Common Sense, et cetera

[NanceGreggs]

It’s readily apparent that calls for courtesy and civility among DUers have a tendency to fall on deaf ears of late. But surely we can all agree to some common sense truthiness:

The minute you use the words Obamaniac or HillBot, or any derivative or variation thereof, the great flushing sound you hear is your credibility going down the toilet. Serious people who are interested in discussing real issues do not find it necessary to play I-know-you-are, but-what-am-I, here or elsewhere.

If you choose to post an OP about either of the candidates calling their credibility or behavior into question, it’s always a good idea to be able to back up your statements with facts and argue your position accordingly. And the last time I checked, because I said so does not meet the “fact” threshold.

Unless you are a professional psychic with a better-than 90 percent accuracy rating, saying that you know for a fact that one candidate or the other cannot win the GE is good for a laugh – and not much else.

If the only response you can come up with to someone who disagrees with your post is “You’ve obviously been drinking the kool-aid” or “I knew a cultist wouldn’t get it”, you’ve already lost the argument.

Calling someone who doesn’t support Hillary a sexist or someone who doesn’t support Obama a racist isn’t just a rush to judgment based on very shaky criteria – it’s incredibly fuckin’ dumb!

If your OP starts with the words, “I don’t usually listen to RW nutcases, but this time it’s different,” you can rest assured that this time it’s not any different than it ever was. Quoting the likes of Coulter, Buchanan, O’Reilly or Limbaugh because they’ve said something negative about the candidate you don’t like doesn’t suddenly elevate them to serious journalist or credible political commentator status. Rule of thumb: If you wouldn’t in your wildest dreams have quoted someone a year ago, you shouldn’t be quoting them now.

Opening a discussion thread does not automatically mean that you are required to respond to it. Some things are better left unsaid – really. It is not necessary to post something negative, nasty, or obnoxious on every thread that says something positive about the other candidate.

Counting how many currently active “threads” are saying something negative about your candidate doesn’t mean you have to even the score by posting something negative about the other side.

Both candidates are going to have good news days, and bad news days. If your candidate is having a bad news day, you are not duty-bound to dig up something obscure about their opponent and try to turn it into something of major significance. Be patient. The bad news that is affecting your candidate today will be replaced by equally bad news affecting the other candidate tomorrow. That’s the nature of things; your assistance in this natural process is not necessary.

It’s no secret that we have been infiltrated with newbie posters whose mission is to be disruptive and divisive. But before you accuse someone of being a troll based on their post count, you might want to check their profile. That “newbie” you’re about to harangue might just be a low-posting DUer who’s been here a hell of a lot longer than you have.

Badgering someone you disagree with to the point they stop responding is not a sign you’ve beaten them into submission – it’s more likely a sign that you’ve been added to their IGNORE list.

Someone who supports the other candidate might actually have come to that choice through investigation and an honest weighing of their flaws versus their attributes. Before you accuse someone of having been duped into supporting their candidate-of-choice, you might want to consider that maybe they've come to their decision based on more stringent criteria than you've used to make your decision.

If you actually know every last detail of every negative story connected with the candidate you oppose, but you don’t know of a single negative story that’s been printed about John McCain in the past week, you might want to reassess your sense of priorities.

Always remember that the two individuals you are “supporting” via calling your fellow DUers names, and/or questioning their sanity, their intelligence, and their patriotism, get along much better with each other than you seem to be able to get along with their respective supporters.

Think about it. It might not help - but it couldn't hurt.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

1. Excellent OP, thanks Nancy............nt

[myrna minx]

2. It was a pleasure to recommend this thread, Nance.

:applause:

[ThatBozGuy]

6. Civility only works for those that will follow rules, Great post, but as you said deaf ears

In the same vein

[k8conant]

3. Thank you!

I'll try to bear this all in mind.

[NanceGreggs]

5. I'm trying to 'bear this all in mind' myself ...

Although I promised myself to remain soberly above the fray, I've fallen off the wagon more than a few times this past week.

[NastyRiffraff]

4. Another good reminder...thanks, Nance! n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

7. K&R

[Suich]

8. I wish there was some way every DU'er had to read

this post before they're allowed in GDP!

)))sigh(((

[HughMoran]

9. K & R - another excellent post Nance

I hope your repeated calls for civility are heeded at some point - it's almost impossible to find anything non-inflammatory lately :(

[SunsetDreams]

10. Nance...

Thank you for your post, it came at the right time for me in here tonight.

I don't understand all this, doing the GOP's work. It makes me wonder if some of these people truly support either one of our candidates, or if they come over here from the other side just to stir up crap.
.
I posted something positive tonight, but yet it fell by the waist side, not one freaking person responded, and I kicked it 3 times. Too many people are busy in the negative threads to bother.

[cbayer]

11. Everyone here knows you are an Obamaniac with no credibility.

I don't usually listen to RW nut-case trolls like yourself, but as a professional psychic who has NEVER been wrong, I take great offense at your OP.

You have clearly drunk too much kool-aid and are a blatant sexist.


You are also clearly insane and need to go back to freeperville or that bridge you live under.

:rofl:

[rug]

12. Nice Post, Emily.

[Scurrilous]

13. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Mythsaje]

14. It's gotten intolerably bad the past few weeks

in particular. It's more than just GD-P anymore. It's infected the whole of DU for the most part, except perhaps the Lounge. :shrug: I'm beyond disgusted. I'm horrified. A year ago this was a community of which I was proud to be a member. Now I'm afraid it's a community of which a year ago I was proud to be a member.

I really miss the positive, supportive, compassionate and empathetic community I used to know and love and can only hope it somehow returns to normal after all this is done and over.

"Deaf ears" is right. Deaf ears and blind eyes and cold hearts seem to everywhere. I'm struggling right now because of my neck and back, know I have to return to work after tomorrow with no significant improvement, and only wish there was some way to boost my book sales significantly enough to give me a little more time to get to the bottom of the problem.

We can't afford for me to be out of work any longer, no matter how much pain I suffer, no much how weak, uncooperative, and undependable my left arm has become.

I'm hurting, frustrated, and just plain bummed out on so many levels. And I don't know if what I'm feeling when I'm here on DU these days is mostly because of that, or because it's just gotten that bad.

I wish I knew.

Another good one, Nance. Too bad the only people who are listening are the ones who aren't the problem in the first place.

[SunsetDreams]

19. Hi :)

I'm sorry you're going through such a difficult time right now. I've been there with my back, I have bulging discs, which makes my back painful, and causes numbness and tingling in my legs at times due to the discs pinching down on nerves. I hope it gets better for you soon.

I can't believe some of these posts, and attacking our fellow democratic candidates and each other is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem debating policies, but these character assassinations are really getting me down. I know the GOP will, I expect that, but a Democrat attacking another Democrat is unacceptable to me.

[Mythsaje]

25. Sounds like we may have similar problems

going on with our backs. My recent MRI suggests bulging disks, some bone spurs, arthritis, and degeneration. My left shoulderblade goes from numb to burning to feeling as if it's been scraped raw in cycles. Not fun.

Constructive criticism of candidates and such is to be expected, and even to some extent lauded. But the character assassination tactics that seem to be becoming as much a part of our methodology as it part of the Republican methodology has GOT to stop.

[JeffR]

22. Hang in there, Saje.

It'll get better.

In the meantime, drop into the Photo Group sometime. The infection has yet to manifest there. We all get screened at the door, and if the machines start beeping, the carrier is quietly escorted out and euthanized.

[Mythsaje]

26. Thanks for the invite.

I'm sure there are some safe areas but it's the overall environment that's getting to me. I'm really depressed because I know I'm in for some serious pain and anguish after tomorrow and I'm not looking forward to it at all.

[JeffR]

28. Fingers crossed for ya here

fingers crossed for us all, come to think of it.

[ladym55]

27. Boy, do I agree with you

It's getting so I'm not sure I want to visit DU each day or if I want to read many threads. DU used to be my favorite destination at the end of a long day.

I hope your back pain eases. Take care of yourself.

[yellerpup]

15. It all needed saying.

Well done. Thank you.

[Arkansas Granny]

16. Thanks Nance. This should be required reading.

[Dr.Phool]

17. Spank 'em all!! Wash their mouths out with soap,

:spank: :spank: :hurts: :crazy: :argh:

Then send them all to their rooms without supper.

Then draft Al Gore!

:silly: :toast: :party: :toast:

[bigbrother05]

18. Nance

I dub thee Adult of DU

[nam78_two]

20. Heartily recommended-excellent post

Thank you so much!

[JeffR]

21. I disagree

Don't want to. I have to, because you posted this in General Discussion: Primaries.

Otherwise I would agree totally.

[nam78_two]

23. ...

:D Do you give yourself DUzies? You should....

[JeffR]

24. I'm ineligible under Academy bylaws

but thanks for your kindness.

[vixengrl]

29. True & K &R

Sez me.

[ekwhite]

30. Another great post as usual, Nance

You are one of the reasons I keep coming back to DU (yes, I'm one of those people with low post counts who has been around since the Kerry campaign).

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. Well, it looks like I haven't missed anything substantive or meaningful...

Since I put GD: P on ignore the day after Super Tuesday;

Can anyone point me to an informative thread from that forum, one that contains useful information, or at least substantive, but civil, debate?

I don't miss it, and I can't wait until the mods declare that we have a "presumptive nominee", so all the dung flinging will cease.

[jgraz]

32. I admit it. I'm a NanceBot.

Take me to my Queen...

[ruggerson]

33. You've violated every rule in her post

about a million times.

She may have to send you to the Tower.

[Awsi Dooger]

34. "Hillary may not be a racist..."

That was the header of one of your posts a day or two ago. In my eyes it forfeits virtually every point you tried to make in this thread. Saying she may not be a racist is equivalent to the pathetic, "as far as I know," addendum that Hillary applied to the question of Obama being a Muslim.

[NanceGreggs]

41. Nice job taking something completely out of context ...

Note that you didn't bother reproducing the rest of that sentence. In addition, I stated in one of my OPs of late that I, for one, didn't think the "as far as I know" comment was meant to convey the meaning that people here were attaching to it.

[cornermouse]

44. Agree.

I'm in the same age group as Hillary (spoken in a low almost inaudible mumble and then changing to normal volume for what follows the parenthesis) and I say "as far as I know" all the time without any hidden, nefarious, or negative meanings to it whatsoever.

[NanceGreggs]

48. Me, too!

I am also (of a certain age) and say it all the time. What truly amazes me about Hillary is how she manages to keep up with the grueling pace of campaigning, not to mention the pressure.

I'm a bit younger than she is, and I readily admit that I couldn't do it. I would have dropped out of the race months ago - simply out of sheer exhaustion.

[The Wizard]

35. Two things marginally connected

"Either we live together as brothers or perish together as fools.'
(Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)

The problem with getting into a pissing match with a skunk is that everyone comes away with a stink.

We have to be civil in our internal conflicts and ready to rip the skin off those who want us to cross the bridge to the 11th Century.

[TechBear_Seattle]

36. An excellent rant

Even Mr. Olbermann would be hard-pressed to speak so eloquently, and I bet you don't have professional writers.

For many years, I have asked why I should vote for one candidate or the other, and for years the responses have been little more than screeds against other candidates. This year has been, by far, the worst I've seen yet. The only thing that I, as an uncommitted voter, can conclude from all this internecine muck-flinging is that both candidates are filth; it would be a nice change of pace if partisans would stop throwing their feces at one another and clean up their own candidate.

[crud76]

37. How Do You

unrecommend a post around here?

[f the letter]

38. Amen!!!

Thanks for writing this! i've tried to get people to read similar posts with no success, and this is on point.

[eagleswing963]

39. What I have observed

Nance,

For one I agree. Infighting here is bad!!!!

Two: Every candidate has skeletons. Lets face it, its true!!!
Obama has a few things he would like to erase, so does Hillary!!

Is either one perfect? HELL NO!!!

Obama has a minister who sounds like a "hate the white man" person. But that does not make Obama a white hater!!

Hillary, well, we know her problems!!

Bottom line: Either one of these peoople, warts and all, is betetr then McCain !!!!

Think about it!

[NewHampshireDem]

42. Huh, posted in GD:P

And only 2 replies from Ignored! It must be a good post!

In all seriousness, thank you for this. It reeks of common, good sense, and clearly belongs elsewhere. ;)

[HughMoran]

40. kick

This one needs to be read by everyone.

[Blue_Roses]

43. great post and I have to say that you are one of the few people who

brings civility and sense to this forum. It's kind of like--dare I say--the mom who has to come between the two children fighting in the back seat. "Don't make me stop this car and cut you off from DU dammit!"

Another one for thought: If you know the candidates kids better than you know your own, then it's time to step away from DU:D

Thank-you!


:bounce:

[elixir]

45. Good one.

[Seabiscuit]

46. So. When I call the most obnoxious Obama supporters on DU "Obamanoids"

I'm flushing my credibility down the toilet?

Hmmm. I thought I was just being creative, as well as very descriptive of a certain behavior exhibited by hundreds of obnoxious asses in these boards, most of whom are now on my "ignore" list.

And yes, my credibility is quite intact, thank you. Calling a spade a spade has nothing to do with credibility.

[NanceGreggs]

49. Well, if that's your idea of "being creative" ...

... what can I say?

Of course, your credibility is based on how credible others find you to be, and not how credible you perceive yourself to be.

I'm sure those who think that childish name-calling is part of being able to express one's political views in an intelligent manner will continue to find you "credible", as well as amusing.

[Seabiscuit]

54. So. When Obamanoids "cry wolf" by repeatedly falsely accusing the Clintons of "racism", when

they hypocritically hurl revolting sexist epithets at Hillary ("witch", "cackle" "periodically" emotional, "bubblebutt", etc., etc. ad nauseum) and continue to spread false, vicious lies and hurl ugly insults at anyone who raises any questions about their Messiah, and do so like a pack of rabid dogs, I should just treat them with the same respect I treat opposing counsel in a courtroom, or else I risk losing my credibility to these same cretins? Sorry, but I wasn't born yesterday, and I'm not an idiot. I don't give a good God damn what these cretins think of me. It doesn't affect my credibililty, which is not just what others think of me, but what I know to be true about myself, as well as what many others on these boards whom I do respect think of me. And I have plenty of credibility to go around with this latter group. It is utterly impossible to express one's political views with the Obamanoid cretins in an intelligent manner. Their entire modus operendi is based on lies, distortions, hypocrisy, and their own nasty insults. I choose not to engage them 99% of the time. The 1% of the time that I've made the mistake of engaging them I've regretted it because it's always a complete waste of time. I might as well have been talking to an eggplant.

I call Bush and his neocon buddies "bastards", "fascist pigs" and "war criminals". And I call the Republicans who blindly support them "Repukes". And I don't give a good God damn what they think of me either. And there's no good reason why I should. I'm not going to play footsie with those assholes. My credibility doesn't depend on what they think of me. I already know what they think of me just from an occasional listen to Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc., etc., ad nauseum. I suspect a good majority of Americans by now, as well as the vast majority of the rest of the world's population uses the same epithets and worse when referring to that criminal cabal.

I have a feeling you also avoid these same people like the plague, Nance, because you've acknowledged several times that they give the few rational Obama supporters like yourself a bad name. So kindly refrain from berating my approach to them. I'm not about to play footsie with these assholes either. And I don't indulge in your naive, Obama-inspired "why can't we all just reach across the aisle and get along" mantra.

So... no thank you, very much. A good half of these obnoxious asses are freepers; the other half blindly follow the program the freepers have laid down for them to divide and destroy the real democrats in this forum. I could waste my time "alerting" all of them or I can put them on "ignore" and refer to them as my collection of "Obamanoids". I choose the latter. I've got over 600 of them on "ignore" already and I still find this one board flooded with new ones all the time. Cleaning up my screen periodically is like a prolonged game of "whack-a-mole".

That's how bad it's really gotten in here. They've turned this one board into a verbal cesspool. And although there may be a few dozen Hillary supporters who behave just as atrociously, I don't see them any more because I put all 30 of them on "ignore" last summer when they were all doing their DLC tag-team thing. IOW, if that group of 30 is behaving as atrociously as the Obamanoids, I don't see it on my screen. But think about it: 600 (and growing by leaps and bounds) vs. 30!!! - hardly a "they're just as bad" wash.

[NanceGreggs]

57. You do realize, of course ...

... that you have said nothing here that hasn't been said about the Hillary supporters as well?

If you choose to wallow in the mud with the other mud-slingers, that's your choice. But if you think that using phrases like "Obamaniacs" or "HillBots" is the only way to win an argument, or makes you look intelligent or "creative", far be it from me to stop you.

It's just MHO, but when I see name-calling used in place of actual facts or legitimate argument for supporting one candidate over the other, my immediate reaction is that this person has nothing of value to say.

I don't refer to fellow Democrats as kool-aid drinkers, or cultists who are mesmerized by charisma over substance.

Unless someone specifically states that they are choosing one candidate over another because She's so COOL, or He's just dreamy-looking, I go on the assumption that people have made their choice based on legitimate criteria. The fact that their preference is different than mine does not make them stupid, ill-informed, ignorant of the facts, etc.

I don't think it's too much to ask that people discuss their differences of opinion without resorting to childish name-calling. In fact, engaging in such behaviour makes me wonder if certain people are actually mature and adult enough to vote in the first place.

[Seabiscuit]

58. I've edited my post since you read it. Your post reads like you didn't read mine at all.

You're just repeating yourself.

[NanceGreggs]

60. I read it in its entirety.

And yes, I guess I am repeating myself. Name-calling is neither creative nor persuasive, nor is it reflective of intelligent discourse.

[Seabiscuit]

63. Well, I know where you're coming from, and like you I long for the days on DU

when it was much more peaceful and civilized around here before the freeper invasion after Iowa which created the grotesque group of batshit crazy flamers I refer to as Obamanoids.

You may not like the name.

It's not particularly "creative", but I thought, with a chuckle, when I came up with it, that it was a bit more creative than the "Hillbot" and "Obamabot" names I saw flying all over these boards.

The word is absolutely *not* intended to be "persuasive". There's no "persuading" an Obamanoid. Hell, one can't even engage them in rational discourse. So it's to the "ignore" bin they all go.

Nor is the word intended to be "reflective of intelligent discourse". Discourse by definition includes an interchange of ideas between two or more people. There simply is no possibility that any rational person can hold "intelligent discourse" with an Obamanoid.

[NanceGreggs]

64. In the same way one could say ...

... "There simply is no possibility that any rational person can hold "intelligent discourse" with a kool-aid drinking HillBot."

Now, exactly what did the terms "Obamanoid" and "HillBot" add to the conversation?

More-than-obvious answer: Nothing - unless immature rhetoric counts for something, somewhere in the world outside of Kindergarten.

[Seabiscuit]

65. In my experience, it's the 600 to 30 proportion.

600 Obamanoids on my "ignore" list, 30 Hillbots. That's a 20-1 ratio. And yet I see so many threads and posts from so many more people these days that I haven't put on "ignore" yet that would double or triple or quadruple that ratio if I really had the patience to spend the time doing it.

Hardly your equation.

You know better than to take the position you have, Nance. You know perfectly well that 95% of the crap that has destroyed this board has come from people who pretend, at least, to be Obama supporters.

"Obamanoid" isn't my attempt to "add to the converstation". That's a deliberate put-down.

"Obamanoid" is obviously, even to you, nothing more than a simple dismissal of posters who make themselves utterly impossible to carry on a rational dialogue with. See my above posts.

"Obamanoid" is not "rhetoric". It's a one-word dismissal of utter crap. It describes the same crap posted by people you yourself have disavowed publicly, in your own words.

Just like the word "freeper" is.

Because it's all the same to me.

Why isn't it to you? Because you've been drinking at the Kool-aid well for too long now?

And what is Barack going to do about the MSM'S current determination to not only coronate him as the Dem nominee, but now that they've convinced themselves that they've convinced everyone else that Barack is the inevitable Dem nominee, they are just beginning to destroying him with stories like the one they've been playing all day about Barack's 20 year pastor, Rev. Wright???

What do you think about all that? Pandering to right-wing homo-hating fundies by promoting a black homophobe minister in the south, just to win one southern state; pandering to Repukes by being the first Democrat ever to praise Ronald Reagan; and now a revelation about his having a 20-year close relationship to a minister who carries on in those videos like a reverse-racist, hateful, America-hating insane wacko maniac on speed and helium?

How do you feel about Repuke 527's damning him by association with this craziness in a constant media barage during the general election?

Ho do you feel about the MSM condemning him constantly during the GE about this kind of stuff?

Do you or I really know who he is? He's played his cards, like a poker player, so close to his chest, no one really knows who he is. Maybe not even himself. Has he ever shown any true emotion or conviction in any of the debates?

Is that what we want in a future president?

All I know is that this is the last person I want representing us during the Repuke media onslaught during the general election. Hillary may be hated by them because her husband denied GHWB his second term, and ended the Reagan dream of Republican control forever for 8 years, but Barack will be made an utter fool by them all. And McCain will win, if they get what they want: a crucified Obama. Just saw both Olbermann and Fox Noise about it all tonight: both had interviews with Obama. Olbermann fed him soft-balls. Fox gave him a hard time, and he looked uncomfortable, as he was doing his best spin. Then Fox went on to an interview with Newt Gingrich, who totally crucified him from a right-wing perspective, calling him and his minister nothing more than typical representatives of the "hard left" in America. Is that how we want the Repukes characterizing us "lefties"?

I neither approve of nor dislike the guy. But I personally think his candidacy in a GE against the right-wing machine would be a complete disaster for the Democratic Party. As a lawyer by profession and training, I have spent a lot of time trying to understand what he's saying, both in his many speeches and the Dem debates, all of which I've watched. And I came to the conclusion long ago that he's an "empty suit": there's no "there" there. Stangely enough these days, that's what the right-wing talk-show a-holes are saying. They actually get it, whereas Obama's supporters still seem to be walking around like hypnotized zombies, utterly unaware of what's about to come crashing down on their collective heads if this guy actually gets the opportunity to go up against McCain and the right-wing spin machine.

As much as I have had misgivings about Hillary for years, she (1) is the only remaining candidate who has kept her promise to John Edwards; (2) unlike the Leo Obama who just loves the adoration of the spotlight, she's at least a double Scorpio, able to deliver a double-dose sting to McCain, as she demonstrated with her Rezko zinger (which she'd been holding up her sleeve for months and months) just at the right time when Barack tried to take her down about Wal-Mart during the third-last debate (changing the next-day's headlines from "Wal-Mart" to "Rezko"). And (3) She is so used to the right-wing crapola that here her "experience" in the ring really counts - she knows how to destroy them at their own game. Obama doesn't show that he has a clue.

[chimpymustgo]

66. Go Seabiscuit. You speak the TRUTH.

[spooky3]

67. very well said - thank you

[NickMorgan]

62. credibility

I can't speak for others, but as a rational, patient, non-name-calling Obama supporter, I'd say your credibility is definitely diminished by use of the (admittedly creative) term Obamanoid, and by your spending time talking trash about Obamanoids, because it suggests you are in the trenches waging the same kind of dismissive, labelling rhetorical warfare that these "Obamanoids" are guilty of.

[Uncle Joe]

47. Well said, NancyGreggs.

Kicked and recommended.:thumbsup:

[Tresalisa]

50. Ya got enough recs for The Greatest Page,

so I'll go ahead and give ya a :kick:

Nicely done! :hi:

[bobthedrummer]

51. "Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council, etc."

A must read for all DUers, Democrats, independents, liberals, progressives and voters seeking the truth-this is a link to an active GD thread started 3-7-2008

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2973191

[haydukelives]

52. nice post

I love this line


If you actually know every last detail of every negative story connected with the candidate you oppose, but you don’t know of a single negative story that’s been printed about John McCain in the past week, you might want to reassess your sense of priorities.

[avrdream]

53. Good points.

Just wondering why they aren't coming from Skinner. You seem to be the only "bigwig" on the site who still cares about civility.

[bridgit]

55. k...

[LiveLiberally]

56. K&R -- And Thanks! /nt

[Sparkly]

59. A K and an R and a big Hurray!!

:applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

I've been peeking in now and then but largely avoiding this place! I wanted a real primary process, but this is getting painful.

[Beregond2]

61. Thanks

It is so easy to get caught-up in the childish name-calling and bogus shorthand that passes for intelligent arguement here too much of the time. I'm sure I've been guilty. Thanks for the reminder.