General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHas the banning of dkf made you more reluctant to criticize certain things on DU?
Things like drones, NSA surveillance, and the ACA?
dkf scrupulously followed DU community standards, as enforced by the community moderating system (no hidden posts at all in the last 90 days). So dkf was not banned for violating community standards (which he or she never did, at least in the past 3 months) but for the substance of his or her posts. Certainly dkf was known for vociferously criticizing things like the drone program, NSA surveillance, and the ACA, and by all accounts the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" was a recent thread criticizing the Healthcare.gov website. I never did see any threads by dkf praising President Obama, so perhaps the deciding factor was the unbalanced nature of his or her posts; all criticism (albeit criticism that scrupulously stayed within community standards as defined by the admins and the jury system), and no praise.
In one sense the banning of dkf was the mother of all admin overrides of the jury system. Which of course, as the owners of the website, they have every right to do. I am in no sense criticizing the banning of dkf; the owners of a discussion board have every right to exclude whomever they please. I am more interested in people's reactions to this.
So- knowing that even if you stay 100% within community standards and can be banned for the substance of your posts, will you be more careful about criticizing drones, NSA surveillance, the ACA, etc. on DU?
| 31 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes. I will be more reluctant to post criticism of things like that, or perhaps I will be more measured with my criticism. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| No. I will still criticize things like that just as much as before, but I will be more careful to round out my posting history with some praise of the President. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| No. I will not change my posting behavior in the slightest. I will criticize those things just as much as I ever did. | |
20 (65%) |
|
| Not applicable. I don't have a problem with those things so I don't post criticism of them anyway. | |
2 (6%) |
|
| Something else. | |
2 (6%) |
|
| Who or what is or was dkf? I have no idea what you are talking about. | |
7 (23%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Nye Bevan's entire post is criticizing the banning of dkf
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)It would be awful if it did.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Silly Op
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
So glad it wasn't locked before I could put my plus 1 here.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)"Didn't see anything worthy of banning...."
That kind of crap.
Makes one wonder.
Doremus
(7,273 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)Finally.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)their entire existence on this web site on the belief that the folks who support the Democrats, including the Democratic president and this administration are the "trolls" and/or right wingers and the incessantly whining and endlessly disgruntled are the "real" liberals or Democrats.
It's about fucking time that lie got popped.
FSogol
(47,501 posts)
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Mass
(27,315 posts)posting threads after threads on how people could stay on contracts which were substandard.
ACA is not great, but rooting for LESS than ACA is not progressive and it has been a long time since dkf has taken any liberal/progressive positions. And even when I could have agreed with her on a position, it seemed to be coming more of a will to criticize president Obama than actual policy feeling.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)We all know that it is flawed due to the unnecessary and bureaucratic involvement of the insurance companies, so it was an imperfect law at best. But I see the genius of it as achieving so much that it is irreversible; medical underwriting has been consigned to history, for example, and is never coming back IMO, and the principle of subsidized premiums for low income people has been enshrined in the system. So if the ACA "fails" I think what replaces it will be a system that still has no medical underwriting, gives cheap coverage to low income people, and so on, and it is quite probable that this will be a single payer system.
Mass
(27,315 posts)because some mythical day we will have single payer.
Sorry, but letting people suffer for some eventual political success is crass and not my type of progressivism.
Given that my entire family would have no insurance outside of my state (MA), I really have no sympathy for your point. Single payer would be better, ACA is a rotten system, but it is a rotten system that is an improvement on the existing. We need something NOW and single payer is not available.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The ACA is an enormous improvement on what it replaced and I have always been one of its biggest advocates on DU. But I do see it as a step towards a better system and not an end in itself.
Mass
(27,315 posts)dkf took in general. She posted things after things that were intended to sink ACA.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)dkf was not banned for being excessively left wing.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)which is funny, as dkf was right wing on almost every issue.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)"Scorecards here! Get'cher scorecards here! Can't tell the players without a scorecard!"
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Some people simply give up on alerting, and sometimes things which should be hidden, aren't. A true admin override of the jury system would be an admin changing a verdict. Has that ever happened?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)One time someone posted someone's personal address. I alerted but the jury voted to leave. So I posted a thread in Meta to complain and the admins hid the post.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It's also a TOS issue, something juries weren't expected to understand. Apparently, many of them didn't, which could be why we no longer have a TOS box on the alert menu.
murielm99
(32,603 posts)The decision went against what I voted, and the post stayed. It made me doubt seriously why I was a regular here. I am glad it was rectified later.
As far as the OP's question goes, I changed my posting behavior after the primary Kerry won. Many people were banned during that time, and I did not want to be one of them. I am far less outspoken now, and I don't post as many original posts. I was also disgusted with this place during the primary race between Hillary and Obama.
I hope we at DU learn as we go forward. There should be room here for all Democrats. But not RW trolls! Never trolls. I am glad that one is gone.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)When something bothers me and there's a fuss in the news about it, the President usuallly turns his attention to the problem, so what more could I ask. I think he does his best and intends no harm, though it may occur.
The drone problem is the most difficult. I can see where he doesn't want to send in troops who will be killed, but the drones kill innocent people. They'll have to go back to the drawing room to solve this.
The NSA has a lot of people who don't directly work for the government, and he's already fired the head. That means things hopefully will change. Spying on US citizens doesn't bother me, but I don't like the idea of making enemies of our allies by bugging their phones....
quinnox
(20,600 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)universal health care, and based on non-profit system. The health care system we have in America is an abomination.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)true. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)I am for single payer but accept that ACA is what we can get now.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the govt shutdown proves that without a shadow of doubt...
I have a good mind to just put both of them on ignore and never be bothered with them again....simply sickening to deny help to fellow Americans purely on ideology! THAT is the abomination!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we ALL knew that all along...
We support the ACA here...
liberalhistorian
(20,897 posts)the ridiculous choices in your so-called "poll" and your insanely delusional OP itself.
dkf did not "scrupulously follow" DU guidelines, sweetie. She did not just criticize all the things you mentioned; it would have been quite okay if she'd done that because a lot of us have issues with them as well. It was HOW she did it and her taking it way too far. One of her last threads was RW Obama-and-Dem-hating Manhattan Institute/National Review bullshit regarding the nefarious purposes of the ACA that spouted forth RW and Fox talking points almost verbatim.
Her visceral hatred and bashing of public education and teachers did not display a shred of Democratic values. You can have reservations about something and want things changed, as, indeed, there's much to work on in public education, but to continually spout RW bullshit then bash those teachers here who've dedicated their lives to their professions is quite another matter altogether. She spouted the RW bullshit line on almost any thread you can think of. And what really pisses me off is that she was serial alerter who dished it out but couldn't take it herself, alerting on any single post, even joking ones, that offended her in the slightest. She got a lot of good people here TS'd, while she remained here spouting her RW bullshit. It got to the point where many people simply avoided both her threads and any responses to her on other threads, SHE was the one you had to tiptoe around.
I could go on and on and on, but something tells me you don't care and aren't listening at all, just like her.
Oh, and IBTL. LOL
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,897 posts)with our DU friend who hated public education and teachers and who had the pic of Arne Duncan and Obama as his sigline regarding the "needed transformation" of public education; you know, the one whose name begins with an F and is similar to the late lead singer of Queens? I wonder what happened to him? Hmmmm..............
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Doremus
(7,273 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Now, if you had said "1000^infinity" that would be a whole higher order of infinity. In the sense that one could not construct a bijection between the first infinity and the second one.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I did not vote, because I am not an administrator of this board. When I am selected for jury service, I have a vote, otherwise I have no say. But I wanted to point out that on the day he was banned, he posted an OP about how the DNC chief said Democrats can run on Obamacare and win.
As for what message the administrators are sending, everyone will draw their own conclusion.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)after a 500 post thread in Meta Discussion exposed the fact that it consistantly posted birther, anti-union, anti-public education, pro-Wall Street, pro-George Zimmerman propaganda. Essentially, that poster never saw a right-wing conspiracy talking point they didn't like. I saw a thread where it was agreeing with some right-wing shock jock about forced sterilisation of poor people FFS.
I think after that thread they became slightly more aware that most of DU was avoiding them or was on to their schtick. So they started trying to balance it out a bit more.
As for the OP question, no, I'm not "being more careful" or changing my posting behaviour because of dkf. I'm not a rightwing shill. That person had 10 goddamn years and 37,000 posts to establish their Democratic creds and they failed. Just because it managed to avoid adding "and you're an asshole" to the end of it's ridiculous claims about "union thugs" and thus skated just on the right side of violating the terms of service doesn't mean that it had a right to post bullshit here indefinitely.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I started working for a company in Georgia, a Right to Work state, which had a Union move less than six months after I started. I was asked to sign a pledge card, and I refused knowing that if the vote failed, those who had signed the cards would be targeted. I said I would probably vote for the union, but I had no intention of advertising that fact to Management. I was too new, and needed the job desperately. The person asking me to sign said. "Those who don't sign could have bad things happen, like a brick through your windshield, and it can get worse."
Now, I don't know about you, but that is the absolute definition of a union thug. I went from a pro union stance to more ambivalent in about a second. The vote failed despite my vote in favor, and while I did not get a brick through my windshield, the threat was there. I left that company a couple years later for a better job, but I've never forgotten the feeling that those kinds of threats probably did more to defeat the union vote than anything Management said.
Now, am I anti-Union for doing this? My prediction was proven correct, as those who were pushing the Union the hardest were all fired for various reasons after the vote failed, oh it took a while, but it happened. Some were "tardy" too often. Others were substandard work performance, and still others were argumentative with Management. But the result was about a third of those who signed the cards were fired over the next eighteen months. Again, I voted for the Union, but we lost, and that was that.
I had a post hidden once for posting the RW talking points. My intention as stated in the thread was to help us come up with talking points and arguments to counter them. The idea was to help get as much information as possible to counter the arguments. The average voter is not going to research the lies from Faux News, and remember it is the highest rated 24 hour network out there. So we needed to have more info on how to counter the arguments.
Roughly 80% of Democrats support the ACA in polling. http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2013/7/24/poll-moderate-conservative-democrats-support-of-aca-slipping But there is going to be a faction who do not. Those are people who want single payer, or people who want less regulations than the current law has. That means that as far as this board is concerned, roughly one in five Democrats are merely shills and trolls as far as the standards of the members of this community are concerned.
We need to be careful with our litmus tests. Because we are liable to end up with a very small, ideologically pure, party that is stuck in the minority. Seven Democrats voted with the Republicans on one bill. They were named in a thread and the poster asked how anyone could support them. I pointed out that in accordance with the site rules, I wholeheartedly supported my Congressman, John Barrow, who voted with the republicans. It was a meaningless vote, the Repugs were going to win it, and with that vote Barrow was able to establish his "conservative" credentials while costing the Democrats nothing. In rural Georgia, getting a Democrat elected is tough, getting a liberal democrat elected is neigh on impossible. But if several of the members of this board had their way, Barrow and others like him would be tossed out of the party. It was thanks to people like Barrow who could and did win in Conservative districts that we had Speaker Pelosi, and it was those conservative blue dogs who were targeted by the RW to shift the balance of power in the House in 2010.
So am I an anti-union troll? I detest the drone strikes. I am opposed to a large military, and would love nothing more than to see it reduced by 50% or more. I am absolutely on the record as being anti NSA spying both domestic and foreign. I can understand and agree with the need for reasonable targeted espionage. Yet the vacuum everything up approach is abhorrent to me. Especially domestically, where I think the letter and spirit of the 4th Amendment is being shat upon.
The only posts that could be considered "Anti ACA" (I don't like the term Obamacare, it was intended as an insult from the RW, and I rarely use it except when I am paraphrasing someone else or quoting them) is where I pointed out truthfully that one size does not fit all, and while it is helping many people who absolutely need it, it is going to be a strain on other people. When we Democrats passed it, we said we could fix it later. Before we can fix it, we have to be able to discuss what is really broken, or needs improvement.
Being a Democrat is not just a job as a cheerleader. It is being more for the common man, more for the ideals of equal opportunity, and opposed to abuses. I speak out about systemic abuses of the police, and other times the abuses of any power. Just because we are Democratic Party supporters does not mean we are expected to have the same ideals and principals. Some times I struggle to find any principle in our party. So far as I can tell regarding some Democratic Party Members, we are in favor of winning elections, and opposed to losing them, everything else is negotiable. Right now there are numerous threads about proposals from Democrats to cut "entitlements" and apparently that is an acceptable topic to disagree with the Democratic Party elected officials.
It sickens me from time to time, to see our party shifting to the right on so many issues. We were opposed to the war, and the needless cycle of death, until we were in charge, then we absolutely demanded that we support the President. I can support President Obama and still want more from him. Arguing that it is impossible is like saying that parents who say their child can do better when they get a B on a test are not supportive. You push, pull, cajole, argue, and entice people sometimes. We are not robots, and we can't expect to win elections based upon what people should know. We need to be able to discuss the issues as honestly as possible, because only that way can we arrive at good, logical, common sense, and morally correct decisions.
DKF may have been a troll for ten years, but here is the thing. No troll can possibly hope to change the minds of Democratic Party people here. At most, such a person can only strengthen our ability to argue for our side of the issue. Some Democrats may support Zimmerman over Martin. Some Democrats may support the absolute authority of the police, and others like myself oppose such ideals on principle. The people on this board have two things in common, we are Democrats, and we are alive.
questionseverything
(11,507 posts)being pretty new here,i have been amazed at how much of the discussion centers itself around personalities and perceived popularity
i believe the democratic party is the only hope the 99% have for any representation and if we are to be the party that helps the 99 then we need to listen to ALL of them,,,,with 319 million plus included in that 99 we are gonna have some big differences in opinion so i do not see how banning them helps us
i guess i was raised different than most as i was encouraged to look at both sides ...the rw talking points article you mentioned/ i would of loved debating that,could of played devils advocate for either side because that was how i was encouraged to think,with every talking point there is a grain of truth that generally gets twisted to fit the presenters veiwpoint ,the twisting should not be a reason to ignore that grain
coming in january the price of milk will be artificially inflated to double its current price unless we get a farm bill to fix it,to me nothing else is as important as that right now because it will impact every family in our country and the health of every child but no one here at du seems interested in that but this is like the 4th huge thread on someone getting banned
wether the banned person was a troll,paid blogger or not,they are still part of the 99 (therefore a dem,wether they know it or not)
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)There are at least 50 thousands sites online where you can freely debate right-wingers. This is explicitly not one of them.
I'm happy to look at both sides but at a certain point, you are just giving legitimacy to viewpoints that are not being offered with intellectual honesty. When 99.9% of scientists say climate change is a reality or that the earth is more than 6000 years old or that peak oil is eminent and will have radical consequences for our society, I frankly just don't think it's worth the time and effort to find "the grain of truth in the right-wing talking point" and then play devil's advocate wasting everyone's time and energy when they could be looking for solutions.
The right-wing literally has a multi-billion dollar propaganda industry pushing out anti-environmental, anti-union, anti-consumer, pro-war anti-social safety net bullshit 24/7/365. They don't need you to carry their water for them in the name of "fairness and balance".
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I know that wasn't your intent, but I wonder if without it, dkf would have not tried to balance it out and been ppr'd sooner.
I am sorta surprised that dkf wasn't ppr'd shortly after the posting of that OP in Meta. The sheer volume of far right posting by that person exposed them as a veritable Rush Limbaugh in our midst. Again, thanks to the help of at least a dozen other people who pointed me to OPs by dkf. That was certainly not all my research.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)S/he may have done so on occasion for the sole purpose of appearing to be liberal-ish, lol, but it wasn't often enough that most would notice.
HubertHeaver
(2,538 posts)Who is/was dkf?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)dkf was a longtime DUer who annoyed a lot of members and was recently banned from the site.
HubertHeaver
(2,538 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Dkf was posting right wing nonsense about the ACA.
Don't post nonsense, right wing or otherwise, and we should be fine. I was reading those threads as they were being posted and all I could do was say, W.T.F.? Could have been reading Ted Cruz Daily News.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)DFK's banning will not impact me or my posting habits one way or another.
I get no satisfaction from his/her banning .... nor do I have any opposition to it.
Indifference
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Deep13
(39,157 posts)
Kingofalldems
(40,010 posts)Read the rules. Dkf was a walking violation of community standards.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Getting a life ...comes to mind. I know this ...the more intolerant and lock step DU becomes the less I will give a fuck about it.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Read the TOS. If this bothers you, stop torturing yourself by hanging out here.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You seem to be saying that you know you are on the fringe....
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)oh wait, never mind.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You seem to be of the opinion that there is an 'us' here and that most DUers are from the 'fringes'.
I've seen you more or less use this same phraseology repeatedly now.
So, what policies does one have to be supporting in order to be 'on the fringes'?
A second question, who is this 'us' you are speaking of?
Thanks in advance for some clarification on these questions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The fringe are not most...much to their chagrin...
Us are those of us Liberal Democrats willing to "work within the system". It's clearly defined.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)controlled by Corporations.
We just found out that working within the system means cuts to SS.
I am vehemently opposed to cutting SS. Being that I am a Democrat.
But so far 9 Dems are on board with the Corporate Party to cut SS. That means that already we have an entire Party, the Republicans, who will march in lockstep for their Corporate Bosses, backing cuts to SS and so far, joining them, nine people with a D after their name. There is also the disturbing fact that the Dem Administration has placed SS cuts 'on the table'.
Is this the 'system' you want to work within?
I must be part of the 'fringe' you speak of, because there is no way in hell I will work to back such a system which is directly in opposition to Democratic principles.
I'm still unclear as to what you consider to be the 'fringes'. Is it people who will not go along with cuts to SS no matter who is proposing them?
DUers have never supported cuts to SS, so who are the 'fringes'?
Are the 'fringes' those who SUPPORT cuts to SS or ....
Are the 'fringes' those of us who will work as hard as we can to get SS cuts OFF the Table?
It might be me, but I'm still puzzled by your 'far left, fringes' statements.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)not Anarchy...not taking down the govt just to "cure" what ails us...
If there is not much to the Left of you....You might be the fringe...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)avoiding what you consider to the 'left'.
I am very clear on where I stand on policies, which is the ONLY way you can define the difference between the lunatics on the Right, which is almost all of them, and Democrats.
I'll try again.
Do you support cuts to SS?
Btw, I don't subscribe to labels, such as 'left/right'.
I subscribe to Right/Wrong.
Which is why I am a Democrat.
I appreciate your responses but they are not addressing the questions I asked.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Just because it wasn't the answer you wanted...doesn't mean it wasn't answered.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)fringes' referring to those who will never support cuts to SS? That's all I'm trying to find out but you have not clarified your position at all.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't think I am even close to being "fringe" because there are others to the Left of me....
Your "cuts to SS" not withstanding...
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There are even times that I miss the 2008 fistfights.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)has caused me to refrain from giving my opinion sometimes, but dkf, not so much.
polichick
(37,626 posts)Though I do try to follow posted rules, I'll say what I think until the day of my banning arrives.
Ultimately, the party has to change or a third party will arise. Simple as that - there's no future for 99% of the people with two corporate parties and no other choice. Where DU will be in that, who knows?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,626 posts)so no, that would be non-change.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Want the republicans to change to even more hard right politics...they are the fringe far right...the 1% funded them....until they didn't. To deny this is to deny reality...
polichick
(37,626 posts)My point is that both parties serve corporations/1% more than they serve the 99% - that is not sustainable.
The Dem Party must change - or a people's party will arise. To deny this is to deny reality.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Skinner excels in the "patient headmaster" role.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)It's Libertarian central over there. This is a liberal site. We believe in universal healthcare - dkf did not. Not "opposed ACA", which make it sound like she/he might be some kind of single payer advocate. That poster was a straight up anti-"entitlements" right wing troll who stayed far too long. If you have similar "insights" to share, please take them somewhere else.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And a question directed at DU members, not Reddit users.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)A poster who is a celebrated hero at the conservative cave. Doesn't that anger you, that this person you thought was on your side was just playing a persona to try to disrupt our community?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Why anyone would claim to believe that you've posted "several posts lamenting the loss of this poster" is puzzling.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)There seems to be no joy in Bevanville for this most tragic of events.
demwing
(16,916 posts)but we also think for ourselves, make up our own minds, and embrace plurality of opinion. UHC advocacy may be a belief that the majority here share, but the last time I checked there was no "Uniformity of Belief" requirements to vote for Democrats or to post on DU.
Feel free to share your insights, even as you politely encourage others to STFU.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)That's not asking too much.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Is there a list of things that one is required to believe in before they can carry that flag? Who wrote that list? You?
The TOS lists only a handful of requirements regarding political orientation:
1. Don't be a right-winger:
No Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers
2. Don't be an extreme-fringe left-winger:
No advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
3. Do be a loyal Democrat:
During election seasons, do not advocate voting for the "other guys."
However, "When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them."
4. Don't use hate speech
This one depends more on interpersonal respect than on any individual political stripe.
So again, please provide a list for all acceptable liberal thoughts and actions, and I'll be glad to file it in the appropriate receptacle. In the interim, simply ignore or alert on those that offend you, instead of presuming to tell people to shut the fuck up just because they don't meet your standard.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)And good riddance.
demwing
(16,916 posts)SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)It's coming any second now.
demwing
(16,916 posts)thanks for playing
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)I long ago learned to sniff out folks were aren't here for constructive dialogue. I gave you a flippant response because that's all you deserve. But fret not, I won't be putting you on ignore. In fact, I think we could be DU BFFs 
. XOXO
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so the Anarchists that want to get rid of the Democratic party....are also out of line!
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)
roody
(10,849 posts)get rid of the right-wingers in Latin America forum.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)that you ask this.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)BootinUp
(50,756 posts)
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)Those things you mentioned...I neither condone nor condemn them.
There are usually two sides to every issue, so the worst that would happen if I were to take one position over the other is that I would probably be accused of inconsistency (or trollery) if I were to then state an opposite opinion in another thread.
Which I can often do even with the same subject. So I don't get involved with criticism of things like that. Plus, people think they're always so "right" when they find "facts" that support their positions, no matter what side they take. Each side has its own set of "facts". I'm not going to waste my time digging up "facts" that someone else is going to refute with their own "facts".
Other topics...those involving opinions...no. I won't change how I reply to those.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)
Igel
(37,245 posts)Stopped that with all the judgmentalism and "sockpuppet" let's-pile-on-people and accuse-them-of-all-sorts-of-nonsense attitudes over the summer.
Can't cure hate and narrow mindedness. But when it's fostered, then you just have to say, "Eh, it's pretty much an irrelevant Internet discussion board."
The real shift happened when the Breaking News forum started to be something with a full-screen turnover every 18-24 hours--there's a lot less news in 2013 than in 2008, it would seem--and the "General Discussion" board started to resemble the lounge with a little content, or perhaps that should be "with little content."
Some of the forums are great. At least the atheist or anti-religion screeds in the Religion forum have mostly ceased, albeit at the expense of any actual discussion since the "wrong sort" no longer post there. Rather like having a Latino forum where only Latinos from some countries can post (Ecuador, perhaps) but Mexican-Americans can't because they don't have the right perspective.
Mundi gloria transit sic.
tblue37
(68,017 posts)RW sources to support his/her RW take on *so many* subjects.
Autumn
(48,705 posts)chained CPI and the overly bipartisan bullshit by our side and will continue to post my disagreement on those issues. There were some posts by dkf that I agreed with and hit the rec button on. It's the post and not the poster that gets my agreement. As for the ACA I don't know yet if I am going to dislike it or not, it's here and it's the law. It may or may not be a good thing. Criticizing policies or politicians, even Democrats is not against the TOS. And I have never seen in the TOS where the President must be praised on an equal basis if one criticizes him.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)ALL morning, noon, and night.
I think if people manage to refrain from doing that they won't get into trouble.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)An example of her opposition to NSA spying:
How a Purse Snatching Led to the Legal Justification for NSA Domestic Spying
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023767506
An example of her opposition to drones:
Drone Loans: Customs and Border Protection Records 500 Predator Flights for Other Agencieshttp://www.democraticunderground.com/10023745301
She also seemed to regularly post news items that were unrelated to any policies, liberal or otherwise.
E.g.:
US man who fought with Syrian rebels wanted to join al Qaeda, say authorities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023834085
And another:
U.S. builders hoard mineral rights under new homes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023821896
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)violation of TOS.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)That seemed to be her whole purpose of being here.
struggle4progress
(125,285 posts)
Make7
(8,549 posts)Well, at least that's what the Google machine says.
... scrupulously...
Whisp
(24,096 posts)This is not a rightwing site, quite yet.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I was being polite and careful, but they didn't think so.
Apparently they can't defend their beliefs in a logical manner and resort to logical fallacies when I tried to pin them down.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Sometimes questions aren't supposed to be asked, even politely.
Iggo
(49,550 posts)Spazito
(55,236 posts)the jury system is only one tool in the toolbox and cannot determine who stays and who goes. The TOS states this very clearly:
"One more thing: Don't push your luck.
The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck."
To emphasize a key part of the above:
"If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck."
dkf met the criteria the Admin set out in this section in every way re making DU suck, imo.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)What does the owner of a website want? Traffic, because that pushes up page views and advertising revenue. Nothing wrong with that, the site owners need to feed their families and pay for their homes. And what generates more traffic? An uncontroversial thread that everyone here agrees with ("Hey, Ted Cruz is such an asshole!"
or a somewhat provocative thread that divides opinions, generates 300 responses and is viewed thousands of times?
On the other hand, basic standards of civility need to be enforced. One only needs to glance at the horrible comments replete with insults, racism and homophobia at sites like YouTube to appreciate this. We want decent, well-behaved people here, hence the jury system.
So in a sense a poster like dkf was the admins' dream member. He or she was here a very long time, posting provocative stuff, generating many responses and page views and driving up traffic and advertising revenue, but without stepping over the boundary of unacceptably breaching the community standards. So for those who are wondering "how did he/she get away with it for so long?" the answer is simple. I'm sure the admins are keenly aware that if by banning everyone who posts controversial stuff they turn DU as a whole into a clone of the Barack Obama Group, they will be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
Spazito
(55,236 posts)then he/she would still be here. The fact that dkf has been banned negates your premise entirely, imo.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,442 posts)You make it sound as though all that was wrong with dkf is that they criticized some things that President Obama and the current American government did.
The point was more that they'd been pushing certain right-wing attitudes for a LONG time. I would guess that the particular recent post was the final straw, but e.g. here are a few easy-to-find posts from the past:
Typical right-wing economic talking points, blaming unemployment on people preferring to live on welfare, rather than on the lack of jobs: 'it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks, than to work'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022626267
Defending Romney's company for firing workers; by implication supporting current ruthless anti-worker policies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002849608#post1
Against the teachers' union; anti-job security for teachers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021347285#post1
Posting a Torygraph article that suggests that couples who share the housework are more likely to divorce:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021430095
I wouldn't be bringing all this up - normally I'd think why rake among the ashes when the poster has gone? - except that it's being brought up as suppression of any view that dissents from the current government. It is not. There are plenty of other places to go for anti-union, economically right-wing, sexist, etc. talking-points.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)but I think the point about the balance between tolerating controversial viewpoints and reducing discussion and website traffic is a valid one. For example, if they wanted the admins could institute a zero tolerance policy that anyone posting right-wing economic talking points will immediately be banned. But they choose not to do this, despite the fact that such a policy would be popular among many DUers. My guess is that the reason they do not institute a policy is that the more non-mainstream-DU viewpoints are shut out the website, the less discussion and debate there will be, leading to a less contentious but more boring website with fewer page views.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)The person you refer to was a right-wing troll, and over-stepped yesterday.
The idea that this person's eviction was owing to criticism of anything in particular, and especially criticism of drone strikes or NSA surveillance or details of the ACA is risible.
This person supported virtually every right-wing economic nostrum in present circulation. There was not one right-wing talking point, including birtherism, this person did not find some means of presenting as a topic here.
The 'final straw' was citing once too often straight right-wing sources as legitimate presenters of fact in criticism of the President. When you present your attack on some feature of the ACA using commentary by Romney campaign advisers, you make it pretty clear what you are engaged in. This person did this sort of thing routinely.
The banning ought to have come long ago; it was very tardy.
shanine
(354 posts)For telling it like it is. Thank you for validating so many of us with your words, it means a lot.
I'm not a big poster or even a small poster, but I've been reading and learning from this site for a lot of years.
Violet_Crumble
(36,371 posts)
steve2470
(37,481 posts)Absolutely no one can accuse them (at the present time) of being overly harsh and applying a purity test.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
Tikki
(15,005 posts)I want to voice my doubts and concerns about wide spread use of the drug.
Maybe, a few here in this thread will remember my name and avoid my responses before they read them
and that way I won't need to be concerned.
Maybe some will look for my responses. Either way, I feel that no matter how I come out of the
gate on this issue, I better take seriously anybody who will criticize me, no matter how I present my
concern, either with facts or plain old emotions.
I care about so many other issues and seem to be on the same page with so many so much of
the time.
Maybe there should be a choice…when it comes to a certain issue.."Should I cool it, or
should I blow?"
Tikki
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)He also doesn't fool anyone here. It's not surprising to see him post such a concern poll.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Because an online discussion board is the most meaningful thing in my life. By far.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I know I'm a liberal democrat. I also try studiously to comply with the community standards as manifest by juries.
Aside from that, let's ask Mr Churchill:
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill
On balance, DKF's posts suggested only a superficial association with the democratic party and liberalism in general.
The worst sin, imho, was that her rhetoric wasn't influenced by repeated correction on the facts. I can appreciate people that look at a shared set of facts and debate the conclusions that those facts suggest. I don't appreciate people who ignore or try to suppress facts because of the fear that those facts might undermine their position.
If Skinner, Elad and Earl decide that I'm not a good fit - that's fine. All I request is a decently written tombstone. I think that it's important to the health of DU that lockstep agreement on every issue is not seen as a virtue.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)One DUer in particular was so shocked when I said something positive about Margaret Thatcher, for example, that they were still following me around and bringing it up months later.
Also, my support of free trade and the Citizens United decision is unpopular among quite a few DUers (notwithstanding the fact that Barack Obama is a big free trade enthusiast and the ACLU supports Citizens United).
Like you, I try to stay within the community standards and am generally successful. And I agree that if the site owners decide they want less controversy and debate and more people agreeing with each other, that is entirely their prerogative.
I kind of have a reverse Groucho Marx thing going on here. If DU ever bans me, it means that it has become so boringly uncontroversial that I wouldn't want to be a member anyway.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)and I'm glad that you're here so I can have someone to argue about it with.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)where basic standards of courtesy and civility are enforced. (I think the jury system is a work of genius, BTW. A capitalist business owner finds a way to employ an army of moderators for zero wages and nobody ever calls him out on it!) (by the way this last sentence was tongue in cheek)
defacto7
(14,158 posts)and it's a good thing. But it has nothing to do with dkf... or dfk or whatever the hell his user name was.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)and my posts don't get hidden. But hey, maybe I'm actually a liberal.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)It's the first rule of DU.
She went off her rocker after the fake IRS scandal!
Violet_Crumble
(36,371 posts)That's why they were nuked....
Renew Deal
(84,621 posts)People felt it was criticism from the right. Obama takes a lot of criticism that appears to be from the left and usually nothing happened.
uppityperson
(115,992 posts)"the banning of dkf was the mother of all admin overrides of the jury system".
No. Jurors hide individual posts. Admin bans members who have been members for a while. It has nothing to do with the jury system. I am surprised you continue to confuse the jury system with MIRT/Admin's revoking posting privileges.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)"One more thing: Don't push your luck.
The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service . If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck."
So I think it's fair to say that there is some connection.
Violet_Crumble
(36,371 posts)That would be the category dkf fell under, unless the mission of DU is to create a fostering and warm environment for RW trolls...
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)
OregonBlue
(8,149 posts)
BainsBane
(57,289 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)fanatics there, but that's about it.
LeftishBrit
(41,442 posts)And I think this is a misleading view of dkf. dkf did not just criticize drones (many here do), the NSA (many here do), or the ACA (some here do from the left, as they prefer single-payer). dkf has been promoting right-wing talking-points, especially on economic issues and public services, for a very long time.
I am against drones, the NSA spying, and though I think that the ACA may be the best that's available in the current American political situation if people aren't to wait yet another 60 years for some form of universal healthcare, I think that single-payer is much better, and am strongly against my own government's attempts to turn the NHS into something more like what would be provided by the ACA.
I am not going to hide my own views, and never did.
But if I were an economic right-winger who had a general suspicion of government spending on public services and welfare, then I would not even wish to be on a board like this one. And this was what was being suggested by many of dkf's posts and talking-points.
By the way, to avoid any misunderstandings on the part of people who may think that I might have been directly involved in the banning because I was on MIRT until recently: (a) my term ended before any of this happened, and (b) from what I hear, MIRT was not involved in the decision and it was made purely by Admins.
In any case, I think that dkf was quite exceptional in their tendency to accept and promote right-wing views; and I think it's unfair to equate this with a threat to everyone who criticizes current American government policy in any way.
Violet_Crumble
(36,371 posts)So I don't see why I should refrain from responding in this thread.
LeftishBrit
(41,442 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I don't care what positions she or he endorsed. If she was a flaming dittohead, that's fine, I am more than capable of defending my beliefs. I don't need constant validation and protection from alternative points of view and positions. All I expect is that the person I am debating be open to reason -- I don't even care if they are polite.
As for why this person was banned... I am apparently one of the few people here who doesn't even know who this DKF is. But I was here when the Meta witch hunts were going on earlier this year. I was new here then and I remember clearly watching the bullying and ganging up on people, and frankly I found it disgusting. If someone is being rude ban them, if you don't like what someone has to say and you can't counter it, get better arguments or reconsider your position. That's what liberals do -- we listen, we think, then we decide for ourselves.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I totally missed those posts.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I don't pay the slightest attention to the name behind any post. The only names I recognize are Redqueen (I think), ProSense, Manny, and Middle Finger Mom. Sorry, I'm just not into keeping track of what people post.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)It's frightening.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I've run into this myself.
The other thing that astonished me was how, after only being here a few DAYS (I had maybe fifty posts or so), and I already had fifteen or twenty "star" members ignoring me -- and had been banned from the Barrack Obama Group. It's like the minute they see someone new they click ignore. Pretty pathetic really, but then I am not interested in talking to someone that shallow minded in any case.
I still don't even know what the Barrack Obama Group is, or how one might join. Don't bother to explain, they are not interested in me anyway.
I came here during the Meta forum thing. I am not sure how long it had been going on, but it turns out it was just beginning to hit it's final climax at about the time I drifted in. In my opinion it was disgusting, and I was astonished to find anything like that here on a liberal website. Now I know better. I love this website, it's the first place I go for news, but there are some people here who use some twisted methods to try and control the dialog.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and use the Ignore feature to create a cozy little virtual world where everyone agrees with them. So anyone posting any reasonably assertive opinions on anything will see the number of people ignoring them climb up (actually, these days they won't, because the admins removed that feature, which is probably a good idea).
As for the Barack Obama Group, to remain part of that group you essentially have to agree with the president on every issue there is. I like and admire President Obama quite a bit but I have no interest in being part of a group that I know would expel me if I had the temerity to say (for example) that the fact that Guantanamo Bay is still open reflects poorly on the President.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)issues and my BOG membership isnt even the slightest bit in jeopardy.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)BootinUp
(50,756 posts)which is against that groups clearly stated policy. Will mysteries never cease?!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The other thing is dkf would periodically respond to a post in a fit of RW anger, revealing positions she didn't normally advance, like pro-gun views. I recall some other similar responses. I think that person was a long-time mole.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)It took so long to get rid of that one I feel like I can say almost anything and not get banned.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)appropriate to the occasion.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/yanis-varoufakis-the-dirty-war-for-europes-integrity-and-soul.html
Leonard Schapiro, writing on Stalinism, warns us that: “The true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade. But to produce a uniform pattern of public utterances in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
Lasher
(29,339 posts)Thanks for that.
ecstatic
(34,992 posts)opportunity, while smearing innocent victims who died as a result of gun violence, racism, police brutality or some mixture of the three.
Secondly, there's a difference between criticizing policies and unleashing personal/character (and right-wing) attacks on democrats. There are plenty of DU posters who make it their mission to criticize democrats at every turn, but they at least hold liberal positions when it comes to racism, gun control, and police brutality. Dkf loved to attack "from the left," but there was nothing remotely liberal about that poster.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)and there were various other things that DKF posted that were contrary to liberal views. So I won't change anything based on her tombstoning.
I must say she was kind to me recently during a personal near tragedy. Once she realized how something she said could be taken she changed her tune completely. I did appreciate that because I was feeling particularly vulnerable then. Still am, truth be told.
I've noticed a few of our longtime trolls came to care on a personal level, even though they did troll politically. It makes me feel better about them, and think better of them when they're gone.