Weakening the Democratic Base, Part 5: Liberal Netroots

[Motown_Johnny]

Just a reminder. I can't call out anyone here by name without getting in trouble so I will post this, again.


http://www.redstate.com/davenj1/2011/05/15/weakening-the-democratic-base-part-5-liberal-netroots/

^snip^



First, infiltratethe site. For this, you will have to avoid creating screen names like “GoPalinGo” or “Heartlandredstater.” Also, some websites may actually have you wait a week before you are allowed to comment or blog. Perhaps, they are investigating the e-mail address you give them against whether it is used for a conservative website. Be sure to avoid that tendency; if you use, for example, aol.com screen name for RedState, make sure you use a yahoo e-mail address for Dailykos, or whatever. Once you are there, the second part of the strategy is to gain their trust. For this, you cannot be too overtly gung-ho conservative in your outlook. Instead, you sort of have to be the voice of a moderate liberal. This will take a lot of acting skill, but it could be done. For example, over at ThinkProgress, they had an article about how the folks in Alabama got what they deserved with the recent spate of tornadoes because their legislators did not believe in global warming. It took all my energies not to reach through the Internet and strangle these kooks, but I responded, “Well, that might be going a little too far…” Along the way, I gained the trust of certain posters on that thread.

The third step is to move the conversation in the direction you desire. By doing this, you can then form the debate in terms you can win. For example, in the above story, although I said they were going too far in their comments, I moved the conversation somewhat by questioning whether the folks in Alabama would accept Federal funds to rebuild their lives. In other words, the subject was changed from a debate on global warming to one of fiscal responsibility. Once there, you can then highjack the thread. In effect, you have changed the subject and tenor or the conversation and the writer of the original post has lost their ability to moderate the conversation and that creates a free-for-all that gets the conversation far off the original mark. Of course, you will be accused of “threadjacking” or, worse (drumrolls please…) being a “troll.” To this I say, of course you are a troll and you should be proud of it. Embrace your status of being a “troll” on the liberal website and carry it through to its logical conclusion. To put it bluntly: Embrace your inner troll. If they realize what is happening and accuse you of being a troll or such, or if they try to block you and your opinions, remind them of their support for the Fairness Doctrine and their reasoning for it- to ensure that both sides have a say- should allow you to have your say. Force them to practice what they preach.



Constant vigilance my friends, constant vigilance.

[comipinko]

1. Baaahahahahahahahahaha

Paranoia may destroya !!!

[Pirate Smile]

2. Hmmm - or instead of acting like a "moderate liberal" someone could be an

"extremely disappointed liberal" bashing POTUS constantly for "betraying" you. Perhaps claim he made promises that he never did and then rage that he broke those "promises".

That would work too.

[wryter2000]

10. +1

That certainly would work, wouldn't it?

[grantcart]

13. I am very very concerned that you might be on to something

[Laelth]

3. Interesting that "winning" is what matters most to the writer of this tutorial.

Both major political parties in the United States have fallen into this trap, as have many people who post here, I am sorry to say. We'd all be better off focusing on what's good for the people rather than on "winning" the argument of the day.

imo

-Laelth

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. +1. nt

[xchrom]

5. that's gonna get lost here. but it's the only real point to be made. nt

[Matariki]

6. I noticed that too.

The person who wrote that seems to have little interest in making a case to change peoples' minds - just wants to 'hijack' threads and 'win debates'. I don't see the point other than to disrupt.

[frylock]

12. word

[msongs]

7. suppress/eliminate opinion that differs from your own. Is that on the list? "vigilance" indeed nt

[madrchsod]

9. i have a google alexa app and ...

right now kos is at 959 alexa traffic rank


the democratic underground is at 1351...which is up in the last few months

we don`t even get a mention form redstate?

oh ya...their traffic rank is 2442.!

[AtomicKitten]

11. Case in point -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=202503

[pinboy3niner]

14. TS'd for 'Monkey Business,' no doubt

[RZM]

15. On a site like DU

Which is well to the left of the Democratic establishment, posing as the 'moderate liberal' wouldn't be a particularly effective strategy, because such people are probably in the minority here and often at odds with much of the rest of the board.

Here, as somebody pointed out already, you would get a much bigger payoff encouraging dissent and discouragement among those who are already hostile to Obama and the Democratic party from the left. Pound home the message that Obama is actually right-wing and that the Democratic elites are sellouts to corporatism, because that is a message that is likely to resonate much more than a moderate one. Then you can slowly push and prod until you reach the point where you're all but encouraging people not to support Obama or mainstream Dems in elections because they betray left-wing principles. At the same time, you are also encouraging people to themselves move to the left, which Republicans would view as advantageous since that would cede ground in the center that they could move into.

The beauty of this strategy is that such posters could blend in very easily. Given the strong left-wing nature of this board, it would be very difficult to tell the difference between somebody who is genuinely disillusioned with the party and somebody who is faking it.

There probably already are posters who do that here. I'll bet the number isn't all that large, but they are probably out there somewhere.

Another strategy would be to push the limits of civility and bring out the worst in people by encouraging behavior and language at odds with respectful political discourse (violence, silencing of opinions, etc.). That's useful too because the more examples of ugliness there are, the more it can be trumpeted as an evidence of how liberals 'really' think, even if it's false. You see this one here every once in a while too - often in the form of 'bait' threads, which pose a question or scenario likely to bring less savory opinions out into the open.