I would like to propose a new DU rule. That is...

[LAS14]

... that we stay away from all or nothing language, even when applied to Trump voters. We need to do something to fight back against the Russians and their bots who dive in on BOTH sides of divisive issues to Balkanize our society.

When I say "rule" I mean the kind of thing that is used for alerts.

What do you think?

[MineralMan]

1. DU doesn't really have any rules. Just guidelines.

In place of rules, we have community moderation, in the form of alerts and juries.

I think making hard and fast rules here is probably not going to fly. I can't imagine how a rule like the one you are suggesting would even be worded so it made sense. Want to give it a try? Write a sample rule for us.

[LAS14]

4. I mean a new thing like we use for alerts. Whatever you want to call it. nt

[Fla Dem]

8. Believe you're thinking of the "TOS"; Terms of Service

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Found at the bottom of every page.

[Hortensis]

60. I tend to do that already, a major cause of

run-on sentences in my posts, so I'm sympathetic to the principle.

But a rule? Give trolls and other predators another weapon to stalk members with? Thanks for the laugh, LAS14!!!!

[LAS14]

72. You're the second person to talk about...

...trolls using forum rules to their advantage. I hadn't heard about that. Can you point me somewhere to read up on how they do it? How they know about it? E.g, here on DU you can't ever tell who alerted a post.

tia
las

[zipplewrath]

2. In conflict with existing rules

It's all or nothing on support of democrats. You either do, or you leave.

[LAS14]

5. How does refreaining from saying "All Trump voters....."

translate into not supporting Democrats. That's my point. We shouldn't let ourselves be sucked into the kind of hateful lazy thinking that Russia is trying to promote.

[zipplewrath]

6. You will support all democrats

Is an all or nothing statement which would violate your new rule.

[LAS14]

11. No. "You will support all democrats," is not labeling...

... anyone as anything.

[dameatball]

3. I need to check with my handler and get back to you.

[rzemanfl]

53. Da, me too. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I don't understand how never using "all of nothing" language would help fight infiltrators

We need to say "we always respect a woman's right to choose" for abortion. We need to say "Trump is unsuitable as president". Infiltrators are just as likely to use equivocation and "both sides..." language as anything divisive.

[LAS14]

9. Do we really think infiltrators are just as likely...

...to use "both sides" language? I don't think so. Anyway, I'm not saying we can't take clear positions on any issue. It's the ad hominem labeling of ALL people in a group as this or that that is lazy thinking and truly divisive of a society.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Yes, 'both sides...' can be very pernicious

eg Trump's "there were good people on both sides" about Charlottesville. I'm happy to label all the people on the pro-slavery demonstration 'bad'.

[LAS14]

70. Me too. But it's a far cry from that crowd to all people who voted Republican. nt

[bettyellen]

76. both siderism is huge w trolls. Like saying its bigotry to call out bigots.

It’s ridiculous, but they do it all the time.

[Amishman]

10. I kinda like this idea

The Trump voter societal problem is a lot more complicated than we like to make it. Blanket statements encourage flawed oversimplified thinking.

[Adrahil]

12. How about no?

I will not induldge in both-siderism.

[EffieBlack]

13. You really are pulling out all the stops to protect Trump supporters, aren't you?

Having trouble holding your own in your defense of Trump supporters in various DU threads is not sufficient reason for DU to change its rules for discussion.

Nice try, though.

[LAS14]

14. I'm not trying to protect Trump voters. I'm trying to protect our democracy.

We're playing into their hands if we divide along black and white hate filled lines.

[EffieBlack]

15. Riiight ... and changing the rules for discussion on DU will protect our democracy?

Okaaay.

You might have been less transparent if you had made your example any other group of people who tend to get lumped together - and do get lumped together often on DU - e.g., black voters, women voters, Hillary supporters, Bernie supporters, Republicans, conservatives, millennials... But you gave yourself away when you pointed to, of all people, Trump voters - especially on the same day you've been actively defending them in various threads.

And considering the number of times I and others have had to defend ourselves from accusations that we're calling ALL Trump voters something or another, when we're doing no such thing, as evidenced by our explicit use of such terms as "some," "The ones who," etc., I suspect that your "proposal" is intended to lay a predicate for harassment and intimidation through alerts and hiding on anyone who criticizes any Trump voters.

So, hell no on your idea.

[LAS14]

18. When "the ones who did" is "the ones who voted for Trump," then...

.... it's too broad a brush. And I'm focusing on lumping all Trump voters together because, of course, in DU no one is lumping those other groups together. And I haven't been defending Trump supporters. I've been trying to defend DU as a place which collects together intelligent, passionate progressives.

[EffieBlack]

21. Oh, please - you've been falling all over yourself defending them

And now you want to change the rules to protect them.

[NurseJackie]

28. Looks like you've figured it out, too!

[EffieBlack]

37. Yup.

[sheshe2]

47. Sorry. Trump voters cheered...

This woman:


They cheered trump for making fun of a disabled reporter:


They cheered "Lock her up."
They cheered "All Mexicans are rapists."
They cheered "Build that wall"
They cheer Russian now.
They cheer Treason now.

Sorry no, they are all deplorable and I would not waste one minute on them. Not one.

[LAS14]

55. Yes, SOME Trump voters cheered. I'm not...

...denying that some Trump voters (maybe a majority) are awful people, bigots, misogynists, racists. I'm just denying that ALL are. Your examples don't go any distance to illustrating that ALL are. More importantly, I'm urging us all to avoid "ALL" thinking. It's lazy, inaccurate and plays into the hands of Russia, which is trying to exacerbate hate filled divides.

[sheshe2]

63. Sorry.

They watched him and listened to him and saw the bigoted, misogynist and racist hate. Nope, they saw it all and voted for him anyway because they agreed with what he said. BTW, I am not lazy and THEY are the hate filled ones not Democrats that you seem to be saying are so easily swayed and falling into the hands of Russia. They voted for the man they saw, they got the man they wanted. If a few break away, good for them yet the majority will always stay on the side of hatred of anyone less white, not female, lgbt or other than them. They believe in white male supremacy. It is as simple as that. I have no time for any of them.

[Me.]

62. They're Birthers & Lock Her Up Says It All

[sheshe2]

64. You are correct, me.

That says it all.

[Me.]

66. What A Nice Thing To Say

[sheshe2]

67. You are my sister...

I agree 100% with what you post.

[Me.]

71. Oh My

[LAS14]

74. See my response #73.

[LAS14]

73. Everyone knows they're not ALL birthers. So I don't see how...

... this post speaks to what I said. Except to illustrate the problem. This is lazy thinking. We progressives should be better than this. I've always liked to think that our conversations were in general more intelligent than most if the right's. But I see us drifting into their mode of communication.

[Me.]

77. That Is A Totally Preposterous Response

Here's the real problem...they tell us over and over who they are...by their screaming at rallies, by their posts on various websites and, most importantly their votes. Do you get that....they vote for him. And yet we constantly have people telling us not to believe our lying eyes.I am completely fed up with both. If there is a change in behavior required, it's theirs. Let's see them vote/support for someone other than Comrade Trump and his complicit Congress. The only lazy thinking going on is that which allows a corrupt, venal, vindictive president and his cronies subject this country to their crimes. So please take your scold and deliver it to those who are harming this country with their biases and ignorance.

[LAS14]

78. "They'" some of them. "They" does not equal all of them. Don't you get that?????

Apparently not. I want to be able to be proud that the left is clearer thinking, more intelligent than most of the right. That is slipping.

[Me.]

79. Clearer Thinking Is What Is Needed To Save This Country

not a desire to enable to those who allow the harm to continue. As I said, if someone tells you who they are, especially over and over...believe them.

[LAS14]

82. OK. What do you think I said that this is an answer to?

I can't figure out what you think you're arguing about. I said we shouldn't say "ALL" members of a group are this thing or that thing. You keep replying with assertions about SOME members of a group (Trump voters). I never denied that the things you say are true about some/most of them. So what's your point? Who are you arguing with?

[Me.]

85. So Which Members Of His Base Do You THink Aren't

And what you seem to be ignoring is who they are...which gives us the government they deserve. Clearly we aren't going to agree on this.

[LAS14]

86. In the post you're replying to, I identified "the group" as Trump Voters.

Obviously, not all Trump voters are his base. One could reasonably define "his base" as just those kind of people you're describing. That's fine. I'll go along with that. If they are not as you describe, then they're not "his base."

[Me.]

87. You're Trying Really Hard

to fit a square peg into a round hole...good luck with that.

[poboy2]

16. 'There are good people on both sides'. -nt

[oasis]

17. Trump voters/supporters are the dumbasses we can credit for

a giant leap backward for America.

Sensible gun legislation, climate change, women's reproductive rights, racial and religious tolerance, economic inequality etc. Giant leap backwards.

There are enough avenues that indulge, promote and embrace their stupidity. Just not here.

[MGKrebs]

19. I thought we weren't supposed to be advocating executing anyone,

even republicans. But I have been corrected on that. It's apparently OK to advocate for executing your political enemies here.
So trying to split hairs about over-generalization is peanuts. Fagedaboudit.
You just have to keep in mind what sandbox you are playing in.

[NurseJackie]

20. OMG I totally lost track of time! Is it HUG-A-DEPLORABLE DAY again already?

[LAS14]

22. Cute, but no. It's "remember that deplorables fill only one of two baskets" day. nt

[NurseJackie]

26. ###

[LAS14]

29. As I recall, you were a big Hillary fan. Are you denying that she was making...

... the point that only some Trump voters are deplorable?

[NurseJackie]

33. Oh, good lord!

[LAS14]

36. Sorry, I'm not getting your response....

[NurseJackie]

38. Then we're even.

[EffieBlack]

31. And, God forbid that someone who lines up with and votes with deplorable to elect the king of the de

Gets confused for a deplorable.

Poor babies. They must be protected from enduring any of the natural consequences of their choices. Let's change all the rules so that anyone who criticizes them or their companions can be alerted on, harassed, and hidden.

Your obsessive desire to force everyone on this board to adhere to your rather bizarre attachment to people who voted for a racist ass is noted.

[Demsrule86]

23. No... way too subjective

[genxlib]

24. I am not sure it could be enforced as a rule

But it does seem like we lack nuance sometimes.

I am a big believer in gray. Nothing is ever black or white.

[ismnotwasm]

25. All Trump voters are bigots

Sorry bout that

[billh58]

30. +100 n/t

[50 Shades Of Blue]

27. If I was ever on a jury for a breaker of that rule, I'd let 'em skake.

[EffieBlack]

35. This takes me back to the Bernie-Hillary supporter wars when posts were getting alerted and hidden

left and right.

But this time it would be Trump supporter sympathizers doing the alerting. What could go wrong with that?

[NurseJackie]

40. Nailed it! Thank you for telling-it-like-it-is!!!! (You rock!)

[EffieBlack]

42. So do you!

Love the gif!!!

[Glamrock]

32. No

I'm for free speech on liberal sites. That's just me...

[LAS14]

34. How do you feel about all the other terms of service we are bound by? nt

[Glamrock]

39. Not really down with em except for being remotely civil.

[gopiscrap]

41. no because ALL trump voters are dumb ass shit stains

on the ass pimple of mankind and need to crawl back into the racist, ignorant, xenophobic, mysogonistic cave they came out of

[EffieBlack]

43. Oh, great, now you've done it. How are we EVER going to get them to vote Democratic if you're so mea

to them?!

[gopiscrap]

45. yeah I know because it's so easy to reason with them! Sarcasm intended!!!

[lunamagica]

44. Good luck with that. First, we can't say what we think about a certain senator

who is constantly bashing Democrats.

And now you want us to walk on eggshells when we discuss trump voters?

Not happening.

[EffieBlack]

46. Bingo!

[sheshe2]

48. Woah.

This and thank you.

[EffieBlack]

52. And Meanwhile, Hillary, Pelosi and DiFi are fair game from dawn to dusk then all night long

But let's make sure we tread very lightly when talking about Trump supporters.

Makes you wonder what's lies beneath.

[NurseJackie]

58. " Makes you wonder what's lies beneath."

Makes you wonder what's lies beneath.

I already know. It's painfully obvious.

I know it's obvious to you as well... only we must both "tread lightly" for obvious reasons and to avoid obvious risks.

Isn't that sad?

Definitely sadder than the hurt feelings of the deplorables that we forgot to hug.

[DrDan]

49. no thank you

[bucolic_frolic]

51. This sounds an awful lot like moving to the political center to appear reasonable

or lay down your arms. We always lose that way.

I think it would be dumb as a rule. But posters should always filter their posts for credibility, a modicum of respect, and to try to tie down all the loose ends and incontrovertible language so as to innocculate themselves from being skewered by the right.

[herding cats]

54. ugh. No, thank you.

Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2018, 06:36 PM - Edit history (1)

People who voted for Trump are at best a bunch of racist enablers. They're also selfish, shallow and a large chunk of them are bigots.

How about they change to be included in our party, rather than we change to be more inclusive of them.

[SidDithers]

56. Hard no...nt

Sid

[greatauntoftriplets]

57. herr drumpf's supporters do not belong on DU. Period.

End of story.

[LAS14]

69. Did you read most post as wanting to invite Trump supporters to DU?????

[Mosby]

59. no thanks.

[LexVegas]

61. I assume all Trump voters are bigots. nt

[MGKrebs]

65. While a rule like this would be unenforceable, I do respect the sentiment.

It would be nice if our dialogue could be elevated beyond "all trump supporters should be executed" or something similar, but it ain't going to happen. The members who have the most free time to post and are the most judgmental rule the day.

Sad but true.

[fescuerescue]

68. Trolls usually use strict forum rules as a weapon

They goad the other person into breaking the forums strict rules on whatever, then the opponent gets banned or admonished.

That's trolling 101.

In fact, as I think about all the forums I participate in, those with the strictest rules (ahem), have the worst trolling problems.

[lillypaddle]

75. Please don't tell me (us)

what we can and can't say. Let's leave that up to admins.

[Lunabell]

80. No

[TheBlackAdder]

81. I was getting flagged often. I added folks seemingly prone to flagging and haven't been for months.

Note: I don't ignore anybody, but I did stack my Jury Blacklist with top flaggers who seem to back each other up.
It would be nice if the Jury Blacklist could be extended to 30, instead of the 15 that presently is allowed.

[LAS14]

84. What is a jury blacklist? nt

[TheBlackAdder]

88. Under My Account, there is a tab called Jury Blacklist, you add 15 people you don't want on a jury.

If someone flags a post you make, there is a reach out for jury candidates to rule on your post. If there are people who you might have not gotten along with, or who you might think are predisposed to vote against you, you can add them to this list and they won't be called on to decide your post's fate.

[LAS14]

89. Ah. How commonsensical. Thanks. nt

[meadowlander]

83. Some things are inherently wrong

and need to be spoken out against in "all or nothing" terms.

If someone does take an unnuanced position it is usually a trigger for a discussion that tests the statement and then walks it back. That's the whole purpose of a forum like this.