NYT: The Right Baits Democrats to Help Take Down Hillary

[nolabear]

We are very useful to the Republicans. I understand the real issues that many have with Hillary, but there's a difference between reasoned discussion and letting the professional trolls discourage and manipulate Democrats into endless outrage and disenfranchisement.

Be careful when you read and repost and retweet. Don't spread things that come from paid disruptors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Aw Geez,you think.

We have been seeing post about our DUers uncovering trolls who are posting anti hit pieces both against HRC and Bernie. Shocking if one of the so called M$M actually did some real reporting and stop with the Steno Type of Reporting. Naw,cost to much and you might piss off some rich asshole.

[nolabear]

11. Just supporting what's long been understood.

Thought it might be interesting to see that there's wider awareness and mention of it.

[Wellstone ruled]

49. But,

the gullible numbers are way to high.

[AgingAmerican]

2. Strawman fallacy

Typical tactic when facts cannot be refuted.

This has already been beaten to death.

[stevenleser]

5. It's not a strawman. You can disagree that this explains what you and other DUers have been doing

but the article is factual.

[AgingAmerican]

6. It's a strawman

You just can't handle someone disagreeing with you. So you guys do this instead of dealing with facts.

Instead of arguing your support of the TPP, Mass spying, etc, you do this. It's a smear tactic.

It's an attempt to obfuscate.

[stevenleser]

7. Let's count the problems with your contention, because there are many

#1 - You are behaving as if the article is about you. I am sure the NY Times author did not write it with you or other DUers specifically in mind.

#2 - You clearly do not know what a straw man is. The article does not attempt to restate anyone else's argument in a different way.

#3 - The article was a factual account of an event that happened with links and sources. And you are responding with the equivalent of a playground response. Either provide sources and backup to whatever contention it is you are making or admit you made a mistake.

[AgingAmerican]

50. Another fallacy

Ad Hominem.

RIGHT wing and RIGHT leaning Dems are the ones lured by the RIGHT.

You are projecting, IMHO.

[stevenleser]

56. Not ad hominem at all. It's all directed at your statements

You don't seem to know what that logical fallacy means either

[AgingAmerican]

60. You! You!

You! You! You! You!

Fallacies and strawmen come into play when defending the indefensible.

[stevenleser]

62. Yep, because I am talking about statements made by you. I get that you don't understand the

difference between an ad-hominem statement and a statement attacking the points you raised, but there it is.

[AgingAmerican]

63. Now you are petty bickering

nt

[stevenleser]

65. If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means. Folks can read this thread and

decide for themselves. They can start with reading the OP and linked article, see the facts and links to backup and realize you alleged a strawman without any justification whatsoever.

[AgingAmerican]

66. The article is nonsense

Have a nice day

[stevenleser]

68. The article has links to things that actually occurred. It's firmly grounded in fact.

You don't like it so you call it nonsense, but all of it is factual and through the links it provides, easy to prove it so.

[AgingAmerican]

70. The premise of the article is nonsense

nt

[stevenleser]

76. That is automatically proved wrong by links to the actual tweets and other things that occurred.

With which the article is replete.

[AgingAmerican]

79. 'Links' and 'Tweets'

I could dredge up 'links and tweets' to back up any meme or premise I want to push. 'Links and tweets' are not facts. 'Tweets' are the opinions of individuals. They means nothing in the larger context.

[stevenleser]

80. The article is partially about Tweets, so yes, a link to the Tweets in question is pretty important.

Did you actually read the article?

I'm getting the definite feeling you didnt and have been arguing about something you never read.

[AgingAmerican]

82. More ad hominem

Good day.

[stevenleser]

86. More suggestions of logical fallacies when you don't understand what those fallacies mean. nt

[Sheepshank]

71. Someone is protesting w-a-y too much, using playground rules and name calling

gee...wonder why?

[AgingAmerican]

73. Why don't you take a stab at it

nt

[stevenleser]

75. Yep, I have no idea. It's silly. The article is exquisitely sourced. Claiming it is nonsense is just

silly. As I said to the other poster in the beginning of this thread, if they want to say this doesn't explain their opinions, thats fine. I don't think the Times author ever said it did. They are alerting us to one particular, non-DU instance of it happening.

[AgingAmerican]

77. This is the sort of thing

Folks have to push when they cannot defend their candidate on the facts. They personally attack the supporters of the other candidate. We have seen this fallacy before, and we will see it again.

Good luck with it.

[nolabear]

13. First, I Am not "you guys" and we've never met. But it's no Straw Man.

It's a factual report about actual RW sites like America Rising making psychological warfare against Hillary Clinton supporters and using Democrats to do it.

You might not like it, but it's happening. I'm not surprised and it's not new. The news might be that the NYT is giving the idea a bit wider distribution.

[hrmjustin]

32. Who are "you guys"?

[AgingAmerican]

67. A small cadre of Hillary supporters

...who cannot defend their candidate on certain key issues. So they latch onto fallacies like this one.

[stevenleser]

69. Don't worry about his response to you. He refuses to acknowledge the sourced facts in the article.

And when I say "sourced" I mean the article has links with 100% backup.

[AgingAmerican]

72. The article is nonsense

...and particularly absurd when it is being pushed by RIGHT WING Democrats. I would call it projection.

[hrmjustin]

74. Sorry but the article is not junk.

There are rwers trying to troll DU.

[stevenleser]

81. OMG, look at posts 79 and 80 above. He never read it.

He is arguing about something he never read.

[AgingAmerican]

85. More ad hominem

nt

[stevenleser]

87. Again, you don't understand what the ad-hominem fallacy means. nt

[hrmjustin]

88. Have you ever served on mirt or as a moderator here?

I can tell you we regularly have rwers sign up and pretend to be liberal for a time and then cause issues.

This is nothing new on DU or twitter.

They will attack Hillary and Sanders and try everything to make it impossible for us to unite around our nominee.

[AgingAmerican]

90. I could care less what RW trolls do

Using the fact trolls exist to attack supporters of Sanders is....fallacious.

[hrmjustin]

91. Ok but some of us do care and we are making that known.

[AgingAmerican]

92. Using them to attack Sanders supporters is fallacious

nt

[hrmjustin]

93. I am not using it to attack Sanders supporters.

[AgingAmerican]

94. The person you jumped in to defend is

And that's exactly what this whole thing is about.

[hrmjustin]

95. This is about wRning social media thatvthere sre trolls about.

[stevenleser]

98. No, I'm not, and neither is the OP. nt

[AgingAmerican]

89. It means responding to someone by going after them personally

I studied logic in college. It ain't rocket science.

[stevenleser]

99. It means attacking the person instead of that person's statements. I attacked your statements. nt

[randys1]

83. I think the total they are spending is over Two Billion between all RW candidates

to make sure Hillary or Bernie are not president. To anyone with even a tiny brain, this means THEY see a HUGE difference between the two parties.

They are doing this because the "WHOLE SHOOTIN MATCH" is up for grabs.

If they can take the WH and have control of the house and senate, you will literally not recognize this country in less than a year.

Women dying in back alleys, minorities being told they are not welcome in certain stores and not able to vote, Gay folks being fired left and right and thrown out of housing.

No, what we are looking at is a complete meltdown on purpose, if they steal the election.

I say steal because even with the "I wont vote for Hillary no matter what" folks, they cant win without stealing.

and, FWIW

I believe BERNIE CAN WIN, and I didnt believe that a month ago.

[hrmjustin]

31. It is just a story from the times.

No one is saying that not supporting Hillary makes you a gop troll.

[kenfrequed]

3. Uhm...

I am bothered by the intention of this. Some of us support another candidate for president. Precisely which posts should we avoid posting?

I intend to post positive posts about Bernie Sanders quite a lot since he is the candidate I support; should I be suspicious? How concerned should I be about this sort of thing?

Seriously, this is a ridiculous

[MaggieD]

9. It's not supporting other candidates that is the problem....

It's the mindless repeating of right wing talking points in endless screeds about HRC that is the problem. And you cannot claim it isn't happening here 24/7. It clearly is.

[kenfrequed]

12. OK.

The right wing talking points on Hillary are as follows: Benghazi (which is conspiracy theory BS), the stupid phone-email thing (that I really, really could care less about), and maybe some rehash from twenty years ago.



Issues that are not right wing talking points:
Free trade and the TPP
Campaign donations from large corporations and banks
Economic issues that Sanders brings up that go unchallenged.

----

Or you could just claim some kind of carte blanche where all issues or policies inconvenient to your candidate are "secret right wing agitation."

[nolabear]

15. Never claimed.

[kenfrequed]

21. Nor were these "right wing talking points" clarified

Which is why I was trying to get a specific list of what talking points we should avoid. I listed three on the top of my email that I am not interested in and are clearly right wing bullshit.

I never repost anything from Fox News (unless it is to bash their terrible reporting) but if they happen to post a story on Sanders that happens to have been on other media sources (that I sourced) am I then engaging in helping the right wing?

You see why reposting this story here is more than a bit problematic?

Maybe we should all stick to posting on issues?

[MaggieD]

22. If they are planted by the right....

They are right wing talking points. IMO.

[kenfrequed]

24. so...

How do I, as a Sanders supporter, distinguish this?

I know what a right wing talking point is.

I don't know what a right wing planted, left wing talking point is and I doubt it would be easy to tell the difference. Could we just ignore weird articles like this and talk about policy?

[MaggieD]

25. The article in the OP details them

First, look at the source. As I pointed out in my thread about the Gish Gallop some anti-HRC'ers engage in, many of their screeds originate with right wing BS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026643800

[kenfrequed]

28. Yes, some of those articles were problematic

I am not going to dissect all of them as this seems like a game to you.

The article you cite is about something referred to as Gish-galloping by it's author. It does NOT distinguish which of those articles actually were penned by right wingers or left wingers. By posting it are you suggesting that asking any questions that either refer to those articles or address issues that those articles address is somehow the work of a nefarious right wing effort?

Again, I ask how do I distinguish what is right wing ?

I am sorry, but you have not clearly substantiated your argument. You don't seem to care about the source or the policy as much as you care about having the ability to label it as somehow (paradoxically) coming from the right wing.

[MaggieD]

29. So you didn't read it

Shall I cut and paste it for you? Or maybe you could just read it. There are many links from the HRC basher in question that I point out came from right wingers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026643800

[kenfrequed]

35. Right... a few things.

1) This is not our first discussion and you refused to concede even a tiny point in an argument you really weren't winning. Instead you just reposted the same statements again and again without answering any questions or interfacing with any counter points.

2) I actually did skim some of the salient points of this article about "Gish-Galloping." I did not go through all of it and really didn't bother to read and follow every bloody coment on a thread that posted well over a dozen articles. Ironically enough, your attempting to use this article in this discussion IS Gish Galloping (only with less context). That list had very little to do with the NYT article and was more about a style of argumentation.

3) The ORIGINAL article that was cited in the NYT talked about tweets that linked a few memes and ads that were shared. I assure you they are a relative teacup in a tsunami and largely unimportant. Those of us on the left already have a few choice candidates that we support and I don't really think firing up the left is going to be so impressive a tactic for the republicans and their two dozen candidates.

4) Again, at what point should we on the left hold back our critiques? What would you have us do?


I don't actually you to answer any of my previous questions prior to this post. If I were to make a prediction you will probably just repost the DU post on "Gish Galloping" and pretend somehow that it answers everything.

[MaggieD]

36. You should have read it....

There are tons of links by the anti-HRCer that originated as right wing talking points.

The article in the OP is spot on, and DU is proof.

[kenfrequed]

38. Really?

Many of those things on that list were rooted in PROGRESSIVE critiques of Clinton.

But according to you they were all based on on right wing talking points.



I don't even know what to say to that. It is just absurd. Does the left wing or do progressives even exist to you? Or is our very existence part of a grand right wing joke? I don't understand your method for analysis or argumentation at all.

And you seem to be implying that DU is proof of what? Everyone here being an unwitting dupe of the right wing?

I am stunned by your statements and not in a good way.

[MaggieD]

42. No they aren't

Again, the article in the OP IS SPOT ON. IMO.

[kenfrequed]

44. And...

We are back to the brick wall approach to discussion.

Never mind.

[Phlem]

51. you won't get anywhere with that one.

You might as well be talking to a rock. I've seen her rebuttals in threads and it just goes round and round. You know, like talking to a Republican.

[840high]

58. I've noticed that.

[Capt. Obvious]

37. The irony of that thread is amusing.

[kenfrequed]

39. In what way?

I find it mostly annoying, unsubstantiated, and disconnected. Amusing is not a word I would attach and any irony is conditional.

[Capt. Obvious]

40. The OP using a Gish Gallop

It's fucking hilarious in its irony.

[kenfrequed]

41. True.

Ironic but more frustrating than funny for my money at the moment. But since I have been accused of having a defective sense of humor, it probably actually is pretty amusing.

[MaggieD]

43. Actually I'm RESPONDING

To a gish gallop. Which I am quite sure the gish galloper did not expect.

I've noticed he has trimmed his wall of blue links substantially. I call that a win.

[kenfrequed]

45. So...

I am the Gish Galloper here?

This is getting absurd.

I will be honest, I am going to support whoever gets the Democratic nomination, but you are actually making people less interested in supporting Hillary with your method of argumentation, MaggieD. You don't seem to add much to the discussion and the only conclusion I can reach is that you are following a thousand threads and only reposting on each of them long enough to repeat the same arguments without any consideration.

Seriously, stop and think about what you are doing, what you are communicating, and how you are communicating. If you were supporting my candidate's side I would tell you to "Get off my side!" If Hillary wins the nomination, then I reserve the right to tell you that then!

[MaggieD]

47. No, I am talking about the link in my previous post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026643800

[Capt. Obvious]

46. That makes sense

You're a pro.

[kenfrequed]

48. Actually, it doesn't

The OP was about a bunch of tweets sent out by Karl Rove and another right wing outlet. The Gallup Gish Dish was an attempt to broadside any possible critique of Hillary with a long meta-laundry list about laundry lists.

They are not really related.

My original question was about differentiation of legitimate critiques or support for other candidates based on looking at Bernie's record and positions and how to differentiate between this and right wing slime. It which time it was Gallup-gish.


Any critiques of this argument were met with an "are-too" sort of thing with accusations of not heaving read it or not having read all of the comment threads under it.

I don't know but when I comment on something I can frequently manage a few paragraphs to explain or elaborate on my positions. If your definition of a 'pro' is someone that can't be bothered to explain their positions then I am eternally glad of my amateur status.

[stevenleser]

14. The kneejerk responses to this are bizarre. It shows the futility of attempting to have

a reasonable conversation with some folks about this primary.

There is no argument about the article in question. The person has impeccably sourced it with links.

[nolabear]

18. Thanks. The defensiveness and extrapolation are disheartening.

I should get over being shocked when people get angry about things they're already angry about and project them onto simple reporting, but I guess we'd like to think people are more interested in pulling together even when we disagree on candidates. This is, I fear, exactly what the RW knows and exploits.

[nolabear]

10. No, the intention is to advocate being careful whose stuff we follow and repost.

I have NOTHING against honest examination of Hillary's issues nor anyone's loyalty to anyone else. I do believe we should be cautious about disinformation.

[closeupready]

4. Establishment, overpaid media outlets complaining that liberals

are not prepared to accept Hillary as the Democratic nominee.

In other news, scientists today discovered that water is wet.

[MaggieD]

8. Like I've been saying

I guess I'm just a political genius to figure that out before the NYT. LOL!

Not that this will stop so called liberals from spreading right wing talking points. But at least someone else noticed that the right is using the left to defeat our own front runner.

Hey DUers that do this..... how does it feel to learn you are a tool for the right wing to win the presidency in 2016?

[Historic NY]

30. +1

[MohRokTah]

16. The bait lands all over DU. eom

[Cerridwen]

17. It's nice the NYT finally decides to write about r/w astroturfing.

We've discussed it off and on on DU since at least 2004 (when I joined). Prior to that I'm not sure. I haven't delved that far into the archives.

Perhaps they can "pound the drums" on this issue as they did for the war in iraq?

It would be nice.

A constant drumming with the evidence that the r/w has been dishonestly using phone-banking, letter writing campaigns, selectively edited videos, and their other tactics over the past decades attacking, lying about, and twisting left wing politics and messages would be a nice change for our media.

I won't hold my breath, however.

[nolabear]

19. I know. Inch by inch, I suppose.

My optimistic little hope is that people who don't realize it will think a little before they fall prey to knee jerk posts and just look into them a little before they spread them.

[SidDithers]

20. The Right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary...

and they don't mind using each other to attack her.

Sid

[MaggieD]

23. Exactly (nt)

[uponit7771]

27. +1

[Trajan]

55. I am fringe left?

When did that start?

What if I don't hate Hillary, but instead prefer another candidate? ... Am I still giving aid and comfort to the Republicans? ...

Sorry Sid, but that is just fucking ridiculous ... it's a conclusion based on a desire to stifle othersto selfishly support your own preference ... You hang a "I LOVE REPUBLICANS" signs around our collective necks, and, this is ok with you?

Hmmmm ... is not ok with me ...

[Bluenorthwest]

97. Supporting a candidate is very different from denigrating their rival, in my area negative attacks

just don't help, no traction is gained and voters are repelled. So around here we know what support looks like because when it veers into negative campaigning the voters very clearly inform you they are not interested in hearing that stuff. That's one of the reasons Bernie is popular here and part of why he will do well here.
And of course that which is done by the right to a Democrat is also done to others and that means that which is done to Hillary is also done to Bernie and will be done more as his popularity rises. There are people on DU who for years have ranted against Bernie, in favor of trade agreements, one frequently claims Bernie engages in 'spittle laced diatribes' and that sort of thing. It's the same tactic used against Hillary being used against Bernie.
When I dislike a tactic, I dislike it without regard to my feelings about the targets. My ethics on this are not situational.

[uponit7771]

26. Most the anti Hillary on left base forums are FUD, winger-ish memes with winger-ish retorts

[MisterP]

33. with McConnell praising Obama as the lone crusader on the TPP and Dem Senators working

to cut Medicare to fund TPP provisions this repeatedly-posted story is starting to sound not only like easily-ignored white noise ("you're a GOP puppet! boola boola boola!&quot but an act of sweaty, reeking desperation as the national party's fecklessness threatens to have consequences bigger than 2014 did: "we offer you nothing and will blame the voters if we lose" isn't a winning tactic, I'm afraid, and no amount of finger-wagging will help that

on edit: I might add that these two incidents were on the same DU page as this OP: the OP is debunked just by hitting the "back" button on the browser and seeing what else was posted a few minutes apart! the "sit down and shut up" propaganda has become self-debunking, self-unzipping, self-unpacking

it's just getting sad by this point, throwing the blame at all and sundry, knocking over every rock in one's backyard because a pseudo-lefty GOP operative might be under it, while the party's house goes up in billowing flame in the background

[hrmjustin]

34. lol the responses are predictable but if you said that there were

trolls trying to bring down Sanders it would be believed by the same people dismissing this.

[Trajan]

52. Isn't this thread also a response to those efforts?

SO - as you work as hard as you can to defend Hillary against those awful republicans, you felt that shutting down all other Democratic Party contenders is the only answer to this despicable ploy?

I see ... Yes ... it is the only way ...

[Phlem]

54. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[nolabear]

59. What the hell are you talking about?

I haven't advocated shutting down anybody or anything. It was a mainstream acknowledgment of something people on DU have discussed since there WAS a DU. Hillary, Bernie, Elizabeth, anyone is likely to be trolled.

Or was that a double backward sarcasm thingie?

[LWolf]

53. I'll cut and paste my response

from the thread yesterday about this article:

I am well to the left of HRC. And yet, I haven't read a single post on social media about her...because I don't use social media for those purposes. I haven't heard a single thing from "the right," because the only time I listen to "the right" is when my custodian at work gets going, and he's easy to deflate.

It's amazing how they've "baited" me.

I'm sure if it weren't for their "baiting," I'd be thrilled with her.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6683989

[nolabear]

57. Great. Not you then. Thanks.

It's amazing how much venom this post engendered when it wasn't anti anyone and wasn't a statement of preference.

[stevenleser]

61. It's fascinating how many DUers thought this NY Times article was about them.

There is a narcissistic defensiveness here that I can only guess means that folks responding defensively to your OP know deep down that their criticism of Hillary is over the top.

It's like an exposed dental nerve that gets hit anytime someone suggests that even a distant, non-DU related criticism of Hillary is illegitimate.

[nolabear]

96. And it creates a kind of blindness and vulnerability.

Honestly, it's the exact same thing my police officer relatives say when someone suggests that it's important to look at all sides and gather all information. It's viewed as an attack and the defenses immediately go up, making them less and not more likely to entertain important notions.

[Exilednight]

64. Hillary does a fine job on her own creating disenfranchisement. n/t

[hughee99]

78. So if someone on the right points out a

Legitimate reason why someone on the left might not want to vote for Clinton, we should just dismiss the entire argument based on the source? I can't really say who all those right wing sources are shilling for, but I know who the author of THIS piece is shilling for.

[Gothmog]

84. The GOP is really worried about Hillary Clinton

[Sheepshank]

100. totally lol'ing at the numerous arguments on this thread against the op article

pissed at the article and want to keep on promoting RW talking points......and fighting to do so.

No one is saying that there aren't issues with HRC...but seriously, do it on real issues and stop regurgitating RW talking points, giving them any semblance of power over LW discussions.

[tridim]

101. Meanwhile, President Obama has two years left.

Wondering if any Democrats care at all.

The majority of DU is already baited and talking about the exact wrong stuff, 24/7. It is all about anti-Democrat, not anti-Hillary. DU is completely lost.