"I am a lifelong Democrat but I just feel the party is being damaged by association with Howard Dean/Russ Feingold/DailyKos"
"I don't know why you're so upset. I only called you a big-assed whore because I'm so worried about your health."
I thought the term deserved a DU thread of its own. Can you come up with a really solid definition of your own? Here's the best I can do on the fly: Concern Troll (n): One who professes complete faith in the progressive cause, who deliberately works to destroy it by claiming falsely that our displays of courage and strength are actually a weakness.
I believed the New Republic and Tony Blair. I thought we were going to accomplish something that was a net positive for the people of Iraq.
I wasn't an obnoxiously rah-rah supporter; I didn't give my fellow Democrats a hard time for opposing it because I was always skeptical. But I did support it; I thought our military and our intelligence community surely knew what they were doing, with all the time they'd had surveying the situation, and that we could surely pacify a small country with a seriously depleted capability to fight back in a reasonable amount of time, and get a humane government in place.
I do apologize for my stupidity on occasion in here, just felt like doing it again.
Anyway, I realized that people like the bozos editing and running the New Republic were among the worst kinds of "concern trolls." These people so want to be the kewl kid Republicans it hurts.
And it's been a painful realization, because I really respected that publication, and at times I still want to.
I'm so ashamed :cry: I'm a Gulf War era veteran and I thought it would be okay because we didn't "finish the job" we started. I decided to believe the assurances that it would be over quickly and we would be greeted as liberators, etc.
In retrospect, I am bewildered at how I could possibly have justified that position in my mind. I put my trust in the very same media that aided and abetted the theft of the 2000 election. They also provided cover for the administration's bungling of pre-9/11 intelligence. I knew that. And yet, when it came to this my critical thinking went out the window. Not for long, I'm happy to say. I was solidly in the anti-war camp not long after the "Mission Accomplished" dog and pony show. But still. I guess it's no coincidence that I happened to be subscribing to both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal at the time of the run-up to the war.
65. I think your support is far more justifiable than mine.
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 02:20 PM by bunkerbuster1
If I'd been over there, I could understand the frustration of having the bad guys (or what we've been led to believe were bad guys--I'm not even so sure of that any more) on the run and then just letting them slip away.
But damn--W's father has written eloquently on why this was a dumb idea, that our mission had to be limited, and of course it was the right thing to do in retrospect.
Ok, actually, the right thing to have done would have been to have clearly told Saddam that we wouldn't tolerate an invasion of Kuwait when we knew he was considering that, instead of rat-fucking him like we appear to have done.
But anyway, I just wanted to say I do understand, especially the part about trusting in the same goddamned media that abetted those sick thugs in their theft of the 2000 election. Shame on me.
73. While I took BFEE's measure soon after 9/11, I am
sorry that I did not drop everything immediately after Nov '00 election and head down to Florida to confront the BFEE brownshirts in the streets.
I now see that this is what I should have done. I was a decadent musician at the time and didn't realize how bad BFEE was going to be for the country and my fellow working-class Americans. Let me repeat: I was a decadent American with my head up my ass at the time of the Nov '00 election.
So I blame myself for much of what has transpired.
93. No, I was an aspiring singer-songwriter who never
was able to land the fabled "record deal." Truth to tell, I wasn't good enough to make it in LA. Music biz is highly competitive and seems to reward qualities other than desire to make it. (That's necessary but not sufficient.)
38. I've said that I'm concerned about Dem leaders being out of touch...
...I've said that I think we need to attend the beam in our own eye before we address the mote (well, O.K., another beam) in our opposition's eye...I've said that I personally find John Kerry to be a boring orator...
...and in each one of those cases, I've been chastised for "repeating Republican talking points".
27. If one's concern is genuine, one is not a troll.
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 11:31 AM by bunkerbuster1
I want to make that clear--we can criticize our own, in fact we must, if we feel we're genuinely hurting ourselves.
And I also recognize that it is very difficult to differentiate between a genuine expression and a phony, calculated one. A true-blue Concern Troll is very good at what they do.
Also, I didn't hope to increase its use among fellow DUers to attack one another, and I apologize in advance if that's what winds up happening as a result.
I think the conservative pundits who offer advice to Dems are the most obvious example of a concern troll, but there are most definitely disruptors out there not just at DU but in more mainstream forums and, especially, on talk radio. I heard tons of them before and after the '04 election claiming that they were going to vote for Kerry, but dad-blast it, they were pissed off because of Fahrenheit 9/11.
Which is obviously bullshit, but you get my point.
If the concern is genuine. Of course, one can just never know for sure. ;)
I do highly recommend an excursion to the "Guns" forum for anyone who isn't quite getting the substance of this concept (meaning no disrespect to anyone like that -- I've had to read quite a few posts in this thread to sort it out). The cumulation of examples there should provide a critical mass from which it will come clear.
16. Attacking me doesn't make the point any more true...
I mean, I do get the point, if you're refering to actual conservatives who claim to be progressives and then post things like the examples stated in the OP.
But the OP didn't say that. The OP seems to be referring to anyone who states the ideas cited in his post. To that end, I disagree. I think there is plenty of room for moderate Democrats who may disagree with many of Dean or Feingold's positions.
And I fail to see how this makes me discouraged, demoralized, or credulous, as you seem to insinuate in your post.
it seems so obvious to me when trolls are attempting to suppress opinion. It's hard for me to understand how anyone can be taken in by this. But you think that this ploy is effective? If so, what is the hook? I am sincerely trying to see how groups are manipulated.
The Democrats will NEVER WIN THE HOUSE without a NATIONAL MESSAGE (never mind that all politics is local).
If (FILL IN NAME OF CANDIDATE) wins the Presidential Primary (which means the majority of Democrats who bothered to get off their asses and go vote supported that candidate), I'm STAYING HOME/VOTING FOR THE FUGGEDIBOUTIT PARTY/MOVING TO (FILL IN NAME OF COUNTRY).
CANDIDATE SO AND SO will NEVER WIN because he/she (FILL IN REASON).
Discourage and demoralize, indeed--that's the goal. And some do, frantically, take the bait and get all exorcised, when the best thing to do is say, hey, my mileage varies, pal! Go on, TAKE your ball and go home!!!
And we know what they say about opinions, and what they're like? Everyone's got one!
45. Taking polite issue--concern trolls are quieter than that.
They're not gloom and doomers, they're subtle.
I do agree that there are disruptors who adopt exactly the tactics you describe. But that, to me, isn't concern-trolling. Really good concern trolls prey upon innate skepticism and try to turn it to paranoia, inducing self-doubt about the resolve of the left.
55. Not the ones that come to my attention, but there certainly can
be more than one type--no argument there.
The examples I've cited I've seen every day, damn near! While professing to be sincere Democrats/progressives, they whine and say that if their every wish isn't met, they intend to vote for a hopeless cause, or sit out the election, because ideological absolute purity matters more than the overall future of the nation...or some other complaint.
My attitude is lead, follow, or get out of the way. If they aren't working for change, and then holding the feet of the people they helped get elected to the fire, they're part of the problem.
One of the things that the "insurgency" wants us to believe is that DU is just crawling with imposters. It's a meme designed to sap our morale. I've monitored The Site That Dare Not Speak its Name here (and I agree with Skinner, it shouldn't be mentioned) a bit and you can tell it's just a couple of creepy cyberstalkers who are truly devoted.
I think there are a few guys who get their jollies that way, but I also think it is a hell of a lot harder to stay credibly in character for long, and it takes a lot of work to do so.
I do know this--I've gone underground myself at FR, and y'know, it's just not as much fun as one imagines it might be. I got bored, literally, after one post, and have never been back.
...last I was there it looked to me like everybody was claiming to be a mole here. And I assume that the same is true of the other RW boards, that they have jerks who mole here. Of course, it all points to the essential dishonesty of the RW.
58. Well, their bragging is like an "Internet Lift"
"Internet Lift" being a term I'd picked up from a weightlifting forum. You know, everyone posting there could magically bench-press twice their weight, had 8% bodyfat...
The CUnts (can I say that? Sorry if that's too overt a reference) talk a huge game, but I bet there's only a very few who are actively "working the room" here.
And if you look at their pissant site, there aren't really very many people posting there. Each thread is the same bunch of creeps.
Better yet, don't look at their site; it really serves no purpose at all. I used to have an avatar designed to annoy them, but I think when it comes time to turn off my pink triangle I'll get something else. Life's too short, yadda yadda yadda.
The CUnts (can I say that? Sorry if that's too overt a reference)
Apparently you can.
Why you would, I have no clue.
Amazing. You apologize if you have made too overt a reference to a prohibited topic, and think nothing at all of using language so grossly offensive to so many people, so abusive of women ... that, well, my mouth hangs open.
What does it take to get some things through to some people?
7. One can theoretically be a concern troll about ANYTHING..
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 11:23 AM by BlooInBloo
... So I suggest a slight alteration to you definition:
Concern Troll (n): One who professes to be on the side of XXX, but who deliberately works to destroy XXX 'from the inside' by spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), in the guise of concern about the tactics that are being used to achieve XXX. Concern trolls are saboteurs.
Ok, I changed it a bit more than 'slightly' - lol.
I've never seen anything as deliberately destructive as the 9/11 theories about the Pentagon and twin towers that keep being posted here. Disinformation to obscure the real and obvious facts that our gov't knew and did nothing.
The whole shebang has been lumped together. No one realizes they DID KNOW! There is hard evidence to prove it! But because of all the weird conspiracy theories no one takes us seriously, when there really is something to take seriously.
This kind of thing will keep happening to us.
There is a different between people like Liberman, who is a complete and total sell-out, and people expressing real concern for our credibility.
50. oh, don't miss this week's threads about the Canadian bust
-- the assortment of young Muslim men now charged with conspiring to blow up a few buildings in Ontario.
The concern trolls were ever so worried that we silly Canadians would actually believe that this thing had happened, instead of realizing that our governments were lying to us and our police/intelligence services were lying to us and our media were lying to us and Karl Rove was snickering with delight while he pulled all the strings from above.
They tell us these things because they love us ... not because they think we're too stupid to live and they don't actually give a shit if somebody blows up downtown Toronto ...
12. There is a difference between selling out like Lieberman...
and actually trying to help our party. I take great offense in being indirectly called a troll or a supporter of Republicans. I have been called that today, and I will not forget it. It is a low ball tactic used when people cannot defend their point. You are better than that, please don't stoop to that level.
48. Don't equate an attempt to actually give advice from A DEMOCRAT...
with a PUKE giving advice to us. That is why I was pissed!
I agree, Lieberman is a sell-out and should just change his affiliation already. No, I don't think we should support the President at all, there is ample evidence he is an impeached man walking <-I just made that up and like the sound of it!) I can't believe you would suggest I would even support the shit head if I challenge you. Do you at least understand why that might that might be offensive?
Like I said there is a difference between Lieberman and myself saying conspiracy theories aren't helping us. Joe supports the war in Iraq, that is one among many reasons he is a sell out, I hate the war in Iraq, but I want us to have more credibility in questioning its conduct or even the fact that we are there in the first place. See my point now?
As I've posted before trolls have always been there, on game boards you've got role players who just want to pull someones chain, on special interest groups such as this or spam fighting which I used to do we've got the other side screwing with us. They are there no doubt.
We've got one problem though. So are a hell of a lot of people who voted for Bush the last time but the polls show they no longer support him. How do we tell one from the other without throwing away votes or people who we might have brought around? I almost left here within my first 50 posts because of the suspicion about anyone who doesn't just echo the cause.
What's a troll? To a DLC member maybe it's a progressive, trying to take down their favorites who they believe have a better chance. I've seen it posted that anyone who is so against Hillary must have another agenda, couldn't be a rational reason. We've seen the comments about the DLC as well calling them closet Republicans. Who is the troll there? Or do we just have differences of opinion and approach?
I suspect we jump at friends at least as often as we find a real enemy. I like the approach FLDem5 suggested. Don't feed the trolls, just ignore them. If you are right they start to look pretty stupid ranting to themselves, and if you're wrong you haven't just pushed away someone who's just starting to distrust the other side and wants to see what we've got to say. We don't have so many voters on our side that we can afford to push them away.
42. As a person who is worried about our credibility...
the DLC is not what I am talking about. We should talk about what we believe in, but in a way that makes sense. We shouldn't forward nutty theories, but that doesn't mean we should cave into the other side.
There is difference between compromising and selling out. The DLC has sold out. They aren't interested in forwarding our cause through the legislative process, they start out supporting Republican talking points. People who are full-on Democrats, but willing to compromise, start out representing our interests all through the legislative process, but agree to a compromise to get at least some of what we want.
That is why the DLC is bad. I don't mean to support them when I say we should moderate the conspiracy theory talk, I mean to support our credibility with the American people.
The pukes are going to twist whatever we say, but shouldn't make their job easier.
The DLC example was just to show that we have conflicts even among ourselves, we're strange even to each other at times. It wasn't meant to be the whole of the example, just one we could relate to.
If we differ that much even among ourselves then we have to expect someone new to the board to have some ideas that don't fit in as well. Until I started reading here the DLC was about all I ever saw or knew about the party, they've run it since the 80's or so. Others are going to come in with impressions that don't fit what we see here as well. Personally I think a lot of our "libertarian" leaning Republicans would be just as happy as libertarian leaning progressives if they just knew who we were. There's growing awareness out there that media and corporate consolidation has failed in a big way and if we don't offer them an option somewhere closer to what a social rather than business libertarian would want then we lose votes.
Some are looking for options, we just have to be ready to offer them and let them know we're here. And yeah, they may come in with some misconceptions based on what they've seen or read in the past. The press doesn't work any better for them than for us, neither side seems to understand what the other really is under the more obvious and extreme parts that the press covers.
The trolls are there too, but as I said in the first post I almost left in my first few posts due to the suspicion and having to defend myself. My vote is a lot more certain for my time here than it would have been without it, and it's mostly because one person took the time to try to make me feel at home that I stayed.
57. look like you're getting a little flack today stepnw1f but you're a pal!
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 11:59 AM by Jeffersons Ghost
Hang in there, no one is wrong or right on this topic because there ARE indeed trolls who post crap like the OP said on DU but there are also true-blues and newbys who do it; mostly newbys should be given the benefit of the doubt. Old hands at DU should really know better and save us the flame wars.
I do not want to pile on the paranoia. I think it is best to presume innocence, absent anything red-flaggy, about new posters. I do not want to scare off fence-sitting Republican voters--we need them so very badly!
I also remember that in my early days I made what could only, in retrospect, be described as a Freeperish concern-trollish statement of my own (it concerned Fidel Castro, I wanted to see him hurt, and I berated "my fellow Democrats" for appearing to support his thuggishness.) I got hammered by a few folks, but also some nice words like "that's just bad karma, man."
I'm glad I wasn't tombstoned, and that everyone in that thread didn't put me on Ignore. For what that's worth.
But I have a feeling that if I take it for a stroll down to the gun dungeon, where it would come in ever so handy (if only you silly Democrats would embrace the NRA, you could win every election!), I might find myself having to muzzle it.
Perhaps I could select the best definition offered and use it in a sig line ... purely as a tribute to the wit of the person who devised it!
(if only you silly Democrats would embrace the NRA, you could win every election!)
You mean, as opposed to the mantra that "if only you silly Democrats would embrace the gun-ban lobby more passionately, you could win every election"?
Pro-gun Dems DID win nearly every state-level election in North Carolina in 2004...the only ones they lost were the ones in which the party ran gun prohibitionists (Exhibit A: the Erskine Bowles/Richard Burr Senate race). Our pro-gun Dem governor won 55%/45% while the SAME VOTERS rejected the Kerry/Edwards ticket 45%/55%, and Edwards is from NC.
Methinks positions on expanded gun prohibition that play well in Canada may not play so well in most U.S. states?
49. I wonder if any of those trolls ever converted?
The height of irony would be if one of those trolls had a moment of lucidity and realized that their masters and boards are not friendly to the debate and thought available here. I wonder if they ever have an aha moment and realize that while they are trying to destroy, we are trying to build. That while they are trying to deceive, we are trying to understand. Is their core faith so corrupt as to deny thought or compassion as desirable traits? Or are they truly stuck at a dark juvenile mindset, growing in tricks but never wisdom?
The best way I have found to detect a troll is to use irony. Their very nature is so ironic that irony does not seem to register.
The trolls we get enjoy hearing Ann Colter. They may not believe her, yet they agree with her. The trolls we get believe that their twists of logic are more important than truth or understanding. The trolls we get are fighting with lies for liars who are following liars. While arguing that those folk, who are driven by love and compassion, hate our country, they follow men who abuse democracy, and want to drown us all in a bathtub.
77. yeah that type is especially dangerous for us, heading into November...
Edited on Thu Jun-08-06 07:29 PM by Jeffersons Ghost
Especially if people comment on their board to maintain its exposure.
Knowing the critter homo-sapien for as long as I have I'd say certain individuals post crap on here and THEN show it to wavering associates to show what bad demon-worshipping baby-eaters we are thus steering them back toward the one true republican god.
I'll continue to use the term "hate radio" because it drives wingnuts nuts, but there's a huge difference between hatred of fellow human beings (a sin, in my humble opinion) and legitimate, furious ANGER at them.
And anyone who isn't absolutely, furiously angry at the near-dictatorship this nation has become is NOT one of us.
I loathe, despise, revile the * Administration for the way it is destroying our country, and so do a lot of fellow Americans. That is not at all equivalent to the other forms of hate practiced by freepers. (edit spelling)
someone who knows they might be considered a conspiracy lurker working on behalf of hiding freepers who don't agree with the progressive views he or she might be hiding to convince others this person isn't really a troublemaker who might be posting good things to cause fights and attract flamers who really don't think that speaking out is not too unlike the nature of any normal or even freepish people posting opinions.
Every time I'd go on a diet ... he'd get 'concerned' that I was undernourished & bring home a coconut cream pie.
Every damn day!
And I sure see alot of coconut cream pies being delivered to the board, lately. Every time there's a breaking story or a dem on the hill makes a semi-provocative statement ... for the party's own good, of course!
Edited on Fri Jun-09-06 11:26 AM by SeveneightyWhoa
Concern troll: Someone with very few posts on DU, who interjects into a discussion to teach DU'ers about how something we're advocating for is detrimental, hurting, or not helping "us". Refers to self as part of the broader group (ie. "we"), yet professes to speak for the Average American, expressing concern about any signs of strength or passion from the Democratic Party.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.