As official DU scold: I've never seen so many solid progressive DUers derided as trolls

[jpgray]

It's one thing if the supposed troll is using strident, exclusive and disruptive language. People care a lot about the issues here, and emotional reactions in that case are understandable. What I'm seeing is almost the opposite. When rational, even-handed and even self-doubting opinion can be derided as the height of trolling, something is fucked up. It's occurring (this time) on the bailout, but its presence has been felt with accelerating frequency on all sides of any controversial issue here.

DU's relative diversity of opinion is valuable. However this diversity also means that one can find loony and offensive arguments in vast numbers--on any side of any issue at any time. The looniest and most offensive threads naturally attract the most posts (this being the internet), and, since people naturally want lots of replies to their threads, there's a sort of rhetorical inertia to phrase your views in the most provocative or arresting way possible.

This has a nasty impact on opinions that don't pretend to absolute righteousness or certainty on the issue. Why? Because even the most reasonable opinion is automatically caricaturized as either coming from one radical side of an issue or the other. The reason this happens is that DUers naturally read and respond to threads that are high-profile and attention-grabbing. Since replies are what keep a thread at the top, the usual means for a thread to achieve this prominence is either a provocative title or a massive flamewar. In almost no case does simple agreement prompt more replies than provocation tied to a knock-down drag-out brawl.

In this atmosphere, where people have been reading what they perceive as lunacy from the "opposing" side all day, reasonable unassuming posts are no longer seen as such. Instead, they are promptly categorized as being part of one ascendant radical extreme or the other. This all-knowing divination of a poster's true feelings and intent is often based on just a cursory read of the subject line. The question is then whittled down to "for or against?" Little consideration is made beyond that--the tenor of the post and the possibly -individual- position its text proscribes are lost. It's simply shunted into one of the high profile camps.

Once this happens to one of your posts, you're now firmly in a monolithic camp "x," and therefore the looniest ideas and the most malevolent motivations DUers have been seeing all day from that supposed camp may be freely appended to your post. If it's on some level realized that you sound too reasonable and unassuming for the radical role you've been assigned, no problem! Clearly you're a clever provocateur, attempting to sway with sophistry the crucial political game-changer that is DU public opinion.

This is why unassuming posters get savaged with "You're just a troll for Wall St." when they express concern about the bailout not passing. It's also why unassuming posters who are happy the bill did -not- pass are pounced on with "You're just another depression cheerleader, and therefore don't care at all about the poor."

It's a lousy way to discuss anything controversial. Some innocent people get caught in the bitter partisan invective that's bred by all the zealous claims to absolute certainty on both sides.

So, er, quit it? :dunce:

[EFerrari]

1. I wouldn't worry until they call you a DU trool.

:silly:

[trof]

7. Trool? Is that a troll that drools?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

8. It's a new freeperish coinage.

:hi:

[AllieB]

10. Really? That's hilarious.

So now we can say 'Trool, begone!' :D

[EFerrari]

14. Yeah -- over the week end. DU trools are screwn over there.

lol

[SoCalDem]

12. trolls who drool = trool

[BlooInBloo]

39. Hah! I thought it was a Piers Anthony reference.

[Midlodemocrat]

2. Nice post, freeper.

I don't even recognize DU anymore. :cry:

[jpgray]

20. It's the same sort of stuff, there's just a lot more of it

And DU is so big now, that from thread to thread it's harder to recognize people sometimes. Unless you really hate them, I guess. :P

[Justyce]

3. I have. It was called the primaries.

DU can get very ugly sometimes...

[Mojambo]

4. Quite happy to recommend this post.

As someone who is painfully undecided on present matters this is much appreciated.

[jpgray]

19. That's a scary place to be right now

But it's also where I'm at. The more I read, the less certain I am where exactly I stand. :silly:

[truedelphi]

5. People are very tense. We are embroiled in a lopsided economy

And I think that in this current issue, the people who are holding stocks see the BailOut as necessary whereas people who never bought into stocks, or did so only as long term investment, are not wanting to fork over to 770 billion bucks to Paulson anymore than they wanted Halliburton in charge of our situation in Iraq.

I mean think about how crazy yesterday was.

Did you ever EVER think that you would see Kucinich, Issa, Maxine Waters, and Bill O'Reilly all on the same side of the fence on any issue - let alone one that will have a lot to do with the future of our collective pocket books?

[dgibby]

11. Talk about politics making strange bedfellows!

To the op: Thank you!

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. It is mindblowing - that's a fact. nt

[PVnRT]

23. You're making it black and white

That's part of the problem. If you're for a bailout, you MUST be wealthy stock trader. It's bullshit reasoning, but I've come to expect it on DU now.

[truedelphi]

54. O-O-O-kay,so please defend (IF you can) THIS bailout. I am not saying that

there should NOT be some type of recovery package, but first we have to be using tools tht existed since the time of Carter and Reagan.

Second of all - we need a game plan. What exactly would the 770 billion do?

I hav eyet to hear the supporters saying what it would do. Key talking points - now we have assurance that there wouold be some type of oversight. But it sounds like the oversight doe not kick until Paulson is noticed for screwing up handling the first hundred or two BILLION dollars.

I listened to one of the house supporters - a Democrat - saying, "Well yes it is a bad bill, but many of the bills that Congress passes are bad bills. So there are things no one likes, so what?" (I am paraphrasing.)

Well I am tired of that kind of thing. We had a bad IWR - look where that got us. A war we entered without any plan.

How did that planless piece of action work out for you??

And by the way, I don't think that all of those who voted for the bill are heavily into stocks. I equally believe that this nation is now a banana republic, wherein the Legislaters are bought and paid for.

[Ian David]

6. Maybe we need to have a "Full Disclosure" rule.

In the interest of full disclosure, I own stocks in the following companies:

SpaceHab
SpaceDev
Interpublic Group

I also have stock in IBM held in trust from my mother's estate as well as some sort of tobacco company holdings which I would certainly have never bought myself.


I called my congress-critters and told them to vote "no" on the bail-out, and I'm about 60% convinced that I am correct.

As important and simply ENORMOUS as the bail-out of the Gramm-McCain Financial Crisis is, I am not certain enough of my position to be angry at anyone for disagreeing with me, since I see about a 40% chance of my own opinion being wrong.

[jpgray]

17. Being forced to provide bona fides before providing an opinion is offensive to me

I think rather that people should stop presuming anything and everything about a poster just because his/her post is disagreeable.

[Ian David]

18. You're only saying that because you're a shill for the politeness industry. n/t

[jpgray]

36. They don't pay very well

[mzmolly]

9. Troll!

:P

[pnwmom]

13. K & R. n/t

[Peacetrain]

16. Well I was beginning to think I had just aquired a fan club.

It really got interesting there for a few posts, finally I just asked one of my "fans" if they would like a cookie and some milk.

At some point, there was no discussion going forward, just roaring, I never did quite get why they were so upset with me personally. :rofl:

edit: this is just a response that people really are juiced and it is coming out sideways I think. I am actually fairly new in here, just six months. But things were hopping yesterday for sure

[dhpgetsit]

21. It's OK to get excited

Especially when Bush and his cronies ask for 770B no strings attached.
If that isn't enough to get you excited you're probably dead.

But your point is well taken, and I agree. There is great value in discussing differences of opinions.

And I can take being called a hick for being in DeFazio's district.

[jpgray]

27. It's more than okay to be excited--didn't mean to imply otherwise

It's just when that excitement drives us to prejudice that it becomes a problem. We're all guilty of this to some extent--when you are hyperbolically committed emotionally to a position, it's easy to see even mild dissenting opinion as an evil obstacle to be stomped down.

[PVnRT]

22. Wow, the cries of "OMG FASCIST" haven't started yet

Usually there's at least a few of those in threads like this. Maybe they're all asleep.

[donco6]

24. One thing I've learned:

Never admit you're anything more than a pauper who lives in a cardboard house and drives a pedal car.

It can get bloody.

[PVnRT]

26. You have a pedal car? Go to hell, Daddy Warbucks!

I can't even afford feet!

[donco6]

42. LOL! I asked for that. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

25. As you are no doubt aware...

this is one of those places where one's ignorance of the facts does not in any way diminish one's insistence on having an opinion. It also seems to put a high value on adherence to some variable belief system-- the vagaries of which I've never really gotten a handle on.

It's no surprise, then, that the almost religious fervor in political dogma that so many had shown in the primary season will come into full flower in a real emergency.

It's also no surprise that those who need to hear your message most will no doubt ignore it, perhaps even vilify it.

(DUers can be so predictable)

[jpgray]

35. That is frustrating, and I've never fully understood it either

It's true as you say that it's the emergencies which often bring it out in people.

[Geek_Girl]

28. But I'm kind of enjoying this controversial debate

Even though I've been called stupid, uneducated and an idiot. For some strange reason it's been kind of fun. I think it's because I think no matter what your opinion is in this particular debate, we are basically screwed.

[apocalypsehow]

29. HW Bush at the grassy knoll. CIA caused Hurricane Katrina. LIHOP. MIHOP. Little green men run IHOP.

Those are what I would classify as loony notions, and there is a tiny, vociferous, and quite nasty strain of posters here that routinely peddle such silliness.

But I don't see this issue being quite so clear cut. Put another way, any one with a speck of common sense and a dash of intelligence knows that the CIA didn't generate tidal waves or make Katrina stronger with ray beams; most of the folks peddling such notions are indeed trolls posting here to make DU look bad. Ditto for the Daddy Bush had a hand in the JFK assassination, LIHOP, MIHOP, and the rest.

The bailout, on the other hand, is a legitimate issue with genuinely varying points of view. I don't classify either side of the debate as "loony," as such.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the thrust of your OP? :shrug:

[jpgray]

30. Fair question. Here are the extreme views, as I've seen them

I'll freely admit they are minority views, but they are overwhelmingly -prominent- views. They get many replies and stay at the top of the forum precisely because of their controversial take on the issue. I can't post direct quotes, as that would be a call-out, but I'll try to paraphrase:

For: The bailout needs to pass -quickly-. There is palpable risk and those who disagree are either stupid or ghoulishly cheering on the next depression; won't they be sorry if their folly is revealed and they lose their job/paycheck/etc.

Against: The bailout mustn't pass, and indeed any "bailing out" of Wall St. may be worse than inaction. Those who disagree are likely stupid, complicit in the casino capitalism of the stock market, or otherwise on the wrong side of the class war.

Again, this is a relative minority of DU (some posts have been worse than these, but they're in the -extreme- minority). The thrust of the OP is that too often these extreme points of view dominate the debate, and can radicalize -everyone- as a result. Mild, unassuming posts can in this climate be seen as trollish, simply because people automatically associate them with one of the two extreme views they see as defining the debate. Also, when the tenor of debate has each side making a contradictory claim to absolute righteousness and truth, one can start to see all posts as having that pretension. It just raises the stakes of debate so much that any dissenting opinion starts being seen not as an individual viewpoint but as a soulless obstacle to be crushed by whatever rhetoric will do the job.

[apocalypsehow]

31. Ah, I see what you're saying. I had misuderstood, sorry. I pretty much agree with you. Rec.

:thumbsup:

[jpgray]

33. No worries. Polite questions are never a problem

:)

[martymar64]

32. It just shows that class warfare goes on, even here.

[Dinosaur13]

34. When new information comes to light,

a thoughtful person shouldn't be afraid to change his mind. And BTW, there are bullies on the left and the right.

peace and steady on!

[jpgray]

37. The true standard of a reasonable mind is how it treats dissenting opinion

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. Most people aren't smart enough to think in any fashion other than black-and-white.

Therefore, if you disagree with me about subject X, you are THE ENEMY -- no matter what X is!

The think is, this leads to cognitive dissonance, since the next day you'll read something from the same person, about other subject, with which you agree 100%. The way to maintain your black-and-whiteness, therefore, is to have the attention span of the Dori character in Finding Nemo. That makes you look stupid, but since only 5% of the population is smart enough to notice that, it's OK.

[jpgray]

41. True enough. Especially when the population is as wide and anonymous as DU

I don't keep any sort of enemies list in the back of my mind, but I suppose there are some features on DU for doing so. Ironically the buddy system would be a good one. :P Beyond that though, I just can't remember.

The fun, ironic worst of it is having a similar name to another DUer. jgraz is the bane of my existence on that score, for example. And I'm sure he'd cheerfully reciprocate my feelings. :D

[chknltl]

40. KnR and: Likely a bloviating rant by me but....

Although in my heart I want to agree with your premise fully I think there may be an influential factor that needs bringing up. That factor is the longevity of first impressions. Some of my fave DUers have posted things disagreeable to me on occasion. But to be fair to your premise, in every case, those DUers started out on the right foot in my book. My first impressions of those DUers strongly outweigh the occasional disagreeable post they may make.

An example with a TSed DUer: Maddy McCall. (unsure of spelling on name-she had that horrible grinning toad). When I first ran across her posts, I quickly accepted her as someone I could respect, as someone with knowledge to pass along and as a fierce defender of her points. When the Clinton/Obama wars were going on here a few months back, she and I were on opposite sides of the aisle, we even bumped heads on occasion. Even though her actions during that period grew close to detestable, my views of her remained unchanged. I was actually glad she survived those Clinton/Obama wars but shortly afterwords she was TSed. I don't know the details but I am genuinely sad for her passing. In my heart I will always look on that passing as due to a form of PTSD. On the other hand if my first ever encounter with a Maddy McCall thread or post was during the Clinton/Obama wars, I would have been a one-man campaign hitting the alert button on her every word!

My point is that sometimes a name, (actually the words posted by that name) can make an important first impression on us. IMO, after that impression has been made, it is difficult for future words out of that name to change that impression. If for instance NanceGreggs went on a weeks long drunk-binge and posted trash about Brittney Spears for that week, most here would love her just the same. (NanceGreggs not Ms BS)

My overall point here is that imo, first impressions will have an impact on who is perceived to be acting trollish and who is perceived to actually be a troll. Yes, my response is...well I stand by 'bloviating' but it is my observation none the less. I thought the posting of this was worth the risk of being thought of as a blow-hard from here on out. See how that worked?

[jpgray]

43. Bloviate away! Didn't hold me back

What you point out, I think, is the context which knowing a DUers posts over time can provide. Absent that context, assuming everything about a poster from a few posts on one issue risks tremendous error. It makes for division, misinterpretation and general acrimony.

[chknltl]

48. Yes and well....maybe

Yes, knowing a DUers posts over time does provide us with such a base. I used the NancyGreggs example which is evidence of this but it was an example which poorly illustrated my thinking about first impressions. Let me try again, I am not so good with putting my thoughts to words but sometimes I fair better by using examples.

OperationMindCrime(sp?). My first ever encounter with him was in a thread where he was attacking a fellow DUers position. The attacks may or may not have been justified, (with hindsight they likely were quite justified). That first impression left me with a feeling of dread to discuss ANYTHING with him. It was only later through reading his OP's and responses that I developed a differing respect for the man but that dread, after four years is still there. Had he, instead of you posted this OP we would not be having this chat, I would not have ventured to respond from the outset, even though I am fully in agreement with the premise. First impressions.

As you point out: "assuming everything about a poster from a few posts is misleading..." at best and I would add wholly unfair but we ARE only human. Even though we have the expression 'Never judge a book by its cover'...we still find ourselves collectively doing just that quite often. (The 'bailout bill' being a relevant example, but that's another topic for a different thread I think). It can of course work against you-as it has for me in the above example.

I am not sure of the worry for a general acrimony springing up from misrepresented first impressions, well not in my case at least, I can not think of a single example to offer up in my own experience but perhaps in others. I tend to supplant acrimony with sarcasm sometimes or if truly angered I hit the ignore button. In 4 years I have only placed three or four there.


Here is another example of a first impression carrying me through troubled waters:
BigBearJohn. My first ever encounter with him was an OP he wrote that left me thinking I was in the presence of a man with clarity of thought, strong convictions and a deep wisdom. After that first impression, I purposely clicked on his OPs knowing that I was going to get more of the same and I did! Eventually he and I were on opposite sides of the aisle during the Clinton/Obama wars. We had never until then spoken a single word to each other. His posts (defending his candidate) were seen by some as incendiary and garnered quite a bit of flames from our fellow DUers. Due to my first impression I saw through the flames and knew this was still that man of deep wisdom and strong convictions. Because of my first impression of him I was forced to re-examin my own reasons for my support of my candidate but like BigBearJohn I was strong with my own convictions-I have not left Obama yet and I doubt I ever will!

In this case it was that first impression which helped carry me through what others would call trollish behavior on his part. I never once thought of it as trollish behavior but he sure got attacked by others as if it were-sorta like what you discuss in your OP, which was the impetus for my posting my thoughts on your topic. (I am happy to report that BigBearJohn survived the Clinton/Obama wars and the DU once again benefits from his OP's. If you've never caught one, well they're always a good read!)


I suppose what I am trying to say is that it may seem like nothing to most but for me, regardless of it being good or bad in the long run, first impressions will have an important bearing on how I see our fellow DUers and conversely I think, on how they see me. It's an admission of being human, I suppose. Because of this, regardless of the whys and wherefores of the trollish behavior you speak of, I suspect most of the old-timers here will get past such behavior when they encounter it due to reasons other than the thick skin we all seem to develop after the first year or so. Many I suspect will have those first impressions to carry them through the temporary 'shit-storm' to clearer waters.

It's likely I should stop here because it is appearing to me that my bloviating is challenging your OP. That is utterly not my intent, I fully agree with your OP, KnRed it because it's a good premise which needs discussing imo. I guess I am hoping to add a tiny bit of oil on the water in that I think, (well at least in my case), first impressions can help to minimize the impacts from that trollish style behavior you discuss-regardless of why first impressions are a poor judge of true character.

The argument could be made that it is a wash in that first impressions can just as easily reinforce a bad first impression. I've no real defence to that except for my impression that we progressives tend to want to see the best out of folks early on and give those folks room to prove us wrong along the way. Wowsers- my bloviating is reaching epic proportions...I'd better stop before I get as old and long winded as that McCain fellow. I don't know if you have noticed but that guy can ramble better than a wino with a fresh bottle of Thunderbird!
c

[jpgray]

61. That's true--we're not going to stop having assumptions about posters based on what we've seen

We shouldn't pretend that we don't make those assumptions, but we should try to be actively aware of them, and always willing to change our perception given new evidence. It's totally unreasonable to expect robotic objective logic from DUers on controversial issues--we're human, we have emotional stake in the issues, and that's not going to happen. However, just being aware and questioning one's assumptions is always a worthwhile endeavor, especially in the case of pronouncing final judgment on a DUer's worth based on only a few posts. As Marrah_G said though, we all do it to some extent. At worst, however, we should try to be aware that we're doing it. :)

[chknltl]

64. Agreed. N/B*

*N/B= No Bloviating, (or I am fully in agreement and I'm low on bloviation juice anyway!) :thumbsup:

[chicagoexpat]

44. Have u ever seen so many threads spreading the GOP line as their own thoughts?

People lining up w/ Freeper line are SO MUCH smarter than Obama

Yeah! Let's follow the Republicans over the cliff! That's the answer!

McCain Campaign Soliciting Trolls to Invade Web Site Forums

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7262075

Hope you can bail out all the states w/ ur personal check book.I'm sure u can afford it

State of Massachusetts denied credit!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7256498&mesg_id=7256498

[jpgray]

45. One shouldn't presume a dissenting poster is a troll until there is blatant evidence.

Especially based on one post--a pattern of flagrantly disruptive behavior is usually the best evidence for such. Thankfully the true trolls seem all too eager to provide exactly that. :D

[chicagoexpat]

47. I'll take that as a "Yes, I just won't admit it"

[jpgray]

51. You can if you want, but that's an oversimplification in my view

Remember, an individual's opinion rarely expresses any stereotype in a perfect way. There is always some variation, and sometimes that variation is significant and should be recognized as such.

[Naturyl]

46. You are obviously a troll for Hitler!!!

Yes, HIT-LAH!

[earth mom]

49. Sorry but anyone who sides with * is a troll in my book. nt

[jpgray]

52. In that case, Kucinich's flag amendment vote makes him a troll

Do you see how these "black or white" caricatures can result in absurdity?

[PVnRT]

69. Don't forget, he was also once pro-life!

[Forkboy]

50. Nice post, Papa Doc.

[Marrah_G]

53. It's been going on for quite a long time one a number of different topics.

Many, many Duers are guilty of it, probably myself included. It's become okay to accuse anyone you disagree with of being a troll, a paid shill, a rw hack, a traitor, racist, bigot, etc. etc. etc.

I agree with you (oh crap, a pig flew by my window)and wish we would all just quit it.

We are all on the same side and need to start acting that way.

[jpgray]

58. Yep. This behavior all too often disguises a vast undercurrent of agreement

And as you no doubt are aware, I'm not at all exempt from this behavior either. :dunce: Thanks for your post!

[Marrah_G]

59. Very few are exempt!

Thank you for your original OP.

We all need to try alot harder to remember we are a team. We might not always see eye to eye, but our goal is the same.

That goal: A Democratic WH and Congress after the Nov 4th election!

[dionysus]

55. hookay troll

;) :hi:

[mmonk]

56. Amen.

[Toucano]

57. Wasn't it against the rules long ago

to openly accuse a poster of being a troll?

What happened to that?

[prolesunited]

60. They are just more subtle about it, but the intent is clear.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. I'm sure many long-standing DUers have been turned off by this and quit posting, if not entirely, not as much.

DU is much different than it was when I joined in 2001, and not all of the changes have been for the better. There was a time when people would fight on the issues, but at the end of the day, there was still a sense of community there.

[PVnRT]

68. Still is

But, people get around by not "technically" calling people trolls. They're slimy little worms who provoke people, then whine when they get hit.

[snooper2]

62. I guess it's been a month since this was posted....

bout time again huh :rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:



GOBAMA!

[jpgray]

63. Your point on my pedantic redundacies is well-taken

That much should be evident to everyone by now. :P

[Joe Chi Minh]

65. You want "solid"? The DNC would surely be to your liking. Why look

to an "underground" movement?

[jpgray]

66. DNC as in Howard Dean? I don't mind that at all. Or did you mean DLC?

In that case, let me make clear that Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold are the sort of people I see as being solid progressives.

[Joe Chi Minh]

67. Yes, DLC. And that's good to hear about political sympathies. It seems I saw a red flag where there

wasn't one.