Take a Deep Breath Before You Accuse Another Democrat of Being the Anti-Christ

[McCamy Taylor]

It has come to my attention that very CREEPy activity is going on at DU. I refer to vile attacks against Democrats that supposedly come from other Democrats who supposedly represent certain Democratic candidates.

Anyone reading a political forum really ought to know all about CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President) and Watergate and Pat Buchanan and Deep Throat. But it seems that some people don't. Why else would they fall for the same dirty tricks that were used way back in 1972?

Here is a link to prove that I could not make this shit up. Only Pat Buchanan is slimy enough to think of something so sick and twisted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

On the memo's last page -- one never turned over to Watergate congressional investigators -- Buchanan and his top aide recommended staging counterfeit attacks by one Democrat on another, fouling up scheduled events, arranging demonstrations and spreading rumors to plague the rival party, all the while being careful not to run afoul of the Secret Service


snip

"The preparation of attacks on one Democrat by another -- and 'endorsements' of one Democrat by another, which has to be repudiated, are examples of what can be done. Nothing should be done here, incidentally, which can seriously backfire and anything done should be cleared by the highest campaign authority. The Secret Service, it should be noted, will be all over Miami; and any activity will have to take into consideration their capabilities.

"We should guard here against a) anything which enables the Democrats to blame us for the mess which takes place in Miami Beach; b) anything which can be traced back to us and c) anything which is so horrendous as to damage us, if the hand is discovered."

What does this mean for DU? If you see one "Dem" attack another "Dem" and you find yourself shaking your head and muttering "Damn! Democrats didn't treat each other this way back in my day!"... chances are the outrage is not coming from a Democrat. Who gains when the party of unity is divided and conquered? The party of exclusivity.

Maybe we need a CREEPy icon. It could be the (pin)head of Pat Buchanan

[Juicy_Bellows]

1. Demons to some Angels to others. nt.

[bbgrunt]

2. It seems to me that there may be a lot of this

kind of activity going on here. It is time to wise up to the fact that these tactics are real and the real victims are all of us--not just one camp or another.

[Hortensis]

36. So true, Bbgrunt!

[brer cat]

3. Good post, McCamy

and timely. I see some vitriol here that goes beyond any reasonable politicking for a preferred candidate. Personal attacks and alert stalking certain groups is very disturbing and divisive. I don't understand why supporting one candidate leads to hating other candidates and their supporters. In the end, all dems want what is best for our country and all of the citizens.

[Autumn]

16. Yet Skinner says there is no alert stalking. From what I have seen the majority of hides are

well deserved, if a person posts something nasty or offensive about another poster or a group of posters odds are it will be alerted on. That's how the system was set up to work. : I support Bernie, I don't hate Hillary. Protected groups are set up to be run by the hosts as they see fit, for the members. Protected group are not exempt from nasty posts being alerted on and sent to a jury and hidden . Skinner said it's easy to not get a hidden post, be civil. That's all it takes. :shrug

[kath]

19. "Skinner said it's easy to not get a hidden post, be civil." And he's absolutely right.

I click on most hidden posts that I come across, and I agree with you that the vast majority of hides are quite well deserved.

If you say something nasty or offensive, you are taking your chances (I think Skinner has said that too) So if you don't want hides, think before you post.
All the whining about "alert stalking" is bullshit. People who post their opinions in a civil manner do not have their posts hidden. They certainly don't end up with 5 hides in 90 days.

[Autumn]

20. True, and posts in groups are not exempt from juries. Those posts are held to the same

civility standards as any post anywhere on this site. As they should be.

[kath]

21. yep, as they should be.

You can't go into one of those groups, totally flip your shit(as my kids would say and expect to get away with it.

[randys1]

27. Oh brother. "most are well deserved", sigh...SIGH SIGH SIGH SIGH

[HooptieWagon]

31. Most are.

And a bad jury hide is no big deal if you aren't already holding 3 or 4 deserved hides.

[randys1]

32. Oh brother...Well, in that case all those African American members now silenced

NEVER MIND, DELETED, DONT WANT TO BE BANNED

i cant speak anymore, guess i will just observe

[Hortensis]

33. I just had one that was "misunderstood" by 6 of 7, ignoring context and my history (or not?). One

jurist wrote to suggest I might use the "sarcasm" emoticon to protect myself/my readers from misinterpretation. I see that it was, strictly speaking, open to misinterpretation by casual readers, although I make no excuses at all for jurists.

What shocked me, though, was the nastiness of some of the comments. If posted in the forums, they would have been well beyond beyond even my tolerance for free expression, and I wondered that a random jury selection managed to gather such a badly behaved crew.

I truly have no idea if my political leanings were a contributor at all -- and do not say that they are, my post having nothing to do with any current candidate, but I have been posting my belief that one of them cannot win pretty freely.

[Autumn]

38. Most of the ones I see are well deserved. I'm going to say that if a poster attacks another poster

or a group of posters and if they get a time out, they were silenced by their own actions. I stand by what I said. One of our Bernie supporters got a vacation this morning. They jury decided it was a personal attack and that was a lot milder than what I have seen on this board lately, she silenced herself. You have a problem with what I said hit alert the alert button. sigh...SIGH SIGH SIGH SIGH does NOT prove what I said to be false or wrong, that just means you have nothing to say.

[lovemydog]

4. Yes, always good to know about dirty tricks.

CREEP, COINTELPRO, so many shenanigans. Also people should read up on the disinformation and disruption involving the civil rights movement, labor movements, the Black Panthers, anti-war movements, the anti-nuclear power movement, Occupy Wall Street, and other groups that challenge the status quo. It's fascinating stuff.

[Android3.14]

5. Motivation points to either a false flag and/or crazy troll

What we saw with the image of the printed letter 1SBM posted, that Bravenak allegedly received, is blatantly counter productive as far as promoting Bernie Sanders, but wonderfully suited to stirring up gullible folks in order to paint Bernie supporters in a dangerous and ugly light.

The beauty of the tactic is that it's fairly difficult to prove or disprove, so it lends itself to reinforcing the observer's own bias (including my own bias).

That was one of those instances where we should ask patient questions and observe what happens as events unfold.

The scientific method is useful.

[OilemFirchen]

10. Suspicion goes both ways, friend.

Your interjection into this and the bravenak thread with ill-considered conspiracy shit gives one pause.

See how Occam's Razor really works?

[Android3.14]

11. Sorry, but that is not how Occam's Razor works

What I see is petty responses to legitimate questions by folks who are withholding their critical thinking skills, because the incident tosses candy at their own bias, friend.

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Someone smart enough to hack bravenak's address is also too smart to conclude sending such a clumsy threat would actually suppress bravenak, harm the HRC campaign and/or promote the Sander's campaign.

Therefore they did it for some other reason.

I'm betting on a false flag from a small number of sockpuppet trolls, probably less than three real individuals, but perhaps several accounts.

[OilemFirchen]

13. You see what you see.

Occam's Razor specifically addresses those who must construct a conspiracy when the simplest explanation will usually comport with the evidence.

Unless, of course, you think that William of Ockham was fucking with your head...

[Android3.14]

15. Sigh. Let's look at Occam's Razor

The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I cannot help but notice that it fails to "specifically address" anything to do with conspiracy.

Regardless. There are far simpler models of this incident than concluding a group of Bernie supporters gathered together and stupidly assumed that threatening bravenak with a mailed letter would somehow shut that person up, discourage the HRC campaign and promote Bernie Sanders. It is a bonehead move.

Therefore, that model lacks predictive credibility.

[OilemFirchen]

17. Da fuq?

Your simplest explanation is an invention of your fevered brain:

... concluding a group of Bernie supporters gathered together and stupidly assumed that threatening bravenak with a mailed letter would somehow shut that person up, discourage the HRC campaign and promote Bernie Sanders.

The actual simplest explanation, as noted by everyone except you and a few other yutzes, is what's in evidence: A DUer -self-identified as a Berniac - went off his rocker and sent a threatening letter to bravenak.


BTW, as I've never conversed with you before, I do want to observe that it's the height of hilarity for a strident anti-oligarchist to sport a moniker promoting a product from a massive American corporation. Trust me, that's a howler.

[Android3.14]

22. This is a little like arguing with a radio

My point is that "concluding a group of Bernie supporters gathered together and stupidly assumed that threatening bravenak with a mailed letter would somehow shut that person up, discourage the HRC campaign and promote Bernie Sanders." is not the simplest explanation. It is overly complex.

There are many simpler and more plausible explanations.

Look, I have never conversed with you before, as far as I know, but it speaks volumes that you would believe anything the author of that letter said.

Trust me, friend, that is the funny bit.

[OilemFirchen]

23. Curious...

"concluding a group of Bernie supporters gathered together and stupidly assumed that threatening bravenak with a mailed letter would somehow shut that person up, discourage the HRC campaign and promote Bernie Sanders."

Who suggested that other than you?

[Android3.14]

24. That was the sentiment in the AA group where people first saw the letter

It was the implication in the letter itself, and I also inferred this was your conclusion as well.

Am I missing something?

[OilemFirchen]

25. No it wasn't.

You were wrong.

Yes you are.

For your benefit, I read all 239 posts and not one said anything remotely similar to what you're suggesting.

Find one and quote it or shaddup.

[randys1]

26. The person you are talking to used the word "allegedly" as to Bravenak's letter, at that point

I would stop talking to that person and encourage NO self respecting liberal ever speak to that person again.

That is what I recommend.

[OilemFirchen]

28. I saw that as well.

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I also read his posts on the bravenak thread. I won't give it up, because he's making a puerile mockery of a very serious situation.

And for other reasons, BTW.

Edited for retraction: ONE post. Removed and then reposted. Because that's really, really important. I am humbled.

[randys1]

29. I know, it is just that what i just said to you is all i can say, I cant say what

i want to say and what should be said.

Cant do it, not here.

Oh, the jury system is quite fair and most hides are well deserved, those are the talking points for today, in case you havent had time to find out.

Which means the AfAm posters who are silenced, and there are so few left anyway, deserved it

But they didnt, you see, nor have I deserved most of mine, but we all have one thing in common, when we get hidden it is over

RACE

You know this, I am not talking to you but in general...

[Android3.14]

37. Post, as in singular

I made one post, removed it, then decided to post it anyway. I have one post on that thread. All I wrote was that I question the story's credibility. And I still do.

I'm not saying it's false, but I and others have legitimate doubts.

I find the anger some folks are directing at me, because I have doubts, to be misguided. Whoever sent that letter, whether as a false flag or straightforward intimidation, deserves that vitriol, not I.

[Android3.14]

34. Sigh. Have a look at the letter

It clearly states "We blah-blah-blah". The author is also clearly presenting the letter as an attempt to intimidate bravenak. The author expresses support for Sanders and expresses a common criticism of HRC.


Finally, some folks in the thread expressed anger at Sanders supporters, and provided advice to help bravenak deal with the intimidation.
Cha wrote "Exactly, randy.. if their hatred and obsession is strong enough.. which is clearly the case." Indicating it was a group of people.

The only reasonable conclusion is that some folks in that thread bought into the idea that Bernie supporter(s) attempted to intimidate bravenak in order to harm the HRC campaign.

Otherwise, what was the point of being outraged?

I also read all the posts.

I'm curious, are you now saying that you dismiss the idea that the person(s) who sent the letter was a Bernie supporter, was intimidating bravenak and wanted to harm the Hillary campaign?

I know my writing voice sounds a bit snarky, but come on.

[OilemFirchen]

39. I don't give a shit about the contents of the letter.

Nobody in that thread made a statement or even an allusion about the letter coming from a "group" of people. Cha's comment said nothing about a "group of people" behind this letter - it was a generic observation about Sanders' supporters on DU - whether you agree with her or not. Nobody suggested that it was to "harm the HRC campaign".

"The only conclusion" is that everyone on that thread attributed the letter to an individual and ascribed no motive other than to harass and/or intimidate bravenak.

What is the point of being outraged? Somebody sent a threatening letter to a member of DU - a black woman with children, specifically.

I am saying the same thing that I said way upthread: An asshole, self-identified as a Sanders supporter, sent bravenak an intimidating letter. Period.

[Android3.14]

40. And you believed the letter

I'm done here.

[Rex]

42. Doesn't give a shit about the contents of the letter yet

in another thread states that they believe the letter is all the evidence we need. Strange and contradictory at the same time imo.

[Hortensis]

35. I'm afraid I tend to agree. The Razor leads to the most likely answer, not along speculative paths.

[upaloopa]

30. I read that letter and I would never say it

represents the Bernie supporters. I have a lot of them on ignore and yet I have had good conversations with other Bernie supporters. That letter if real represents the author and no one else to me.

[ms liberty]

6. Andy Stephenson...wasn't that his name?

Check DU archives to find out how this good DU'er was stalked and hounded to an early death by the morans from the site that will not be named.
I'm assuming that this post is referring to bravenak's stalker. I haven't commented on other threads for many reasons. I'm a Bernie supporter, and what happened to her was wrong, wrong, wrong. It makes me sick, and it reminds me of Andy.

[cali]

7. utter confused bull

[Sunlei]

8. I don't think DU is going full out "bachman with a aural hallucination". That shit is not contagious

[LWolf]

9. Please provide a link

as evidence for someone at DU accusing another Democrat of being the "Anti-Christ."

Or edit your inflammatory thread title.

[McCamy Taylor]

18. Read the title. I advise folks not to do this. Not the same as saying someone has.

And providing a "link" would then provide the folks who are doing the CREEPiness an excuse to alert on me, saying that I was accusing another DU member of....

I was not born yesterday.

[LWolf]

41. Not the same as "saying," but it's certainly inferring.

I wouldn't announce to several thousand people, out of the blue, that they need to take a deep breath before they did something they not only hadn't done, but hadn't ever considered doing.

If no DUers have accused a Democrat of being "the Anti-Christ," you shouldn't suggest that they have.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. All hail Mammon!

Why is being the antichrist a negative thing?

[Autumn]

14. The Anti-Christ is a DUer? I'm shocked, I thought he would be more than words on a screen.

That being said the information crazy people can get from your FB page is frightening. So many people have their setting on public and then I was informed about other professional social media sites where people post personal information and all anyone needs is an account to access that information and then they have everything that they need to know about a person. So the thing is for people to realize their information is out their and they should make an effort to control it.