Anyone notice that disruptors seem to have a commone theme here:

[AP]

They're either promoting absurd conspiracy theories, or they are accusing legitimate complaints of being crazy conspiracy theories.

And when the media talks about DU, they're usually talking about some conspiracy theory someone wrote about here.

It seems that the word has gone out that the best way to discredit DU is to fill it with consipiracy theories and then when something legitimate comes along, call it a conspiracy theory.

Maybe I'm crazy. But I'm just getting that vibe since the election.

Anyone else notice this?

[pacalo]

1. My method of reading DU is to click onto the topics that interest me

& to ignore the rest, so I haven't noticed. Now that I've read your insight, I'll keep an eye open. Your observation is certainly plausible.

I've always thought a lot of the non-political posts as suspect. I've wondered if the annoying posts, such as "which is better - cat food or dog food", as freeper posts.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. I'm not sure how much my opinion matters...

I"m a new poster here, even though I did luck on and off for a while. However, I have noticed that those causing the biggest disruptance in the flow of the conversations tend to be newer posters.

[alittlelark]

6. Are you a BIG HILLARY FAN TOO!!!

Welcome to DU!!!

And to others, see post #5

[Occulus]

3. We need to "frame" the discussion

Do we have criminal conspiracy laws? Of course we do. So let's start calling these things what they are: criminal conspiracies.

Come on, people watch "Law & Order" a lot. They're already familiar with the term when applied to a criminal charge. It's one obvious way to make them think twice.

McCoy: "We believe this is a criminal conspiracy, but all we have is a bunch of circumstantial evidence."

Adam: "Then go get some evidence. Let's not waste time talking about what we don't have. Is what we do have enough to get a search warrant?"

And so on. It's familiar and believeable.... if we push the correct lingual buttons.

[DianeG5385]

8. We don't "Frame Debates"

That's "their" terminology. We discuss our "Core Principles". It is not required that we adopt "their" lingo.
And, yes, those are the preservation of the New Deal, the Great Society and a reinstitution of the WPA!
"They" are so drunk with power that they believe that they can take us down with impunity. Let them try. The 49% who did NOT vote for him are core. There will be payback.

[Occulus]

12. That's why I put that word in quotes

It was the closest I could come to a short description of the overall concept.

They're simply calling what we find a conspiracy. I'm saying we can use that against them because we actually do have laws against conspiracies of a criminal nature. Thus, we'd be "framing" the debate. Not really. Sort of.

Kinda.

We'd be removing a fake half-moniker for what's going on, and slapping on the real, these-laws-have-teeth moniker instead.

Same for what we see as RICO violations. And tax exempt status re political church activism of the unlawful kind. And so on.

If we call it the "right" thing, more people may listen. Do we really have anything to lose at this point?

[m berst]

22. We don't "Frame Debates"

<sustained thundering applause>

[onebigbadwulf]

4. Media, especially right wing, loves playing with that logical fallacy

The average human mind is very simple - it believes if one thing is wrong or crazy then everything about it is wrong or crazy.

This is how they combat things like the Michael Moore documentaries. By pointing out one half-truth/bias/false implication, then they discredit the entire movie.

[alittlelark]

5. I have noticed the same....remember when the Votergate #'s were

first coming out and the trolls were talkin' 9-11 conspiracy? The Hillary stuff is also obvious troll-talk, oh, and don't forget the ones that post 'statistics' from RW whacko sites.

And, of course, the ever popular IT'S ALL OVER threads.

[madrchsod]

7. conspiracy theories?

at du? it would be awfully dull if we didn`t now wouldn`t it...

[AP]

9. Oh, I know that DU is full of them.

But it's just that the low posters who burn bright but for only a moment...until they're tombstoned...tend to be obsessed with the promotion of conspiracy theories. And the ones who are naysayers who get tombstoned are accusing people of conspiracy theories.

It's a tiny percentage of all the conspiracy threads, but it's a common theme among the tombstoned.

Unless I'm imagining things.

[Rumba]

10. Are you saying your theory is...

...that disruptors are part of a vast two-pronged conspiracy?


j/k. Couldn't help myself. :)

[AP]

11. Both prongs want DU perceived as the home of conspiracy theories.

But it's not like I really have a theory.

I'm just saying that I've noticed, but that I'm not really paying all that much attention.

[m berst]

13. yes

I have been debating posting the same thing all day.

Many new members, with one or two line posts on the election fraud threads -

Either - "yeah!!!! Now we have those repukes! Let's smash them!!!!"

Or -"naw, that's a blind alley. Let's get to work on 2006."

It sure feels like we are being steered, doesn't it, though?

[Minstrel Boy]

14. "Conspiracy theory" in the Bush years is simply pattern recognition.

But I agree that those are two popular tactics of disruptors.

[Swamp Rat]

15. Hasn't this been going on for a long time?

I don't doubt Karl Rove's butt-boys troll this board, inserting crap here and there, to disrupt... but that's when I discovered that there IS a conspiracy! :D

[Psephos]

16. So it's a conspiracy about conspiracies? :-)

I'd enjoy DU even more if there were fewer conspiracy theories, and more passionate debates. The conspiracy theories are as thick as locusts some days...and just as much of a plague.

The attraction of a conspiracy theory is, who can prove it wrong? Which is another way of saying they contribute much heat and little light. Conspiracy theories appeal to emotions, not to facts and evidence. But it is facts and evidence that win arguments, and ultimately, persuade voters to consider changing their minds. 60,000 changed minds in Ohio would have given new meaning to the word "party" on inauguration day.

The way I see it, we have a kick! ass message here, why let anything dilute it?

[m berst]

24. welcome

"more passionate debates"

I disagree. There is far too much "Crossfire" here.

"it is facts and evidence that win arguments, and ultimately, persuade voters to consider changing their minds."

Not true, from all the studies on the subject. People vote on emotion and impressions, especially since facts and evidence are all discounted as conspiracy theories these days. What facts and evidence did you find persuasive about the Bush campaign, for example?

"The conspiracy theories are as thick as locusts some days"

Not that I have seen, and most of them have been proven to be pretty close to the truth over time when they involve this adminstration. The whole idea of "conspiracy theories" is bogus to begin with, since it is just a convenient way to discredit any analysis of anything that anyone ever does, should the need arise. "Wacky unsupportable and delusional conspiracy theories" - which is what the phrase "conspiracy theories is meant to mean, are "we didn't go to the moon" or "Hitler is still alive in Brazil." One like "Bush stole the election" is reality based.

"The attraction of a conspiracy theory is, who can prove it wrong?"

Why do theories - particularly those regarding the most secretive adminstration in our history - need to be proven wrong? Besides, many people make a career out of proving them wrong, so why would you say that they cannot be proven wrong? Happens every day. Interesting that you make a statement here in such a way that it is difficult to prove wrong. You make an assertion as though it were presumed to be common wisdom without disclosing that openly - such as the phrase "who could disagree with that?"

"Conspiracy theories appeal to emotions, not to facts and evidence."

Quite the contrary IMHO. Interesting assertion with no supporting evidence for it. The theories seem to me to do the precise opposite - appeal to the urge to be a detective and to the analytical side of people.

"60,000 changed minds in Ohio would have given new meaning to the word "party" on inauguration day."

We won Ohio. People stood in line for 8-10 hours in Ohio to deliver the vote.

"The way I see it, we have a kick! ass message here, why let anything dilute it?"

Kick ass, eh?

[foreigncorrespondent]

17. Yep! I totally agree.

Plus they have also been posting stuff trying to break the supporter base up. i.e: dump the queers, dump the abortion issue, move further to the right, we need to win the south, etc, etc, etc. When will they realize they are only fooling themselves?

[AP]

28. Oh, yeah. That too. That's clearly the other strategy.

[Nordic]

18. that's been going on for a while

and it's a real shame.

[AnIndependentTexan]

19. I'm not a disruptor, but I might be mistaken as one

One of my problems is that I'm to smart for my own good. It gets me in trouble a lot of time. I've also put a lot of effort into the voting fraud. I tried to prove it at first, but lately I have been learning from my mistake.

I did make one post first to discredit something I believed in. The reason was to see how people would react to it. It wasn't the best idea, but it did help me learn something about my own self. That is I can't push people to believe one thing or another. I can put information out there and then ask people if there is any truth to it.

I do believe some parts of me might be labeled as a disruptor, however, that isn't what I'm trying to achieve. This is another point were my own brain get me into trouble. I know how to shake things up. The question is does my own shaking go to far. That is one thing I've learned.

I'm also not going to post conspiracy or try to claim anything. If I dig up information or see something I will only post the facts and let everyone else decide. I personally don't know what type of forum member I am here. I also hope that if I offend someone they tell me. Send me a message and let me know. I may be my own leader at heart, but I am trying to learn and respect others as well.

[symbolman]

20. This is why it's very important that we don't

offer unsubstantiated material to people, even people HERE.

I know that everyone has a lot of hope needs at this point in time, and there are some folks doing some incredible work on the recounts, fraud, etc.

BUT, I'm afraid that some "showboating" going on here is going to harm the credibility of the people trying to show ACTUAL fraud in the last election.

I really think that many folks here need to take a deep breath and not go nuts when someone posts what "could" be a "smoking gun" and in the end find out that their hopes are dashed as it fizzles out..

There's real danger in that.. at Takebackthemedia.com we're very careful (at least with our DVD "Electile Dysfunction") with what we do or say about the last election.

I've gone on TV before and stood up for MoveON.org's honor and legal standing as a 527 (when I went on MSNBC's Joe Scarborough show) when interviewed after we were one of the 14 finalists in the Moveon.org Bush in 30 second contest - our entry ARMY OF ONE was the issue BUT Joe was trying to bait me into saying bad things about MoveOn, like that they were Partisan, etc..

I saw where he was going and talked about how Moveon was "educating" the public and changing the political landscape in a historical way by inviting the PUBLIC to make ads..

nevermind that I'd brought along a baby pacifier as a prop - I was going to hold it up and say that Ed Gillespie and many in the republican party needed to "suck on this"..

instead Joe the Scar LOVED our ad.. he HAD to, otherwise I was going to accuse him of not supporting the troops.. I called the ad, a Rovian Moment, where they were screwed and HAD to at least pretend they liked it..

and you can do that only with FACTS.. running around saying that you have the "goods" on someone when you may not at all makes you lack ANY credibility going forward, as you mention here, that's just when you NEED IT..

So let's get our ducks in a row before we go public (and this is public right here), and some in this movement are doing just that..

I gotta say that Heddafoil and Idabriggs are my heroes.. I think we may have to add them to our first film - they are methodically and verifiably destroying resistance with FACTS and I love it ..

of course one of my favorite things I say to Republicans who claim someone is a conspiracy theorist is, "You guys see a conspiracy theorist behind every BUSH.." :)

So let's do it RIGHT - if you start off with wild stories you may have already lost the fight..

Great thread, and it needs to be addressed.

[0007]

23. You are so right on symbolman! Thank you.

The journalist whose discriminative views on the hard issues of our time are rooted in a tough mind and a demanding ethical sensibility.

There are many and I'm guilty also, (for lack of better things to do) for buying into the local polls on DU and the buffoonery that creates the three ring circus.

[0007]

21. There are a lot of trolls here. The subtle ones are hardest to detect.

Like subtle smiles resulting from subjectively humorous experiences unguessed by the world at large” (Josephine Dodge Bacon)

[Hephaistos]

25. I second that and would like to add

that there are a lot of disruptors trying to divide us: they are trying to create internal wedge issues like gay rights, religion, ideological purity of posters and candidates, etc.

Now, this is a discussion board, and these issues have to be discussed. Disruptors are the ones who 'go meta', accuse others of personal failing on these issues, and those threatening to abandon the cause over some perceived slight by other posters or candidates.

Call them on it early in a thread, then ignore them.

[Junkdrawer]

26. Yep. Trial and error over the last four years has shown this to be...

the most effective method of suppressing dissent.

In the 60s, when things were more "street oriented", disrupters advocated going violent.

Now, when things were more "information oriented", disrupters will try to dilute the legitimate with the overblown.

[seabeyond]

27. shuts up or dismisses

but then one can be accused of seeing this as a conspiracy, they they were able to figure this out and implement it. when seeing something concictantly happened, such as dem opens mouth, repug says conspiracy..........and dismisses what is said, sure feels like it. pugs have always been good at shutting people up. an art form. listen to hannity and rush. told brother pug talk 101

[ElectroPrincess]

29. Yes, and it's chilling.

The media has always been beholden, in some respect, to the Party that is in Power of the Executive Branch. However, because I make a special effort to read the front section of the Washington Post and check foreign sites on the Internet, I know that presently they are spewing PROPAGANDA.

You can tell because of the simplicity of their messages. It's frightening. To add insult to injury the WP has announced that they will sacrifice depth of news to *more pictures* in the future.

Don't they understand that they are losing subscriptions because they have turned right editorially NOT because their news stories do not have enough pictures.

Damn, I picked up a copy of MAD magazine which I loved to read as an adolescent. As soon as I gazed at the fold out of Alfred E. Newman, I felt ... It's not funny / satire anymore because it's too close to the truth.

Double YIKES!