About the now-infamous Starpass post

[Goldmund]

I was driving home and flipping through radio stations and caught Mark is-there-a-more-annoying-human-being-on-this-planet Levin railing about it. I find it absurd that these people would stoop as low as to talk about a single post on a public message board to feed their minions' hatred for dissent. I think it's a clear sign of complete desperation, a complete decline of principle.

Has anyone heard anything else about it (I know about Sullivan and now Levin)? Mods, did you get any harassment from anyone? How has this impacted today's traffic? What happened to Starpass?

(Edit for spelling)

[goobergunch]

1. I checked about twenty minutes ago, and Starpass is still with us (n/t)

[drfemoe]

3. link?

eom

[goobergunch]

19. Her profile

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=100979

[ShaneGR]

30. Go to this thread to rebutt the Starpass thread.........please

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=649151

[roughsatori]

2. We do the same thing when we post outrageous FreakRepublic posts

That is how people twist things, regardless of the side one is on.

Some here will use what happened with Starpass's post and tell us to start "self-censoring," and that is precisely what the people who take one post off of a site to negatively publicize it want.

[thebigidea]

6. yeah, we always do the same thing on our many radio shows

insert eye roll here

[indigo32]

13. LOL

ain't that the truth

[roughsatori]

16. I never said that, you missed the point

To pretend that certain behaviors are the sole province of the right is absurd.

If "we" did have more radio shows, "we" would do the same thing.

[Goldmund]

20. Bullshit.

I don't know which "we" you're refering to -- but I can guarantee you that left-wing journalists and hosts would not lead an apparently concerted effort to justify their opposition to the right based on a post on a message board. After all, they wouldn't need to.

[roughsatori]

27. I disagree and the sureness with which you "guarantee"

"guarantee" other peoples ("left-wing journalists and hosts") behavior is naive. Couple that with your response of "bullshit" and I would guess you are beyond civil reasoned discourse. You are speaking in the mode of the very right-wing wackos I would suppose you claim to dislike.

[Goldmund]

32. Oh come on

Chill, man. I didn't know there was a person left in America that thought that "bullshit" was an offensive word. I thought I was offering reasons for saying what I was saying -- succesfully or not, you be the judge.

When I said "guarantee" I meant this: the only reason the wingnuts are playing this post is because they are using it to ultimately contribute to stifling dissent. They obviously can't make a rational argument in applying this post on Democrats or left wing in general; rather, they are using it to stir up anger and hatred of the left. The right wing aesthetic is, in my opinion -- I wouldn't be left-wing if I didn't have it -- much more compatible with the idea of silencing dissent than the left-wing is. If I didn't believe that liberalism wasn't incompatible with one-mindedness I wouldn't be a liberal.

[thebigidea]

23. >If "we" did have more radio shows, "we" would do the same thing.

well, don't talk in hypotheticals.

We don't, they do.

[rman]

63. no, you missed the point

the point is that such a post is talked about *on national radio*.

[BuckeFushe]

46. An eye roll like this?

[Goldmund]

12. Not a good analogy.

Freepers have done that a million times before with our posts, and I wasn't surprised -- after all, both they and we are public, barely moderated message boards. The difference this time is that it was Sullivan (and Levin) -- public personalities who are also mouthpieces of the right wing, each with many followers and with access to millions.

[roughsatori]

21. So it is wrong because they are famous?

I think it is a propaganda technique. And the person's fame or lack of fame does not change the morality of the act. Of course, it is always easier to excuse our selves of the behavior we attack in others.

[Goldmund]

No, not because they're famous

The other way around. The reason that they are famous is because many people see them as authoritative voices that speak for them and for their part of the political spectrum. Also, right-wing talk-show hosts aren't merely entertainers as they claim -- they are clearly political personalities that have a huge effect on the electorate.

Neither of this is true for a poster on a message board.

[Nlighten1]

4. I remember a President who said...

"Bring 'em on" yet I don't hear the right screaming about that.

[patdem]

5. WOW...we now have Will Pitt and Starpass as celebrities...woo hoo

and they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum...but nobody talks about that?

On freek republic...cannot have opposite ends of the spectrum...only one spectrum

[liberalmuse]

7. You're kidding?

I guess the wingnuts really do scour this board looking for something to use against the left. Wow. And yet the freepers can post the most hatefilled diatribes and no one says a word. Liberal media, indeed.

[BuckeFushe]

48. You should see the shit on Hannity's boards

All the false "hurt" and personal hand-wringing at how "we" want our soldiers to die. They have stoopped to a new low, and grasp at straws as their world slowly crumbles around them. No mentions of the new polls about Shrubs less than 40% reelect numbers, no mention at the stonewalling of the 9/11 comission, but lots of bullshit about the "memo" leaked to Hannity.

Best forum for comic relief on the internet, bar none. Beats FR hands down because so many of them think they are 'intoollecternals'.

[nonconformist]

56. And that attitude is one that infuriates me

My husband is a veteran, who lucky for us was discharged shortly before 9/11 and isn't forced to participate in and possibly die for this nonsense. I would LOVE for someone to tell me that by me being vehemently against the Iraq war and this "administration" how I am 'against our troops'. Most of the people who would have the nerve to say such a thing most likely never spent a single day in the military. They have no idea what military families go through - the painful separations, meager pay and obvious danger involved with the job. They have no clue to how "connected" I feel to all of those young families who are agonizing over whether their husband/father will come home in a body bag or permanently disabled. I have more caring and compassion for our military and their families in my pinkie than they have in their entire body - because they obviously have no problem watching them become cannon fodder.

[Lars39]

8. Most people never got past the subject line of her post, to understand

what she was trying to say. :shrug:

[jonnyblitz]

41. I didnt seem to see it look others did...

but then my number one concern isnt worrying what Andrew Sullivan thinks...

[truth2power]

50. Thank you, Lars.

I don't think people understood what she was trying to say. But I suppose we are now going to be reduced to running every idea through the "What will the freepers think?" filter.

Bulletin: Freepers don't think.

Ya' know, that microbe infesting the WH has got this country into an impossible situation. And there are no easy answers for how we could even begin to clean up his mess. But at least some on this board are willing to grapple with the problem.

Given that Bunnypants is driving us over a cliff, none of our options are pretty. Which is one reason that I have concerns about the increasingly restrictive discussion rules.

If anyone is concerned about not saying anything that is offensive to anyone, let's just go google "recipes". I have a good one for pineapple zucchini bread.

[JailBush]

9. Starpass made the radio?

Hey, Freepers - Check out my outrageously politically incorrect website, Jail4Bush! I mean, what kind of lunatic would suggest the pResident serve time behind bars?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

22. Starrpass has become the Ann Coulter of the Left! But, she had honest

sarcasm. Coulter is a lying witch who wouldn't know the truth if it hit her in the face and tried to strangle her!

Remember Coulter's infamous quotes?

[Wellong]

24. Yes

It is not a rumor.

[DuctapeFatwa]

33. No. In a funny way, she agreed with Bush

The whole idea of the cover ban on casualties is based on the premise that if Americans became aware that there are a lot of troops dying in Iraq, they would cease to support either Crusade or regime.

The essence of her post was go ahead let the war rage beyond where hiding the casualties is possible, and people will be so horrified they will get off their butts.

Personally, I think this is unfounded on the part of Washington, and overly optimistic on the part of Starpass, for a number of reasons, not least among them being the fact that the majority of the troops who are put in harm's way are poor and/or ethnic minorities who were considered undesirables before they joined the military, and disposable after they joined it.

[nostamj]

11. the subject line was.... unfortunate

because the SUBSTANCE of the post was much more.

which was, btw,

BLOODSHED WILL CONTINUE AS LONG AS BUSHCO IS IN POWER

it never really 'hoped' for American deaths,

it put the ongoing and inevitable DEATHS into context.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. If that was the header, they are spinning wildly to get

"hoping for American deaths" from it.

[ComerPerro]

18. You almost sound suprised

I mean, didn't you expect that they would spin something beyond recognition just to drive home what sucm we are?

[bicentennial_baby]

25. The subject line

was "I hope the bloodshed in Iraq continues"

[incapsulated]

28. That wasn't the header

The actual header was something like "I hope there is more bloodshed in Iraq".

I can't remember exactly and the thread "disappeared" when I searched.

I do remember that she said she hoped there where more troops killed.

Whether her reasons for this desire were rational or not, I leave to the individual, who can no longer read them, unfortunately.

edit: replying to Dembones not above post...

[Wellong]

29. No

that actual header was "I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq"

[Lars39]

17. Yes.

[Guaranteed]

65. Whatever.

"Unfortunate" is an understatement.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. We shouldn't censor it, we should post it in public

There was NOTHING in any of those threads that isn't said in private everywhere in America. You won't find debate on FreeRepublic.com - groupthink will allow nothing to controversial.

DU should posts all those threads (including mine, in my sig but now censored) and ask themselves who can deal with the terrorist threats, the life and death complex problems around the world.

Democrats, who can do something about threats and problems, or Republicans who tell us they are on a mission from God?

The "War on Terrorism" is supposed to be AGAINST religious fanatics right? :)

[Guaranteed]

64. Maybe it should have

been left in private.

That post has done serious damage to the credibility of anti-war activists.

Thanks a lot, Starpass.

[KoKo]

26. Also, why are we falling all over ourselves about being quoted on Sullivan

and by other "low lifes?" That's always our Democratic Problem. We worry too much even when we are correct, that we might have offended someone. Where has that gotten us.

It's all about "Media Attention" today. They don't listen unless you have something controversial to say that can be misquoted. And, then we worry that we will "look bad" to the wingers. Sheesh!

[Nlighten1]

31. Well, I think it is a good thing

because it is going to get the attention of some Democrats out there who don't know about us.

[robcon]

34. Well, I think it is a very bad thing.

I think it will repel numerous people by publicizing the alleged "whack-jobs" who post on DU. It was a repugnant post, and it causes some of us to be appropriately ashamed of the lengths that some people will go to make a point.

[ShaneGR]

36. Exactly, his post was disgusting

Period. No defense.

[Nlighten1]

38. I didn't mean that her post was good.

I meant that Andrew linking and talking about DU is good. He has been doing it for some time now.

[truth2power]

52. Starpass is a whack-job?

n/t

[Castilleja]

35. I must have missed it.......

But any post by Starpass is *Excruciatingly* blunt, so I may be able to imagine.

[Mike Niendorff]

37. Another day, another RW attack.

Over 410,000 posts in the past month alone.

Over 33,000 registered users.

Growing every day.

Frankly, I would be surprised if the RW didn't have its "minders" and attack-dogs scouring this place for any post they could use in their (never-ending) effort to smear the opposition. And when they can't find an offending quote, they send in the trolls to bait, disrupt and harass.

It's old hat, really. We all know that this is how the RW operates, and I'm sure we've all witnessed it on tons of other boards that have been subjected to every sort of vile attack that the RW can dream up.

The bottom line is this: these people do not tolerate opposition, and they especially do not tolerate an active and organized opposition. They see this -- and other -- progressive forums as a direct threat to their political machinery. As such, they will look for any and all means they can use to neutralize this site and to blunt its efficacy.

Think I'm going too far in this characterization? Ask yourself this: what *possible* newsworthiness is there in one random post found on a relatively-unknown political website -- one post out of over 410,000 in the past month alone? Is it *really* newsworthy that one poster on the world wide web has been observed saying something that offends people? Hardly.

This is about attacking the entire website, and, by implication, all of us who post here. They know it, we know it, and, given enough time, most people will certainly catch on to the fact that this says *much* more about the RW's PR machine than it does about the tens of thousands of individuals who frequent this obscure-but-growing discussion board.

</.02>


MDN

[Goldmund]

40. I couldn't have said it better myself

n/t

[dweller]

39. the *moron in the white house said

'bring 'em on'
and equated the violence now in Iraq as a sign that progress was being made...
and 'boys' (soldiers) dying for a cause greater than themselves...

and someone here says ' i hope the bloodshed continues' ?

it could be spun to be support if one wanted.

judging not,
dp

[Coventina]

42. My two cents

I saw the threads last night, was tempted to respond, but decided to give myself more time to think it over.

Now that it has been 24 hours, I feel I can make a better response.

My opinion: It is wrong, always wrong, to wish for any increase in suffering in this world. End of story. I want things to get better in Iraq. I don't care what it does to Bush's approval ratings. The situation over there is terrible. How can I, in any good conscience, wish for anyone's suffering or death? I don't want horrible things to happen to ANYONE. Okay, I will admit that in fits of anger I have wished harm on people. But that is not a sane or caring attitude to have. And I certainly do not think that is who I truly am as a person.

We are progressives. It is not progressive to wish for things to go badly. And please don't tell me that "it's for the greater good." Search your heart. Is that how you TRULY feel?

Bush did a terrible, terrible thing in choosing this path. But hoping for more mayhem, suffering and death is NOT going to get us out of it. I REFUSE to believe that the quickest path to a better world lies over dead bodies. There is always a better way.

[Walt Starr]

43. Get used to it

Every posting member of DU has already been marked for roundup when the time comes.

My guess is the roundup of liberals, gays, and draft dodgers will begin sometime during the first quarter of 2007. Cn't have the wrong elements out there stating their mnds or anything, don'tcha know.

That's after the Iranian/Syrian War begins in October of 2003 which is right before the landslide victory by the GOP in November of 2004

[Malva Zebrina]

44. Starpass is blunt

and is at the same time painfully honest. That she is so is, imo, a plus. I have read starpass's post over a period of time here on DU and think she is a very sensitive, caring individual. Some of us do march to different drummers--some here are into being the focus of the groupees and seem to seek a following, and take advantage of that to be thread nannies with some sort of authority.


Starpass is beyond that, imo and I have always appreciated her blunt and honest analysis. There is no reward she is seeking and there is no attempt to tweak at the emotions in order to gain some upmanship. Starpass is a human being very concerned, it seems, with what is happening in this country, as many othersare.

[dmr]

58. Your words are more than true, Marianne

I know Star, she is an educated, passionate, and caring woman, who understands politics far more than most members here ever will. She is blunt and to the point.

No one, and I'm including Star here, wants to see more deaths or injuries in Iraq or anywhere else. Though her subject title and wording could have used more tweaking, she has a right to voice her opinion or thought processes.

I read Star's post, thoroughly. Twice. I understand exactly what she was saying. Star is a critical thinker, something of which is lacking in many of the knee-jerk mega-posters here; and Marianne your statement is sadly true: "some here are into being the focus of the groupees and seem to seek a following, and take advantage of that to be thread nannies with some sort of authority"

I appreciate any and every post Star makes, whether I agree with her or not. She is an original DUer who has provided us with her insightful analysis on many issues. I only wish that Star, and the other wonderful critical thinkers would post more often - they give us something to think about.

[nostamj]

45. once again...

if you did not read the SUBSTANCE of the post

and are only reacting to the SUBJECT line of the post

you shouldn't.

the subject line SUCKED.

the SUBSTANCE of the post did not.

the BLOODSHED will continue as long as BushCo runs things.

and that BLOODSHED should be hurting BushCo.

[goobergunch]

47. GD Rule 1

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

[nostamj]

49. no argument from me....

SP missed the boat on the subj line.

but NOT the content and intent of the thread

[dmr]

59. Oh please, stop it

Let the admins and mods monitor the forums. Use the alert button if you are offended that someone broke a little rule; but please telling us today what rule someone broke yesterday is ridiculous, it does not promote community harmony.

[FDRrocks]

51. Good for starpass...

I don't want people to die in Iraq, I don't want us to stay there at all. Maybe she was looking at it in strictly political terms. I cannot agree with her at all, I'm a temporary Dem (and, with my vote, we kicked some PA ass!).

But if she/he says it, it is one person. If people agree, they agree. Who the fuck cares what FR and whoever the fuck the guy you stated thinks it reflects on the whole of the party (one message board that, to me, seems way left of the actual Democratic party). Anyone who believes that is a fucking idiot, and will probably always believe so.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[w4rma]

54. If I had seen that post, this would have been my response

If you want to get angry at someone, get angry at the SOBs in charge

Don't !@#$%ing take your anger out on the under-paid, over-worked soldiers, many of whom **HAVE BEEN GETTING KILLED AND MAIMED** since Bush and the Neo-Cons got their way. Take your anger out on the chickenhawk politicians and buisnessmen in charge.

Your attitude towards these folks in uniform is no better than Kissinger's attitude, IMHO:

“Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy,” Kissinger told Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein (The Final Days, Simon & Schuster, 1976).

These folks signed up to PROTECT the U.S.A. The vast majority of them were not hired for their opinions on where they go or what they do to protect the 50 States and Puerto Rico. They were hired as pawns for our politicians but they SHOULD **NOT** EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE BE TREATED AS PAWNS.

I support our troops!
Bring them home.
Give them raises.
Increase their benefits.
Protect them from “Depleted” Uranium.
Increase VA Services funding.

I do not support either this invasion or the White House squatter.

As for the soldiers having a choice to go or not to go. Stop-loss has been in effect since about the middle of 2002. Stop-Loss includes keeping soldiers past their ETS date. There is also something called Stop-Move that is also in effect for many U.S. soldiers.
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/stoploss
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Dec2001/a20011204stoploss12-3.html
http://www.af.mil/news/Jun2002/n20020621_1004.shtml

[_Jumper_]

55. What did she say?

?

[Tinoire]

57. It was an excellent post. Blame middle America NOT Starpass NOT DU

It is an unfortunate probability that those complaining the loudest were incapable of understanding its anguished depth.

Of course, I keep forgetting that American blood is more valuable than Iraqi blood and that not until the American blood is spilled, does flag-waving, vengeful, easily-manipulated middle-America wake up and condemn the atrocities of war. No strike that, middle-America is not condemning the atrocities of war; it's condemning the fact that the blood of our loved ones is being spilled.

" Mark is-there-a-more-annoying-human-being-on-this-planet Levin " and those agreeing with him has is buck-buttocks backwards- Starpass is not the problem. ALL those who enabled, encouraged or gave their tacit consent to this war are the problem. ALL those who tried to delegitimize the organizations behind the anti-war effort and/or did not join the anti-war effort are the problem.

May " Mark is-there-a-more-annoying-human-being-on-this-planet Levin " and all those who think like him rot- rot away from this bloody madness they courted when they got out in the streets waving their tainted flags. The blood of all those American soldiers is on their hands and the blood of all the innocents killed, both American and Iraqi, will haunt us as a nation for a long time to come.

Let " Mark is-there-a-more-annoying-human-being-on-this-planet Levin " and those who think like him face up to their responsability in this bloody mess rather than attacking a poster who simply told them the truth of what they have done and and the horrible breaking point they are willing to push this nation to because of their whimpy, prideful, greedy, pass-the-buck inability to say "we were wrong, pull the troops out now".

[nomaco-10]

60. I read it and reread the post....

At first I thought it was one of those cleverly written pieces of literary irony often posted here, but I read it again and there was no doubt of her intentions, especially her follow up comments to those that replied to her thread.
The post was tantamount to her version of GI gihad. It called on more US soldiers dying for the greater good of bringing attention to this unjust war and hence provide an invaluable tool for getting the American people "up off the couch and quit scratching their nuts" long enough to be righteously angry about the occupation of Iraq and vote bush* out of office, to her this would be a noble sacrifice for the American people.
It really struck me, this was the same type of deranged thinking that encourages the youth of some middle eastern countries to strap explosives around their waistes and blow themselves up to advance their agendas except our young troops would be unwitting martyrs in her scenario, no wonder this post has gotten so much attention.

[Tinoire]

61. I read and re-read that post

and as a retired NCO who has troops I trained and friends I care about over there, I saw no such thing.

I regret that you missed the entire intention of the post.

Re-posting a comment I made in another thread:

One poster got it right... The Cassandra Complex- the rage from months of seething "I told you so" with every body bag secretly flown home, every coffin that's lowered into that cold ground.

For over a year we've been screaming NO WAR! NO death and destruction and now that it's here, now that it's the blood of our brothers and sisters being shed over there, middle America is beginning to wake up. It is (*& unfortunate that it takes the death of US soldiers for middle America to suddenly care about peace and justice- but no, middle-America doesn't even care about peace and justice- it only cares about the blood of its own.

It's time to blame middle-America for being so cement-headed that that's what it will take before the US pulls out kicking and screaming.

I am not angry at Starpass for that post; I am angry, seething angry, at middle America for supporting and tolerating this war.

[bluestateguy]

62. Starpass thread

I bypassed posting on that thread, but I did read a lot of it. I condemn Starpass' remarks, but I refuse to be held responsible for somebody else's views. Rightist observers of DU should also remember that if we had been listened to all 400 of the dead coalition soldiers would still be alive today. We opposed the war, while the Right eagerly and cheerfully sent these men and women into battle. They bear a far greater responsibility than one poster here at DU who made a stupid remark.

[MartinAmbroseForan]

66. Any reference to a desire to see Americans dead

should be immediately pulled and the poster suspended and then banned if it continues.

This hurts the whole board.

I don't care how anyone feels about it. I am not going to support that kind of filth!

[Nihil]

67. Grow up

By your mile-wide definition, your own post would be pulled and
you would be banned because you "referenced" the forbidden "desire"
in your subject line.

To the board in general:
If you are incapable of allowing controversial views or (as in this
case) ones that can be snipped and wilfully misinterpreted, you might
as well close the entire site down and go back to typewritten handouts.

Can't you see that this knee-jerk reaction plays straight into the
hands of good old Mr.Rove? Not only are people advocating censorship
of a useful resource, the members of the government's opposition are
now fighting amongst themselves again (even more than usual).
The end result is that cohesion (and thus effectiveness) are lost ...
quite possibly taking the 2004 election with them if "successes" like
this fracas are allowed to continue.

"It's a land of free speech - let's keep it that way"
"We allow dissent - Bush doesn't"
"You're right, you'd never see a post like that on Free Republic:
non-conformist thoughts are censored"

These are the messages you should carry.

Come on people - you can do it!

Nihil