I'd like to ask a serious question, for once:

[Redstone]

I see so many posts in this forum that basically say "You supporters of(candidate X) on DU are such a bunch of (insert juvenile, insulting epithet here), and that means that (candidate X) is ALSO (the same juvenile epithet, or another), so there!"

How's that, again? I can't quite follow that "logic."

I mean, for example, I'll grant that Ron Paul supporters are dingdongs, but that's not what made HIM a dingdong. He was like that already.

Isn't that the way it really works?

(Besides, and I hate to be the one to have to break the news to you, but I doubt very much that either candidate makes any position decisions based on what names his or her supporters on DU call one another.)

Redstone

[Kaylee]

1. I'd doubt they even knew DU existed. nt

[NightWatcher]

2. Political Wonking on DU is what people do when they cant really "do" anything

The week that I volunteered and actually "DID SOMETHING" I didnt really post too much in the DU except reports from the field.

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

3. It's just the way humans work.

Prejudice starts with the creation of groups - for example, Hillary supporters and Obama supporters. The environment on GDP encourages us to make groups based on these distinctions. A consequence of this categorization is out-group homogeneity, which is the belief that "they" are all alike. My social psychology textbook (im a psych minor) explains it as follows: "Group members tend to perceive those in the out-group as more similar to each other (homogeneous) than they really are, as well as more homogeneous than the in-group members are." (Aronson, Wilson & Akert). This belief often persists even in the face of extreme logical fallacy. Since Hillary/Obama supporters in the real world fit the group criteria, we extend our beliefs about DU Hillary/Obama supporters to them.


Reference:
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. "Social Psychology"

[Lost-in-FL]

4. I'm just an spectator here...

I used to feel a little hopeless with all the fights here.

But then I am so tired of being pissed that I just lay back and get a kick out of what's goes on here sometimes. You are right about their candidates not even knowing about DU but I hope new Democrats don't get to see this place the way it is right now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. I Actually Love Both Obama And Hillary. My Snark Is Solely Dedicated At The Jerkoff Type Obama

supporters, while not diminishing my love for Obama itself. That's why some think I'm so entrenched in the Hillary side here and not really for Obama, even though I am. But it's not because I'm against him. It's because I far more feel the need to assist the Hillary side against the childish vitriolic hatred from the Obama side here, then the other way around. But it's all about them, not the candidate. As far as the candidates go, they are both absolutely amazing in their own rights, and deserving of ALL our support.

[Redstone]

6. There's lotsa ugly coming from both sides, OMC. You just called one group jerkoffs, for example.

Redstone

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. No I Didn't. Many Of Them Are Quite Decent. I Meant The Ones That ARE Jerkoffs.

I didn't call the group jerkoffs, I limited the context to just the ones that ARE jerkoffs. And there are simply far more of them then there are jerkoffs on the Hillary side, and though the Hill side does have some for sure (some of which I've railed against as well), because of the sheer frequency on the other side and what I consider higher level of pettiness and vitriol, I feel the need to focus my snark towards them. But I don't deflect their stupidity onto Obama. Obama himself is quite good. Some of his supporters? Not so much.

[Forkboy]

9. I feel the same way about all jerkoffs, regardless of who they claim to support.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Agreed.

I have railed against some of the jerkoffs on the Hillary side as well. But admittedly, I focus more the ones on the other side, only because they're far greater in number by default. I just try and even things out a little.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. People can get so emotionally invested in their candidate

that they lose all perspective.

It goes beyond attending rallies and waving signs and stuff like that. Somebody gets excited about a candidate, probably for entirely justifiable reasons (maybe that candidate's strongest issues are the issues that are most important to them, or maybe it's something more intangible -- whatever). So they donate some money, volunteer to phone-bank or hand out leaflets, go to meet-ups, and they get involved in some Internet message boards devoted to the campaign. And as a result of all this, pretty soon maybe they find themselves in an echo chamber where neither criticism of The Candidate nor praise of his/her opponents is tolerated. The Candidate is not only a very good candidate; he/she is the only good candidate. And then he/she becomes the only candidate who can possibly win; if anyone else is nominated the party is doomed. Any suggestion that The Candidate has flaws or weak points is rejected.

Because they are so wrapped up in the campaign they don't get any reality checks. It becomes personal. Intense, passionate support for The Candidate leads into intense, passionate loathing for all opponents. They scour the media and the Internet for any evidence of the opponents' and their families' flaws, misdeeds, gaffes, inconsistencies, bad school grades, love affairs, overdue library books and allegations of farting in church. They parse every sentence the opponents speak or write, looking for something that could be construed as false, silly, flip-flopping or Republican. They can't imagine how any sane, intelligent person could support someone as deeply flawed as The Candidate's scum-sucking pig of an opponent. Any editorial writer, politician or celebrity who endorses The Candidate's opponent is suddenly an idiot and a tool, even if yesterday they really liked them and praised them to the skies. Everything about The Candidate or his/her opponent is seen through the prism of the supporter's bias.

It's unfortunate -- sometimes this blindness, I think, is a product of ego: *I* have chosen this candidate, so how dare you disagree with MEEEE?

We can only hope that the rabid-weasel types will eventually either wake up or wear out.

[Redstone]

10. I think you're right. Thanks for the excellent explanation.

I can understand loathing bushyboy. But loathing Senator Clinton? I thought that's what Republicans do, and even if I didn't think she's the best choice for President (I'm not stating my preference), I can't see anything about her to hate. Or loathing Senator Obama? If someone doesnt think he's the right one to be President, they're certainly entitled to their opinion, but I don't see any reason to detest him as some people do.

Redstone

[Rowdyboy]

11. You mean the idiotic teenaged posturing that passes for debate here isn't serious?

Damn! Just damn...

[derby378]

12. I subscribe more to the "Get Off Your Ass" school of DUism

Yes, I have my qualms with both major candidates, but I really don't want to get bogged down in all these Clinton vs. Obama fights.

Instead, I'm a precinct chair. And soon I'll be a senatorial delegate and then, hopefully, a state delegate. I'm gonna be a busy bee this year. I have a feeling our precinct caucus is gonna be one big happy ball of Clinton vs. Obama fun, and lucky me gets to wield the gavel and hang on for dear life.

But I got where I am because I got off my ass. And I hope my fellow DUers across America will follow suit.