Why do the SAME people show up to bash the SAME candidates in thread after thread?

[chimpymustgo]

Do they think maybe after they've posted the SAME SH*T 67 times, supporters will stop liking their candidates? Is it a Pavlovian response? Is it just mass littering (sh*tting)?

It's so bizarre, annoying and UNDEMOCRATIC. Why the constant need to sh*t on a thread? TRY JUST SUPPORTING YOUR GUY. Really. It might improve your health. And the atmosphere around here.

Thanks in advance!

:hi:

[Infinite Hope]

1. BIG K&R!!! AMEN! n/t

[AnOhioan]

2. Well said

I agree 100%

[Catch22Dem]

3. Because this is DU

I've been (not) reading that shit for about 5 1/2 years. :D

[Suich]

4. "Ignore" is your friend!

:hi:

[Divernan]

12. Nope. Ignore is an ostrich-like response & alllows DU to be corrupted.

At least when it comes to discussing the pros and cons of possible Dem candidates. Putting annoying/abusive posters on ignore is refusing to face the fact that such posters are using DU to spread their discontent, abuse, hatred, lies, etc. Far better to confront them, get back in their face, and when they cross the line on allowable discourse, as many of them do, push the alert button.

"Ignore" is the pacifist, turn-the-other-cheek, play-nice, don't make waves approach. It allows the negative posters to go unchallenged. If someone is trashing a Dem candidate, (and I mean unfair spin, ridicule, etc.), we abandon that candidate if we put the poster on "ignore". I'm all for solid debate. By that I mean a statement starting out, for example, with "I disagree with candidate X's position on (state the issue) because (give your reason).

[AwakeAtLast]

28. Thank you! I couldn't agree more!

I have been tempted to use it a few times, but in the end chose not to. There are too many viewpoints to peruse. 99% are very useful, the other 1% is entertainment! :D At least that's how I choose to look at it!

Great analogy! :hi:

[TahitiNut]

40. I wish the "ignore" feature worked differently.

I wish we could IMPOSE an "ignore me" on those we selected ... those whose behavior betrays antipathy amounting to 'stalking' or 'gadfly.' I think many of us can think of certain other DUers who repeatedly demonstrate personal hostility rather than even a modicum of open-mindedness - where it's clearly about WHO rather than WHAT.

:evilgrin: It'd make things far more ... "interesting".

(No... my "ignore list" is empty and has almost always been so.)

[ripple]

56. Well said. I'd also add that 'ignore'

is also used as a way to get the last word in on an argument one is losing. It's much easier to more or less say "this is the way is and if you disagree, I just won't talk to you anymore" than it is to engage in a little bit of self-examination and realize that the person on the other side of an issue may actually have some valid points that are worth considering.

[juajen]

5. Amen

N/T

[hwmnbn]

6. It's always easier......

to bash and vent than to encourage intelligent discussion.

[SaveElmer]

7. If Hillary Clinton bashing were to cease...

Membership would drop 50% and we could combine all forums into one general forum!!!

[xxqqqzme]

8. here! here!

I'm amazed that some where in the middle of a thread someone can mention......shhhh......Howard Dean or..........Hillary and blammmmmoooo before you know it, there are the bashers. How does that happen? One of the mysteries of the universe, I suppose.

[chimpymustgo]

9. Now, see what you just did? Incoming!

Yikes.

[AtomicKitten]

10. I think it would be helpful

to clarify "bashing" as opposed to telling unpleasant truths. If you post policy positions or quotes that aren't flattering to certain candidates, their fanboys/girls go ballistic. Maybe people are just trying to get the truth out there by cutting through the BS and propaganda. That isn't bashing although it is construed as such by some in a self-serving way.

[SaveElmer]

13. The opposite is also true...

When there is one or two interlopers who refuse to go along with the "he/she is a DINO traitor" trash session, its like you crashed a wedding or something!!!

[AtomicKitten]

17. that's okay

I think when you know who you are, it doesn't matter where you are.

[Mabus]

26. I agree

You can tell a difference in a person's reaction. If there is a Pro-Candidate thread, the basher refuses to engage in discussion about the merits of the issue being talked about. They stick to their talking points (many borrowed directly from the RW media) and refuse to look at any links provided or the actual context in which a disputed quote was spoken.

We have to be honest when there are unpleasant truths about someone we support but there is a difference between discussing something and jumping on a thread with the agenda of putting down on person in favor of another. I think all the possible candidates have warts. They're human. No one is perfect. We just need to talk about things truthfully and not engage in sabotage.

[citizen snips]

11. it is content that is three years old

and has nothing to do with the status quo.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Well I might ask why we have to see the same tired old

booster threads posted over and over. Do they think maybe after they've posted the SAME SH*T 67 times, non-supporters will start liking their candidates?

Now as to your main point: "It's so bizarre, annoying and UNDEMOCRATIC" huh? What exactly is undemocratic about freely expressing your opinions?

[smoogatz]

20. Yep. There's also the matter of astroturfing--

the high probability (if not certainty) that paid operatives routinely spam GD--and by extension the greatest page--with every single press release that pops up on their candidate's website, in an attempt to create the illusion of netroots support. It's unethical and, IMO, annoying, but somehow we're not supposed to object?

[w4rma]

21. I actually have no problem with that. It saves others from having to go look for that stuff.

Now, paid operatives who dig up negative crap, on opposing Democratic candidates, I do *not* support.

[smoogatz]

22. I think there's a fair amount of that going on, too.

And I wouldn't object to the astroturfing thing if it was aboveboard; the fact that there's no disclosure is what makes it unethical, IMO.

[Clark2008]

43. I don't think those threads are for the old-timers.

I think those threads are for the newbies we get every day who either believe the corporate media's shit or who haven't laid claim to a candidate, yet.

I agree with the rest of your post, however. I think it's very democratic (and Democratic) to freely express one's self.

[GenDem]

15. K & R

[bahrbearian]

16. You must be talking about all the Chimpy Bashers.. I know it gets old.

[DeepModem Mom]

18. Thank you! I limit my posting about candidates to the candidate forums...

where, unfortunately, there's a much smaller readership. But I see no reason to attract vitriol to him or her.

[MethuenProgressive]

19. It's DU PCism - Hate Hill & Kerry, Love Dean & Edwards...

Some DUers seem to forget that the D in DU stands for Democratic. I've been called "not a real Democrat" for simply expressing my opinon. DU's a funny place...

[bahrbearian]

23. I like Kerry, Dean and Edwards , at least they can explain their

Positions.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. I'll ask again: "It's so bizarre, annoying and UNDEMOCRATIC"

why exactly is it undemocratic to express your opinion, negative or positive, on any topic?

[Mich Otter]

25. Thank you for saying so, we have many well qualified Democratic candidates.

We have so many choices that are so far and above anyone the Republicans can offer.

Let's do our best to persuade the naysayers to drop their attitudes.
For one thing, simply do not get into attacking their posts. Let their posts just die from a lack of attention.

We ought to just be thankful we are the Party of intelligence and caring. My favorite may not become the Democratic candidate for president, but I know which ever Democrat is the candidate, he or she, will be better than any Republican.

[Generator]

27. Because it's fun

Super duper fun when it's Hilary. (oh yeah, baby!)

[longship]

29. What candidates?

We have no election now, or not even next year. Just maybe all the flame posts might be a rejection of the fifteen thousand 2008 election threads.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of all of them. The election is still almost two years from now. I don't want to see another 2008 thread until a year from now. All these posts are totally lame.

[ms liberty]

30. It's the ones who...

show up in a thread and do what I call the drive-by insulting that annoy me. They don't actually say why they don't like a candidate or potential candidate, they just breeze thru with a one-or-two line remark. They don't engage in a discussion, they just insult and disparage someone, and move on without actually saying anything.

[Uncle Joe]

39. I agree ms liberty and drive-by insulting is an accurate description

of some who have no intention of engaging in any substantive debate regarding a particular person/candidate's pros or cons. They just insult and then run away as a bully would crying to his/her parent after the victim stood up to them.

They may even be freepers, but it all boils down to the same thing.
When I see these drive by hits, I just see a lonely, frustrated, bitter person too afraid to learn and too insecure to debate.

[Radical Activist]

31. I try to space it out. Mix things up.

If I've bashed Clark lately I'll lay off and bash Dean, just for old times sake. ;)

Actually, I'm trying to avoid bashing for the most part. I'll make arguments about why I don't like some candidates, but I'm not going to beat it to death. That gets old and boring. I'm also not going to go out of my way and make wild arguments to attack any candidate. Some people really stretch things pretty thin just to score points against someone and that's when it gets annoying.

[goodhue]

32. Yes, the Kucinich bashers are annoying

[Seabiscuit]

33. Are you trying to tempt us all to squat down and take a dump right here?

On your guy?

On my guy?

On that one's guy?

Look out belooooooooooow....

:)

[ecstatic]

34. It's probably moreso a reaction to smug posts in support of specific candidates

There's only one potential candidate that I sometimes can't control my snark on, and that's only when certain posters get WAY too smug regarding him. Especially when a particular candidate has been a disaster in the past--it just gets irritating when some people try to rewrite history. Idealism is fine but I prefer realism.

[skyblue]

35. If you want to bash- Bash a Ratpig!!! The candidate you bash may be primary winner!!

If you want people to hate a Democratic candidate - you could be a Republican trying to stir up flames within the party and make it split. And don't bash a frontrunner who may be your best bet for someone who could win against the Republican candidate. And we don't know who that front runner may be. I try not to bash candidates most times. I won't be ragging on any of the candidates unless some final candidate seems to me to be way off base. No candidate is perfect. Forget that.

[election_2004]

36. It would also be nice if people would quit using the phrase....

..."get used to it."

As if the next eight years have already been written in stone, and there's nothing we can do to change it.

[tavalon]

37. As the primary wars heat up

the ignore button will become your most treasured DU feature. Trust me on this one.

[Javaman]

38. Because they are obsessive compulsive candidate bashers.

Also known as OCCB.

[Sapere aude]

41. For me, DU is getting less and less worth reading.

All these 2008 pissing contests. Obama is this, Hillary is that. La de da de da.

I use to come here to learn something I didn't know. There are some very good thinkers and writers here at DU but I see less and less of them and more and more of the pissing contests. And the "question" posts are not worth it either IMHO. They go something like this, "Should Obama get more white Southern support before he tries to run or not?" (I made that one up.)

[CTyankee]

42. I experienced this as a Lamont supporter and volunteer

I ended up always having to counter the Lamont bashers. Even as recently as last week there was a Lamont bashing thread ("PLease don't Lamont me again" or something similar!).

It gets tiresome but I always felt I had to respond to stick up for Ned. The most tiresome were the ones that were supercilious in their tone, about how Ned could never hope to win so why try. Well, Ned's views have now been vindicated and Joe is out in the cold supporting his discredited President. Maybe I could start my own "Smug as hell because NEd was right" thread just to show 'em...

[mrgorth]

44. The same thing happened in the 2004 primaries

the board was horrible. There's not much you can do about it. People get passionate FOR and AGAINST certain candidates.

[chimpymustgo]

45. Trust. I was here. Primary wars. God-awful. Then the VEEP wars. Vicious.

And you know who you are. We really can raise the level of discourse around here. DU is too wonderful for some of this crap that's starting up again.

[sendero]

46. Because the same people..

.. post the same rah-rah booster posts over and over. Really pretty fucking simple.

[chimpymustgo]

47. Just a little reminder. There was a very nice Edwards thread about how TERRIFIC

he and Elizabeth were on Hardball tonight.

Same shit. Different day.

[mrgorth]

49. Agreed.

[sendero]

50. You'll never see me....

... on an Edwards thread because I have no opinion of him either way :)

[GreenArrow]

62. trouble is, not everyone thought they were terrific

Should those people just start another thread about how lame it was? Then there'd be a whole onslaught of people saying how wonderful they were. It's the same difference.

[LoZoccolo]

48. Internet grazing behavior.

Really, no one's going to get anyone else to vote for anyone using the tactics here. If anyone really wants to support a candidate, they'd stop throwing ridiculous arguments at other people throwing ridiculous arguments (read: no one's going to change their mind) and get out and volunteer for the campaigns they are pushing.

[1932]

53. How does your post about the Kucinich-Bush photo fit into this theory?

[LoZoccolo]

54. How do you think it does? n/t

[1932]

55. It's a confession that you're not trying to convince anyone of anything?

[LoZoccolo]

57. Maybe it's the opposite. n/t

[1932]

59. That wouldn't explain the ridiculous argument about Kucinich.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Sometimes I make my points in interesting ways. n/t

[1932]

63. Apparently, "interesting" is in the eye of the beholder.

Hypocritical was the term that came to mind when I read your post here so soon after reading your Kucinich post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3013890

[lynne]

51. Probably just human nature to express your opinion -

- of a candidate you don't favor just as it is human nature to create thread after thread extolling the virtues of the candidate that someone does favor.

One seems to generate the other. A vicious circle.

[HuffleClaw]

52. erm, its 'undemocractic' to express an opposing opinion?

[chimpymustgo]

58. It's the bullying, shouting-down freeperish quality it often has.

See any Edwards thread. Especially the ones that start out very positive. The usual suspects show up to post the SAME cut and paste spam over and over again. Same shit, different day.

[ClassWarrior]

61. That's a clue. They're mostly trolls.

NGU.