Why are all the right wing talking points being posted here?

[onecaliberal]

Why?

[Ocelot II]

1. Which would those be? I haven't seen any.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Not that I don't believe you, but could you post some examples? Thanks!

[onecaliberal]

5. Legacy media links.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. In particular? NT

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Most "legacy media" links are allowed on DU. Have you tried alerting?

If alerts don't erase the post, then a jury of DU members disagree with you.

Have you been alerting? Are you upset at the mediation process?

[SWBTATTReg]

13. Well, your very broad statement that most legacy links are out there, go find them yourself. I was

just asking you for those examples you were citing, they would have guided me into understanding more of your thoughts. There are thousands and thousands of comments and such being made every sec of every day.

[Dennis Donovan]

3. Posting right wing talking points would be against the rules.

I suggest alerting on them.

[onecaliberal]

6. Lol

[doc03]

4. Haven't noticed any myself. The last few days my Facebook had several posts about

Elmo Muskrat right at the top, just got done blocking all the SOBs posts.

[onecaliberal]

7. Really look at CNN and tell me it's not right wing.

But none of that is here, right?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Sure, but that does not make a CNN link automatically a "right wing talking point"

[Think. Again.]

8. It's very common here to find rightwing B.S. ....

...posted under the guise of "know thy enemy" or some such nonsense.

All we as true Democrats can do is to counter it in our replies whenever we see it.

[Kingofalldems]

18. Yes and a handful of Trump/Musk hall monitors post here regularly.

[WarGamer]

22. hahaha...

[Kingofalldems]

23. Thanks for the confirmation.

[WarGamer]

24. I see the hall monitors too... the good news only police.

[BannonsLiver]

25. No worse than the bad news only, rootin tootin Putin bros.

[mopinko]

30. that's allowed.

as long as it is tagged as such, posting what the enemy is up to is acceptable and useful.

as a juror, i rarely remove a post from a ‘reputable’ source. what’s the point of hiding what’s out there?

[Think. Again.]

33. In my opinion...

...posting and discussing propaganda that is originally designed and distributed with the intention of diverting the narrative or to indoctrinate people into a malicious way of thinking is not useful and certainly not acceptable.

In fact I believe it is very harmful and I believe we should always avoid doing the rightwing's recruiting work for them.

We know well enough what the enemy is "up to" and allowing their very wrong arguments to infiltrate our own ideology is just inviting the devil to dance.

[mopinko]

35. if we dont discuss it, how do we debunk it?

to most of us, it’s self-evident. to half the public, apparently, it’s not.
and it’s not always easy to counter well.

here’s an example- i have posted this many times. all good propaganda has a kernel of truth.
‘post birth abortion’ is a trope that is based on a real thing- neonatal hospice. if u dig all the way down on this line of ‘thinking’, u find a statement by a judge claiming that it is neglect that borders on murder to allow nature to take it’s course, and give palliative care.
not only r they forcing more doomed babies to b born, they will demonize the parents who dont torture those babies w useless medical intervention.

our side laughed at this charge, when we cd have dissected it for the manipulative bullshit it is.
saying it doesnt happen didnt win. going into detail about what happens, and how bans cause it to happen more, might have. it’s the diff btn thinking u r saving babies and making it clear u r causing them to suffer.

not all propaganda is obvious bunk, as we all proved on 11/5. to us here, it is. out there, not so much.
imho, our major mistake was to laugh at their idiocy, instead of shred it w facts.
u may think we’re just here preaching to the choir, but this is how the choir gets ready to hit the road.

[Think. Again.]

39. Knowing our OWN side of the story is all we need.

My example for you...

In a conversation with an known rightwing aquaintance, she mentioned the price of eggs (this is a true story), I had not yet heard the nonsense that the rightwing was trying to plant about biden somehow having some kind of magical control over grocery price decisions, so my mind immefiately went to the few recent reports of bird flu I had read about, and I responding to her that I hope they can get bird flu under control but didn't really understand why she would be concerned about a temporary minor price hike in something as non-essential as eggs.

Her confusion was obvious, what I was saying, without posing it as a challenge but instead a simple, logical thought about realistic things, clearly made much more sense to her than the tortured logic of the rightwing talking point she was originally trying to disseminate.

[ThePartyThatListens]

12. Hmmm...

[gab13by13]

15. Tons of posts from The Hill

The rag where John Solomon wrote a dozen election conspiracy articles.

[Dennis Donovan]

19. DU has a jury system.

If you see a source for news being used on here that you find unacceptable, you should alert on it.

[onecaliberal]

20. Lol

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Twice in one thread you've Lol'ed at Dennis Donovan. Do you have a particular dislike towards that member?

[nmmi]

43. The poster apparently has a dislike of DU's moderation system, one that has handed them 3 hides ...

As someone, far above my pay grade, posted in another thread:

"people often like to yell "troll" when someone is just disagreeing with them. In my experience, that tends to cause more problems than actual trolls do."

My takeaway from this thread is that I guess I'm supposed to worry about posting anything from "legacy media". Well, frankly, I'm not going to worry about it in the slightest, nor am I going to worry about it in the least.

[yardwork]

48. I think the OP is aimed at folks who post articles from "bad" news sites.

There's a strong authoritarian whiff in the air.

[WarGamer]

21. AN EXAMPLE?

[mopinko]

37. i've been on many juries about this.

links to the hill, newsweek, and lately cnn get alerted on this basis regularly. i’ve see wapo and nyt articles alerted on.
i dont usually vote to take down such widely circulated articles. there’s no point, as they’ll b posted over and over anyway. if it’s any fringier, i will vote to hide.

[Patton French]

27. Alert is your friend.

NT

[Voltaire2]

28. We are panic monkeys.

Part of panic monkey syndrome is propagation of panic inducing disinformation.

[OldBaldy1701E]

29. Forewarned is Forearmed. (n/t)

[Shrek]

31. All of them? Really?

Is there a complete list somewhere that we could use to cross-reference DU?

[mopinko]

38. there used to b.

iirc, it was posted somewhere, but it was used by mods. it wasnt a ‘banned’ list, but a generally unreliable list that rarely posted anything real or true. 1 i recall in particular was rense. all ct, all the time.
there were 20ish outlets.

no msm outlet was on that list, tho.

[onecaliberal]

46. They should be now. This is not then.

They are liars and fascists. ALL legacy.

[eShirl]

32. Know Your Enemy

[Think. Again.]

34. Yeah, that's a weak excuse...

It reminds of when religious people do completely immoral things and then claim they are fighting the devil on his own turf or some bullshit.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

40. Here's a couple of simple solutions,

A. If you think it violates the ToS, then alert on it and let the jury decide, or

B. Use the trash function and poof, it's gone from your screen.

Point is, this is a discussion board where we discuss issues and the like, so there will be what some classify as RW talking points, just ignore it and move on.

BTW, the knowing your enemy does apply and I for one, would like to be informed of what our opponents are doing and how they're doing it.

[Think. Again.]

41. Oh, no no no no...

As I mentioned earlier, it's our responsiblitity to counter any attempts at poisoning the well with rightwing nonsense.

To ignore it, or worse, allow it to be posted without a challenge by not even seeing the post would be giving them a very strong advantage.

I personally feel our discussions here should be focussed on building and spreading our messages, support, and ideologies, and not wasting time trying to endlessly chew over and amplifying whatever nonsense the rightwing propaganda machines are constantly spewing out.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. Ya know, most of us here are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time,

IOW, we can do both on this platform, talk about our goals while at the same time, debunking our opponents goals, up to and including posting RW talking points so we can debunk them.

If you want to complain about RW talking points on DU for the purpose of knowing what the enemy is up to, that's certainly you prerogative, but there are others here, myself included, who do appreciate those that post what our opponents are up to.

As I said in my previous post, if you believe it violates the ToS, then push the alert button and let a jury decide if it needs to be removed or you can utilize the trash button and not see it anymore.

[Think. Again.]

44. Yes, Thank you...

I will continue to alert when I see fit and I will continue to vigorously counter any attempts to plant rightwing talking points when I see them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

45. Outstanding.

[onecaliberal]

49. This is always the tired pathetic excuse.

Thanks for highlighting the point.

[Meowmee]

36. Trolls?

[Ping Tung]

47. I'm not an ideologue and can think for myself.

"Propaganda" itself is subjective and left to the observer to decide if information is right or left wing or both..

I've been a member of the Democratic Party since 1965 and have disagreed on many party policies over the years.

"My party right or wrong" isn't even close to being democratic.

We are not robots to be programmed by politicians of any party.