Post #1000: Trolls and Creeps Galore, including on DU; What should authentic progressives do?

[cloudythescribbler]

One of the problems raised in the apparently usually bitter primary season is the problem of what I call trollagerie . One of its many manifestations is in the posting of zillions of flame-bait threads that are never held accountable (that's the donut theory of free speech -- the first speech that REALLY gets suppressed is the truth, while crap is typically well-protected). I would agree that a limit of FIVE new threads per day in the General Discussion: Primary section isn't too much of a restriction -- I am sure that I myself have never started more than three in one day.

But the problem should NOT be dismissed as only or primarily a problem at DU during presidential primary season(s). Rather, like arthritis that is often exacerbated during damp weather, these situations raise issues that are otherwise abounding, but not necessarily as OBVIOUSLY so. It is a problem that is not limited to the web, but found even if face-to-face politics, even if more superficial "civility" or its pretense is maintained. It is the problem that under present conditions in the US, progressive politics is laden with swarms of elements that have identifiable properties, precisely properties that are causing so much distress at DU now, at least if properly viewed and analyzed. It is something that authentic progressives, perhaps with a separate listserve for discussion of these issues as well, and other means, have utterly failed to address not only at DU but generally. It is a problem because to attack the problem of underground suppression and manipulation of authentic progressive politics, it means that those doing so will themselves inevitably face suppression and manipulation, typically of the unaccountable kind that is the most difficult to stem or effectively challenge.
It doesn't take the perspicacity of Sherlock Holmes in "The Red-Headed League" to see that these problems and issues are VERY real and need addressing in this era of US and world politics.

But looking at the specific situation of DU during Democratic Presidential Primary season, some points can be observed.

I think that to really understand the problem rightly what is needed is a concrete examination of where all these threads are coming from and who is sustaining them.

For example, three memes stand out as remarkable, though there have been numerous others:

(1) The McClurkin Demiurge: this episode, which was basically a matter of Obama trying to handle a sticky situation he faced having already publicized a concert by a popular gospel singer and in the final days hearing objections from gay activists. How many of those complaining -- in DOZENS of threads often with SCORES of recommendations and even more (sympathetic) participants, and few GLBT individuals other than myself significantly trying to take this on -- had ever HEARD of McClurkin before this episode? I certainly hadn't.

(2) Handshake-gate???? That there would even be one or two threads focusing on that is odd, that there were a whole slew is positively ('dorothy this isn't kansas') bizarre.

(3) The "cult" meme -- just at the point that Obama has come into a position at least arguably stronger (especially given the Feb prospects and the $ situation) than HRC -- which essentially mocks his very popularity. Yet NO ONE wants to deal with the whole batter of polls (I posted on one thread a LIST OF SIX FROM RCP ALL OF THEM SHOWING OBAMA running stronger against McCain than Clinton). No one is interested in even trying to come up with credible counterevidence that shows Obama would NOT be the strongest in November.

More recently there has been a mountain of protestations about some 'pimp' remark barely worth attention intrinsically. It highlights the fallacy implicit in those who tried to blame the "cult" concern on the way those stigmatized (us Obama supporters) often took up the theme in a sarcastic way, the way many progressives seized upon the famous article in the NY TIMES MAGAZINE about the Bush Administration and "reality based" politics.


But all these dynamics here at DU exist in the context of the wide variety of people participating. Now there are a LOT of different sorts of activists on DU. Some, like myself, support anti-imperialist activism (like students for a democratic society/movement for a democratic society -- sds/mds) and are significantly to the Left even of the platforms of Kucinich and the Rainbow Coalition. But surely one point of logical confluence here should be the desire to see the DEMOCRATS win against the Repugs. This is more basic than even embracing the presumption that Obama really represents grassroots authentic progressivism rather than (as many would insist) more mainstream Democratic Party politics. It would seem that a HUGE burden is on those who want a candidate SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to lose to McCain, especially in the absence of any SERIOUS credible platform differences or issues worthy of supporting Hillary Clinton as against Obama. The case for HRC boils down to essentially some kind of personal evaluation (on this score is EXACTLY why I decided to start giving to Obama's campaign many months ago). But this isn't being made. Instead, there are tsunamis of trollagerie, and, as also happened to me at the time of the Democracy Corps, the administration of DU was not at all interested in even content critiquing (more effective than censorship) the swarms of trolls that appeared then and even more now.

We must stand up to what can only be described as "the privileges of hate", something you DON'T have to buy the meme that Obama is all that in order to see -- though the issue is FAR HARDER to ADMIT rather than just seeing.......

cloudy the scribbler

[Trajan]

1. Congrats on the 1000 posts ...

A well written post ...

I chalk it up to human nature: It is human nature to be an asshole .... and we are not disappointed (in that regard) when we come here ....

I dont put too much stock in it ....

[Nitrogenica]

2. Lets not forget how many trolls were unmasked here after the

2004 elections.

Recently, it had been pointed out by the moderators here that a large number of my posts had been removed because I was accusing people of being trolls.

It was more suspicion than accusation, however, the behavior of some DUers is to me mind boggling.

We are all Democrats.

The Republican talking point repeaters, the Republican liars, the Republican paid trolls, the whole organization of end-justifies-the-means that we are familiar should have taught us all that we should FULLY EXPECT righties to be in here stirring up bullshit I don't care how long a suspected rightie has been here, or how many posts they have.

There are some very very sick minds on the right. Don't forget that!

[cloudythescribbler]

7. many people have referred to PAID political operatives, often for political campaigns, but I find...

that the likelihood of people being paid by the presidential campaigns to post on DU to be extremely marginal.

[L. Coyote]

10. There are lots of organizations on the right, and those not connected to candidates

will do more risky operations, I suspect.

The Arkansas Project wasn't run by candidates either, right? Plausibly deniable, that's for sure.

Some of the disruption here can be explained by well-organized trolling disguised as Dems.
When there is intra-party competition, they fit in/camouflage far better!

[HughMoran]

3. Just another one-sided (hypocritical) rant by an Obama supporter

All of those words - just to repeat all of the same arguments that are occurring all around us in thread after thread. As if you're somehow above the fray by posting this in an essay format. Not.

[zabet]

6. Yep.

The OP just framed it better
with civil language.

[cloudythescribbler]

8. No, the arguments you have seen before are put in context of a LARGER PICTURE ...

and for me (an activist for the most part in groups to the Left of the Democratic Party) these larger issues, affecting much more than just DU or this primary campaign, are the primary interest.

I would add that there is no claim that none of these trolls are among the Obama supporters too, although for whatever reason, if that is the case they seem to be laying lower for now.

[Ediacara]

4. So if you believe in human rights, you're not an authentic progressive?

Nice...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I appreciate posts of substance

and try to avoid the other kind. Every once in a while, a title tricks me into reading it, but then I just back out. The sad thing about so many of these posts is that they crowd out posts of substance that talk of issues. The other thing that bothers me is when someone starts a post about a legitimate concern about either candidate and they are called down on it instead of having the concern addressed.

Now maybe I'm wrong here, but what I have always done is talked one on one with people, whether over the phone or in person, and tried to talk them into voting for my candidate. When the other person brings up concerns I want to know about them and what to say about them. You don't convince someone to vote your way if you go "Uhhhhh...." because you didn't know something.

So far, Obama's drug use and the fact that he lived in Indonesia for a while are things that some gop types are trying to spin into negatives. I know how to counter these, especially when they add the lies about his religion to the mix. Don't know enough about the anti-gay supporters he has had and how this has effected his support from the LGBT community, and would like some input with specifics of what can be done to win over any who have been offended if he gets the nomination.

So far, Clinton's failure to get health care through when she was First Lady is something that is of concern, as I'm not up on her plans from then compared to now. The $$$ she gets from health care lobbyists is troubling, and I'd like some Clinton supporter to ease my concerns so that, if she is the nominee, I can go out and talk about her confidently. Same thing with the sealed student papers of Clinton from her undergraduate days.

These, to me, are real issues that could be potential problems, and I feel it would be much more constructive to talk about them than to indulge in flamebait wars.

[cloudythescribbler]

9. There are indeed substantive issues in the campaign, but AFTER the campaign, the troll problem ...

will remain on DU, and at least a core of people serious about recognizing and opposing the deeper problem (one SEPARATE from the issue of overenthusiasm on all sides during the height of the primary campaign) in some kind of meaningful way. The problem now is like an outbreak of some disease (say Herpes) that does not disappear when its manifestations become less visible, but merely lays low, so to speak.

[L. Coyote]

11. Send the Rs a letter and ask them to quit the dirty tricks stuff.

Photocopy it, send them the photocopy, and frame it!
Seriously, asking the Rs to quit dirty trickery is like asking them to abandon Nixonian Principles. :rofl:

[cloudythescribbler]

12. Einstein, I wasn't looking to change the Repugs & creeps -- but to get US organized to confront &...

to publicize the issue. This is not merely a problem in mainstream electoral politics -- indeed EVERY MAJOR important progressive group, IF AUTHENTIC in the first place, is crawling with these sorts, who wield immense power and privilege underground, backed by the state.