Just got axed from the $HRC$ group for posting a sarcastic comment.
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by TM99 (a host of the Bernie Sanders group).
I admit it was sarcastic, but I was making a point. I did not make a personal attack on anyone there, but I felt I had to do it. You see, they were all trying to justify all of the money she has raised with all of the expected arguements. "It's UNFORTUNATE that it takes a lot of money from campaign donations and Super Pacs, but..." or "it's naive to think of running for POTUS without taking corporate money because, you know, the clown car Republicans all have their own billionaires..."
"Unfortunate" "the others are doing it," please! I had to point out that Hillary with her name recognition would do fine on what Bernie is raising. She could still pick and choose her interviews that she gives, getting free publicity anytime she wanted. She didn't need corporate money to win, but she wanted it! They act like our campaign system is dirty, but what can we do?
Positive change doesn't just happen, you have to take some risk. Do they think the Founding Fathers said, "Hey, this thing with England sucks, but what can we do?" Hillary is a creature of our corrupt political system. She knows all of the wealthiest people in the world. She knows that she has to give a Quid Pro Quo for the money she is collecting, and it will be at OUR EXPENSE! That right there should be enough to tell you that she doesn't really give a shit about us!
I also have a problem with these groups, the HRC group, Bernie group... Do we really want an area where like minded people only can discuss what they already agree on? I am a Bernie supporter 100%, and I do like to hear from other like minded people, however, I am not adverse to someone else making an arguement about something I may not agree on. Example, some have a problem with Bernie's stance towards guns. I would not get upset at some HRC supporter making this arguement if that's what they did. I may learn something I didn't know before. I do mind snark and personal attacks, just not arguments on the merits. To be honest, sarcasm may have crossed the line anyway, but it was the best way that I could point out what they were doing, which was making a lot of excuses for Hillary taking more bribe money than anyone else in this election. They were clearly defensive about it, but we're trying to act like everyone does it and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. It's galling when they act like we are powerless to oppose the corruption of campaign bribes when we have someone who IS DOING IT! Bernie would be a lock for POTUS if all Democrats decided that this was the election where we could return to Representative Democracy instead of going deeper into fascism.
Despite being here at DU for several years, the Bernie Group is the first group I have joined. Is it an official rule that you cannot argue against the candidate of a group if done respectfully and limited to an issue? I want to know if my being banned from commenting in the HRC group for violation of the rules, or was it because I struck a nerve?
= new reply since forum marked as read
And they locked a thread of his under really ridiculous circumstances.
This banning of OS is just utterly unconscionable. I am near tears thinking about it.
(i hate Meta, and know it's not supposed to be posted here, but I am just beside myself here and didn't know if others were aware. Horrible. I can hardly believe it. 
)
The ones that agree with you think you are a fine person and an asset to the group.
The ones that disagree with you think you need to be arrested and charged with high treason and sent to Guantanamo. Or failing that, at the very least you MUST be silenced. (This is usually accomplished with a flood of insulting accusations extrapolated from, but often unjustified by what you actually posted. Things along the lines of "You disagree with me, then you must be a ____ (select from: racist/Republican/misogynist/child molester/Nazi/troll/other)."
My solution is to treat DU as largely read-only. I find a lot good information here, and links to articles that are interesting and informative. But posting seldom accomplishes anything except attracting hostile reactions from people who fall into the second of the two aforementioned categories. Sometimes I go months without posting. In fact, at one time, long ago, I went so many years without posting to DU I forgot my username and password and had to create a new one. (A shame too. I had tens of thousands of posts by then.)
The important thing is not expect to change anyone's mind. Speak your piece, and let the outcome take care of itself. A good way to practice that discipline is to post something and then NEVER go back to look at that thread to see how people replied to your post. You said your piece, you don't need to care what anyone else thinks of it. (You may care, but you don't really NEED to care.)
Remember, while you are trying to show somebody the error of their ways, that same person is trying to show YOU the error of YOUR ways. That's how flame wars get started. Life's too short. Shake it off and walk away.
I think it's lame that the HRC group won't defend HRC, they just ban the critic.
Whatever 
