There can be no fruitful political discussion with people who are insincere or hiding their views

[CreekDog]

If people claim to support gun control, but don't, you think you're arguing with someone who just needs to hear the right kind of gun control, but you aren't. Except you can't know that.

If people claim to support Medicaid expansion and Medicare because it sounds good, but in reality they are for shrinking those programs, you can't discuss areas of agreement, because the areas are just "stated" areas of agreement, not actual areas of agreement.

I can deal with, reason with, argue productively with almost anyone if I know what our differences actually are and where we agree.

If someone is pretending to hold certain positions, however, and doesn't, then when you or I attempt to agree with them, they will find a reason to disagree, and it won't be logical, nor will it be sincere.

This is why trolling, not just on the internet, but in media in general is so destructive. It's designed to not just get you to think your ideas aren't popular with the opposition, it's designed to get you to think what should be commonly held ideas are actually unpopular with your fellow liberals and progressives. It's pernicious and insidious.

Now before I close some caveats about what I am *not* complaining about. I am complaining specifically against a wholesale attempt to portray one's sincere beliefs as nearly the opposite of what they are. This is not the well intentioned person trying to find common ground by minimizing differences. This is not the well intentioned idealist being unwilling to compromise certain beliefs held sacred in response to other liberals who are more pragmatic.

This is about your opposition pretending they aren't your opposition, not in a forthright way as the liberals sometimes fight the pragmatists, but those who actually oppose both sides, but pretend not to.

There may not be a solution, but there's nothing wrong with refusing to be a chump when you're being lied to. That's all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. also if your motive is self-aggrandizing one wonders if you really care about

policy or making sure that people remember who you are by creating controversy.

there dishonesty in political arguments on multiple fronts, both on policy issues and on motivation issues.

[SunsetDreams]

2. Excellent post CreekDog K&R nt

[freshwest]

142. +1

[pipoman]

3. In like

Demonizing those who disagree with one's perception of party policy by proclaiming them posers or trolls isn't helpful either. Anyone who wholly agrees with this or any dogma, political policy, belief sytem, etc. is a tool imo...

[xchrom]

4. du rec.

[billh58]

5. K&R

for defining a tactic with which the right-wing does exceedingly well. It is a large part of their Atwater/Gingrich/Kristol playbook, and they even present classes to their acolytes about how best to infiltrate Liberal agendas with this insidious subterfuge.

[CreekDog]

13. it's pretty insidious

[Skip Intro]

6. OMG. How do you not choke on your own hypcrisy, CreekDog? You are a master at

what you are whining about.

I have been on the receiving end of your assaults and personal attacks for a couple of years now, during what are otherwise honest and open discussions with other DUers. You've insinuated ridiculous things about me, called me all sorts of things, twisted my words, cherry-picked and taken out of context years-old posts to attack me. And not just me, I've seen you do it to others, many others, on a regular basis. It is what you're known for here by many.

You start polls with the intent to dig into the past postings of those who vote the wrong way, and use that to attack them and their future posts. You've admitted it.

I've seen you do your best to disrupt threads with these adolescent and bullying tactics. Tons of other DUers have too.

And now you want to start a thread lecturing the board on honest discussion?

Please.

[beevul]

7. I have been on the recieving end of it as well.

Yup.

Spot on, that whole post. Every last bit of it.

[Skip Intro]

8. Thank you. There are plenty who have.

It's like the guy lives in some alternate universe where up is down or something, I dunno...

[CreekDog]

9. I can't have a productive discussion with someone who alerted his own OP

an OP in Meta that actually named me.

you alerted on your post, but accidentally sent it to hosts rather than to a jury. i wasn't a host at the time, this was revealed by others in the thread, that you had done this.

in that alert, you said "I like cjeekdgg..." and argued that the thread should be locked because the thread you started was unfair to me.

the alert had a bunch of misspellings and other errors, and had it actually gone to a jury, would have probably avoided a hide just for looking so amateur and careless.

you later said in that thread that your friend sent the alert, under your screen name, even though they didn't know DU...

anyway, i love to reminisce, and doggone it, i have totally forgotten what you were telling me about honesty, maybe you could give it another shot.

[Skip Intro]

11. Diversion ain't gonna cut it here, CD - you've been a jerk to too many. n/t

[kristopher]

34. Did you alert on your own thread like that?

And try to hide it in the manner stated?

[CreekDog]

56. Yes you did alert your own thread, but you won't admit it

Which is really courageous in the midst of lecturing me

[pintobean]

16. What was that, 2 years ago?

A clear case of PWI that we all got a laugh from. That thread was pointing out the same thing he's pointing out here, though; your constant harassment. You haven't changed at all.

[CreekDog]

32. oh? who was posting while intoxicated in that alert?

just wondering.

[CreekDog]

65. i see you're too afraid to post who it was that was intoxicated while posting

which is ironic considering you're actually defending them and them alerting on their own thread while pretending to defend me.

[pintobean]

66. I'm afraid?

Your fantasies are amusing.

[snooper2]

73. do you keep a spreadsheet, or is your room filled with whiteboards?

LOL

[B2G]

17. Oh give it up

The sad part is that you can't even see it.

[Katashi_itto]

10. Agree, I've seen it repeatedly.

[pintobean]

12. Ditto

It's an attempt to silence the people he doesn't like. He has anointed himself as some sort of gatekeeper. He recently replied to a 2 month old post of mine - with a call-out. I guess he didn't know it was to old to kick the thread. It's just an example of the way he digs around looking for something to distort.

[CreekDog]

42. Do you still use those? Copy machines are really cheap.

You should try one. Your arms don't get as tired and the quality is better.

[pintobean]

44. Some things are priceless

[Texasgal]

28. Yup! Agreed!

Consistantly involved in drama and personal snipping and attacks. It's been a common thing on this board for a very long time. It's honestly part of what makes DU suck.

[CreekDog]

130. well i guess you want me to stop alerting and taking a look at the sexist trolls here

RC, Nemed, etc.

is that what you want? i can stop that, i'm not saying i will, but i can.

but i'm wondering if that's what you want?

[oldhippie]

31. Yup ...

... It's mind boggling.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. I don't think you understand. It's not hypocrisy at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4758521

If you respond to a question in a manner that is inconsistent with what he expects based on his years of polling "your real views", you are assumed to be lying because the inferrences that he has drawn by those polls carry more weight than your own words.

And the clumsy push polls are worded the way are to maximize the number of people who answer wrong and to enable him to assume the worst possible motivations.

If you fail to conform to that worst possible motivational assumption, you must be lying.

It's only hard to understand when you think like a normal person.

[Duckhunter935]

79. you are so right, Creek to talk of this

Makes me laugh

[CreekDog]

105. badge of honor

to be criticized by someone who thinks women should be charged more than men for health insurance.

badge of honor.

if someone who does that likes me, i've done something wrong.

[Eleanors38]

129. Sorry, Creekdog. Your's is a world-filling hypocrisy.

Insinuation, personal attacks, constant artacks on the progressive credentials of others, and strutting about like someone picking a fight in an empty barroom. You like dishing out the word "lie." Your behavior is of a frustrated demogouge who must amp up the character failings of others in order to pump up yourself. I don't usually deal with this stuff, but you NEED to be told.

Get out of your hall of mirrors.

[CreekDog]

135. you're talking to Skip Intro

and i think conservatives are wasting their time here pretending to be something they are not for the purpose of disrupting.

[Glassunion]

14. I like turtles.

Just setting the record straight. This IS my view. I do indeed like turtles.

[B2G]

15. And if you have a discussion with CreekDog,

and you hold a postion he disagrees with, you will be stalked and subjected to him dredging up years' old posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Which totally fosters fruitful political discussion.

[CreekDog]

18. I have to acknowledge and thank the Cjeekdgg Fan Club for stopping by

it is truly a distinct honor to be hated by such a notable group.

[B2G]

21. I don't hate you

I had my first encounter with you a week or so back when you didn't like something I posted about MH370 and decided to dredge up some shit from months back. I didn't know you from Adam, and don't now actually, but from reading the posts in that thread, it was very apparent that I'm not your special stalkee and you have others on the side.

I actually feel sorry for someone who has nothing better to do with their time than stalk people and sift through their old postings for something that they deem to be 'incriminating'.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

[CreekDog]

33. just a few months ago actually, you were agitating against coverage of maternity care under ACA

and you also badmouthed Medicaid expansion.

the point i was making is that i don't come here to argue with Republicans.

and i'm not saying that you're a Republican, but those are big issues to take the Republican position on and, yes, i find it pointless to argue with you on other issues when on such a key issue you took the positions you did.

and that's my choice. and if people disagree with me, they can have that discussion with you.

[B2G]

35. Do you know what I'm wearing right now?

Lol. You are a piece of work.

[CreekDog]

88. i don't care and if you haven't posted it prominently on DU, i won't know

but i do care if i'm arguing with someone who thinks women having babies should not be covered by health insurance.

because that's just messed up and i don't have time here on DU, for people who hold such a backwards opinion.

[pintobean]

91. It seems like you have plenty of time

to "research" and smear anyone who disagrees with you on anything. You started in on me over a meta issue. Talk about bs.

[B2G]

92. OMG. You do have an uncany way of twisting things

others say into complete and utter bullshit.

Quite a talent.

[CreekDog]

93. so you're saying you were misquoted and do think maternity should be covered at no extra cost?

you certainly said the opposite, in an OP no less!

if it's twisting your words to quote you, then i don't think that word you're using means what you think it means.

[Demo_Chris]

37. WTF?! How would you know that? Do you have like an enemies database or something? nt

[CreekDog]

47. wow, are DU posts from late last year a secret?

[Demo_Chris]

54. Last year? I don't care enough to see what you posted YESTERDAY...

Frankly, I think it's disturbing that you do care.

[CreekDog]

58. why are you afraid that your public posts from months ago might get read again?

[Demo_Chris]

59. Afraid? Absolute nonsense. It is not disturbing that people read what I write...

It is, however, really odd (and borderline unhinged) that you would devote even a single minute to researching a poster's outdated posts, mining them for statements you can twist like some demented origami master. As I said, it's a bit unhinged, and perhaps worse it demonstrates that you are struggling to debate the issue at hand and have to make it personal.

In any case, feel free to mine my previous posts for ammunition. Read them two or three times. That is, after all, why I wrote them. I thank you for your interest.

[Skip Intro]

68. He's calling another "afraid" upthread. It's all he's got - namecalling and attacks.

To take the creepiness of mining others' posts for snips he can twist and misrepresent to another level, he actually starts polls with "right" and "wrong" answers, and then researches the posts of all those who voted the "wrong" way.

It's what he does here.

[Demo_Chris]

70. Everyone needs a hobby I suppose. nt

[snooper2]

75. we at least he isn't trapping people in stores...

GTA 5 Online TROLLING! (Trapping People In Stores)

[snooper2]

74. You ARE using whiteboards, I knew it LOL

wouldn't it be easier to just copy/paste the links into a big ass MS Word doc, or do you love the smell of dry erase markers like I do

[CreekDog]

80. i don't use whiteboards and i don't keep any reference material

most of the asshats i take issue with are either well known to most here, or make themselves known to me by giving me a hard time at almost every opportunity --often posting in my threads to accuse me of stalking, yes, following me around DU to accuse me of stalking.

there are also a fair number of people here that let me know that such and such is an MRA, etc. it's not the complicated.

the irony is most posters are quite the opposite of this. nobody is perfectly progressive or liberal, not me or anyone else, it doesn't work that way, but most share a broad range of positions across the board, including civil rights, unrestricted by gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

[snooper2]

82. stalking? nah, maybe it's just love?

I love you, you love me, we're a happy family and you have an awesome memory!


I always get confused by the word asshat-

Would that be this-




or this?

[CreekDog]

85. why are you offended that a reactionary, conservative position might be brought up later?

most of us don't come to DU to deal with folks who hold such positions, why are you so upset that many of us don't want to argue with people who hold them?

if someone is a victim of their own BS, why is that my fault?

[pintobean]

86. "if someone is a victim of their own BS"

Like this thread.

[CreekDog]

89. i'm not a victim here

are you confused?

[pintobean]

90. Not at all

[CreekDog]

136. 33 recommends --I'm not a victim at all

how often do you get 33 recommends?

you're always telling me how unpopular I am, tell me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. ^^^^ this!

plenty of places I could go to do that too!

[pintobean]

23. Did anyone say they hate you?

I've never seen anyone post that they hate you.

[Skip Intro]

19. +100. n/t

[arcane1]

20. How does one determine, in advance, that someone's view is insincere?

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Because Creekdog has years of polling data, correlated by name, detailing your "actual views".

Such as this poll, in which everyone who voted the wrong way is a misognynist.

So the posters who voted wrong on the poll are being insincere when they subsequently post something that CreekDog can't interpret as misogynist.

No snark. This is exactly what he means.

[pintobean]

77. He'll also call people out in his poll threads

even if they don't post in the thread. I vote 'pass' because I don't approve of his tactics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023824915#post3

[CreekDog]

114. you don't speak for me

especially not after you asked if i had a learning disability.

such a great advocate you must be.

[pintobean]

115. Lol. Got a link? /nt

[CreekDog]

119. do you do anything here?

[pintobean]

120. What I don't do

is opposition research on long time DUers, then spin and edit it to try to cast them as right wing trolls. That would be creepy, and it would make DU suck.

[CreekDog]

121. for someone who keeps screen caps, i wouldn't go calling others creepy

by your own standard that's creepy, though i don't care and i don't do it.

but you do.

and then you lecture people who actually make note of old posts.

but when you do it, it's ok!

and when you defend LoZocalo, the troll, it's ok! and when you say that a poster was intoxicated when he posted, that's ok!

because you do it, and whatever you do is OK if YOU do it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024744231#post16

yup, you accused that poster of posting while intoxicated.

and you lecture me and basically everybody else you come into contact with on DU. because that's you.

[pintobean]

125. You know what's really funny?

Loz is still messing with your head, almost two years after he was PPRed. I hope he still reads here.

As to the screen caps, I told you at the time I grabbed them and why I did so. I even showed you the cap. They were hilarious at the time, and they still are.

Is PWI against the rules? I don't think there's anything wrong with it, for that alone. So, I didn't 'accuse' anyone of anything. What I did was remembered that it was stated in that meta thread. If I say I'm married, and you tell someone else that I'm married, are you accusing me of being married? You were very active in that thread, so I would assume you saw those posts. The fact that you don't remember, or won't admit that you remember, is irrelevant. The poster involved was active in the thread you linked to and never said anything to me, so I assume he didn't have a problem with it. It's just part of your little game.

[CreekDog]

127. you screen cap other people, which is FINE, except that you complain...

that i link to a currently posted item on DU, and not even one that is not reflective of what the poster intended.

they could have gone and deleted it so that it wasn't still posted here, but they didn't.

but your screencaps, they're designed to get around that.

and you don't just cap me, this is where the BS is flowing freely...you do it to a whole lotta posters here.

which is fine...

but don't say something far less meaningful is worse than the thing you do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. Did I get it wrong?

Is there some other interpretation of your OP that I should use?

Are you not saying that your dossier of posters poll votes, cataloged over years of push polling allows you to know who is insincerely hiding their true views, precluding fruitful discussion? If not your collected dossier, where do you get your insights as to people's true views?

As usual, I notice that you avoid the topic at hand.

[CreekDog]

118. yes, you were wrong to say what you said about learning disabilities

using them to "win" an argument.

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. Point taken

My post on the other thread was intended to ask if a learning disability could account for your apparent limited attention span.

To anyone with a disability that thinks that I was suggesting that any of your nastier interpersonal habits could be explained away this way, for instance if they thought I was conflating dishonesty with disability, I sincerely apologize.

[CreekDog]

123. threading the needle too finely on an apology kinda makes it suck

but that said, i don't really care what you said about me. what you say about me doesn't bother me.

it's always been what you say and want for others that bothers me.

[mopinko]

22. this isn't even a very good witch hunt.

meta.

[pintobean]

24. They never are.

He's on MIRT now. I thought that might satisfy his need. I was wrong.

[mopinko]

25. yeah, i heard.

sigh. funny how that stuff happened.
truth will out in the end, i believe.

[CreekDog]

46. oh you've heard huh? what have you heard?

[pintobean]

48. Your secret is out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10133512

[CreekDog]

50. do you not understand what a secret is and isn't? MIRT isn't a secret

maybe this is why you think past posts are secret.



and furthermore, you don't speak for mopinko, i asked her not you, the question about why she thought something.

[pintobean]

51. It was sarcasm.

I should have known that you would have needed for that to be tagged as such.

I've never said that I think past posts are secret. As much research as you do on me, you know this. You're just proving what was pointed out up-thread.

I'll post what I want, where I want. You have no authority to to tell anyone who they can reply to. You've tried this silly crap before:


I'm sure jberrthill was just as intimidated as I am.

[CreekDog]

52. well all your posts are

such a ray of sunshine you are here.

[pintobean]

53. Simple solution

don't read them.

[CreekDog]

97. i promise not to read your DU posts

if you don't post them.

[pintobean]

109. Another brilliant reply.

[CreekDog]

110. so you're saying your posts are brilliant?

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. congrats on your MIRT!

[CreekDog]

128. you're lecturing me, where were you yesterday when this happened?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4753977

you're so busy lecturing me and seabeyond, where were you?

it's clear that you'd rather see RC here than me or seabeyond, or basically anyone from the left.

good job. but you lose. you accuse me of undermining this place, but when conservatives and bigots actually troll this place, you're too busy screen capping me and other poster's stuff, because it's our stuff that bothers. the RC? not even a peep from you and you're in the middle of the thread.

we know your priorities.

[blkmusclmachine]

26. It's the TALK versus ACTION thing.

Show me what you DO, and I'll tell you what you BELIEVE.

[kentuck]

27. Perhaps this is what you were looking for??

[DeadEyeDyck]

29. this is the week of Post about Posting n/t

[Vashta Nerada]

30. Octagons don't fit into rectangles because circles are made out of cheese.

[NYC_SKP]

36. You're talking about DU. If you weren't, then you would be free to name names.

"...caveats about what I am *not* complaining about..." notwithstanding, your posts here suggest that you are very much complaining about discussions on this board.

And, personally, I think you enjoy the games. Not that it's a bad thing, mind you.

Here's a typical example:
Poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024709388
Reply in thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024709388#post13

Now tell me more about honesty and more about trolling.

[CreekDog]

39. Ok, I'll tell you after you tell me about ignore

In the discussion thread: My Girlfriend will get her meds. And all without my calling out the man who made it happen. [View all]
Response to CreekDog (Reply #383)Mon Mar 24, 2014, 06:17 PM
NYC_SKP (58,120 posts)
392. Full Ignore and Block Mail. First time ever.

Fucking wow, just fucking wow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4721150

[NYC_SKP]

40. A response to you about a different member in that thread who became the first member on that list.

You're not on that list, you're on a different list.

I actually like you, I'm not sure why and I don't mean that as an insult.

Maybe it's sympathy, maybe empathy, I'm not sure.

[CreekDog]

41. the post is not specifically about DU, it's about a form of trolling

that occurs on call in radio shows i listen to, with guests on cable tv, on DU, on other discussion boards.

it's when people pretend to hold political views they don't actually hold to disrupt or derail those of sincere people.

what made me think of this was not actually a DU post, but the Chris Hayes' interview with Jennifer Stefano, who wouldn't admit she was against Medicaid expansion, yet her organization most surely is. insincere, dishonest, and there couldn't be a useful dialogue with her because there was no way to agree or disagree with her honestly because there was no basis to even understand what she stood for --not because she didn't know, but because she was just trying in blurt out talking points without actually stating, nor defending her own opposition to the goals of health care reform and universal coverage.

[NYC_SKP]

43. I missed the show,

and appreciate the reply.

[beevul]

38. Yes, please tell us more about honesty and more about trolling.

Heres a scenario, in which you are poorly trying to "gotcha" another poster:

"spare us any discussion about rights when you told me that i needed papers to travel in the USA" - creekdog

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=141038

Heres the link you posted, which you try to use to characterize his position as being 180 degrees from what it actually is:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=137904

And heres that poster quoting you and responding at that link:

"I shouldn't need to carry a passport to visit Arizona and Alabama (re: Immigration laws)" - creekdog

And heres that posters response:

(I agree with you about that, btw) FI


So, yes, please, tell us more about honesty and more about trolling.

[Boom Sound 416]

57. ...

[CreekDog]

61. it's pretty much conservadems here that are giving me grief about this OP

and "conservadems" is actually more charitable than some deserve to be called.

clap all you want.

[pintobean]

62. No it isn't.

It's people that you don't like who you've decided that it's your mission on DU to mess with. This is just a few of those people pushing back.

[nilesobek]

102. When I was wandering the country homeless

we called them, "conservolibs." I arrogantly thought I had coined the term and idea. My definition of a "conservolib," was a person who was basically a political conservative who had a pet liberal issue or two that they cherry-picked and advocated for vigorously.

Disclaimer: I am not accusing anyone of being a "conservodem, or conservolib." I really don't care.

[Recursion]

45. Huh? A lot of us support both expansion and shrinkage of Medicare and Medicaid

I'd like them both to cover a lot more people, and to spend a lot less money for the treatments they cover, particularly as regards drugs and devices. The reason the ACA was necessary in 2010 and not some later date is because, unlike SS, Medicare actually is facing actuarial problems and won't be able to self-fund for much longer (ACA has extended this somewhat). Despite being more efficient than private insurers (though even this hides the inefficiencies of the provisioning private insurers -- the "2%" just counts the overhead of handing over money to BCBS, Cygnus, etc. who then provision and take their own overhead), Medicare and Medicaid still pay orders of magnitude more for the same treatments than other countries' insurance systems (be they public or private) do, and that needs to be fixed. We need a much smaller Medicare and Medicaid in dollar terms that provides much more in service terms. However, the reaction on DU to those of us who point this out is often that we're insincere in our desire to preserve Medicare because we want its size as part of the economy to go down.

[rrneck]

49. If there's anything you think you need to know...

just ask.

If you are that interested in people's secret motivations why don't you simply have a discussion with them and learn to find out what you want you want to know. Of course, you might find out how wrong you are, and that's scary.

[Junkdrawer]

55. Junkdrawer: Beating his head against the DU wall since 2002....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. Maybe you should post in ATA asking for a "Discern Motive" button be added next to "Alert Abuse"

[OmahaBlueDog]

64. That brought a smile and a chuckle. Thank you!

In addition to a "Discern Motive" button, perhaps subtitles, and a pop-up menu of interpersonal squabbles among DUers could also be useful.

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. I think that the desired functionality is actually "attribute motive to poster".

To make it easy, the motives should be a set of radio buttons.

[Zorra]

63. K&R nt

[pipi_k]

67. I'm sorry, but...

this is a total crock of shit.

Last week the two of us had a snarl-fest of sorts over a poll you had posted where there could only have been ONE "correct" answer.

I wanted to know if answering the poll question in a certain (i.e. unacceptable) way would place those who answered that way into the category of Bad DUers, or whether all answers...honest, truthful answers, even if those answers weren't what a "good DUer" would give, would be acceptable.

No reply.

In fact, I was accused, by yourself, of trying to "justify" something fairly nasty...racism or bigotry...although it was only vaguely hinted at, and not exactly put that plainly.

That is one of the troubles with some here at DU. People say they want honesty and transparency, but they really don't at all.

So we lie, or pretend, in order to avoid being accused of being RWers, trolls, assholes, and worse, when nobody wants to hear our honest opinions.


PS...I can link to that thread if you like, just to refresh your memory... Let me know.

Not waiting for a reply...here is the thread/poll I was referring to.

Apparently there's only supposed to be ONE right answer here, and anyone who answered honestly the other way is a racist scumbag asshole, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024726899

[CreekDog]

69. you're a very confused person, i don't see the point in going over this with you

first, it's clear that when questions or polls are asked about the Washington Redskins' name, you find them offensive. not the name, which doesn't bother you, but just being asked what your opinion of the name is.

second, you insist that you aren't offended by being asked your opinion about the Redskins'...but...you aren't offended but a poll about the Redskins' name is offensive...

Star Member pipi_k (18,988 posts)
77. Again, being asked

is NOT what I find offensive, above the issue itself. Nice try, though.


Again. Polls like this are offensive and divisive...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4730102

then after having this argument, you actually got offended when i wondered what else you've said on this topic previously.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4611099

[pipi_k]

71. One more time...

My first reply to you in that thread was to ask how much NA DNA a person would have to have in order for an answer NOT to find the name "redskins" offensive would be permissible (with you).

Is someone with only 5% Native American DNA not qualified to find it OK, whereas someone with 100% NA DNA gets a free pass from being accused of bigotry?


From there things went downhill, with you accusing me of saying something I never said.

I never said I was MORE offended at being asked the question.


What I DID find offensive...and still do...is polls that appear to be started in order to judge others based on their answers.

What you don't seem to understand is that my opinion on that issue isn't likely to have any effect whatsoever on anyone else. First of all, I'm not that important.


Polls to gather basic information are fine. But I get the feeling that a few here start polls with the intention of mentally dividing DUers into two groups...the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

And I don't recall getting upset because you wondered what I had said on the topic previously.

What got me riled up was the non-answer to my question and the accusation that I was attempting to "rationalize" something...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4728867


Really? "Rationalize"? Rationalize what, specifically?


I asked what I thought was a pretty straightforward question:


Do people who answered in a manner you don't agree with have the right to an opinion that's just as valid as anyone else's?


Or are people who answered in a manner you don't agree with just dirty racist pigs?


Here's a clue...if you want people to be honest, then stop bashing them over the head for being honest, even if it's an honest opinion you don't agree with.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. the exact cast of characters I expected to be offended by this....seem to magically do just that....

Wow...you nailed it Creekdog!

the usual suspects indeed.

[pintobean]

83. I'm heartbroken

and suspected of something

[pipi_k]

95. In the words of

the great Inspector Clouseau...

"I suspect everyone...and I suspect no one"

[pipi_k]

84. I'm probably a "usual suspect", but whatever...

VanillaRhapsody

81. the exact cast of characters I expected to be offended by this....seem to magically do just that....


Wow...you nailed it Creekdog!

the usual suspects indeed.

Just wondering what that means...

do people actually PM each other and say, "Hey, watch this...I'm gonna post XYZ topic, and the 'usual suspects' will crawl out from under their rocks"

??

I hope not. Because to do something like that would be...

willful disruption.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. I don't know....you tell me....

do you?

[pipi_k]

98. Do I

WHAT?

Stop playing games and just spit out the entire question

[VanillaRhapsody]

99. It was your question not mine...

you stop playing games...

[pipi_k]

103. I've asked a few questions

in this thread.

Which SPECIFIC question should I answer?

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. the one this was addressed at....

Me thinks someone is being facetious...

do people actually PM each other and say, "Hey, watch this...I'm gonna post XYZ topic, and the 'usual suspects' will crawl out from under their rocks"

??

but then you knew that...

[pipi_k]

134. I have no

clue what the hell you're talking about.

Are you suggesting my statement/question was directed toward you, or the OP?


Who is the "someone" who is being facetious? Me? You? The OP?


And what exactly do I "know"?

That people contact each other to cook up "watch me flush the usual suspects out of their holes" schemes?

Or some other thing?


What exactly do I "know", and, for that matter, how the hell do you presume to think you know what I "know"?


At this point, I don't expect a cogent answer to my questions.


And since I don't like cryptic non-answers when a plain spoken answer would do (because I prefer to base my own answers on what was actually asked, rather than have to guess at what someone else really meant) I'm ending this here with one last statement...


This sort of thing:

81. the exact cast of characters I expected to be offended by this....seem to magically do just that....

Wow...you nailed it Creekdog!

the usual suspects indeed.

Really reeks of a bit of behind-the-scenes collusion with the intent to disrupt.

[Skip Intro]

138. Gee, you got a list of these "usual suspects?"

What are they usually suspected of?

I didn't see anybody offended by creekdog's post, just many who realize what a joke it is coming from such a nasty, insulting, always-attacking, hyper-disrupting hypocrite.

Many of his past and current targets find it humorous and ironic, rather than offensive, that someone who plots and plans attacks on others here would start a thread lecturing the board on sincere discussion.

Maybe a little sad too, in that he might actually take himself seriously.

[NCTraveler]

94. Irony. Great laugh. Thanks. nt.

[hfojvt]

96. so how do you KNOW when you are being lied to?

If a person says "X is true" and makes some sort of insincere argument, one can still respond to both the statement and the argument with facts, compassion, and logic.

[Zorra]

101. Posts have "tells", something like body language. Combined with knowing that a

poster has a history of leaning toward the right, and knowing that conservatives aren't the brightest candles on the altar, progressives can pretty much tell when certain posters are lying after many years of seeing the posts of trolls who managed to compile a large number of posts before they got tombstoned.

There's a definite pattern of *mendacious duplicity*.

[rrneck]

106. "Tells" only work when you're at the card table.

And our perceptions of people is highly truncated by the format here. Add to that the fact that DU is not the center of the political universe and just because they don't fit in here doesn't mean they aren't good people or vote for the wrong people.

[Zorra]

108. No, body language tips off liars pretty accurately, and so do posts, but a bit less so.

I completely agree with what you say here:

"just because they don't fit in here doesn't mean they aren't good people or vote for the wrong people."

My point has to do with duplicity, and trying to sway opinion here to the right, through mendacity, as per the OP.

[rrneck]

111. Yeah, I can think of at least one poster that

was certainly mendacious indeed. He was playing us for sure. And he's gone now after thousands of posts over a period of years. Sometimes I can be somewhat oblivious. I was talking to two different people in the same subthread the other day and didn't even realize it.

[Inkfreak]

100. i am amused. (nt)

[MineralMan]

107. Funny Thread.

Funny how? Just funny.
Does this thread amuse you? Why yes, it does.
Does this thread make you laugh? Indeed it does.

[hack89]

112. And you are the arbiter of who is "sincere" - how convenient. nt

[rrneck]

113. This kind of thing is like

a pregnancy test. You have to piss on people to find out what you want to know.

[idendoit]

124. Yeah, but we can still pelt 'em with verbal tomatoes.

[Eleanors38]

131. Is she/he really a MIRT member? nt

[CreekDog]

133. yes he is

[Skip Intro]

137. Yep. Really brings a lotta class to the position, eh? n/t

[idendoit]

139. What's a MIRT?

[Boom Sound 416]

140. Malicious Intruder Removal Team

A volunteer group tasked with removing disruptors from DU.

[idendoit]

141. Ride 'em, Cowpokes.

[TheKentuckian]

132. Shit, try having a political discussion with folks who will not discuss issues at all.

Even tougher are those who somehow can chatter a day but have no positions of their own and tell us they "stand" with a politician.

I think we ought to try just sticking to subjects and leave the personalities out and see where folks actually stand on given topics. I bet you can find out what people actually think if you can actually get them to discuss ideas far better than an poll or tirade.

Strip away the labels, focus on the content and what you have to say will be in most cases true compass because you can't talk about what you don't know without leaning on the labels again.

This is how I've come to believe that most people aren't that reactionary but conservative is a friendly label so it becomes the rallying cry and an identity that isn't really aligned with beliefs. This possibly goes on with liberals and even moderates and "Centrists" as well.

I also think that a simple left/right axis state of mind and a structurally highly encouraged two party system causes some odd choices and priorities that results in non - cohesive application of ideology.

There is also a fan segment and these folks seem to have a need for sports but don't cotton to sports so elections become their Super Bowl.