

[starroute]

140. Acknowledge Saddam's evil to maintain moral credibility?

That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I don't believe Saddam was evil. He was a brutal and somewhat thuggish dictator who held Iraq together and did more to advance his country and its people that the majority of the world's thuggish dictators. Many rulers no different from him have come to be venerated as national heroes.

The Bush adminstration, in contrast, is working overtime to destroy this nation, loot its treasury for their own profit, take away everything that has made life here worthwhile, and make Americans ashamed of their own country. Now, *that's* evil.

I would lose all moral credibility in my own eyes if I ever once engaged in the kind of weasly language which starts out, "Of course Saddam Hussain was evil, but . . ." To do so lets Bush off the hook and minimizes his genuinely evil attempt to destroy the soul of this nation. Bush is a traitor to his own country, which Saddam Hussein never was.

[aneerkoinos]

146. Hey!

Out here in the world, I don't hate Bush, Stalin, Pol Pot, Blair, Clinton, Saddam or anybody else (well perhaps occasionally in my weak moments :D).

Out here in the world there's quite a lot of people who don't define their group identities by some commonly hated enemies.

[NMDemDist2]

9. I'm not a GD mod, but I'll go take a look. Thanks n/t

[bpilgrim]

42. thank you

:toast:

peace

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Please convince your other mods that they ARE RW

talking points. I saw one that easily had many alerts on him the other day and he's still here.

[cestpaspossible]

10. Classic flamebait - post RW bullshit, claim that someone else is promoting

it, and to top it all off, make it a hit and run post.

please discuss

(gotta do some chores so i will check in when i get back)

[drdon326]

18. Damn straight.

smear anyone who DARES disagree with you by SCREAMING "RWer" and make yourself feel so big and bad.

Exactly who died and left the OPester to decide ?

[bpilgrim]

36. i was involved in 3 or 4 of these threads so i know what i am talking abou

and i posted the title to one but let me include the link...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3789079&mesg_id=3789079

here is another thats filled with RW talking points and FLAME BAIT...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3783877&mesg_id=3783877

and looky here's another filled with RW talking points and FLAME BAIT...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3786240&mesg_id=3786240

and notice how it's 3 or 4 from the basement stirring up all the shit.

I think the IP stuff should be sent to the basement as it is CLEAR these few folks ONLY want to DISRUPT and spread RW BS.

so you can see and judge for yourself :hi:

please discuss

peace

[Just Me]

86. You're right, bpilgrim. You are right.

Those were RW flame-bait classics: talking points, for us/against us mindset, character assasination driven, divisive material.

Any "progressive" that attacks an individual with a proven history of advocating human rights,....is NO "progressive".

Plus, *LOL*, when I was accused of "drinking the kool-aid" and being a "useful idiot" *LOL*, it was pretty freakin' OBVIOUS that RW emotional blackmail tactics were being utilized,...WAY WAY OBVIOUS!!!

:hi: :hug:

[bpilgrim]

95. you were accused of "drinking the kool-aid" - lol

whenever i see that posted about long time DU'ers who always advocate for human rights and the left i just stop reading it's silly flame bait.

i feel a little embarrassed for being sucked into their disruption and will not do it anymore, but i try to take comfort in the fact that they are outing themselves to the whole community and that is surely a positive ;->

:hi: :hug:

peace

[Just Me]

107. No shit *LOL*. I have no regret that we took a stand.

I feel no embarassment that you and I and others took a stand against such shallow, divisive character assasinations. They deserve to be drowned when they obviously care nothing about the whole lot of us and have some megalo-obsession (whatever it may be,...and I won't NAME it in order to save this post).

:hug:

Progressives HOLD ON TO those who consistently advocate common principles and values. We don't make a point of beating up on personal differences.

Those who called me names and made hilarious accusations about my life and being and existence NEVER defined "progressive" even though I asked, repeatedly, for that definition. That tells me ALOT!!!

I know what progressive and liberal means and how we progressives and liberals behave. Those who ACCUSE me or my fellow progressives/liberals of anti-semitism (RED FLAG) or supporting the insurgents (RED FLAG) or being "ideological" (RED FLAG) or opposing Iraqis' freedom to vote for democracy (RED FLAG),...and, well, you know the usual manipulative bullshit,...I WILL LAUGH AT, CHALLENGE, AND OPPOSE no matter how many times they do the broken record bullshit which promotes corporatocracy and perpetuates the exploitation of humanity that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA came close to defeating.

[bpilgrim]

113. yeah, i definitely feel we should point out their RW BS but when it

devolved into name calling from their side and we wind up with 200 posts of pithy one liners i start to feel i am wasting my time.

i wish there was a way to deal with folks who spout this nonsense in a more constructive way.

i think if we all were allowed to vote on EVERY post the cream will rise to the surface and their RW LIES on the rare occasion it raises it's ugly head will sink to the bottom as it should.

i have great faith in this community and thing it would be extremely valuable to take the communities pulse on what we feel is important and not important.

lets count the peoples votes & make their voices heard :shrug:

keep up the good fight :toast:

peace

(i am ignoring the disrupter's (only 2 or 3 anyways), i've said my piece to them and their BS threads have been LOCKED ;-> )

This thread shows the tiny minoirty they are here anyways...
http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3786240&mesg_id=3786240|Your view of Galloway: Positive or negative>

[Just Me]

123. I agree. We should invest our passions, wisely.

:hug:

Better to spend our passions on humanity rather than being pulled into beating off fleas.

Let's move into the future, together.

[JRob]

141. "We don't make a point of beating up on personal differences."

Thank you !

"Those who ACCUSE me or my fellow progressives/liberals of anti-semitism (RED FLAG) or supporting the insurgents (RED FLAG) or being "ideological" (RED FLAG) or opposing Iraqis' freedom to vote for democracy (RED FLAG),...and, well, you know the usual manipulative bullshit,..."

Love it!

[JRob]

138. "RW emotional blackmail tactics" I got that today... Had to laugh! nt

[geek tragedy]

12. Who is claiming that Saddam had to be taken out and defends the war?

Remember--you need to find evidence that someone is actively trying to justify the war.

[bpilgrim]

44. you are

rehashing all the crimes of Saddam and using that straw-man to attack lefties who are against the war.

i posted a couple links

peace

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

87. Give it up , Zuni

You might as well be talking to yourself.

And besides, if you dont agree, someone (who shall remain nameless) will accuse you of being a rwer and complain to the mods that 'theyre wight wingers cause they dont agree wit me.....boo-hoo'.

I'm always amazed how some people decide that THEY are the gold standard of liberal/progressive/democratic thought and heaven help them if they dont walk in 'goosestep' if they dont agree.

[Zuni]

89. yeah. Besides, I rented "Ray" last night

I think I should watch it. I am a real big blues fan, and I heard Jamie Foxx was amazing in it.

Have a good afternoon! :hi:

[Just Me]

115. Define "progressive".

Outside yourself, what others "fit" within your definition.

I post this knowing you'll prolly never respond. But, hey, I figure this is a discussion board that deserves pulling out a discussion about YOUR definition of "progressive". I've asked your friend, Zuni, numerous times to define it,...and got no response.

I suppose there are those who just don't want to define what "progressive" means. They prefer to be reductionists to the point of being personally nasty.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. oh yeah

[salin]

17. and sometimes we just hold differing views

I have stayed off of these threads, but will state for the record.

I loved what Galloway did per being "called out" by Sen Coleman - and taking Coleman on. The speech was spectacular.

That said, I can't bring myself to embrace Galloway as a hero. There are a few things that do give me pause. At a time when what is most desperately needed in the Israel/Palestinian situation - is REAL DIALOGUE to emerge which to occur MUST include acknowledgement of the pain and loss and FEAR experienced by each side at the hand of the other side... I find some figures pursuing language of passionate continued division - which sadly, fuels the righteousness (to which ever side is being spoken - there are figures doing this on both sides) - that makes it less and less likely that any constructive dialogue will happen in the near future.

Now - does not wanting to be too closely aligned with Galloway (even while wildly applauding his performance before Coleman) - in big part due to his rhetoric per the ME - does that suggest I am now somehow touting right wing talking points?

or does it suggest that sometimes we just differ on issues/stands/points. I think it is the latter.

From time to time a figure, a speech, or event - will spur such divisions among us. And sadly folks will jump into "camps" and the language will get more and more provocative/baiting in the thread titles, and then accusations will fly at each other. Think: Churchill. I think the current situation is just one of those cases rather than symbolic of an "infiltration".

[seabeyond]

19. i agree totally salin

this is all i am saying. sometimes it is simply differing views.

not even addressing galloway, but a good example

[drdon326]

23. WHAT ???? WHAT????...You dont bow at the alter of George Galloway?

youre not a rwer are yoi?

[salin]

24. an example

of what I refer to - camp mentality - mock the other side... get into silly flame wars rather than discuss.

Both sides inflame the other including sarcasm such as yours.

I can hold my views without being a part of "camps" or mocking folks with other views. Thank you very much.

[K-W]

43. Thanks for the strawman.

Nobody is bowing at the alter of george Galloway. It is a good indication that your position is extreme when you find yourself projecting extreme positions on others.

[K-W]

31. But whether you know it or not, that is right wing propaganda.

Galloway isnt the reason there is conflict in the middle east. He is rightly critisizing people for breaking international law and urging his government, that is not in the middle east, to support international law, which just so happens to be on the side of the Palestinians at the moment. He isnt furthering a conflict, he is trying to get it justly settled whilest the US and Britain do nothing but push for an unjust settlement or no settlement at all.

And yes, sometimes Democrats do get sucked into propaganda, like when they buy media lies about Ward Churchill, or when they buy faux-moderate idea that anyone who critisizes anyone around the middle east conflict is just stirring up trouble.

Also folks do not jump into camps. Some people buy into lies, others dont. The fact that people dont realize they are spreading propaganda doesnt put it on equal footing with the truth.

You are right that these people arent trolls, but they might as well be in that particular thread. I dont know what the solution is, perhaps we need fact checker mods or something.

[salin]

41. wow.

Your implication that I am ignorant enough to fall for someone else's talking points is rather offensive.

Your post exemplifies the camp mentality. Your views, and those who agree with you, are right. All other views are simpletons who have been taken in by the RW media. No inbetween. No room for thought.

Perhaps a peek in the mirror per your post and how completely offensive it was per its assumptions - might give clue as to one thing that could be done to change the problem - by not inciting folks who might be able to have a conversation - dialogue - tease out differing perspectives and information rather than completely dismissing them (and when camps form, as they seem to do in my observation) both are guilty of this. It is the dismissing on one thread that leads to ridiculously titled threads in response from the other camp and so on and so on and so on.

I do recognize that sometimes folks do repeat propoganda and talking points. However to assert that EVERYONE who does not agree with what you deem is true has fallen for rw propoganda - is a bit much.

[K-W]

52. No my post is based on facts. Your post was not. Sorry, its just reality

I made no implication. I disagree with you that not being 100% right on everything is a sign that one is ignorant. I think you are being far to harsh on yourself. I accept that I am fallible without being ignorant, perhaps you should too.

My post has nothing to do with any camp mentality. If two people disagree on a point of fact, only one of those people can be right. You seem to be arguing that when people disagree they both just have different camp opinions. That is not true. When people disagree either one of them is right, or both of them are wrong.

My post does not resemble the right wing media, your post did. You made a right wing propaganda comment, my post was rational and fact based.

There is plenty of room for thought, you accuse me of dismissing those who disagree with me, that simply isnt true. I am not dismissing you in the slightest, I am telling you that i think you are wrong. Am I not allowed to disagree with you?

I am perfectly willing to engage you in a discussion that will soundly prove you are wrong. My thinking you are wrong does not make me partisan, right wing, or anything of the sort. It makes either me or you wrong.

"I do recognize that sometimes folks do repeat propoganda and talking points. However to assert that EVERYONE who does not agree with what you deem is true has fallen for rw propoganda - is a bit much."

I made no such assertion, this is a blatent lie.

[salin]

59. in an absolutists view of the world, perhaps

but I find that we mere mortals tend not to get things completely right - ergo can hold differing views, each holding some truth- and very probably if we discussed our differing views rather than fight for an absolutist (and absurd, imo) "No, I'm Right" Win - those engaged in the dialogue would probably both end up with greater insight and knowledge and thus a bit more "truth" in their own (still likely differing) opinions.

Perhaps I carry my prior life as a policy analyst - where this is the point - making better policy - not by driving ideology (like the nutcases leading the GOP) - but by understanding the current siutation, and the policy implications for each policy in the process of policy reaction - rather than a debate game on a message board where only one view can be right and the other must be wrong or both are wrong. IMO, if that is the end goal - the end "right" view - would be - if it were policy - woefully ineptly formed as it would not be fully vetted and its positive and negative implications not fully considered/explored.

[K-W]

65. There is nothing absolutist about respecting the truth.

Funny, you claim you think mortals dont get things completely right, yet you insist that you are right... odd.

Yes, we could hold views that were both based on the truth, or we could both hold completely untrue views, or one of us could hold a true view and one of us could hold a false view. All of these things are possible.

Nobody is being absolutist, you have invented that in your head.

I didnt say one view must be right and one view must be wrong, why do you keep misrepresenting what I say?

I have said that on a disagreement of fact, both sides cannot be right. Either George Galloway is, or is not, exacerbating the situation in the middle east. You claim that he is. I claim that you are wrong.

Now why dont you stop throwing batches of straw men at me, and stop misconstruing my words. We disagree on something. One of us just might be wrong. Is that ok with you?

[salin]

71. clearly

we are talking past each other.

oh well.

And I stick by the camps phrase - I use the term to describe funky group dynamics that emerge from time to time around here - and have since I started participating here years ago. And that when the temporary groups emerge - they tend to work to try to provoke one another - often with ridiculous - hypberbolic thread titles.

Sorry for the commentary. You dont agree. Fine.

[paulk]

74. the problem is

you think your truth

is the only truth there is

[K-W]

75. Yah, me and every other human being on the planet.

We all think we are right paulk, there is nothing remotely sinister about that.

I dont however think my truth is the only truth there is, that is rediculous. I think that we can use reason and evidence to evaluate claims of truth. I think that what I believe to be true is supported by evidence and reason, I certainly could be wrong, but obviously I dont think I am or I wouldnt have claimed to believe it to be true in the first place.

[bpilgrim]

99. no, the problem is that folks post BS RW LIES against lefties with 0 proof

shouldn't serious charges of ANTI-semitism be backed up with PROOF and not hearsay or RW BS especially when leveled at lefties who are speaking TRUTH 2 POWER?

is that asking too much?

I don't think so.

I shouldn't it be discouraged to reduce serious discussions to polemics when that isn't the point?

i.e. hero worship is bad and campy

when that isn't the point?

what do you think?

peace

[paulk]

124. I don't know what to think

your post doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't know what you're talking about.

[bpilgrim]

132. well, you had to be there...

but 2 or 3 folks were posting RW LIES against a LEFTY with 0 proof.
the RW BS was pointed out, repeatedly, and they kept on going, even calling DU'ers Names even FREEPERS on occasion until they were finally locked for flame bait.

so, if you call a lefty an ANTI-SEMITE be prepared to BACK UP your scurrilous claims, if you can't back'm up, your thread will get locked or deleted.

hope thats clearer :hi:

peace

[welshTerrier2]

88. excellently stated !!

first, i strongly support the statements you made re: Israel-Palestine ...

second, we need to stop seeing people in such black and white terms ... the news about Deep Throat comes out and the first thing the MSM wants to do is decide if he's a hero or a villain ... why is that necessary? can't we see pros and cons in the same conduct?

with regard to Galloway, his statements to Coleman were great ... you could call his statements heroic because he spoke truth to power ... but that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with Galloway on every issue or even on any other issue ... just because he did a great thing does not give him a free pass ...

the same is true in the reverse ... Nader comes out with a great speech about the Downing Street minutes and the Nader-haters can't see the wisdom in Nader's words through their rage ...

when will we learn that we can applaud or criticize someone for one action or statement and do the reverse on others ??? let's put away all this hero and villain stuff and start analyzing at the details ...

[seabeyond]

90. let's put away all this hero and villain stuff

excellently stated.

lol,lol

and dont we do the same with clinton. good or bad
kerry
dean
and on and on and on

yup

as i have been stressing, that is what is so challenging about the right. left can handle nuance

[Behind the Aegis]

91. Well stated on your part!!!

You and the other poster, whom you were praising, did great summary jobs!

When we lose shades of gray, we become more like those we don't like. The one thing the other side has an advantage is they are not encouraged to think for themselves, just do as they are told. We, on the other hand, think for ourselves and it is our biggest positive and our biggest negative. When we do not agree on a topic (gay rights as a plank on the Democratic ticket), then the accusations fly.

In a community this large, differences of opinion will exist. Yes, there are a few disruptors, but just because someone disagrees with the topic du jour does not a disruptor make!

Great job!!!

[bpilgrim]

97. Nader-haters and the Galloway haters suffer from the same disease, HATE

and therefore are blinded to their own divisive rhetoric.

the thing that is offensive about the Galloway-Haters is that they post hear-say & rw lies with 0 proof & that must be challenged.

folks threw around the anti-semitic charge at him like he's david duke or something and it is ridiculous especially when there is 0 basis in FACT.

the other thing is they try to turn any support of him as HERO WORSHIP i.e. St. Ralph and they try to DISTRACT from his overall MSG which wasn't JUST a smack-down of Coleman it was a SMACK DOWN of the UNITED STATES foreign policy in IRAQ.

the reductionist and smear tactics of all their scurrilous charges are disgusting when used against a lefty and are designed to just stir up shit.

what should DU do when they make these false claims and try to reduce it to HERO WORSHIP?

obviously responding to them directly only results in insults and more lies.

i think lefties on DU should be protected just like DU'ers (no name calling or personal attacks) so any charges against lefties must be substantiated or deleted since it will just result in flame wars.

what's the rest of DU think?

peace

[salin]

98. would that go both ways

would folks who are not lefties (and to most, I am fairly left) be protected from charges of freeping etc?

I would LOVE to get rid of all of the charges and broad sweeping characterizations made of different groups at DU that are intended to marginalize, dismiss and ridicule - with the end effect of stopping real discussions/dialogues.

[bpilgrim]

101. the folks defending Galloway have been called freepers, NOT the other way

pointing out RW talking points and propaganda is entirely different.

fyi: this is VERY SPECIFIC and i posted links to back it up.

peace

[salin]

102. but the behavior is much more generalized

than just on that thread. No group, based on a position, should be smeared as freepers.

Have to admit that I find it ironic that EVERYONE here at some point or another - be they further left or to the middle - gets smeared as a freeper. THAT is the behavior I would love to see cut off. THAT and the dismissive, ridiculing, marginalizing tone that accompanies it - and cuts off all discussion.

We are in agreement.

You are just looking to a recent episode - where one group is getting it. I see it as part of a larger problem and would love the whole discourse changed.

peace back at you.

[bpilgrim]

105. well that is my point

I and other defenders of Mr. Galloway were accused of being FREEPERS and NOT just on that one thread almost all the threads on him have occasions of that insult AND they are all coming from the same people.

that is WRONG anywhere and must be stooped, i was just pointing to my recent and continuing experiences, so we are in agreement with that.

peace

[welshTerrier2]

104. i raised this exact point with Skinner in the last couple of days

i'll let him speak for himself if he chooses to ...

i think we have to strike a balance on issues like this ... it's a dangerous business on a progressive forum to condone excessive censorship ... on the other hand, there's no question that ad hominem attacks on people in the news fail to be responsive to what newsmakers have said or done ... i wouldn't mind having people tell me why they hate Nader if they would ALSO respond to what i posted about something Nader said ... this usually is NOT what happens though ... there's rarely any thought or analysis; just hatred ...

fwiw, here is a copy of my letter to Skinner:

i'm writing to raise an issue that has become a significant
frustration for me on DU ... i'm confident you've given all
sorts of thought to this issue in the past but i wanted to
highlight it because i've experienced it with increasing
frequency of late.

i've recently posted remarks made by Ralph Nader (calling for
an investigation of the Downing Street minutes) and by Arianna
Huffington (chastising the Democratic Party for ducking the
Iraq question) ... i more than understand that these are two
particularly controversial figures ... the problem i see,
however, is that it becomes difficult if not impossible to
discuss specific remarks or observations they make ... my
focus is on the larger issue of ad hominem attacks rather than
on specific threads i've started ...

i don't care if people hate these people or totally disagree
with their point of view or my own ... but in trying to raise
an issue for discussion that they've raised and adding a link
to an article they may have written, instead of discussing
WHAT they said the entire thread is almost always hijacked
into a discussion of WHO said it ... Nader calls for possible
impeachment and i get responses like "Nader made Gore lose
Florida ... i refuse to discuss anything he says" ... and then
someone responds to that "if more Democrats hadn't stayed
home, Gore would have carried Florida" ... and then someone
responds to that "Gore DID CARRY Florida" ... and whatever the
original point of the base post was gets squirreled away in
the noise ...

i know i can "ALERT" the mods and argue that these responses
are off topic ... perhaps they would agree; perhaps not ...
and i don't really have any clear solutions to offer, i'm
afraid to say ... i like the way DU is administered and I
think you have to be very careful to not overly control and
censor the discussion ... but what the hell?? the result of
what we have now is a fairly severe form of censorship when
the statements of certain controversial people become the
immediate target of ad hominem attacks ...

anyway, thanks for reading through all this ... if you have
any interest in kicking around solutions or just sharing your
thoughts, i'd love to hear them ...

[bpilgrim]

116. i think all DU'ers VOTING on EVERY post would be a big help

that way we wouldn't get distracted so much by disruptive post designed only to INFLAME.

i have advocated this for years now and i warned that in the beginning it wouldn't be a big problem (disruptions and flame wars) but as we grew it would be a HUGE problem, even just sifting through all the excellent info on this site is challenging enough these days but if every post was rated and you stepped into a 400 post discussion were over 1/2 of the posts were BS your own personal filter would cut the thread in 1/2 and make the jobs life a LOT easier as well.

btw: this is NOT a censor, this is up to each person to use it or not and to set their filter at whatever level they are comfortable with or not use it at all DU-UNCUT so to speak.

right now the noise is canceling out the signal and it will only get worse.

MODS, SKINNER, DU'ers what say you?

peace

[me b zola]

150. Great letter

I've noticed that trend as well, and it has ruined what could have been great threads. It is so frustrating, so when I see that a thread has taken that path, I usually leave to read another thread.

[Individualist]

20. Yes

When individuals continually spout reich wing talking points, one wonders why they're allowed to stay and post more BS.

[CatWoman]

22. well, at least you're weren't "called out"

or called stupid.

[efhmc]

35. So when one is "called out" at DU, do you appoint seconds,

go to a quiet room with 2 internet connections (high speed, of course), boot up your computers, and then let the words fly? The winner is the last person left standing with the most scathing succinct posts at the end of an hour. Skinner is the judge. Right?

[CatWoman]

49. lololololololo!!!!!!

I couldn't tell you about that :D

But that does sound like a marvelous plan :D

[Jim Sagle]

25. You're mischaracterizing the phenomenon and missing the point.

The point is, some of us have no inclination to let Jews, Israel, and Zionism be the scapegoat for all that the right and the corporations have done to us.

The further point is, some of us have no inclination to let said scapegoating be a litmus test for what constitutes a liberal, a democrat, a Democrat, or a progressive.

It will not happen. Period.

[Zuni]

28. Anyone notice there are a lot of idiots with bad grammar on DU?

who think being critical of their slavish and pathetic devotion to a shady British anti-semite is somehow RW?

:toast:

Anyone also notice that some of these idiots (I am not naming names, but you can guess) resort to mindless jingoism and flaming and spamming up the boards when someone dares to disagree with their circle jerk like group think parties they have been having?


:hi:

Zuni

[ms. contrary]

29. the Saddam discussion

was not started by the "Saddam was evil" faction.

[paulk]

30. what I've noticed

is a group of posters, you being chief among them, who accuse every post they disagree with as being a "right wing talking point".

[Zuni]

32. SNAP

[CatWoman]

38. CRACKLE

[CatWoman]

39. POP!!

[Zuni]

46. POP

hey, this isn't the lounge

and I am not STM

:hi:

sorry to interrupt our GD flamefest. I am going back to the lounge to discuss Tom Cruise's sexuality and American Idol vote fraud!

[seabeyond]

51. Tom Cruise's sexuality and American Idol

chicken, lol lol. that had me laugh. cute

[CatWoman]

54. oh, come on Zuni

stick around

:hi:

Tom's sexuality will be there. It ain't going nowhere :D

[Zuni]

67. it is getting pretty hot in here

I am the notorious unnamed poster who started this mess when I said, yesterday, in a post, that I think Mr. Galloway is a rather poor choice of an example for progressives. he has a rather shady history of behavior going back several decades (and this was told to me by several British DUers) of financial corruption in charities, shilling for various anti-western regimes and quite possibly having dubious financial dealings with Iraq---even Carl Levin, a progressive anti-war Dem in the Senate believes that galloway lied through his teeth during his testimony, and making coded but blatantly anti semetic statements.

I am sick of arguing with other DUers, but some make it so hard. I don't mind a disagreement, but I have been dragged over the coals for my views. Hell this place is meant for debate, but it got real nasty, real fast. :evilfrown:


I long for the comfort and silliness of the lounge. :o

I heard there is a thread just waiting for a clever, yet subtle copycat. :P

Besides, no one in GD will understand why a dancing Hedges in parachute pants is funny:

[efhmc]

96. I heard this info on AAR about Galloway. I think that sometimes people

here just need someone, anyone to say any bit of the truth and when it happens they are over the moon about it and will not hear any critisicm of the person involved.

[bpilgrim]

108. no some people just want FACTS to back up SMEARS against LEFTIES

spreading the rumor that Mr. Galloway is ANTI-SEMITIC on a lefty site with 0 proof cept hear-say and RW BS lies is beyond the pale, imo.

and it is reductionist in the extreme to say we are just HERO WORSHIPERS.

like the St. Ralph canard.

that is the problem.

peace

[efhmc]

143. Not how I see it and I am not talking specifically about this incident.

Time and again, I will see a political person do or say something that the mainstream here does not agree with or does agree with and then shortly afterwards there seems to be a visceral stream headed toward sainthood or demonization. If a DUer has a problem with something that political figure has done in the past or some issue that does not strike well with them or conversely if he/she agrees with some point that person has made, etc., these points can not be put out there to be discussed rationally without much fingerpointing. The situation becomes an all or nothing acceptance or rejection of that particular political person. That is what I see.

[bpilgrim]

144. well i'm trying to be specific

and in this case when asked for PROOF to back up their RW charges they responded with INSULTS and the same RW BS.

i have been here a long time and i know DU is very FAIR but always comes down of the left or progressive side and thats the way it should be.

sure, if you post RW BS you WILL get jumped on here but that is not a surprise but when RW BS and insults is allowed to spew across multiple threads then we got a problem.

peace

[bpilgrim]

40. I point out BS RW SMEARS against LEFTIES

and have been doing it for a long time, it's a DU tradition.

i get in reply called names, even a FREEPER and 0 proof or lies repeated in conservative sites.

thats how i see it and i know i ain't the only one.

peace

[salin]

48. be fair bpilgrim

I am a leftie - and I just got smeared on this very thread.

You see I must be very uninformed and of weak mind and thus fall for and spout rw propoganda. Who knew?

Point is - folks get into camps and get pretty petty with each other - and then work to provoke each other - but don't see if they are engaging in the same behavior themselves. Not accusing you per se- but there does get to be a little group mentality among "camps" when they form. And the rest of us - if we hold "other" views (not safely in one place or the other) always get slimed - usually by both sides.

[bpilgrim]

55. i posted the links...

and i am pretty fair minded i think, but i don't tolerate RW BS especially against lefties.

now if you were being 'fair' you would recognize the 3 or 4 folks spreading the RW BS in the links i provided.

I am in the LEFT WING CAMP and i point our the RW BS as you can see in the above threads.

peace

[K-W]

60. You didnt get smeared. You made a statement that was a RW talking point.

Stop taking it personally and learn the truth about the situation for goodness sake.

Nobody is in camps and nobody is smearing you. Galloway is not feuling the Isreali-Palastinian conflict and to suggest he is is patently rediculous. Stop trying to write this off as a camp attack or smear, it is a sincere disagreement with something you posted.

[salin]

66. no, I made a statement that YOU concluded

was a RW talking point, rather than trying to attend to the point that I was trying to make.

I said rhetoric from either side, right now, esp after the ascension of Sharon's administration and end of talks ergo the recent years of ongoing violence, that gives voice to one side - without recognition of the strife, pain, fear and loss on the other - serves to continue the validation of the righteousness held by both sides that keeps fueling this tragic and bloody standstill.

Heck all I said was that I don't embrace Galloway - I praised his actions per calling Coleman out.

Wait - are you agreeing that we can disagree? Because earlier you claimed that it wasn't a difference in opinion it was a matter that you were correct - and I - was to ignorant to realize that I was simply spouting rw talking points.

[K-W]

73. Whether it is true or not it is a RW talking point.

The right wing hates George Galloway and has certainly made this accusation. I assumed you would know that. It doesnt make it right or wrong, but if it is wrong, as I assert it is, it is right wing propaganda. But if I am wrong and you are right, it is simply a correct view that happens to be shared by you and right wing groups that attack George Galloway. I should add that left wing groups also attack him for the same thing, to be fair.

And I did attent to the point, I disagreed with you, this just isnt a thread to hash out such an argument, I thought that was fairly obvious.

"I said rhetoric from either side, right now, esp after the ascension of Sharon's administration and end of talks ergo the recent years of ongoing violence, that gives voice to one side - without recognition of the strife, pain, fear and loss on the other - serves to continue the validation of the righteousness held by both sides that keeps fueling this tragic and bloody standstill."

No, that isnt what you said, this is something different that I am not so sure I understand. Rhetoric from either side... so anyone who expresses an opinion about the conflict is by definition exacerbating it? That doesnt seem like a terribly strong argument to me.

"Heck all I said was that I don't embrace Galloway - I praised his actions per calling Coleman out. "

No, that isnt all you said. You claimed that his speaking out about the Isreal-Palastinian conflict was exacerbating it.

"Wait - are you agreeing that we can disagree? Because earlier you claimed that it wasn't a difference in opinion it was a matter that you were correct - and I - was to ignorant to realize that I was simply spouting rw talking points."

I agree that we can disagree, obviously, we disagree, it is clearly possible. That doesnt make this a difference of opinion. This is a difference of fact. You are claiming a causal relationship between the comments of George Galloway and a conflict in the middle east. That is not a value judgement.

I never said you were ignorant, in fact I specifically said I didnt think so, you were the one who jumped to that conclusion. I simply pointed out, correctly, that the right wing sees George Galloway as an obstacle to progress in the middle east, thus they agree with you that his involvement has been disruptive. Do you disagree with this?

[K-W]

57. Your comment is easily proven dead wrong.

With a cursory search of threads this group of posters has posted in. Every single one of them regularly disagrees with people without any such accusations.

[tx_dem41]

33. Here on DU, we have a tradition of backing up our claims.....

"Saddam was evil and had to be taken out"

Must have missed that one. Can you show me the thread.

[bpilgrim]

47. here ya go..

and i posted the title to one but let me include the link...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3789079&mesg_id=3789079

here is another thats filled with RW talking points and FLAME BAIT...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3783877&mesg_id=3783877

and looky here's another filled with RW talking points and FLAME BAIT...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3786240&mesg_id=3786240

and notice how it's 3 or 4 from the basement stirring up all the shit.

I think the IP stuff should be sent to the basement as it is CLEAR these few folks ONLY want to DISRUPT and spread RW BS.

so you can see and judge for yourself :hi:

please discuss

peace

[sharonking21]

45. Even if we are a liberal site

we have to have some balance in our discussions or we will descend into group think and thus not do ourselves any good. Our aim is to restore sane leadership to this country.

There are issues to be discussed and to come to some kind of consensus on before we face the next election. Many moderate liberals, for instance, are perfectly capable of acknowledging that Saddam was really a horrible leader. That does not mean we think we should have gone to war. There are too many horrible leaders. We cannot take them all out.

The same kind of logic applies to many other issues. It is inevitable that a few things Bush does, supports, or says, will, by the laws of chance alone, turn out to be true or good. That does not mean he and his administration on the whole are anything but scum or that we support him or them.

I think we need to talk about issues without hammering one another over differences of opinion or accusing each other of being right-wing. That said, if someone is really posting nothing but right-wing talking points, direct the attention of the moderators to that person.

[bpilgrim]

50. RW TALKING POINT LINKS

and i posted the title to one but let me include the link...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3789079&mesg_id=3789079

here is another thats filled with RW talking points and FLAME BAIT...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3783877&mesg_id=3783877

and looky here's another filled with RW talking points and FLAME BAIT...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3786240&mesg_id=3786240

and notice how it's 3 or 4 from the basement stirring up all the shit.

I think the IP stuff should be sent to the basement as it is CLEAR these few folks ONLY want to DISRUPT and spread RW BS.

so you can see and judge for yourself :hi:

please discuss

peace

[seabeyond]

53. you keep giving this

and i havent replied. but since it is posted three times on this thread. i am posting on the galloway comparing lott. i thing the basis for your question is incorrect. simply lott is an employee a citizen.

i dont know your side

i dont need to glorify galloway

i can take what he says to committee adn value what he gave us in honesty courage and straight talk, and leave the rest of his politics alone. he isnt the united states.

[bpilgrim]

56. people keep asking

FYI: i am not the originator of that flame bait.

peace

[seabeyond]

58. peace to you too, lol

as i said, two of those threads, i had no desire to participate in. so i dont have a clue. only that first thread comparing.

[Zuni]

69. All I did was criticize George galloway

I did not spew RW talking points

[aneerkoinos]

81. Honestly Zuni

That's not all you did, you've (among others) been flame-baiting, spewing strawman arguments and getting overtly emotional.

And see KW's post above what RW talking point means; RW talking points are not necessarily untrue, only very probably so, but if it is a talking point that RW uses to bash leftists, it is still a RW talking point whether true or not. Which of course does not imply that if someone agrees with some RWTP that makes him/her automatically a bushbot.

And sorry I called you a coward (well to be accurate said that hit and run posting is cowardly, but anyway)!
:hi:

[geek tragedy]

118. What matters is that something is true, not whether the rightwingers

use it as a talking point.

If it's the truth, then progressives have nothing to fear from it.

[aneerkoinos]

125. Exactly

With the usual heaps of salt considering the sources and their motivations.

And it takes relentless deprogramming to see through ALL the spin and framing the NAKED TRUTH (= Socialism is the way to go, Baby!!! ;)).

[Just Me]

94. You called me a "kool-aid" drinker and "useful idiot".

You asserted that Galloway hates jews (false) and you persistently did a "ZZZZZzzzzz" when I pointed out how US corporacrats have delivered more human suffering than several wars put together.

Explain your stone-throwing and back it up.

Start with your accusations against me.

[Just Me]

148. No answer, as usual. No answer to my request about "progressive".

Everytime I asked what "progressive" meant to you,...avoidance. Everytime I asked you to confront the abuses of corrupt US corporacrats,..."ZZZZzzzzzz"

Why did you call me a "kool-aid" drinker and "useful idiot"? What was your motivation in doing so?

[aneerkoinos]

76. Balance is not the problem

DU has got plenty of balance.

The problem is the venom of Either-Or Syndrome of Emotional Groupthinking that get's in the way of rational discussion. DU has lot of that venom, the bane of human kind.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

62. to clarify, i ment GD

:hi:

peace

[seabeyond]

63. wow, so this is a right wing site now

lol, rush will be so proud, lmao

[Lori Price CLG]

78. Well, here is an example:

Judge who exonerated Cheney is on the payroll of Exxon -- original research by Citizens for Legitimate Government (Halliburton Watch, Michael Moore.com, David Sarisota's blog and other main sites promoted) posted as LBN (as it was) and the fast-growing thread was moved within about a minute to the Gen. Discussion page.
It was Latest Breaking News.

Yet, I see runaway bride 'breaking news' in that forum (not today, but you get my drift).

Here was the link - that DU did not consider 'breaking news' (ten minutes after CLG published it)
http://www.legitgov.org/news_cheney_task_force_judge_051005.html

[seabeyond]

80. if that is indicitive of being a right wing site

i scoff. nah, i dont scoff. just teasing. i do say surely you are not suggesting that qualifies this place as right wing. anyway,.......there are rules here. i dont know what was involved in locking a cheney thread, but it is certainly not to protect cheney. i havent heard a fan of cheney on this site, .........ever

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

93. hm

i think i will just respectfully, wink, disagree

thanks lori

[salin]

85. I think that has more to do with LBN policy per sources

the challenge in these times is sorting out what is a news source (papers/media) vs what are blogs... and what stays lbn based on the type of source, not the content.

Sadly - what keeps something "floating" in the forum isn't the content - but DU members commenting on items and "kicking" them up to the top.

Alot of folks read the editorials multiple times a day - your item would probably be more widely read there - as it wouldn't get bounced by fluff - and wouldn't face the "source" issue. Again the source issue, as I recall it from a while ago - was that there are now so many potential sources that could be used (say... TheWashingtonNote... etc.) that LBN could have a gazillion items posted knocking everything off the pages in minutes. My guess is that even real news (interviews, sourced, etc.) that doesn't fit the media source criteria does get excluded - a sad, but perhaps necessary, consequence of the decision... which for the most part makes LBN work as it isn't flooded with extraneous stuff.

BTW - GREAT WORK!!!!!!!! Do you have the DU link to the discussion?

Thanks.

[wtmusic]

137. Lori be sure to contact admins when that happens

could be an oversight. I thought most of your posts get a pretty fair shake around here.

Thanks for all your hard work. :thumbsup:

[Coexist]

64. Yes, I have - and it is very tiresome

My kids are away visiting their grandma, so I have been spending an unhealthy amount of my free time here, watching C-Span and popping in an out of DU. And I can't believe all the stuff I am reading. I also can't believe that people are responding instead of letting the threads fall off the page.

[bpilgrim]

68. you are right

i will not respond to these plants... we all know what happens when we don't water them ;->

thanks for the sound advice :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

70. thank you mods for locking the FLAME BAIT

:toast:

peace

[ms. contrary]

77. it was pretty lame, actually...

I was unimpressed that the thread on Amnesty/Saddam was closed. See ya later, DU.

[CatWoman]

79. toodles!!!

:hi:

[seabeyond]

83. toodles, lol lol

i dont know when i last heard a toodles. jsut gave me giggles, wink

[wtmusic]

133. Yeah, we hadn't rehashed that 8-year-old report quite enough yet

Bye!

:hi:

[tx_dem41]

72. Here's a book that more than a few around here need to read.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679726101/qid=1117995612/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-3907937-7697548?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Hint: Pay attention to the parts about Robespierre.

[Just Me]

84. My observation is the sort of diviseness off which the RW springboards.

It's concerning.

I don't expect absolute moral perfection or complete loyalty to or from anyone. That unrealistic demand is not only divisive but also destructive.

As a progressive, I want,...no, I need a sense of unity on central common causes (equality, civil rights, human rights, social and economic justice) without regard to racial or religious or political or cultural positions. I expect support for those who work on those common causes. I'd be a fool to anticipate that we will agree on issues which are more individually oriented or personal in nature.

I will say this though: I believe it's time for more recalcitrant and powerful advocacy for the common causes that contribute to the best of humanity, to the best of ourselves. The recent recalcitrant spokespersons towards truth have been subjected to every form of character assasination because they are shaking people awake and threatening the neo-robber-barons.

I support such recalcitrants because they are the ones who will take back what's left of the twentieth century and advance the interests of humanity in the 21st century.

[Zhade]

100. It's not really all that recent, but it IS more prevalent these days.

And, as such DU luminaries as Padraig/Cuban Liberal, Gimel, DoNotRefill, Mobutu, and a number of other freepers show, it's not unheard of to have 1,000+ disruptors here.

I think it's a tragedy.

[bpilgrim]

103. true - we are getting a LOT of free publicity these days from the M$M

and more folks are smacking down our CRIMINAL FOREIGN policy so i guess i shouldn't be surprised but i wonder what the best way is to deal with these disruptions :shrug:

i think it is very telling how they ALWAYS attack lefties who speak TRUTH 2 POWER especially about our recent CRIMINAL behavior in the ME.

i think we should make folks attacking any lefty speaking truth 2 power needs to be burdened with a rule to provide PROOF (RW rags don't) of their smears especially when it is well known RW propaganda.

but maybe that would be too hard to enforce, but something has to be done, imho.

i wish everyone in DU can VOTE on EVERY post as i am sure that would help the cream rise to the surface and the crap sink to the bottom where it belongs.

imagine having a community of like minded individuals helping you sift through the sea of info on here.

peace

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

120. i hear ya

and that wise advice is what i keep hearing and i will take it, thank you :toast:

peace

[sintax]

111. You got it bpilgrim-nominated: Read this article for critique along those

Naomi Klein, in a recent article posted on In These Times, tells us "How to end the war". She says we need to know the reasons for it, that these are exposed by the US' pursuit of military bases and Iraqi oil wealth. She says that we should struggle for what the Iraqis themselves want, meaningful self-determination and real democracy, buttressed by respect of international law. Her essay pretty well collects in one place everything that is wrong with so much left-wing thinking right now.

<snip>

First, to end the war, we do not need to know the real reasons for it. That's historical research, not political planning. It's like saying that, for the allies to win World War II, they needed to know Hitler's real reasons for making it. These reasons are still debated--A.J.P.Taylor introduced major competition to the naked aggression thesis--yet the war is long won. This is not nit-picking; it exemplifies the left's obsession with pointless, endless, fruitless analysis.

<snip>

It's confusing, but I get it: getting the US out of Iraq is not really our first priority. It's getting the US out of Iraq *on our terms*. Who's 'we'? Well, 'we' support democracy, which means supporting, not all Iraqis, but the Iraqis who support democracy. The other Iraqis are bad: they just want to support 'their own élite power.' Worse, "Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosques-barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq." So we support the people who want democracy, and who don't attack the Shia. We support the people who really want democracy, namely the nice Shia (not any nasty ones who want a theocracy) and, though she does not mention them, the Kurds. In other words, we support exactly the elements of the population Bush supports, and whatever other nice people we can find. It's all very well for Klein to talk of a 'responsible agenda' for withdrawal and even reparations, but if she's really committed to democracy in Iraq, she is committed to large parts of the US government's current policies.

<snip>

The courage to be serious would mean something quite different. It would mean, not this bloodless, venti-decaf-latte substitute for passion, but real hatred of America's actions and single-minded, furious determination to get every last 'coalition' soldier off Iraqi soil, as soon as possible, by any means necessary. No ifs ands or buts about democracy, just get them out. Anyone who really believed in the Iraqis' right to their own damn country would not be fussing about whether their projected form of government or mode of self-determination matched American leftist ideals. This in none of our business, not least because it is mere insolence to presume that we know what the Iraqis want or how they should get it. It takes years to know a country, and, if one doesn't live there, at least long study, bolstered by fluency in the country's language. Only American yahoos, of all political stripes, would think otherwise.

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann05102005.html

[Vladimir]

121. That is quite a brutal article

and at the same quite correct in its main point: cut the crappy rhetoric designed to assuge your own guilt and GET THOSE TROOPS THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ RIGHT NOW!

[aneerkoinos]

142. Twisted democracy

Anyone starting from the chauvinist premisse that our kind of democracy, Liberal democracy, is the only correct form of democracy and there is no other democracy, IMO does not understand zit about democracy.

Democracy is power of the people, it cannot be ever given but only won, above anything else democracy is self-determination.

[LynnTheDem]

112. RW talking points...ON DU??!

NO WAY!




Heh. :D

[wtmusic]

127. Absolutely

Although I agree with Jim Sagle that Israel/Zionism bears too much of the brunt of people's wrath (in general) around here, the place is crawling with trolls.

This is a good sign. They are feeling threatened, and they should.

[Tinoire]

128. Yes totally. Which is why I supported and still support Skinner's proposal

for DU posters to have a greater way to self moderate this board. There is NO reason we should have to spin our wheels constantly shouting down those right-wing points when we have much more important work to do. The problem is you can barely touch the important work because we're constantly mired, bogged down, in revisiting what should have been closed issues.

This board is, for the most part, progressive. It's anti-Nazi and anti Vichy collaboration but the Vichy collaborators sure make a LOT of noise. You can tell because it's always the same ones in the same threads with the same tired talking points.

I do believe that intelligent people can disagree on a few issues, on a few approaches to world problems but Lord have mercy, there are trolls on this board who manage to remain "technically correct" by never coming out and saying what they believe. Instead they spend their entire time weaving in & out of threads attacking progressive viewpoints - they're mildly entertaining but they need to go.

The French shaved the heads of the Vichy Collaborators and paraded them through the streets. I would like a way for the majority of DUers to be able to throw them off this board so that we can get on to the serious business of educating each other & fighting the fascist takeover in a more progressing manner.

[bpilgrim]

135. what was his proposal? voting on every post?

i think that would be a good way for the community to put forth what we value and let sink all the other stuff.

too bad we can't shave their heads though :evilgrin:

:hi:

peace

[Tinoire]

149. Here was Skinner's proposal

You and I both weighed in supporting it. This is the type of thing that I wish we would see put up for a vote of 1000+-have-been-active-in-the-last-2-months members and priminently pinned up for a 1 month vote.

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-04-05 07:51 AM
Original message
What's your opinion of a Karma Rating or Member Moderating system for DU?


Since the beginning, DU has been run on a traditional discussion forum system where a small group of volunteer moderators is responsible for moderating, based on a set of written rules (and some unwritten standards as well). The result is not perfect, there are plenty of problems and inconsistencies, and as DU grew larger and attracts more trolls, there has been a constant need to make changes to deal with perceived challenges. But overall I believe the system has been moderately successful, and contributed to the long-term success of this website.

Still, I have always had my doubts, and I have always wondered what might work better. For years, the admins have discussed the feasibility of changing over to a system which would give some moderating power to the members themselves. There are a number of possible approaches to doing this, which I won't even try to outline here. But the common theme is that regular members are given the power to regulate what is posted on the message board, using various tools to express their approval/disapproval of other members or their contributions, and even (through collective action) limit the ability of other members to participate fully.

Now that Democratic Underground has grown so large, I believe that it is time to consider instituting some kind of member-moderating system. If we were to do this, we would continue to have a group of assigned moderators to deal with various problems. But it is likely that the responsibility of policing things like incivility or flame bait would fall to the members themselves.

If done well, there are many merits to this approach. It would empower members so they feel they have some control over how the website is run, and how other people use it. It would give members much faster and more useful feedback about how their actions are perceived by others (and I think people might be more likely to listen if that feedback is coming from their peers rather than from a faceless authority figure). It would give members an incentive to think before they post about how their words might be perceived by others, and make an effort to foster constructive dialog. It would give members the ability to deal directly with those people they consider to be trolls or disruptors, without having to wait for the moderators to render a decision. Overall, I believe it would make people feel more like they have personal responsibility for Democratic Underground, and invest the efforts of every member in making this a better place.

There are also a number of possible drawbacks. The biggest issue is simply that we do not know for certain how this would work unless we tried it. We might change the fundamental nature of DU, take away some of the spontaneity and openness, and make it a much less rich environment. It is possible that small numbers of highly-organized people with their own agenda could take advantage of the system to enforce a more narrow party line than is currently permitted here. (Such action would certainly not be permitted, but that does not mean that some people won't try to do it anyway.) And of course, it could be an extremely harsh (but perhaps necessary) wake-up call for a few people who currently have no clue that large numbers of their fellow members do not like them.

So, I am curious to hear what you would think about instituting a member moderating system of some kind. Is it worth a try? Is the risk too great? Can it be done in a way that empowers the well-meaning members and marginalizes the troublemakers? Are there large groups of people that are so suspicious of each other that they could not be trusted to use the system in a good-faith manner? What are your thoughts?

Also, I would like to know who has had experiences actually using such a system. What works and what doesn't? What are examples of such systems that seem to work well?

I feel pretty strongly that, if done right, this would be a net positive for DU. What do you think?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3055908

[Just Me]

152. I hope SKINNER revisits this possibility.

I remember his proposition and my reservations and proffer of other possibilities.

Presently, I believe maintaining a means of uniting common goals and enforcing fundamental objectives overrides the previous reservations I expressed in response to SKINNER'S post.

Moreover, humanity demands a system that lifts the floor of existence.

[amazona]

130. try hitting alert

I haven't noticed anything special but if in doubt, hit the Alert button and let the mods decide if the post is a little on the wingnut side of things.

[bpilgrim]

136. they were finally locked

but it took a while, hence my post, but i think it is an issue we as a community need to figure out how to improve.

i think if everyone could VOTE on every post that would help the cream rise to the surface and the crap sink to the bottom, not to mention give the mods a break ;->

:hi:

peace

[Joe Chi Minh]

147. Yes, I've noticed this all the time.

Maybe I should have written this to Skinner, but I assumed that the reason why he didn't knock those kinds of threads on the head straight away, could be that they were a kind of trade-off for Bushco not suppressing the forum. Those so-called "talking points" are utterly demeaning, obfuscating and serve no meritorious purpose. When you argue with a fool, you make two fools. That is not a facile bon mot. It is a simple statement of fact. No rational discourse can take place between two people with diametrically-opposed ASSUMPTIONS.

I can't imagine any neocon forum would allow intelligent left-wing threads on their boards. Why should you allow their bad faith, their imbecilic talking points on your board? I think the troll button should be saved for more subtle, less transparently blind propaganda. And what's more, I believe this board (the Lounge excluded) should be solely propaganda-oriented, and not just a talking shop, (however pompously dressed up in terms of civility and inclusiveness). When it is the truth that is the propaganda (lit. "to be disseminated"), then propaganda is essentially another word for evangelisation, albeit secularised, and nothing to be ashamed of.

Any new thread clearly hostile to the Catholic Church's official social doctrine, which places capital at the service of Man, not the vice versa, should be as ruthlessly suppressed as the transparently infantile talking points referred to - underpinned as they are, by assumptions which seem to be simply too amoral, blind and immature to even reach the bar of dishonesty. (Although we know that they are, in fact, deliberate, calculated and deeply deeply immoral).

[pinto]

153. Locking.

As you know, DU maintains this site as a forum for discussion of liberal and progressive politics.

Specific questions and/or comments about the administration of the site, though, are best addressed to the Adminstrators, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

Thanks for your cooperation,
DU Mods