Please don't call people racist because they disagree with you

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

It's not only outrageous, and offensive, it does nothing to deal with the serious concerns many Americans, and most DUers have with our long and treasured tradition of privacy, and wish to discuss in order to find a resolution to.

It only seems like a tactic to discourage, and worse, shut down discussion, which goes completely against the tradition, spirt, and purpose of DU, where like minded people gather to share, and support each other in the common goal of making America a more progressive, democratic country that may serve all people.

Thank you!

[taterguy]

1. Nice Post, George Wallace

[Coccydynia]

76. Really? Come on.

[southernyankeebelle]

2. Please open your eyes. Usually people who say their aren't racist are racist. Time

and time again all we see out of the republican party are actions to show their racism. They can't help themselves. All well and good we should all try to get along but you are living in a delusional bubble. When a person say they aren't racist their actions show different. Sorry friend. It would be nice if we could all sit and discuss things. But it seems it's all one sided.

[karmalk]

4. and it's not just republicans nt

[southernyankeebelle]

6. your right. But dems on the whole are openned to having a big tent. Republicans aren't.

That is a fact. Sorry.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

10. Likewise. Calling a whole group of DUers names doesn't prove anything, and says more about the name

Last edited Fri Jun 21, 2013, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

callers than anyone else.

Especially when DUers where against this gov wrong-doing before Obama was even a sparkle in America's and our eyes.

I can guarantee you that your lame, outrageous slurs will do nothing to change DUers opinions on this vital issue, nor shut down discussion here, in fact I believe it will only encourage more to speak up.

This will be my last response to anyone defending this foul, recent practice on DU.

[southernyankeebelle]

30. What are you drinking? Take a chill pill will ya. Gee

[Ms. Toad]

38. Have you really been living under a rock for the past week?

There have been daily threads calling DUers who disagree with the policy of secret surveillance racists. It really is offensive to many of us who have been opposed to these activities - in my case for more than 4 decades - to be told every day that we are racist because we still object to the activities even when they are carried out by a black man.

This recent practice of calling fellow DU members with whom you disagree racist is really toxic - and it is those doing it who need to take a chill pill, not those who are the targets.

[southernyankeebelle]

55. No I can't say I have seen any. But that doesn't mean there isn't. For me I have lots

of mixed feelings on this subject so I don't know alot about the issue. I want to know more unfiltered.

[Ms. Toad]

60. Here are two

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3049348
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3058799

There are more - just search for racism in the thread title over the last week. It really has been at a rate of one or more a day, with no justification aside from a policy disagreement.

[rhett o rick]

118. I think you are projecting. You are the one throwing the rude comments like,

"what are you drinking", "take a chill pill will ya. Gee." "please open your eyes", "That is a fact. Sorry."

That type of behavior isnt conducive to having a decent discussion.

[southernyankeebelle]

119. I didn't start this conversation in the first place. If you don't like don't read my post. I

was responding to the original poster. I don't think you were it. But at any rate I am not a racist. I don't really care what you think.

[rhett o rick]

120. I never claimed you are a racist. nm

[southernyankeebelle]

121. thank you for that much. I don't want to fight with you anyway. Have a good

rest of the day.

[cheapdate]

65. I'm with you.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

93. I am We

Old Afria proverb.

And nothing can stand in our way

[Th1onein]

27. I think that George is referring to the people who are calling fellow DUers racist when they

disagree on the NSA surveillance of Americans.

[southernyankeebelle]

32. Well he is very touchy. I thought he was calling DUers racists in general. I would

apologize to him but he is very very touchy. He needs a chill pill. Thanks for your read on it.

[Th1onein]

39. I'd be touchy, too.

A lot of people here have worked very hard to get Obama elected, and have supported him monetarily and otherwise. Now that we find out something that cuts to the very core of our democracy, we're not supposed to open our mouths, and when we do, we're called racists? I'd be pissed. And I AM pissed.

[southernyankeebelle]

53. I haven't seen anyone here call DUers racist because of this NSA stuff. I wasn't saying that.

I was talking in general that when people talking about racism they usually don't see it in their own. I was referring to republicans in general. I am not referring to anyone who disagrees with this NSA situation. On that subject I agree that we shouldn't be doing any thing that isn't legal.

[HooptieWagon]

63. Two or three pages of GD should get you a dozen threads.

Yes, DUers are being called racist for objecting to NSA surveillence.

[Life Long Dem]

71. "It is what it is"

Just because people vote in their own interest (Voting for a Democrat), doesn't mean they are not racist.

I see so many post saying they supported the President and voted for him, but are throwing him under the bus because he is a disappointment "now" or something similar.

A racist "would" have no desire to see the President credited for any of his achievements. And there are plenty here on DU who won't give Obama any credit for anything.

When another manufactured scandal breaks out, some DU'ers are the first to jump in head over heels.

What are they if not Republicans Sore losers? They wanted Hillary? I believe that grudge couldn't last this long.

P.S. - I'm not calling you a racist. Or pointing to anyone in particular here on DU for being a racist.

[sulphurdunn]

92. Just becasue Obama's parents were of different races

doesn't mean they weren't racists either, and of course there is the problem with ever trying to prove a negative. Your second statement presumes that a vote for Obama was an oath of fealty. The only conclusion possible for your third statement is that since I don't like anything Obama does, that means that I don't want him to do something I would like. Next statement suggests that any criticism of Obama is based upon an eagerness to believe anything bad his detractors say about him . Your last two statements can be paraphrased something like: I feel the way I do about Obama because I'm a grudge bearing racist, but you don't mean to say I'm one or that anyone else who thinks the same way as I do about Obama is one. Wink, wink

[Hissyspit]

35. An OP implied that people who are upset about the NSA revelations

could only be motivated by racism because Obama said stuff about surveillance and therefore it was true and no one should be upset about NSA.

It was untenable and offensive.

[MiddleFingerMom]

68. Usually people who say they aren't Communist are Communist.--- Sen J oe McCarthy

.
.
.
I don't know if he really SAID anything like that -- but it WAS one of the key attitudes that drove his witch hunt.
.
.
.
Please reconsider your point-of-view. It doesn't seem to allow for self-education and change and redemption.
.
.
.
It's massively pessimistic.
.
.
.

[Coccydynia]

77. Careful, 60 million voted Republican.

A censure vote isn't to far behind.

[southernyankeebelle]

117. Why? The truth hurt? Go ahead censure your heart out. That is the republican

way. You don't agree so find a why. Censure will do it.

[tblue]

83. Please enlighten us with examples of DU

posters' actions that show they are racist. I'd love to see this. I'll be checking in periodically to see the examples. Please, at your earliest convenience. Thanks!

[karmalk]

3. there's nothing wrong for calling it racism, when that's what it is

this whole nsa 'outrage' is anti Obama racism

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Was it racist against texans in that case...when I raised bloody hell

Over the USPA? Or later abuses under the Bush White House? How about when Carnivore did not give me a war fuzzy under the Clinton Administration? (They even held hearings and everything over that one in 2000?).

Don't bother answering, I know your answer, don't care to read it...

[karmalk]

7. 'Don't bother answering, I know your answer'

so you're pre-judging my answer?

habit?

[southernyankeebelle]

8. Are you talking to me?

[karmalk]

12. talking to you?

[southernyankeebelle]

33. LOL, thanks for the laugh.

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. "this whole nsa 'outrage' is anti Obama racism"

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

It's a cowardly, pea-witted tactic to call disagreement with Obama over this NSA crap "racism," a lazy-ass way of dodging actually defending the Administration's actions in any substantive way.

That clear enough for ya?

[tblue]

86. Oh Lizzie Poppet

[Enthusiast]

112. Right on!

And exactly accurate!

[arcane1]

26. That is pure, shameless horse shit.

[progressoid]

28. Wrong.

[JoeyT]

36. There's also nothing wrong with calling it racism

when people assume everyone they're talking to is white because white is the default. Not all of us that are pissed off at domestic spying are white.

So you should probably stop being a racist.

[arcane1]

41. Kind of like "whites will be the minority in such-and-such year"

That statement always bugs me, because it basically says there is white and there is non-white and lumps everyone together in that non-white category.

[backscatter712]

52. Some trolling is so amateurish.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Jenoch]

72. I don't believe that

everyone who opposes President Obama's policies are racist.

[840high]

78. BS pure bull

[Skip Intro]

79. The whole NSA outrage is racist? Really now. Wanna explain that to me?

[Ms. Toad]

87. Here -

Surrounded by a few of these which the author of the post linked to obviously forgot:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3058799



Really, now. Isn't it obvious?

[Coccydynia]

80. No. The whole NSA outrage is NSA outrage.

I was outraged when President Bush did it. I'm outraged that President Obama is doing it. And I will be outraged when President Clinton does it. And when she does it it won't turn me into a misogynist.

[Apophis]

84. I must be a self-loathing black man then.

What a stupid post.

[ucrdem]

9. Who here called you, specifcally, a racist because he or she disagreed with you?

Can you link to that accusation?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

14. There have been many threads recently calling DUers against NSA

invasion of our privacy racists, and look up, there are people defending that recent foul practice on this very thread.

You may be surprised, shocked, and even outraged to learn that that has been happening this week on DU, as I and many other are/were, but unfortunately it is true.

A true low for DU IMHO.

[ucrdem]

16. But no one here specifically called you a racist, thank you. nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

18. Yes, they have... I am in that group against the spying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Me too

At this point like water off the duck's back

[sibelian]

110. "You, specifically"

Neat trick.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. The race card is frequently a tactic of apologists/cheerleaders/sock puppets to distract and divide.

It's Personality Politics, and IT'S NOT WORKING!!!

[karmalk]

22. and 'race card' is a term usually used by racists nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

29. Now you are imply your fellow DUer is a racist

Why? Do you actually believe that?

If not then why imply it?

[Catherina]

15. Between ignore and trash thread, you can disappear all those people

and make DU just the way you like it, a place "where like minded people gather to share, and support each other in the common goal of making America a more progressive, democratic country that may serve all people".

Use those tools wisely but remember to check in without being logged in every once in while. Right now I can only see replies #13 and my #15. Just gorgeous.

[ucrdem]

17. A very good idea which I am implementing. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Could we out each other on mutual ignore?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

21. As I said in my OP I am against censorship

Last edited Fri Jun 21, 2013, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Mainly because nothing will get done talking to ourselves, we need to directly challenge our critics, not to mention hone our arguments, it makes us stronger, just like exercising a muscle.

[karmalk]

23. and some of us are against racism nt

[Bjorn Against]

37. No, you are not against racism you are exploiting racism for your own agenda

And by screaming "RACISM!!!" anytime someone expresses a position you disagree with even when it has nothing to do with race you actually trivialize real racism. You are only going to make racism worse by doing this shit, don't try to tell any of us you are fighting against racism because we are not as stupid as you think we are. You are crying wolf not to call out real racism but rather you are doing it to exploit racism for your own advantage, it is absolutely sick and you should be ashamed.

[Ms. Toad]

40. +1000 n/t

[Enthusiast]

113. PLUS ONE! nt

[backscatter712]

59. Quiet, troll. Adults are talking. n/t

[backscatter712]

54. It ain't censorship to tell right-wing griefers to take their shit elsewhere.

This is supposed to be a board for Democrats, is it not?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

58. It is to tell DUers that.

Go there and tell them, don't insinuate that foul lie about DUers, here, in OUR house.

Please, thank you.

[backscatter712]

64. +1,000! I may have to summon more Klingons soon!

I find that in Chrome, it's convenient to occasionally surf DU in incognito mode - that's a quick way of peeking at the site in a non-logged-in state.

[quinnox]

24. Huge K&R!

Thank you. Yes, it has been a sad sign of true desperation and a lame attempt to shut down/silence those who disagree with the devoted and faithful believers who have a strange obsession or religious-like zeal to defend anything Obama does as perfect and true, as if it came from some heavenly divine perfect power above.

The truth is, THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES for stooping so low as to try and smear good progressives and liberals this way. What might be next, labeling us as terrorists for not being in lock-step with their hero? It makes one wonder!

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. My dear friend, it's best not to ask

But the backhoe is over there. Given this is not working.

[bvar22]

66. It is much worse than assuming President Obama is divine.

NOW, this small group of self-appointed Purity Commissars
have conferred Divine Super Powers on THEMSELVES,
where they, and ONLY they, are elevated to the godlike status of being able to peer into the souls of lesser mortals and see what is truly in their hearts
with all the zeal and self-righteousness of a Southern Fundamentalist Preacher.


[font size=4]RACIST!!!
...because what else could it be????[/font]

...Can't argue with THAT logic.

[Ms. Toad]

88. And for the win!

[Cleita]

25. You know, there are some things that just are or aren't.

Some things really are either black or white. There are no shades of gray. Being pregnant is one of them. You either are pregnant or you are not. Racism works the same way. You either are or you aren't. There just isn't an in between position there.

[Recursion]

82. So completely wrong

But white people love to think that.

[Cleita]

94. So explain what you are saying.

I'm fed up with innuendo.

I'm not blaming anyone for criticizing a non-white person for their actions and politics. I do feel that much that is directed towards non-white politicians is racial.

[treestar]

31. But then why is it OK to call people apologists, authoritarians or cheerleaders

when they disagree with you?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

47. Well

At least those names are more contextual to the debate, whereas calling people racist for disagreeing with you is intellectually dishonest, and weak since you could say that anytime... However, if it was in a racial context, like the current tv chef/cook, then that would at least be on topic..

[treestar]

50. Ok got it

It's alright for you to call names because that's "in context." But no fair to call you any.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

62. You got it all wrong

But I think most reasonable got it.

[southernyankeebelle]

34. LOL, can't we all just get along?

[onpatrol98]

42. Hmm....

I can't think of one racist I've met on DU. People do have prejudices that color the way they view the world. I believe EVERYONE has prejudices of some sort. It may have nothing to do with color, ethnicity, etc. It could be region, religion, gender based, etc.

I thought some of the Michelle Obama talk exhibited some privilege on the part of some DUers...when they deemed they had a "proper" way for her to approach the heckler, protester, etc. But, I'm sensitive about that kind of thing. Someone else could have easily have seen the same post and not had the same reaction.

What's perceived by me as sounding privileged may not have been meant to come across that way by the poster? In fact, I'm almost certain it wasn't the intent of the posters I'm thinking about.

I complain about a lot that the president does. I don't like NSA spying, although I recognize it's not new. I didn't like it before him, I don't like it now, and I won't like it after him. I think consistency tends to be the key.

I have noticed that there seems to be a higher bar for President Obama than there was for President Clinton. President Clinton gave us NAFTA and DADT. But, he has emerged as Big Dawg, and can't do anything wrong. He tried healthcare reform and failed.

President Obama has given us healthcare reform (although, I have issues with it) and has supported same sex marriage. He hasn't signed a resolution as of yet. But, he still might.

Clinton didn't and neither did Carter. They can sing support all they want AFTER they leave office. But, I didn't see them moving the bar while they were in office. Or, showing support while they were in office. Perhaps, I missed something.

I personally don't think it's fair to assume any complaint against the President is proof that a person is racist. Then again, I also didn't think that was the case with many republicans. But, do I believe there are racist republicans and racist democrats...yes. I simply believe there are more racist republicans.

When you size up Presidents and think that the one you have has been as good or better than the ones you have had in the past. And, yet...people seem to dislike this President more than the others...you're left to wonder why?

Especially when the complaints veer from policy into personal complaints and open hostility. But, I'm looking through my own lens. And, it is shaded to see the world through my own life experiences and understanding.

[Number23]

67. Please don't disrupt the pity party.

Now, I haven't seen every thread on this board and I may have missed some, but the posts I've seen that have so many braying have been very specific.

It's not "people who disagree with Obama being labelled racist" as this person and the few people agreeing with him/her have alleged. People have specifically mentioned right-wing tactics that make the "disappointment" from the left indistinguishable from the "rage" on the right as being the racist tacks. Mere disagreement has not been it, as far as I've seen and you've touched on EXACTLY the type of double standards that others have mentioned in your post.

You know as well as I do that the response in this OP and a few others is nothing new. The phrase "a hit dog will holler" was made for this type of thing.

[onpatrol98]

69. Point well taken!

Please continue. I will standby and hold a candle until the party ends.



I hope no dog is harmed during this time of reflection.

Wake me when it's over...

[Number23]

70. "Wake me when it's over..." I know that's right

But to be honest, I am actually laughing my ass off at the braying. I mean, I'm from Georgia and I've seen this type of backtracking, obfuscating denial a billion times. I was waiting with baited breath for the "but fake accusations of racism will hurt the REAL ones!1" and I have not been disappointed.

I hope no dog is harmed during this time of reflection.

See ya back in the AA forum! Or as I like to call it around here... sanctuary within the asylum.

[Ms. Toad]

90. You need to take those blinders off.

The vast majority of the "you're a racist" posts are directed at people who are doing no more than criticizing President Obama for engaging in the same activities we have been criticizing for years - in my case more than 4 decades.

Insisting we are racist merely because the race of the current person engaging in those activities is black is insulting.

[Number23]

91. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

The vast majority of the "you're a racist" posts are directed at people who are doing no more than criticizing President Obama for engaging in the same activities we have been criticizing for years - in my case more than 4 decades.

That's not even close to the truth. Go waste someone else's time, please.

[Ms. Toad]

95. To the contrary,

It is too painfully close to the truth for you to acknowledge it. President Obama is engaging in many activities which are the antithesis of the platform he ran on, and are strikingly similar to those he condemned when they were Bush's policies. To continue to criticize those polices is not racist, (whether or not I expressly compare his actions to the activities carried out by George Bush).

Allegations that such criticism is racist are abhorrent and border on racism, in and of themselves, because they demand that we treat President Obama differently merely because of his race.

In other words, because President Obama is black, I must be racist if if I criticize him for:

• His first term treatment of members of the LGBT community, even though I made the same criticisms against President Clinton
  
• His secret collection and analysis of data relating to US citizens, even though I made the same criticisms against President Johnson's use of the COINTELPRO program, and
  
• His secret collection and analysis of data relating to US citizens and continuation of the "war on terror and GITMO", even though I criticized President Bush for strikingly similar activities.
  

That is the gist of virtually all of the "you're a racist" posts say. At best they allege that if you dare to compare President Bush and President Obama's virtually identical "war on terror" policies it must be motivated by racism - with no explanation as to where that leap of logic comes from - and most respected analysis acknowledges that as far as the "war on terror" there is very little difference. Most of the "you're a racist" posts just equate criticism to racism, with captions like "What can it be, except racism?" And all conveniently ignore ignore the fact that many of us have also consistently criticized white Democratic presidents who were not progressive enough in certain of their policies.

[Number23]

97. So when people claimed that he was responsible for getting the bankers in NYC the

H1N1 vaccine before everyone else, that was legitimate criticism?

When people claimed he was usurping May Day aka Loyalty Day for his own demonic purposes, was that legitimate criticism?

When people accuse him of lying to take the country to war in Syria, is that legitimate criticism?

When people screamed that the $20 billion he got for the victims of the Gulf Oil spill was "not enough" MONTHS before we had any idea how much the damage would actually cost, that was legitimate criticism?

The post I responded to mentioned SEVERAL ways in which the double standard applied to this president manifest themselves. The posts that have hit the sensitive feelings of some posters and are making the squeal like pigs mentioned SEVERAL ways in which the criticism shown has been so dishonest, that they have to wonder what's behind it. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to concede that MILLIONS of people see this is not my problem and I TRULY cannot tell you how little interest I have in trying to get the willfully blind to see what's right in front of them. Even white posters here and many white people in real life that are incredibly uncomfortable with ascribing some of this behavior to racism admit that SOMETHING is behind so much of the double standard that this president faces.

So, save your bullet points and your passive aggressive tone for someone who is actually interested in having this pointless, dumb as hell conversation that ignores 99% of the stuff that goes on constantly on this web site. That is not me. Which is precisely why I said your insult about "taking the blinders off" was advice you need to take for yourself.

[felix_numinous]

43. What I find ironic

is that surveillance when abused often gets turned against minorities, foreigners, and if used by theocrats against women and gays. This is why the ACLU has opposed these practices. And this is why I stand firm against these breaches of privacy.

I would like someone to come up with ONE historic account of a country using extreme surveillance that used it ethically. There are countless examples of it being used it abusively.

I am wondering if a lot of the racist outrage has to do with what is being broadcasted on the MSM, which I am not aware of (I don't get cable) which may make what I 'agree' with sound like I also approve of the thinly veiled racism present on FOX and other networks.

I am certain that President Obama has been under constant attack by them, and they DO have a racist bent to their broadcasts. I am aware of this, and all of the nastiness coming from the right which must be truly exhausting and insulting. True and destructive racism DOES exist in this country, but it does not help to dump anger about it on people on the left who are advocates for equality and protection under the law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Actually we are seeing this here

On msnbc no, not really

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

49. Well said

And I agree 100% that we still have a long way to in this country when it comes to race, and we liberals, and secular humanists, as usual, will be right on the front lines to help resolve it.

[CakeGrrl]

44. There are lots of tactics used on this board to shut down discussion

This is one of the least.

And don't inhibit/intimidate/shame those who HAVE experienced/observed racism from asking whether its existence is possible.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

51. Of course

It exists, however the point stands.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. How ELSE is conversation on a topic supposed to be suppressed?

Some things just shouldn't be discussed. The only other way I know of suppressing them is to comment on the size of the poster's genitals. That just doesn't fit in this context.

[Fire Walk With Me]

56. Quelling discussion and even dissent, attempting to limit the conversation

goes along with the government's quelling of protest, whistle-blowing, and journalism. It's a multi-part plan to establish a State in which no one dares disagree with it.

Do what we say or else. Sort of domestic terrorism, there.

[DRoseDARs]

57. If they were interested in rational discourse, they wouldn't have firebombed DU with that charge.

I remember when Melissa Harris-Perry lobbed a similar bomb. Even her friend Rachael Maddow was taken aback by it.

[NaturalHigh]

73. How true.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. "support each other in the common goal of making America a more progressive, democratic country"

You mean like it was before the White Man came along?

[NaturalHigh]

74. Very good post. Thank you.

K and R.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

106. I know a lot of us feel the same way

[one_voice]

75. Right after...

people stop calling those they disagree with, Nazis, Stalinists, cultist, bots, etc

Which is also a tactic to discourage and worse shut down discussion.....

Sounds fair to me..

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

85. You misunderstand

Being a liberal, DUer, I would never consider shutting down discussion, especially about another critical issue for America... Which would only stand to reason that I wouldn't call to shut down that important discussion, right?

I'm just pleading for context, rationality... after all, aren't we all on DU!

[Skip Intro]

81. Great post. This kind of thing has been going on for a while.

It seems to be all a few DUers do.

I'm glad to see it being called out for what it is, and glad to see it making a hasty exit.

Glad to see DU reject it.

[allin99]

89. Personal appeals and reason do not work on people that would smear...

people as racists just for disagreeing with them. Every reason you're asking them not to do it, is why they do it.

[backscatter712]

96. Exactly! What do you think the point of my being nasty with them is?

Don't pretend this is a civilized debate. Don't pretend this is high school forensics club.

It isn't.

The people spewing all the authoritarian McCarthyist smears against Snowden, who were accusing us of racism for daring to disagree with the President on the NSA, who have been demanding we give away our liberty for security, are not here for discussion. Don't tell me to debate them more when it's obvious they're not here to have an honest and respectful debate.

They're here to propagandize, and to harass. They're here to spam the boards with their bullshit to create the false impression that their viewpoint is more popular. They're here to bully, and provoke, and poison the well of discussion.

They can't win a fair debate, so they're doing an electronic Gish Gallop.

It's deceptive, it's divisive, it's despicable.

Why should I respect them when they don't respect us?

Don't lecture me about disrespecting them. I'm just their mirror. I give them what they give us. After all the shit they give us, I think cussing them out is just a fraction of what they've earned in return.

Why do you think I encourage people to shun them? Because they show their own characters. They show they're people who are capable of, and enjoy bullying, lying, character assassination, and other vicious attacks. They're the kind of people that I don't want to be around. They're complete fucking scum.

So yeah, for all the right-wing authoritarians, for all the people screaming "Racist!" at anyone criticizing Pres. Obama, for all the shit-flinging character assassins? Yeah. I want them purged. If I were in charge, I'd take everyone that's already in my ignore list, who got a Klingon discommendation, and I'd throw them out instantly.

[allin99]

98. Agreed, they're really low lifes. but question...

what the hell for? is it for this one guy? why are they so adamant about not talking about nsa? what is it? i mean, it's just downright insane.

[backscatter712]

99. It's not just about Snowden. The same lowlifes have a longer-term pattern.

They came out of the woodwork spreading vile smears on Julian Assange, calling anyone who dared defend him or praise his work in Wikilieaks a "rape apologist."

They attacked Bradley Manning and claimed he deserved to be supermaxed, stripped naked and subjected to psychological torture.

When the Occupy movement was in full swing, they were pooh-poohing, calling us druggies and dirty commie hippies.

The same lowlifes, over and over and over.

[allin99]

100. so it's just for obama?....

why? i can't say i've ever seen anything like this for any politician, for any person. a god, yes. (dear lord about manning, that is wild. these are some very rage-filled people).

[backscatter712]

101. I don't think it's about Obama either.

My guess: people attached in one way or another to the military-industrial complex, and related business, like in Wall Street.

They lose their gravy train when the people stop supporting them, and demand cuts to the military, to intelligence, demand we start minding our own business instead of trolling for violence in the Middle East, and demand that they face justice and get held accountable for ripping millions of Americans off.

[allin99]

105. no i mean why...

are the people here freaking out on the people criticizing the gov't/obama admin, to the point of calling people racist and saying manning should be tortured, etc.

they're not upset at losing their wall street gravy train.

[backscatter712]

107. I think a lot of the why is psychological.

There's a psychological phenomenon, call it a set of personality traits, that have been researched by Dr. Bob Altemeyer, which is called Right-Wing Authoritarianism.

By "Right-Wing", he doesn't mean Republican, or even traditional conservatism. He means a set of psychological preferences for tradition, for law and order, for following established conventions and authorities.

There are three specific traits:

1. Authoritarian submission - these people will submit to their authority figure of choice, obey, follow and defend him, no matter what he does, no matter how unethical. Look at all the people who willingly went down for Nixon.

2. Authoritarian aggression - they not only follow their authority figure, but they want to make YOU follow him too, and are willing to use force and coercion to make it happen.

3. Conventionalism. The conventions can be classic GOP church, god & country, apple pie & such, or they can also include Democratic conventions of following the Democratic party line. In the Soviet Union, there were lots of right-wing authoritarians who followed Communism.

Bob Altemeyer wrote a book about the phenomenon called The Authoritarians, which is intended for lay-people, and summarizes a few decades of research. Take a look:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[allin99]

109. hmmm. interesting. it makes sense that it's personality traits...

they definitely are sticking to a bully technique, aggressive and constant, and calling people racist is also part of the bully technique, definitely. and it takes a special kinda person to follow that route.

and just thinking about it overall, it makes a lot of sense. the protection of party/person and the need for everyone to fall in line. thanks so much, very interesting and does make sense.

i was thinking it had a great deal to do with cult of personality, there was a lot of "we" selling in the campaign. But for people to hold onto that that tightly, i wasn't sure that could account for everything. I remember when mayor cory booker said something the party didn't like, i saw people all over facebook say crazy shit about booker, and there is probably no more perfect example of good guy you could ever wanna know about. (i mean talk about a community organizer, have you read that guy's wiki page? lol daaaaamn.) so when i saw the hatred thrown at him, I was all: huh? i mean, throw a "boo" and "stfu", but my goodness. lol. They had pictures with horns on the guy, everything. but i suspect those people were very young.

but yeah, their vitriol for anyone who comes near obama you would literally think he is a god. Then i thought maybe they're just very young and think that this is how you help the party, but that doesn't quite cover it.

i'm going to read through the link you posted.

[rightsideout]

102. OK, I'll call them bigots instead

[backscatter712]

103. Really? n/t

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

104. Why, because DUers disagree with you, Washington

Obama?

You thnk it is fair to call your fellow DUers racists/bigots because, why?

[MannyGoldstein]

108. This only gets 34 recs so far?

Sanest thing I've seen on DU in days.

Geez.

[LostOne4Ever]

111. I wont call anyone racist so long as they....

...dont say anything racist.

[HappyMe]

114. It seems to me that there

is plenty of name calling from all quarters in this issue.

[carolinayellowdog]

115. being provoked into outraged denials by outright griefers

is called feeding trolls who deserve to be on your ignore list-- they "are DU" only if people keep reacting to their provocations as if they stand for anything other than strife

[sibelian]

116. +1

You are wiser than I.

[michigandem58]

122. I hear conservatives say that all the time

Food for thought.

[hughee99]

123. I don't think anyone is saying that.

Anyone can disagree with me for any reason, but you might be a racist if you disagree with the PRESIDENT.