A call to holders of traditional Democratic ideals.

[FredStembottom]

Folks, I feel as we enter election year, that a conscious effort must now be undertaken to continue to speak freely on Democratic Underground.

I know that sounds odd, but what I mean by it is that there seems to already be a huge uptick in the volume of postings by The Haranguers.
You know these folks well. They seem to have all day and night (doesn't matter when a OP was written) to flood every thread on DU with hatred for some kind of "purist Lefty" when the poor little OP'er has merely expressed their sadness that they sink further each day into poverty and degradation. Or expressed some amount of disappointment that a Democratic president and congress leave their grave concerns unaddressed. Or have a public moment of despair and make the mistake of saying "none of the above candidates".

I say "poor, little" OP'ers because I am also noticing an uptick in Good DU friends who tell me that they have bowed out of DU for the most part because of the asymmetric battle that is waged on them for every utterance.

And we all know the techniques used, too. Egregious mis-statement of the OP. The black and whiteness of the responses that spam the thread. False equivalency worthy of a 5th grader. The ROFL smiley.

We are left wondering: why come here just to hate everyone who comes here? We will never know the real answer to that. The Haranguers all claim to be in service to the Greater Democratic Good - but their hissing, mocking hatred of expressions of traditional Democratic values is what distinguishes them.

What I am asking, is that all Du'ers - especially the meeker, clearer-thinking, gray area dwellers continue to talk to each other right through the hatred. This will be hard. But is doable, I think.

Simply, we need to become what I might call Every 5th Line Readers. We need to be there for the smaller, quieter DU'ers who dare to post into this harsh climate. We need to hop-scotch our way right over the inevitable first Haranguer salvo and subsequent 3 me-too's. We all know the inevitable screen-names. Let's just jump right over those and any new names that offer nothing but extreme distortion of the original OP followed by absolutist straw men and finally a personal despargement of the OP'er (and a ROFL smiley, of course).

I miss so many of you here at DU!
Come back.
We can talk to each other right around the (possibly organized) harassment aimed at us by being "Every 5th Line Readers".

Hope to see you soon!

[rhett o rick]

1. I too have seen good friends leave, no longer willing to put up with the

incessant attacks. I think this is unfortunate. Some here seem determined to stifle debate. It's a shame that Democrats would do that to people in their own party. It's a shame to have to use the alert system and ignore function.

[FredStembottom]

2. I hope we can work around all this.

It's going to get worse.

[ThomThom]

54. they come here because they know we are smart, well informed

and have influence
they are already failing just by showing up

[FredStembottom]

3. Quick supportive responses count.

I should mention that many at DU are probably like me, away from computers and DU for long stretches.
(I work outdoors physically moving things for a living.)

So, if anyone sees any DU'er suffering a pile-on for daring to speak, please respond when you can get back to a 'puter.

Just a supportive sentence will often do.

[rhett o rick]

8. Agree, do not strike back. Use alert and ignore. nm

[ClassWarrior]

80. They're not Democrats.

NGU.

[rhett o rick]

83. By what criteria do they fail to be Democrats? nm

[ClassWarrior]

84. By the criterion that they would...

...stifle the debate of people - supposedly - in their own party.

NGU.

[rhett o rick]

93. Yes of course. I got confused as to what you were responding to. My error.

I of course agree.

[Octafish]

4. Well stated, FredStembottom.

DUers I hold dear respect one another, even when they disagree. As evinced by DU3, their number is dwindling.

The piling-on technique for squelching dissent is a form of bullying, itself a very rightwing thing.

[FredStembottom]

5. "Bullying" is not an over-statement.

Just the extreme spamming of threads qualifies it as that.

[rhett o rick]

6. Bullying tactics are used to stifle debate. Tell someone their post is stupid or idiotic

is not needed for decent debate. Place them on ignore and dont respond to them.

[Octafish]

7. Demostrates the power of organization.

One independent person doesn't stand a chance.

FWIW: I became familiar with the technique when bringing up George HW Bush's connections to the assassination of President Kennedy on DU1 and DU2. When I first posted the two FBI memos, DUers posted their surprise at discovering such documents. As the years passed, DUers expressing surprise became outnumbered by the same few posters coming out to defend "not Poppy, but to shoot down the CT nonsense."

The thing is: There was no theory. There were FBI memos. But that became lost in the thread, which then would get moved to the September 11 forum.

[snot]

36. +1! (&, I wonder if they've become more visible bec. they've lost the unrec button--

so they've had to actually reply.

[Athame]

57. Chiming in after many years of silence

Dear Octafish, I have been with DU almost from the beginning, but I stopped posting after the rancor of the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. I want to say to you that I have continued to read and learn much from your posts and I am so grateful for the work you do here and for your stamina in withstanding these attacks. I also believe they are often organized. Ridicule is highly effective in silencing questions and dissent. I just get tired of it. And I don't have time to counter it or hunt down the links to support my position (though the links and evidence for positions does not seem to hamper the dishonest posters who are only interested in shutting up the inconvenient arguments of posters such as yourself.) I just want to thank you and let you and others like you know that there are many out here watching and appreciating your willingness to keep at it. I also agree entirely with the Op, but I wanted to reply to YOU on my first post back.

[FredStembottom]

63. Welcome back, Athame!

This is what I am hoping for. To see people who left DU return.

[Athame]

70. And what I have been hoping for

was to see someone articulate, as you did, the serious issue with attack posts. Sometimes they seem simply annoying, sometimes brutal, but they always have the effect of burdening or stopping real discussion, especially on deep and important issues. Thank you for the thread.

[FredStembottom]

73. You're quite welcome.

This will come up again and again this year - but let's all talk despite it.

[Donnachaidh]

38. it seems some egos have gone into hyperdrive now that the unrec feature has gone

And the piling on seems to go hand in hand with unfettered egos. Personally, a year out from the election with this sort of nonsense makes many of the DUers I know look elsewhere for good discussion.

Why bother when the pack is poised to shout any dissent down?

[WolverineDG]

66. My suggestion--alert on the post that starts a pile on

And explain why you are alerting on it. I'm voting to hide those until the jury gets the option to kill sun threads & put all the miscreants in time out.

[JackRiddler]

9. Thank you for taking a lead on this. Well said.

[quinnox]

10. The swarm has been fairly prevalent lately

By swarm, I mean a certain group who seem to "swarm" threads in an attempt to either sway the discussion or shut down dissenters. I say, to hell with them, and go ahead and post anyway. lol, I don't care. Never bothered me before, won't ever bother me, to be honest.

Take these folks on, people. Don't be scared to post your thoughts, I agree with the OP. There are still many good liberals and progressives here, and they will back you up.

[FredStembottom]

12. That's the spirit!

I wrote what I did in response to an old DU friend saying that the swarm works and they just lie low now.

I see too many similar comments these days.

[Union Scribe]

17. They have Greenwald Derangement Sydrome today

I guess that's what it's called, in their parlance. It seems to manifest as copying and pasting huge sums of words and howling at the moon.

[quinnox]

18. lol

Nice way of putting it. Not just today though, but every day. And Greenwald is just one of many that upset them, anyone who doesn't bow down and sing glorified praises of Obama seems to drive them loopy.

[snot]

35. +1!

[snot]

34. +1!

[PA Democrat]

59. LOL. What's with that?

Greenwald seem to be #1 on the enemies list lately. I guess I don't understand why some feel so threatened by the guy that they will make things up to persecute him. Who knew Greenwald was so powerful?

[TheKentuckian]

24. I think they want a bunch of alerts and hiding while hoping on nulification to slide by on the

blowback in hopes of gaining a systemic upperhand on juries were they can then silence dissent.
Getting folks to just give out of boredom or frustration is a bonus.

[JackRiddler]

52. Um, I agree with you, but forgive me for adding...

the jargon around here is getting kind of thick!

[Lionessa]

11. Yep, lots have gone. Fed up with it. Who can blame them? Perhap

it is simply time to start a new "underground" since tPtB have taken this one and installed their minions.

[getdown]

13. will you

marry me?

[FredStembottom]

14. Ha!

Sorry, enjoying 20+ years of another marriage.

[getdown]

16. shucks

[FailureToCommunicate]

44. It was worth a shot. And welcome to DU.

I admire your moxie.

[getdown]

45. TY

hey if you see a candidate, grab him ...

Happy 2012.

[FailureToCommunicate]

46. Weird. The time stamp on my reply says I passed New Years by 3 hours... I 'd better start drinking

It's only 10 o'clock here in Bean Town: Time to head back out to another GREAT First Night celebration!

Happy New Year to all... no matter what time it really is!

[getdown]

64. time warp?

Happy New Year! May all your FailuresToCommunicate benefit all

[Morning Dew]

15. Good OP. Thanks! n/t

[Tobin S.]

19. I'm with you, hoss.

I'm not a regular contributor in this forum, but I do read here sometimes, and I've noticed an attempt to squelch debate by those who have a more favorable opinion of Obama. Legitimate criticism of Obama should be taken seriously and debated as such.

My personal stance is that he is not a perfect president. He seems to be making deals with the other side in the interest in getting things done and getting what he wants. I think that if Obama had free reign then almost everyone here would be happy. But that's not the way things work. The question is, how much do you sacrifice to get something in return?

[FredStembottom]

20. Excellent reply, T

I'm quite a strong critic of O - going all the way back to the primaries.

But I have an asterisk of my own by my name: I also believe he should be re-elected.

I am bitterly disappointed by what the D party has become during my adulthood. We are where we are not because of conservatives but because of Clinton-esque tri-angulation with it. Obama continues that waaaaay too much for me.

But... I also believe the only chance out of this dilemma is to reform The D party from within - hard as that is. And, meantime, you vote a complete slate of Dems in everytime - if only as a placeholder for better D's in the future.

Besides! The "disloyal" "purist" "fantasy" complaints are working. We are getting through... a little now.

Now we save D seats while pressuring even harder for the return of real Democrats.

And for my side of it: I'm really impressed with how the Republican tax-cut melt-down was so well handled by our D's in D.C.!

That kind of D behavior is all I am asking for.

[johnaries]

40. I agree - excellent reply, T! And I am a strong supporter of O. BUT

I still have some disagreements with some of his policies and decisions. However, I don't feel that I can adequately discuss those problems and disagreements here BECAUSE of the anti-Obama posts.

So many of the posts I speak of twist the facts and are so full of "spin" that I find it difficult to have a serious discussion. They reek of Rovian techniques - as if some Leftists learned the wrong lesson. Rather than expose these twisted facts to the light of day they adopted the techniques, instead.

Politics are never black and white. I think Obama has made some critical mistakes, but overall I support him. There are many D's that I think are DINOs, but that's part of what I like about the DEM Party. While the REP's walk in lock-step, the DEMs are encouraged to think for themselves. But, still, I would like to see more DEMs work for actual Progress.

And I agree that we MUST "save D seats while pressuring even harder for the return of real Democrats".

So, even though you are an "O critic" and I am an "O cheerleader', I think we agree a whole lot more than we disagree. And I look forward to working with you in the future.

*insert terrorist fist-bump here*

[FredStembottom]

67. Well, there ya go!

That's just it. I share some "cheer-leader" bullet points but I also think that The Dem party is so corrupted that considering starting 3rd parties or primarying Obama are quite valid ideas.

I just don't think those would work whereas an insurgency (and/or generational shift) within the party is possible.

I want the harsh criticism to remain at DU. The party deserves every bit of it. (and it seems to be working).

I want people in the streets this summer protesting the corruption, the violations of the Constitution, the de-regulation.

But.... save a place in the whitehouse and in congress for these protests to resonate. Modern day Republicans will just shoot you.

How anyone can think that harassment and bullying will get people to agree with them, become enthusiastic or look for points of agreement and then work together...... is one of the greatest cosmic mysteries I have ever encountered.

[nashville_brook]

39. +1

[bvar22]

21. I'll stand with you,

...and validate your well described concerns.

Admittedly, the hostile environment here has motivated me to search for venues where ISSUES and POLICY can be discussed without the constant, childish, churlish, personal attacks and thread swarming techniques.

I spend much less time here,
and care less,
but thats OK.
I have much better things to do.
Local Humanitarian Concerns and Sustainable Rural Living are more rewarding.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[FredStembottom]

22. Great to see you, though!

Just toss in every once in awhile if you see someone getting swarmed.

Thx

[SusanaMontana41]

50. Yup. I don't spend much time here anymore, either. Reality has more appeal, and that's not good. nt

[OKNancy]

23. That's funny because I find just the opposite

I know many who stayed away, myself included because from 2001 to 2008 DU was a place where there were "attacks" on Republicans and not on fellow Democrats.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pragmatic politics and people who happen to want to defend their point of view.
I certainly haven't seen harassment. In fact I think the harassment comes from those to whom your post is aimed.

[Robb]

25. It's just because you don't hold "real Democratic values."

Observe the parroting upthread. But no, they are the victims.

[Tobin S.]

26. Do you think that Obama is perfect?

Do you have no gripe with him at all?

[Robb]

27. I am on record at DU with my gripes with this administration. That is inconvenient to the narrative

espoused on this thread and elsewhere, that everyone who agrees with one policy just agrees with every policy, and can be discounted as a fanboy or some such.

Can I now call you a senseless hater? It makes as much sense and elevates the discussion by the same amount.

[Tobin S.]

28. It was an honest question

So what's the problem here? You have some gripes. Other people have different gripes. Almost everyone here is going to vote for Obama regardless.

[Robb]

29. Indeed.

[FredStembottom]

31. You must do the following to include yourself in what I am denouncing.

1) Radically mis-state an OP
2) Then pound that mis-statement with absolute 180 degree opposites to the mis-stated facts
3) Conclude the OP'er is a purist, out of touch pony-wanter based on all this stuff that wasn't in the OP.

and, most importantly:

4) Fill hundreds of threads at all hours of the day and night with hounding replies year after year - cumulating in the opinion that DU is a really, really stupid place full of really, really stupid people.

That's not you.

[nobodyspecial]

56. Reminds me of the game the GOP ran on the media

Constantly act as if there is some sort of bias against them to make their voice even louder. Remember all the garment-rending over how DU3 was an evil plot to force them out? Really doesn't seem the case here, does it?

I love how they are openly planning their strategy on how to deal with it here on this thread.

First clue that you are NOT the victim or under attack is that the very venue you accuse of "silencing" you is allowing you to plan how you will overcome that supposed threat on their own forum.

[FredStembottom]

69. See post 31

It's a clear description of what is being discussed here.

[FredStembottom]

30. Up thread I spelled out my pragmatic politics...

...(vote Dem, even just as a placeholder - work on reform continuously)

The harassment I describe is quite real. And if it is, in any way, being done in support of the pragmatic politics I mentioned, then I renounce the support.

[Autumn]

41. So were you upset that there were "attacks" on Republicans and not on fellow Democrats?

I'm not sure, and it isn't clear in your post.

"I know many who stayed away, myself included because from 2001 to 2008 DU was a place where there were "attacks" on Republicans and not on fellow Democrats." a typo?

[Scuba]

32. Since we keep having threads on this topic, I'll keep posting this...

Dissenting is honorable in an honest debate. If you disagree, attack the arguments.

I noticed a significant change in DU over the last year or so. Two years ago, most any criticism of the President got a thread locked. That was not true six months ago.

In my opinion, DU is healthier, and a better tool for leftists/progressives/liberals/Democrats than it was two years ago because of the increased tolerance for dissenting opinions.

Trying to smear those who hold dissenting opinions is not healthy.

I worked for BHO's election in 2008 and have been working for his re-election ever since. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't be critical of his actions when they run counter to what I think is best for Americans. This concept is called "constructive criticism". You've probably heard of it. I can categorically state that it is NOT a call to vote Republican, or to stay home.

I suspect many DU'ers, like me, have been critical of right-wingers for blind obedience to their party. I strongly feel that blind obedience is not healthy for our side either.

So pick your spots. If you're talking with your "undecided" cousin, emphasize good things that the President has accomplished. There are many from which to choose.

If you're here on DU, or otherwise working with leftists/progressives/liberals/Democrats, then be constructively critical.

[derby378]

33. I have to deal with whiners on DU all the time

Let them hurl their catty little remarks and then snicker about how gosh-darned clever they are. I'm here, and I'll outlast them all.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

79. That's the spirit!

And those who think they are winning arguments by using "ROFL" ad nauseam are not to be taken seriously. They're hilarious in their perceived self-importance, and I find I'm checking in pretty much for the sheer entertainment value they provide (which is sad, in a way, since I once considered this a board for serious discussion). Greenwald's "simple-minded" charge was a delightful way to ring in 2012, and in spite of their Greenwald/Paul blitz, THAT is what will be remembered. Not sure if that's how DU wants to be known, but hey, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Or so I've heard.

[toddaa]

37. I just want to know what id Glenn Greenwald is using on DU

From the vitriol he's garnered, you'd think he was a member.

[JackRiddler]

51. I am Glenn Greenwald.

Well, only in the sense that, in the face of what the Romans were doing, Tony Curtis was Spartacus.

I should watch out, because someone will put that in their sig line with an attribution to me, as their "proof" that I'm a hero-worshipper of the day's anti-Christ.

[L0oniX]

42. Good luck with the speaking freely ...and the truth.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. On top of it all, The Haranguers are just dull.

Name calling and characterization are shoddy replacements for reasoned argument.

[Sherman A1]

47. Precisely

We are all entitled to our opinions and to agree or disagree with a post, however it can very well be done in a civil & harmonious means. I would hope that we all can help to raise the level of debate & not allow it to devolve into a "who can tinkle the farthest contest."

Well Stated Sir!

[mmonk]

48. This will be the mark here in 2012.

I expect it to be rough and a lot of jury duty.

[FredStembottom]

62. LOL!

...but true.
I'm getting a lot of jury duty already.

[mmonk]

72. Me too.

It's the source of most of my DU messages in my inbox too (jury duty results).

[Ichingcarpenter]

49. kick,, nom n/t

[MoonRiver]

53. There are a lot of names I never see anymore.

Some I used to fight with during the 2008 primary. Odd that I'm still here and they have gone bye-bye. Maybe its because I am much less invested in this election than I was in the last 3 ones. I also learned the price of speaking one's mind during a heated election. Just don't care to go through that again.

It would be nice if we could be civil and tolerate each other's ideas. I just don't see it happening here. Great concept for the New Year though!

K&R

[Gman]

55. Message boards are not for the faint of heart or thin-skinned

Besides, purists are annoying by nature because everything has to be black and white and nothing is good enough. And there's plenty of purists here who are as aggressive as anyone.

[FredStembottom]

74. Why not?

Just because some are jerky to others doesn't mean it's God's plan for message boards to be that way.

And in my world, your "purists" look more like suffering people who need help yesterday.

[Gman]

75. Why, I thought it was God's plan

How did I get it so wrong?

[Better Believe It]

58. And it appears to me that the "haters" are using the "jury" system to censor views they don't like.

With hidden threads and posts and disciplinary action against DU'ers who post things they don't agree with.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

60. Some even brag about the excessive # of posts they've alerted on.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[Better Believe It]

61. This is becoming a very serious problem and Skinner needs to do somthing about it.

[quinnox]

65. do you know you can put a certain number of jurors on a blacklist

if you think certain folks have a bias against you? I think star members get 15 slots, and others get 5 slots. If you don't think that is enough, maybe ask skinner to expand that number.

[Better Believe It]

68. They aren't just targeting me. And I have put some on the "blacklist".

I don't especially like the term "blacklist". That's what right-wingers did to progressives they tried to get fired during the McCarthyite witch-hunt .... they "blacklisted" people.

And with a so-called "blacklist" we are just guessing which DU'ers are abusing the "jury" system and attempting to use the system as a vechicle for censorship against posts and/or posters they are trying to censor.

[Major Hogwash]

71. Wow.

Right out in the open.

[LiberalAndProud]

76. I think there are many from both sides of the argument who have moved on.

Many posts appear to be talking past each other; trying to shout over the opposing view. It becomes an emotional bickering match rather than a healthy exchange of ideas. There is no pause to consider a different point of view and to treat other opinions with respect. 'You're just WRONG and your ideas are just STUPID!' back and forth throughout the threads.

Some have a tendency to be defensive and to lash out in anger at the slightest hint of disagreement. "YOU must be one of THEM!" I've been accused by both. So I giggle at the absurdity of it all and find another thread to read. There are posters who have an agenda, as you pointed out. They are not all on one side of the Obama-good/Obama-bad debate.

I think all of us can do better.

[FredStembottom]

77. Talking past each other

...is a good, clear way to put it.

And doing better is what is needed in 2012.

[Betty Karlson]

87. Words of wisdom.

Thank you.

[Festivito]

78. Well said. I've seen posters leave, return and go away completely for ten years.

The new transparency is helping. But, the bloat of third and fifth grade posts makes DU hard for me to read -- I don't have time to wade.

Do others notice when posting some different take on a thread, other near churlish posters come and rehash previously made arguments behind it. I now tend to find the real comments among those non-response laden, single posts, hidden near the top of a small squall of other single posts.

The problem is that they sometimes post good articles (never great ones), so the ignore feature is too black and white. I asked if we could buy a coloring system so we could put them in color of our own choice. That way I could have some posts show in true blue and others in cautious yellow and some in stand-back red.

Alas, too much to ask just yet.

...wading through the slightly, but nicely improved slog.
Freedom sure ain't free of charge, it's hard, rewarding, work.

[kentuck]

82. I have thought for some time that Republicans do not have the ability to think rationally...

and I have seen that same inability with some folks here. It reminds me of a Bertrand Russell quote: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

[bluestate10]

81. Another Holier than thou post. YAWNN!!!! nt

[Betty Karlson]

88. You know, that could have been said in a nice way too.

Next time, show a bit of courtesy please. You are talking to someone who shares 75 - 90 % of your political beliefs, remember?

[FredStembottom]

90. Oh gosh, don't put me at 75 - 90.

I am also one of the harsher critics of O and the Democrats.

I believe the D party is massively corrupted by campaign money. That considering a 3rd party is a response not out of line with the occassion.
I think we sit in the economic rubble that the Clinton admin. not only signed into law but, in the case of NAFTA, worked to achieve.

I believe the dis-unity in the D party is it's own fault. By dangling the solutions that desperate people need in front of their noses at campaign time while burying those same ideas after a win in favor of enacting traditional to even radical Republican policies.

I see Obama continuing along this same path even as we suffer.

BUT - I also feel that the only path to the policies we need is to save Dem seats at every election and determining to put better people in to them over time. The D party has been all kinds of things throughout our history. It can be changed yet again.

I see OWS beginning the change by, at least, forcing D's to address our suffering. That's very recent and new and good.

These things get me the hate mail. {winky guy smiley}

[FredStembottom]

91. Easier.

I'm a Thom Hartmann Democrat.

[T S Justly]

85. K&R (nt)

[Betty Karlson]

86. I'll be here whenever I can.

Kicked and recommended. Thanks for your words.

[midnight]

89. Thank you Fred....

[hifiguy]

92. Very well said, Fred.

Thank you.