I'm sick of all the knocks at Dean supporters on DU

[CMT]

I have tried to be fair to all the candidates and not engage in wreckless attacks. I have pledged to support whoever is the Democratic nominee--even if it is not Dean--and so have most Dean supporters. Yet it seems like some posters who support other candidates like to attack Dean supporters as being counter-productive to his candidacy in blanket statements. This is unfair to the many Dean supporters on DU (and we make up the majority of his supporters) who are positive in their posts regarding Dean and don't go out of their way to start flame wars with other campaigns.

It is worth remembering that flame threads are started not only by some who may support Dean, but also by people who support other candidates. Often they will jump into a positive Dean thread and start in--sure it happens the other way around too where a Dean supporter may hijak a positive thread on another candidate, but the point is that it is not only Dean supporters who do this tactic.

I also will add that I see more anti-Dean threads started than on any other candidate on DU. So it is not only Dean supporters who may sometimes get over zealous in their support--but supporters of nearly every other campaign I think have people who like to start flame threads. It is unfair in my opinion to paint all supporters of one campaign with blanket statements like "Dean supporters really turn me off". By and large we Deanocrats are a pretty great bunch of people who want to send George W. packing for a permanent vacation in Crawford. I think by and large supporters of all other campaigns are pretty decent too and commend them for their dedication to the candidate they support.

[ShaneGR]

1. I think you're over-reacting

I don't see a lot of them. And if there were it's only because he's a front-runner. Trust me, a lot of Dean supporters have posted some pretty nasty stuff about Kerry, Edwards, Graham, etc. A lot of the supporters of Kerry, Edwards, or Graham post some anti-Dean stuff.

It's par for politics. Most of the flaming goes on inside existing threads. For example, someone posts "Howard Dean is amazing!" and some people come in and offer criticism, fair or not.

No big deal in my book. Look at this way, there are a lot of Green attacks on Dems. Some of those Greens aren't even Greens, they're right-wing losers posing as Greens to disrupt the board.

[Bombtrack]

51. It's almost impossible to critisize Dean here

because if you do, you're immediately attacked by 50 people with the same opinions and talking points

[JNelson6563]

2. I think those who start bash threads

of any candidate should be treated like trolls. Ignored.

It is counter-productive and should end. Those hijacking positive threads should also be ignored. When I saw that thread recently asking Kerry supporters (only) why they supported him~something along those lines. I was afraid to look once there got to be a lot of posts in that thread, suspecting it got interrupted. I hope it didn't.

If we don't quit being so divided we will never win.

Julie

[sendero]

3. I've seen that too...

... I've also seen some attacks on Kerry that I thought were a bit over the top.

Most of the attacks on Dean are either logically weak beyond belief or just plain lies. I ignore them to the best of my ability.

A lot of folks seem to think they can come here and spot idiotic talking points and sway opinion. Problem is, most people here know why they think what they think so it is not a successful strategy.

I'm not worried about it.

[lkinsale]

9. Sometimes people take honest criticism as attacks

I have some things I could say about my opinions of several candidates' chances against Bush, but I tend to not say them because avid supporters often seem to consider anything negative at all to be an "attack."

I support Graham, myself, after a considered study of the field. I realize he has some apparent "negatives," such as his age, recent heart surgery and supposed lack of charisma. I think he has plenty of charisma in comparison to the other candidates, and so many positives in experience and platform that they far outweigh the negatives.

However, I'm willing to take aboard the fact that some people don't agree and this could have an effect on his campaign, and perhaps should be addressed by the candidate. No candidate is perfect, and we are trying to choose the Main Chance.

I'd like to see all candidate supporters around DU be more open to the idea that there IS such a thing as constructive criticism, and not be so thin-skinned. A critical opinion here is too often answered instantly with "ANOTHER IGNORANT LYING ATTACK, you must be a freeper in disguise," sort of response, instead of a reasonable, "Well, I can understand how you might feel that way, but I believe you are wrong because blah-blah-blah."

Particularly for the most popular candidate, an echo chamber is a dangerous thing. It tends to make people believe there are no negatives, so when things move out into the big wide world of voters, maybe some of the negatives haven't been acknowledges or addressed. Supporters may be in for a shock that could have been avoided.

Calling "most of the attacks" about a candidate "idiotic," "logically weak," or "just plain lies," is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It may be that to me, a non-supporter of that candidate, these things are very real criticisms that carry weight in my decision, rather than lies, ignorance or idiocy.

[Tinoire]

15. Excellent post and excellent point especially

All your points were excellent but these two in particular jumped out at me (in this order):

1 Particularly for the most (I would say any) popular candidate, an echo chamber is a dangerous thing. It tends to make people believe there are no negatives, so when things move out into the big wide world of voters, maybe some of the negatives haven't been acknowledged or addressed. Supporters may be in for a shock that could have been avoided.

2 Calling "most of the attacks" about a candidate "idiotic," "logically weak," or "just plain lies," is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It may be that to me, a non-supporter of that candidate, these things are very real criticisms that carry weight in my decision, rather than lies, ignorance or idiocy

[CWebster]

56. Really?

You, the one who started a thread which would allow no criticism of Kerry?

[Tinoire]

57. Kerry's not my candidate; I just wanted that thread to stay on track

and it had been my intention at the time to do one for each candidate (but that thread took a lot of time)because I truly am interested in learning the good things about each one.
The thread didn't say no criticism, it just asked for no flames. I would think that supporters of any candidate would appreciate that. This candidate thing seems to lead to more bad blood than I/P sometimes! There are good things about each candidate I think we should focus on.

You can't imagine the slew of e-mails I got from people saying "you can't possibly be supporting Kerry". I'm not. But in case he happens to get the nomination, I'd like to know what his supporters see in him. I've already had several phone discussions with Dean supporters who gave me points that made me stop and go hmmmm. That's all I wanted in that thread... To see things that would make you stop and go hmmmm. There are already enough of the other opposite threads/posts.

Like I said, he's not even my candidate. I am simply trying to get the good points for each one over the next few weeks, determine who my runner-up candidate his in case DK doesn't make it, and epsecially to determine IF I will be able to vote for that candidate if he's the nominee for the Presidentials.

That was just my pref to keep things civil... I like most DUers and have no desire to get into heated exchanges about a candidate's failing. I too kept all my reservations about Kerry out of that thread because I felt that wasn't the place/time. You can't expect people to focus on those things (tell you why they like someone) if the whole thing turns into a flamefest. We ALREADY know why people don't like candidates- that's all over these boards.

Hope that makes sense.

[blm]

23. Well said...

I think using a candidate's own words and actions are fair game. I think ad hominem attacks on the supporters, telling them to leave or accusing them of being an operative is wrongheaded and rude.

[MercutioATC]

40. Differing opinions are one thing. Factual lies are another.

To say that Vermont's unemployment rate is 9.4% as one DUer did is a factual lie.

To say that a certain candidate (not Dean) doesn't take PAC money is a factual lie. To say that that candidate DOES take PAC money, but it's not CORPORATE PAC money is also a factual lie.

I have issues with only two types of exchanges on DU. The first is when opinions are presented as fact. The second is when posters tell factual untruths about either their preferred candidate or an opposing candidate.

I'm truly happy to listen to differing viewpoints, it's the small-mindedness that bothers me.

[blm]

42. Please weigh in equally

when facts are in dispute. I'd like to see that. So far, very few have shown the respect to others and defend ALL candidates from lies.

btw...the more you dig on Kerry and his donations, the cleaner he looks. Thanks...very few candidates can look as good under that heavy a scrutiny. Keep it up...and send it to the papers, too.

[MercutioATC]

54. I'm not digging up anything on Kerry...he's my 2nd or 3rd choice...

It was absolutely NOT a hatchet job. I did not start the thread.

A couple of posters have insisted that Kerry has taken "ZERO PAC dollars" or have stated that while he DID take some PAC money, none of it was from corporate PACs. Both statements are false. I posted the FEC link showing it to be false.

In the same set of posts I also made it clear that 1) the amount of money he accepted from PACs was miniscule compared to total fundraising and 2) it really made no difference to me if anybody takes PAC money as long as the overwhelming majority of their money comes from individual contributors.

I like Kerry. I just see enough opinion posted as "fact" here that I think we should all correct the real facts when they're in error (in a non-threatening way). I believe that's what I did.

[Eloriel]

27. Facts vs Opinions

Calling "most of the attacks" about a candidate "idiotic," "logically weak," or "just plain lies," is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It may be that to me, a non-supporter of that candidate, these things are very real criticisms that carry weight in my decision, rather than lies, ignorance or idiocy.


I don't mind who other people support. It's their right to support whoever they want to support, for whatever reason.

What I mind -- and what you don't take into account in an otherwise good post -- are when people who are bashing other candidates purposely distort any candidate's record or positions or words -- IOW, distort the FACTS.

I do get very annoyed at the "Dean isn't electable" argument because that's the kind of thing that packs a lot of weight with many voters here but those "opinions" are somehow NEVER backed up with any thoughtful discusssion or in fact anything at all. The claim is just tossed out there, as if it were true. So AFAIC that becomes just another lie to me, especially given the FACTS about his growth in support, fundraising and the type of people he's attracting (all ages, all socioeconomic levels, all political spectrum including Republicans).

So, as you weigh your own "valid criticisms," make sure you're not taking either someone else's stupid criticism, afactual criticism, lying criticism, or ignorant and ill-informed criticism as part of that. And that goes for ANY candidate, not just mine. (I have gone to bat to defend Kucinich against those lies I've seen posted about him too, as I would do for any other candidate.)

Eloriel

[lkinsale]

28. Well, no, I am not taking someone's elses "stupid criticism" as fact

My judgements on Dean in particular are directly based on what I've seen of him in the South Caroline debates, Meet the Press and what I've read of his quotes, and what Democrats in real life (not the internet) have said to me, without prompting, about their reaction to him. These are reactions to his presentation of himself in high-stress situations, which strikes me and other people negatively. I don't think he's electable or presidential material at this time because he does not have sufficient self-control of his presentation when placed on the spot. If he can change this aspect of himself, maybe he's got a chance. Right now I don't think he can beat Bush.

But that's just my opinion! Don't hit me! ;)

These aren't things that are "facts." It's a fact that Graham is 66. It's an opinion to say, "That's too old to be electable." I happen to disagree with it, but I'm not gonna insult someone's opinion by calling it stupid, afactual, lying, ignorant or ill-informed.

Certainly, you can politely correct someone who misstates a fact. I have done so myself when people have claimed Graham voted FOR the war. I consider this an =opportunity= to get the facts out and substantiate them, rather than an annoying challenge.

[Individualist]

10. Well said, deseo

The people who think they can come here and sway opinion are naive. The one description that applies to all DUers is that we're well informed; we don't fall for spin or Rovespeak. Disruptors posts are futile.

[sendero]

19. in defense of my point...

.... I am talking about posts that I would have to characterize as *attacks*, based on the tenor and language of the comments.

"Dean can *never* be elected because XYZ" where XYZ may or may not bear any objective similarity to Dean in reality, is an attack.

I am not talking about *criticisms* of Dean, I have some myself. I'm talking about posts that are unrelentently negative, based on either a shoddy understanding of Dean's positions or simply disinformation, ad yes I've have seen a *bunch* of them, especially in the days just before and after the MoveOn primary.

And to be frank, they seemed to come from one particular candidate's (who I won't name, if you don't know you are not paying attention anyway) camp.

What Dean says about other Dems is primary campaign rhetoric. It is the *job* of every candidate to contrast themselves with their contenders. I can't remember a primary where this did not happen, although I'll admit that it seems to be early in this primary.

Just to be clear :)

[Tinoire]

21. You were very clear and I'm happy you can see that

What Dean says about other Dems is primary campaign rhetoric <snip> although I'll admit that it seems to be early in this primary.

It's the "too early in the primary" part that's a big turn-off and a lot of posters don't appreciate the aggressiveness against our own team members.

I'm all for an out-sider winning this race because I have been disappointed & disillusioned with most of our candidates but they are at least known quantities from years of observation. I wish Dean's campaign would understand this and tone it down, even just a little.

So shhhhh.... making too much noise...

[poskonig]

4. I enjoy the attacks.

The anti-Dean people can bring it on. Their whining like Daschle that Dean and his supporters do not whine like Daschle explains why their super-awesome candidates like Kucinich and Edwards continue to underachieve. When they grow a pair and get mean with Dean and his people perhaps they will do better. Even if Dean doesn't win, we need a tough candidate AND campaign to win the White House in 2004.

[chimpymustgo]

8. Mean like Dean...that's the root of the problem.

Some Dean supporters are cheerful and enthusiastic in supporting their candidate. But some take on an attitude that Dean and his supporters seem to be proud of - the anger, the meanness. Dean continues to attack other candidates in a divisive way. Remember we have to unite to beat the BFEE.

I support Edwards first, Kerry second. They have gotten knocked around here terribly and distastefully. The reason there are so many anti- Dean threads now is because people are starting to fight back, after being hit by the Deanies so often.

There have been numerous calls for other candidates to just drop out and support Dean - I am not kidding. Several Deanie Meanies got banned and things got beter around here.

I think we should lighten up and keep our eyes on the prize.

[poskonig]

13. Dean's flamethrower is aimed at Bush.

However, many Democrats and mediawhores have attempted to 'Gore' our candidate. If Dean supporters rolled over and played dead, he would not be where he is today as a candidate. While Dean's message *is* positive and optimistic, flowerpower doesn't hack it in situations where counterattack is required. Kucinich on Tweety is an excellent example.

[Tinoire]

20. Well see Postkonig

Many of the other candidates' supporters fear that the flamethrower, while bright and hot the flame, may not have enough fuel (substance) in it to do much.

That is the exact kind of rhetoric that turns a lot of people off.

This isn't a foot-ball game; it's something a lot of posters at DU have devoted 2-3 years to so the recent out-pouring of enthusiasm suddenly injecting itself into the equation is a bit overwhelming in a negative way.

If you want to promote your candidate, then do so ignoring the trolls and the posters who are just plain non-constructive when you're trying to get a valid point across.

Also, I would greatly appreciate if more Dean supporters would explain things in their own words or at least cut and paste the relevant passages and be willing to discuss them rather than pasting a link to his web-site. That's either too intellectually lazy or waste-because-of-haste and it's not working that well.

Please, once again, take this as constructive criticism if you want to give Dean the best support and convince people like me that he is the best candidate.

[Tinoire]

16. I've noticed that same thing

but to be truthful, I haven't noticed any old-time DUers diung this. What I've noticed is an almost 4 month ago arrival of new posters who in their eagerness to support Dean have become a real turn-off (thus turning people off to their candidate). More power to Dean for using the power of the internet but at one point it becomes over-kill especially since many of these posters seem to only know that they support Dean but can't discuss why other than pasting a link to his web-site or repeating talking points. Then what happens is that the more sincere posts that could get immuninate someone are buried under an avalanche of intellectual trash and lose their force (as well as potential for exposure).

This is just my casual observation. Right now I'm at the point of weighing my "dem-voting ideological purity" against my burning desire to get Bush out- just out- never mind where and by whom- but just the fuck OUT!

This weighing needs facts and posters like me need to be honestly able to discuss, submit, listen, learn but it takes two to tango and as gently as possible, I would ask the Dean headquarters to tone the volume down a little and make it crisper. This isn't a foot-ball game. This is the future of the heart and sould of America. This is our future and our children's future and an unintended foot-ball game atmopshere is distasteful.

I hope you won't think I'm knocking you, Dean or Dean supporters. I am merely knocking the over-kill. I hope people take this as the contructive comment it was meant to be so we can work together and educate each other as much as possible in the few months we have.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. What Do You Have To Do To Get Banned?

I read the rules but what did those folks do to get banned

[DagmarK]

5. I appreciate you productive approach to this.......

BUT......you say, "Often they will jump into a positive Dean thread and start in". OFTEN??????? ALWAYS! And it has been going on for months.

And when I tried to take the tact that you are taking today.....I got raked over the coals.......accused of all sorts of things: being paranoid, playing the victim, causing hordes of voters to not even VOTE, making it difficult for any reasonable person to even consider Dean because I was such an AWFUL person, and even accusing ME of flaming other folks' candidates in their threads (which I RARELY if ever visit because I have my candidate!). And basically was painted as the most screwed up person on the face of the earth.

It got REAL personal.......after I presented what I thought was a call for all Dems to work hard to find someone they could support and stop trouncing the other candidates.

And I left the DU community -- I thought for good. But.....alas, I am weak. Or maybe I just *have* to be in a dem environment. But when I came back, I have made it a point to stay out of most ALL candidate threads -- including those for pro-Dean. I pop into those now and again and always find the same people bashing the Dean messengers and bashing Dean with lies and propoganda.

And from now on, I just might decide to get in on some Kerry threads and stir things up and wreck his supporters' day - if I can stomach exposure to Kerry's empty rhetoric. Because what I have come to conclude is that the Freeper Fundie approach to politicking is not just reserved for repukes. It seems to be a disease in our society with the way all people seem to relate publicly. And the dems are far from immune. And the a-political are not immune from it either. We have a sick, hit below the belt, bullish society.....and it goes far beyond politics. Americans...overall.......collectively are really offensive people.....sorry to say. You know why Bush is such a big hit with so many people? It's because he mirrors our fucked up society. PERFECTLY! We are battling ourselves basically. And we aren't making much headway to improve - here on DU or in our communities. If Bush wins......we have lost the fight with our own selves. That's disgusting.

So, though I appreciate your sentiments CMT, I have found the approach you suggest to be utterly futile. And I can either play nice, roll over and be a patsy OR I can just dish it out like it comes in. I choose the latter. And that won't make me any friends here...esp among Dean supporters, but in the face of the fight against the ultimate bully in the White House, the price is too high for me to be steamrolled by a few dems on a DU board who are intent on slandering (as in untrue statements) about a candidate that I believe, wholeheartedly, can help turn this nation around.

If the board as a whole can get REALLY honest and confront the maybe TEN to FIFTEEEN people who consistently stir things up......and put them in their rightful place, I have no doubt that this election cycle could be an empowering and exciting and positive experiment in grassroots politics. 10-15 individuals........totally screwing this board.....and they have been doing it for a good long time with the blessing of the DU Admin. That's unacceptable......and, well, NO, I will not play nice. Just as I would not play nice were I to be forced to work around a bunch of bona fide freepers.

Sorry......don't mean to be such a curmudgeon. But just the topic of getting along in this regard ires me to no end......because those 10-15 people WILL never stop flaming this board. EVER! Why? Cause there is no peer pressure being applied to make them stop. It's always "we need to get along." Bullcorn, we need to ostracize just a FEW people. Democracy does not mean that every single person can be a total asshole because it's all inclusive. Civilized societies have always had a big stake in making sure that the anti-social are ostracized. Sacrifice a few for the good of the collective. But here in the USA and here on DU as a microcosm, our society has taken leave of that all too important role of applying peer pressure and consequences for really bad behavior. And I am not going to pretend for a minute that this is not true. And I am not going to roll over like a patsy. Way too much at stake.

Flog away folks!

By the way, YES, I will vote a straight dem ticket as I have done for two decades. Even if Lieberman is the dem nom. and that's how committed I am to the democratic party. But this is the primary...the most important part of the election because we choose who will go on the ticket. And this is where the real battle is fought.

[Ripley]

6. Many of these people are disruptors.

Statements like "I used to like Dean, but his supporters turn me off" is a classic disruptive move and you really shouldn't even dignify them by posting in those threads.

They are baiting you and know they will get support from the Pro-Kerry people (some of them). It is called divide and conquer.

Just ignore them. Don't let them get under your skin.

[Tinoire]

35. Agreed- They're either disruptors or clumsy short-sighted supporters

doing much more harm than good and the problem is just going to get worse. It would really behoove us to ignore all disruptive threads, posts, and posters, at the most just leaving them with a short :eyes: post or something to get the point across.

Engaging them in conversation dilutes the whole value of this board.

[SoCalDem]

7. I am breaking my own rule here, but.....

Since I have not made up my mind and am not ready to, I AVOID ANY thread that contains a candidate name..

Personally, I wish that ANY thread with a candidate name was re-directed to the candidates and campaigns forum..

Personal preference is fine, but , let's face it...no one is really going to change anyone's mind here..

If I started a thread "I have come to like and respect GWB", and then listed the "good"* things* he has done , would anyone change their mind???

The candidate threads are circular firing squads.. We can individually support and work for the campaigns of our pet candidates, but in the final analysis, only ONE of them will emerge as THE candidate.. If your guy does not make it, will you NOT vote for the one who does???

The sniping at each other for beliefs in their own candidate is silly and counter-productive..

That's why I never click on them (except for this time:evilgrin:..)


* hypothetical.. we all know that he is incapable to doing good..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Loyalty

My loyalty is to the Democratic party not any particular candidate.

I don't have a problem with robust debate.

I am obsessed with electability. If I comment on this or that candidate's electability it has nothing to do with the virtue or lack of virtue in that candidate's positions. Maybe this focus on electability is myopic but so be it. If you don't win you can't do diddly poo.

I see many partisans on this site reacting to criticisms of their candidates with ad hominem attacks without taking time to refute the substance of the criticisms.

If you are going to do something big show be a plan. If you want your candidate to be president show me the scenario in which it will occur.

Robust debate is good.

Let a thousand flowers bloom.....

[w13rd0]

12. I do know what you mean...

...I try to stay level headed about things, but some of the snarkiness is really off-putting. I wouldn't have half the issue with it that I do were it not so persistent, predictable and dishonest. I suspect part of the reason for the sheer volume of threads started is because people get tired of seeing the usual suspects polute ongoing threads with the same back and forth that can be found by just doing a search on their nick.

I do hope that, in the event that Dean isn't the nominee, Dean supporters can find it in their hearts not to judge the nominee by their supporters...

[Tinoire]

14. Agree w/ the main point of this discussion /Response to JNelson6563 post 2

even if I admit that I haven't always come across as impartially as I like and would like to be.

Here was a "curiosity" thread about Kerry that I sincerely started that did not turn into a flame war- not even one post and for that I was EXTREMELY grateful to the DUers who took the time to respond and also to those who exercised the self-restraint to stay away if they had nothing constructive to add.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=61896#62731

This isn't a football game and I'd like to see the squabbling and blind partisanship stop. We only have a few months before the primaries and our only chance to get the right guy in there is to sit down and discuss things honestly, without partisanship, willing to objectively sort through all the candidate histories without offending each other. The euphoria of getting YOUR or MY candidate to win the primaries won't mean jack shit if he's not strong enough to beat Bush. And to beat Bush, that candidate is going to require substance, a track record that would be acceptable to the broadest range/numbers of potentialvoters out there AND be seen as good, caring, wise President!

So I vote NO to the trolls and disruptors, no matter how established they are

and YES to discussions!

I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their ideals but we do have to band together and re-attract as many voters as we can by determining who is the most truly progressive, acceptable candidate.

Peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Some People Really Trashed Kerry In That Thread I Counted 3 or 4

one poster called him a "turd"

I would never call anybody a turd not even Chimpy

Crypto-Fascist, but never a turd.

[Tinoire]

34. I had to do a word search and found that

Well, even though I didn't make it, I apologize to the Kerry supporters because that was uneccessary and didn't accomplish anything other constructive. Ignoring those, which were an extreme minority and didn't really cause I flame thanks to the maturity of the people who posted, I think the thread was productive. What it really shows me is that it can be done. We CAN do it! We CAN discuss intelligently and respectfully.

I have absolutely no, zero, zilch desire to see Kerry be our candidate, but just in case he is, just in case I'm wrong and he's the right man for the job or he's the one more people would rally around (to include people who normally don't vote or vote Dem), then I want to know what his positions are and why so many intelligent, respected posters like him because that will make ALL the difference in whether this leftist-pinko-commie blah blah blah Liberal can vote for the Democratic candidate or not. And the same applies for all candidates.

We all already know the bad things- we've been discussing them for 2 years- now can we maybe get on to the good things so we can make informed decisions? The rah-rah, let's all jump on the band-wagon attitude, that's seen across the board (all the partisan camps) has got to go.

Why are most of us Liberals, Leftists, and Progressives? Because we're capable of independent thought. Let's all respect that even if we don't agree with those thoughts. This isn't Freeperville and I respect my Dean/Kerry/Clark/Gephardt/Lieberman supporting friends here as much as they have shown they respect me. Let's just get on with it intelligently. Many of us are tired, burnt out from 2-3 years of activism and politics. Anyone using childish tactics here, regardless of candidate, is doing a disservice to DU, their candidate and a Democratic win.

Peace

[JNelson6563]

30. Glad to know that thread went well

I checked it early on and thought it was pretty productive. Like I said tho' I was hesitant to look when it got long.

I agree with the rest of your post. Well said, also like the Some but not all thing below~SBNA, excellent.

Julie

[Tinoire]

37. Thanks & I like that SBNA suggestion also

It sure beats our other clumsy ways of saying that where we occasionally miss. I'm going to start using that from now on because it really is SBNA!

[Pepperbelly]

17. Those who bash and then stand tall ...

roll their shit into little balls.
Those who read their words of wit,
Eat those little balls of shit.

:D

[Khephra]

18. Here's what I'd like to see more people do

Use the "somebutnotall" phrase that one of my favorite authors created to keep people from stereotyping entire groups. With us being Net users, we can turn it into an acronym.

Ex: SBNA Kerry supporters are arrogant.

SBNA Dean supporters are arrogant.



I'm seeing a wide brush used by just about every candidate's supporters here. Lets stick to what's true. All the supporters of any one candidate are never going to be the same as the rest of them. It's time we stop stereotyping ourselves.

[AnnabelLee]

24. Well said, khephra

:thumbsup:

[blm]

25. Good idea, kef...

because accuracy matters, imo. SBNA is the way to go!!

[IDUDOYOU]

29. But a group is judged by its lowest common denominator

Simple group dynamics.
If you support a particular candidate and another supporter of that candidate acts like an ass, tell them they are acting like an ass.
Peer pressure is the best form of social reorganization.

[Khephra]

32. And as I asked you in another thread

What groups do you belong to? I'd like to judge them by your actions. Is that fair to them?

BTW, I HAVE told other Dean supporters when they're acting like asses. There's a thread in BN right now with me defending BLM against another Dean supporter.

[Tinoire]

39. Yeah and you've been so cool about it

that I don't even remember which candidate you support. Blm, IG, a ton of posters have been incredibly cool about it even chiming in on some heated threads to admonish disruptors saying- "Look, this isn't my candidate but here are the true facts". DSC did the same thing on a Lieberman thread that I greatly appreciated because it cleared up a misconception some of us had about him (not that I'm going to support him but) thus little by little, we pave the road to be able to willingly support whichever candidate wins.

I can't/won't jump on a band-wagon simply because some disembodied voice behind a moniker tells me I have to, that I must, I need to know why I should jump on that band-wagon.

This has been a good thread, IMO, and thanks to it, I will make an even greater effort to avoid/ignore the disruption and get on with the business of figuring out my little corner of the primaries and the presidential.

Peace

[Tinoire]

38. I like that! SBNA all the way! n/t

:thumbsup:

[SEAburb]

31. You reap, what you sow. Do you need a tissue?

The Dean suppoters brought it on themselves. They are the ones that brought the level of civility down. And frankly if they don't like or can't handle the bashing, TOUGH SHIT. I find the Dean supporters to be hyper sensitive to anything they perceive to be citicism of Dean. You can't even make an innocent joke about Dean, without having Dean supporters go off on you. It was all fun and games when the Dean supporters overwhelmed and dominated the forum and now that things have evened out you want us to back off. Ain't going to happen!!

Plus we all know there are Dean insiders operating on this forum, which isn't the case with other candidates. Because of that there is a greater number of Dean threads posted, that gives people more chances to bash his supporters. Lighten up on the Dean threads and the bashing will lighten up.

[Eloriel]

41. Oh, please

The Dean suppoters brought it on themselves. They are the ones that brought the level of civility down.

That's JUST not true. If anything, it was the mostly Kerry supporters, and primarily a handful of them who have been most offensive -- lies and distortions that they keep repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating.

DESPITE the fact that those same lies and distortions have been debunked, discredited, proven wrong, etc., etc., innumerable times. And YOU want to blame Dean supporters for being nasty?

I can't tell you how angry your post makes me. I suppose that is precisely the point, isn't it?

Bah!

Plus we all know there are Dean insiders operating on this forum, which isn't the case with other candidates.

Bullshit. I know of one person, a longtime DUer, who MAY now be doing some stuff officially for the campaign. You coudln't guess it from this person's posts. Another hasn't posted here in a long, long time. You probably wouldn't even know him. No one else. Believe me, the small Dean campaign has much bigger fish to fry than populating DU with "operatives."

But the Kerry campaign, ahhhh, there we have a completely different story. We have several people who seem to do nothing else but disrupt Dean threads with their Dean lies and distortions under the incredibly wrong-headed notion that (a) someone will be persuaded by their antics and (2) their anti-Dean lies and distortions will magically drive people away from Dean to Kerry. Ain't gonna happen. Their time would be far better spent talking up Kerry. I can only conclude they just can't find much to talk about re a positive message for Kerry.

Because of that there is a greater number of Dean threads posted, that gives people more chances to bash his supporters. Lighten up on the Dean threads and the bashing will lighten up.

Have you FUCKING BOTHERED TO NOTICE A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF DEAN THREADS ARE STARTED BY HIS DETRACTORS?

AND ANOTHER THING: There are more Dean supporters here than any other candidate. Think that has anything to do with the slightly greater number of Dean threads?

And how dare you threaten to keep up with the disrutpion of Dean supporters don't stifle themselves. Who the HELL do you think you are?

Eloriel

[SEAburb]

50. I wasn't looking for any kind of reaction, just

wanted to give my POV on the issue and I stand behind my post. If it made you mad, oh well, so be it. I guess any kind of reaction is better than no reaction.

Here is an example of my pov. I made a negative Dean post about his stance on racial issues. I got four responses. One supported my view. One Dean supporter challenged my view. And two Dean supporters attacked me and never challenged my view.

About the number of Dean threads, my point is, a number of pro-Dean threads don't have any substance. And those threads just invite bashing. I wasn't referring to threads that deal with policy or issues.

[DarienComp]

33. I'm sick of it too.

I'm a Dean supporter. I don't understand where all this resentment is coming from. What is wrong with being a true believer? I mean, yes, Dean has a blunt talking style that can sometimes get him into trouble. Haven't we been wishing for that?

I remember when the war resolution was going through, and I read post after post extolling the cowardice of the congressional Dems who voted for it. Dean says the same thing and is pilloried for it. Why?

And, I REALLY don't appreciate the resentment towards Dean supporters because we see fit to defend him against what we feel are unfair criticisms.

Flame away.

[Tinoire]

36. Defend him- by ALL means defend him but please don't

think that (on edit: SBNA) HD supporters are putting up any defense by snowing this board with pro-dean and anti-every-other candidate thread/posts and engaging in discussion by just posting a link to his web-site! This weakens the supporter's position and the candidate's exposure.

This board evolved through meaningful discussion and what is happening now is that unless I know the Dean supporter, I just skip the entire thread or the individual posts because it's too much and there are other stories to keep up with, other candidates to examine where the message isn't so spread out as to be diluted.

Tactically speaking, this is a HUGE mistake on the part of (on edit: SBNA) HD supporters. Too much surface and not enough depth because of the sheer volume. Please concentrate it a little and keep it as quality-as-DU-possible.

Thanks to everyone who even considers this point and also thanks to the mature Dean supporters who above all the din are able to get some good points across.

[DagmarK]

47. Tinoire, then maybe you aren't qualified to enter this discussion

which you have monopolized......

"unless I know the Dean supporter, I just skip the entire thread or the individual posts because it's too much and there are other stories to keep up with,"

"Too much surface and not enough depth because of the sheer volume. Please concentrate it a little and keep it as quality-as-DU-possible."

How can you even weigh in about the alleged snowballing of Dean threads by supporters, if you don't read a good portion of the threads?

I see that you seem touched by the non-Dean candidates' supporters crying and that you want to bring "peace" to this board, but calling Dean supporters on the carpet to clean up their acts and implying that a bulk of the material they share is intellectually inferior......well, you have your opinions. But you don't really read the Dean posts in their entirety so you speak with mere speculation. Pot calling the kettle black in terms of educated posting.

[Tinoire]

49. Actually I have read more than you think

I specifically stated that I read the threads and posts started by people I know because I know those threads won't be a waste of precious time when there's so much at DU to read. Sorry for prioritizing my time as most DUers do!

Additionally, I have SEVERAL good CLOSE friends at DU who are strong Dean supporters with whom I have and do discuss the issue because they bring enough substance to their conviction to cover a hundreds of disparate posts.

Any other problems you may have, please grow a thicker skin. Yours is the kind of post that does not help your cause. Have I ever jumped on you? Then what was the purpose of your post? Simply to jump on another poster? Most of the people I responded to are friends of mine, if you don't like my opinion, skip it and let those posters who know where I come from with my posts, take what they want to out of it. Your combative tone was quite unnecessary.

[DagmarK]

52. And your all knowningness is appalling

and your denial about the problem is mind boggling.

Whatever tinoire...whatever. Yes, i will skip your posts through ignore from now on.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. Put their asses on "ignore"

I'm not talking about the people with legitimate complaints or criticism of Dean, I'm talking about the ODB (Obsessive Dean Bashers). We all know who they are as we've seen their same tired-ass posts time and time again.

And if I hear one more Bay Area, L.A. or San Diego ASSHOLE put down the San Joaquin Valley I swear to goddess I'm goin' postal on somebody's ass. (Sorry, I just read the Bakersfield thread and got really really REALLY pissed off!)

I say fuck all of 'em!

[Khephra]

44. The problem then is that you can't see what they say to others

and then you're not able to correct their obvious bashes. We have to keep our eyes open to take care of the bashers.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. But Kep,

HOW many times have we read these half-truths, quotes taken out of context, and out-and-out lies about Dean? And how many times have we countered them? Hundreds? Thousands? It's like trying to argue with a drooler (Freeper) and is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing, it's a waste of time and it only frustrates the pig.

(Sorry for the rant but things are just pissin' me off today big time. Probably the hormones ragin in this paramenapausal body.)

OK. I'm done. B-)

[Khephra]

46. The problem is that there's always new DUers who haven't heard

the counter arguments before.

[DagmarK]

48. Is this statement about Dean TRUE?

"Dean's people are opposed to inviting the Greens back into the party."

It was placed at the end of a very short post that didn't have anything to do with the presidential candidates. It seemed to be an "afterthought", but it caught my attention.

I don't know if it is true or not. I would go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't imagine the Dean campaign would actually put on its platform, "we are hesitant to invite the Greens back into the party." But correct me if I have missed something.

????? And if it's just some perception -- honestly obtained but factually untrue -- it sure does mishcharacterize what Dean is all about.

[chaska]

53. I can certainly sympathize

I'm fed up with the constant attacks on my candidate. I don't attack other candidates (it's an unofficial policy of the Clark campaign). I have seen quite a few attacks FROM the Dean camp. I think we should police our own people. If one of yours attacks call them on it. I pledge to do the same.

[whirlygigspin]

55. Ignore them

I used to think that most of these trolls, or "Kerry supporters"
as they call themselves could be argued with reasonable.

Now I do not.

I will just put them on ignore.