Still waiting for a Clinton supporter to answer; where's this "Irrational Hatred"?

[The Doctor.]

All over the place, Clinton people are screaming about how awful "90%" of Obama people are in what they say about Clinton.

And every single time I've asked them not one has been able to provide a quote of an Obama supporter displaying irrational behavior by Obama supporters. Not a one.

Oh, I'm sure it's out there, just as I'm sure that other Obamites stomped on it, but I haven't seen any.

So, are there any examples... or is it just a myth?

[Mooney]

1. That's because it's horseshit. n/t

[niceypoo]

56. Here is a prime example of it...

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5245088

took about 3 clicks to find one...

Next time do your own research

[niceypoo]

57. Here is another one....

Three more clicks...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5245051

[stevenleser]

65. Same thing, not nasty towards Clinton, nasty towards Clinton supporters on DU

Again, just in the interests of being precise.

[stevenleser]

64. Your research is flawed.

If we are being precise, the post you linked is nasty towards Clinton supporters on DU, not Clinton.

[Mooney]

67. That's not hate. That's exasperation.

Everything that gets described as "Hillary Hate" is more accurately described as exasperation and annoyance. I know it makes her seem more Christ-like to claim that she's being assailed by the slings and arrows of irrational detractors, like she's some kind of martyr. But the fact of the matter is that she's just being a fucking irritant, and the "hating" is actually just venting.

Arguing with clueless people about a loser candidate who refuses to drop out is irritating. That's what you're seeing. It's not hate. It's profound annoyance.

[The Doctor.]

73. There's not an ounce of 'irrational hatred' in there, heck, there isn't even bad language.

The reason I posted this was to find examples of the really horrible stuff people are saying about her. So far, only one example has been brough up of her being called a 'scumbag'.

That's it. No 'bitch', no 'cunt', no 'cold-blooded witch', no 'sexism', no 'hatred'.

Methinks your sensitivity level is turned up far too high. Go get it checked.

[maddiejoan]

2. Paging Dr. Perry Logan

Paging Dr. Perry Logan.

You have a call on the white courtesy phone!

[boston bean]

10. lol, maddie, stop it, i'm gonna piss my pants! nt

[tabasco]

30. Look who it is! Two of the DUmp cultists!

When does the boycott begin? Not soon enough.

[The Doctor.]

12. Ummm.... your point?

[ingac70]

3. Simply being for Obama over Clinton...

is mistreatment of her in their eyes.

[jgraz]

4. Well, we are rude enough to point out that she can't possibly win at this point.

That can seem pretty harsh to those in full denial.

[gcomeau]

5. It's not a myth...

...but it sure as heck isn't 90% of Obama supporters either. There are a few loudmouthed idiots tossing around absurd rhetoric on both sides... but since they're so incredibly loud and obnoxious they get far more attention than the more numerous calmer and more civil participants in the discussion and create the false impression that they represent a higher percentage of the community than they really do.

But even taking that factor into account, saying 90% is just being silly.

[The Doctor.]

7. While I can agree with that, I still haven't seen examples.

The people making the 90% claims are idiots.

[NC_Nurse]

6. I've seen some rude Obama supporters. Many have been TS'd, I'm happy to

say. There are many obnoxious Clinton supporters too. I don't think it's 90% of either side.

[joeybee12]

8. Um, do you know how to "search" for something...a good recent

example would be last Friday about how Hilary was behind the breach of Obama's passport records, how about how she was behind Pastor-gate as welll..nothing, absolutely not one shred evidence to back this up, but you Bots are all convinced.

What about lumping Bush and Clinton together for guilt by association even though any rational person would see the difference between the two...caling her a lying sack of shit?

Is all of that rational to you?

Of course, one reason no one has replied to you is that you might have put everyone you disagree with on ignore...great way to contiue your narrow vision of the world.

[The Doctor.]

15. I beg your pardon?

"but you Bots are all convinced."?

I'm not convinced of any of that. I'd also like to see a link.

As it stands, she's been proven a liar, so calling her one is hardly 'irrational'. My point here is that it's nowhere near as prevalent as the Hillary people say. And so far it looks like I'm right.

I also do not use the ignore function and have no one on ignore. (If there's a DUer named "no one", I don't have them on ignore either.)

Your insults and silly assumptions say far more about you than they do me or any Obama supporter.

So let's see the links and take a look.

[joshcryer]

16. Then I don't think you'd qualify as being a bot.

:hi:

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Night Owl]

9. "Hillary Clinton is willing to do anything to anyone who stands in her way."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5237238&mesg_id=5237238

Don't you feel silly now? Wake me up when an Obama supporter stomps on the post suggesting that Hillary Clinton will do anything to anyone who stands in her way, Doctor. LOL!

[The Doctor.]

13. That's neither 'irrational' not 'hatred'. Perhaps it's silly, but that example falls flat.

Someone has the opinion that Hillary is ruthless. We've seen some evidence that she will stoop pretty low. That makes the above opinion rational if not completely accurate.


Here's the claim from another post; "She is a racist, lying, flatulating, bitch and a selfish piece of shit that doesnt care about anyone else and is gonna tear the party apart, with a "gate" around every corner."

The 'tear the party apart' comment doesn't represent irrational hatred as people have a sound basis for thinking that way... even if it seems to be an exaggeration.

Now, where are the examples of irrational hatred claimed in the above quote?

[The Night Owl]

14. LOL! You have got to be kidding.

Arguing that Hillary Clinton is willing to do anything to anyone in her way is tantamount to arguing that she is capable of committing murder to get her way. Hateful and irrational.

Clearly, you are not capable of being an objective judge of posts.

[The Doctor.]

19. You've utterly missed the point-

Here let me quote the OP you may not have actually read;

"Oh, I'm sure it's out there, just as I'm sure that other Obamites stomped on it, but I haven't seen any."

Now the "She'll kill anyone who gets in her way" might likely be irrational, but saying "She'll do anything" in a political context means she'll do anything politically to win. So far, she's given fair cause to make that assesment.

I know, you're absolutely certain that the poster meant she'd kill everyone and destroy the world and nothing reasonable that I say will figure into it. But let's assume you're right, pretend you're a mind reader, and say that the poster did mean she'd kill to win.

Congrats, you've found one example of an irrational statement on a board where there are tens of thousands of statements a day. That goes nowhere toward proving that even 10% of Obama supporters are as rabid as people claim... let alone this 90% figure Clinton supporters irrationally believe.

Do you really think there are that many? If so, you can do better than a statement whose ulterior meaning you can't know.

Tell you what though, I'll go ask the person if that's what they meant. I'm reasonable like that.

Now, let me ask you... "Do I 'hate' Hillary because I support Barack"?

[joshcryer]

20. "She'll do anything" is usually in the context of breaking rules, destroying the democracy, being...

...racist, and so on.

All of these allegations are of course bullshit.

[The Doctor.]

25. I can see it meaning "breaking the rules", but

if the poster meant that she'd kill someone, then they're wrong.

If Hillary wants this as badly as I think she does (and she's justified to that extent), then I would agree that she would do "anything" to win in terms of campaign tactics underhanded and otherwise. So would many people who knew they had a real shot at being president... and I'm not leaving Obama out of that. He just hasn't demonstrated that he would use underhanded tactics, nor has he been in much of a position to necessitate such tactics.

Saying "She'll do anything" is not irrational in the context of seeking the Presidency.

[The Night Owl]

23. LOL! Finding an irrational statement about Hillary Clinton took me less than 10 seconds.

The board is full of irrational statements about Hillary Clinton.

[The Doctor.]

27. Where is it? You're not a telepath, so you can't know whether that

was rationally based or not.

Like I said;"I know, you're absolutely certain that the poster meant she'd kill everyone and destroy the world and nothing reasonable that I say will figure into it. But let's assume you're right, pretend you're a mind reader, and say that the poster did mean she'd kill to win.

Congrats, you've found one example of an irrational statement on a board where there are tens of thousands of statements a day. That goes nowhere toward proving that even 10% of Obama supporters are as rabid as people claim... let alone this 90% figure Clinton supporters irrationally believe.

Do you really think there are that many? If so, you can do better than a statement whose ulterior meaning you can't know."

[The Night Owl]

84. Oops! Posted in wrong place. See post #85. {EOM}

[joshcryer]

17. How low has she stepped? Can you provide concrete examples?

[The Night Owl]

21. Dr. Eldritch, in all his wisdom, has decided that accusing...

Dr. Eldritch, in all his wisdom, has decided that accusing Hillary Clinton of being capable of anything is perfectly rational. The discussion is over!

:rofl:

[The Doctor.]

26. Yeah... learn to read in context and understand, well... words.

Saying that 'someone will do anything' in a political context is not irrational. And so far, she's lied and undermined her own party.

Some would call that good cause for criticism.

[The Night Owl]

81. Just words right? If the meaning of the word "anything" has to be changed to make the statement...

If the meaning of the word "anything" has to be changed to make the statement that "Hillary Clinton is capable of anything" seem rational, then you shouldn't use the word in that statement.

A rational statement might have looked like...

Hillary Clinton is capable of going to great lengths to win.

The statement that Hillary Clinton is capable of doing anything to win is not rational and is the kind of hateful rhetoric one expects from Ann Coulter, not a DU poster.

Like Barack Obama says... Words are important.

[The Doctor.]

22. The comment that McCain is more qualified in ANY capacity than Obama was quite low.

Then there's the NAFTA whispering campaign.

I'm still fine with the idea of Clinton being president, I just think the character of an Obama presidency (and the solid spanking the Republicans his draw will bring), will be more favorable to We The People.

[joshcryer]

34. I don't consider that 'low.'

[The Doctor.]

42. If McCain runs against Obama, he'll have that clip of Clinton saying that

Obama is less qualified. That's not a good thing.

[DearAbby]

24. She is a proven liar

completely fabricating events to embellish her "Experience" file. CONCRETE example...she has admitted it. Its been proven. She will stoop that low...how low can she go? Let's not wait to find out...m'kay?

[joshcryer]

35. Can you cite some examples?

[DearAbby]

40. Go to any Network...google Clinton/Bosnia Sniper fire

I am sure you can catch yourself up to speed on this.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Night Owl]

83. I would ask you to provide evidence that Hillary Clinton is capable of anything, but...

I would ask you to provide evidence that Hillary Clinton is capable of anything, but I don't want you or anyone dragging in links to stupid right wing sites containing information about conspiracy theories and other such nonsense.

[The Doctor.]

97. Yet Hillary's people are getting their anti-Obama material from Newsmax...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5103870

Give me a break.


oe-wrong possesive.

[The Night Owl]

100. And yet Obama's people are getting their anti-Hillary material from CNS...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5254118&mesg_id=5254175

[The Doctor.]

101. And yet while cnsnews is incredible the newsmax story lied.

Not to mention the post is by a guy who joined two weeks ago... got 'Operative' or agent provocatuer written all over it.

Nonethelesss the point is that you accused people of using right wing sites to bash Hillary, and I went and showed you someone using a right-wing site to Bash Obama. A Hillary supporter doing exactly what you accused Obama supporters of doing.

The next thing to consider is; "Who's lying?"

The Newsmax article about Obama being there for a sermon that he wasn't is clearly lying.
Is the CNS article false?

Obviously these are sources that require extra vetting due to their typically right wing character, and one can bet that they've 'embellished' whatever facts they may be dealing with.

So far, it's true that Clinton received the endorsement of Rev. Calvin Butts III.
http://www.politidose.com/2008/01/rev-dr-calvin-o-butts-iii-endorses-sen.html

-That's no right-wing site.

The question then is, did she funnel money to him or not?

I would wager 'not', at least not the way that CNS characterizes it.


So what, precisely, is your point about?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elocs]

11. It is odd, the attitude that to support Obama means that you hate Hillary.

If there is irrational hatred and behavior that would seem to imply that there is also rational hatred and behavior.

[AmericanUnity]

18. I VOTED FOR BILL CLINTON TWICE - THEY JUST PISSED ME OFF ROYALLY THIS YEAR

I volunteered in Bobby Kennedy's campaign - and every one since then. I've been a good Democrat my whole life.

The Clinton's didn't expect someone young, energetic, and idealistic would come along and appeal to voters like me, who would have been a Clinton voter in a minute had it not been for Barack Obama.

Hillary CANNOT WIN! IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

So, I'd rather she not destroy the Democratic Party. She can destroy all her credibility if she wants to over Northern Ireland, NAFTA, and this "4 PINNOCHIO'S" whopper.

I've been all over the world - and a lot of 'hot spots'. I remember if I've ever been shot at or not. I haven't.

[apocalypsehow]

28. They're like the guy who slaps you in the face with one hand and expects you to shake his other one.

Some real schizophrenia at work there.

[Perry Logan]

29. The Obama people love to give out homework assignments. Their nastiness is common knowledge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5120659

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4779500&mesg_id=4779500

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4849238&mesg_id=4849238

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4922044&mesg_id=4922044

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4942967&mesg_id=4942967

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4964704&mesg_id=4964704

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4965088

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4965227

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4982708&mesg_id=4982708

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5036756

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5065868&mesg_id=5065868

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5156352&mesg_id=5156412

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5165104&mesg_id=5165104

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5180133&mesg_id=5181094

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5195072&mesg_id=5195072

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5204441&mesg_id=5204441

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5214352&mesg_id=5214352

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5226313&mesg_id=5226313

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5235825&mesg_id=5235825

[The Doctor.]

38. Let's see...

The fist one; An apocryphal tale of brutality by supposed Obama supporters with no pictures, no police report, no evidence to back it up. The most this would prove even if it weren't an exaggeration (if not outright lie) is that there are a handful of assholes that support Obama. I'm sure I could write a story about being pepper-sprayed by Hillary supporters for wearing a 'pro-Obama' pin.

2nd; An OP that claims Obama supporters use sexist language, without any links to such usage. I could use the same laughable tactic to "prove" that Hillary supporter use racist language by linking to a post accusing Hillary supporters of using racist language. PUH-LEEEEEZE!

3rd; Same as two... laughable.


4th; Same as three... which was the same as second. If you can't come up with the goods in the first three links, why should you be taken seriously?


5th; Same as four, but with more contextual misdirection; "Stop bashing her! It's wrong!" Uhhh... yeah Criticism of Hillary="Bashing". Right. Still, another post that makes claims with no links to any of this "horrible hatred" I've heard so much about.

6th Uh, another post claiming that 90% of Obama supporter's posts are just bashing Hillary. Again; Uhhh... yeah Criticism of Hillary="Bashing". What's criticism of Obama, keen political commentary?

7th ANOTHER post claiming that it's "wrong" to bash Clinton. Has anyone missed the fact that that's what Bush supporters have been saying of his critics for years?

8th Wow, a different post. An Obama supporter asking Obama people to be nicer. None of the terms she points out represent anything resembling 'irrational hatred' though.

This is getting tiresome.

9th Again, nothing.



There are no examples of irrational hatred in any of those, at all. If you can't come up with it in nine links, I'm pretty convinced there's nothing there.

Otherwise, calling what amounts to little more than contention 'irrational hatred' is quite a stretch.

[CitizenLeft]

66. the problem with that 1st story...

...that no one picked up on, that I saw, is that Hillary Clinton was NOT IN Pittsburgh on St. Patrick's Day, that I've seen. She was in PHILADELPHIA, not Pittsburgh. Now, if she got on a plane and somehow marched in BOTH parades, I stand corrected. But a poster on that thread made a very reasonable translation of her story, and said that Hillary was in that parade... and the OP did not dispute that. Puts the whole story in question. I'd never attack her parenting instincts, but I do question the accuracy... either Hillary was there, or she was not. And if she were NOT, then Obama supporters screaming and knocking people over with signs makes zero sense because they'd have no reason to trample people to see Dalmatians (though I might... I happen to love Dalmatians :) ).

As for the others... I can't even read them. The threads were started by people on ignore with the exception of one or two. Which supports my theory exactly: that "nasty Obama supporters" respond to threads started by NASTY CLINTON SUPPORTERS, and if you stay off those threads, designed to specifically start fights with the opposition, then you yourself won't become a Nasty Obama Supporter.

Case solved. LOL.

[rodeodance]

31. Do you own research and stop with the 'calling out' of HRC supportes, It sucks

[The Doctor.]

33. I'm asking the people that are making the claims... that's how it's done.

So far, there's very little. Some of the examples people have provided are laughable. One guy gave me a link to another Clinton supporter making the same claim as though that were proof... I think it might have even been you.
I'm looking for some example of this 90% bullshit because I frankly have seen nothing

I read dozens of threads a day, and nothing looked like "irrational hatred".

So I asked the people that make the claim. I'll keep looking, because this "Obama supporters are hateful" meme seems to be little more than a desperate mischaracterization.

[rodeodance]

37. the examples are all over this board. go find them. bye

[The Doctor.]

39. It's like looking for WsMD.

Yet even in a thread where I ask for them, no one can provide anything solid.

[anonymous171]

32. Myth to smear all Obama supporters as RWers.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. How bout the thread today calling her a "scumbag"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5237506

Or this one where a blatant lie is told about her minister being convicted for child molestion?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5232027

[The Doctor.]

41. Wow, you found something!

Yeah, 'scumbag' is wrong and despicable, but it's not necessarily irrational if he has his reasons.

Now, how does one obvious mistake (it could easily be an honest mistake to read "Clinton Pastor" and think he was "Clinton's Pastor") and one poster calling her a 'scumbag' constitute 'hatred' from 90% of Obama supporters?

The meme that you guys are passing around is wrong and divisive. And as demonstrated by Perry Logan, there's more talk than substance. Unfortunately so long as people keep saying that "90% of Obama supporters are hateful", there are plenty to believe it.

99.9% of what we see is legitimate and sometimes heated contention between camps. A small handful of posts with innappropriate words does not mass hatred make.

Thanks for pointing it out though. I'll keep an eye on LS.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Those are just two examples from very recently

There are many suggestions that she has had or would have people killed. She is called some really awful names every day. Right wing talking points from the 90s are used regularly.

I just really think much of it is really irrational hate.

[The Doctor.]

48. Like I've said; "I'm sure it's there", but it's not nearly as prevalent as some are saying.

90%?

Please!

Much of the anger is not irrational. You just don't agree that they should be that angry about the things they are.

She's your candidate, so the transgressions that you are more likely to excuse are more egregious to those for whom she is not. Now, I'm NOT comparing you to a Bush-fuck here, I've followed your posts here for a long time, but think about it; Bush supporters invariably accuse his critics of "irrational hatred". Why? Because they're practically psychotic when it comes to their balance of desires to reality in their beliefs.

That, of course, is an extreme example of the Kool-Aid set... or rather, 'sect'. The operative phrase could be 'self propagating perspective'... and it's quite powerful.

All of us, with very few exceptions, are susceptible to cognitive filtration. If we devise an investment in anything, we will 'turn up' the positives and 'turn down' the negatives. We do this because our investments are essentially an extension of our egos. I've read enough of your posts to know that this is well within your understanding.
I've made efforts to recognize when I'm doing it... and with some success. I am by no means immune to this effect.

Hillary Clinton has been running for the nomination, she's been active. Invariably, a candidate will do something that draws criticism. No exceptions to that.

Now, there are a bunch of people focusing on the wrong points to express their distaste. That's not hatred, it's lack of focus. Some of this deficiency is brought on by the same 'self propagating perspective' we all suffer from. Some of it is just stupidity... they probably are young and foolish. Train them with patience and the Democratic party will become stronger. The .01% of dumb-asses that really do hate need to be utilized properly (lest they start voting Republican), but they are nothing like the main supporters of any one candidate.
The majority, however, are very decent people with nearly the same perspective-modifying issues you and I both have.

It is as irresponsible and foolish to declare that Clinton is "a scumbag", as it is to claim that "90%" of Obama supporters call her a scumbag. I know you haven't made that claim, but others most obviously have.

I don't know how long you've been a Hillary Clinton supporter, but can we at least say that our investments give us a wee bit of bias?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bridgit]

43. You've clearly been paying no attention whatsoever...

[The Doctor.]

45. LOL! So far, in this entire thread, we've been given ONE example

of inappropriate labelling and two other weak examples.

I've been on here several hours a day for while and have seen very little to justify this meme that "Obama supporters are hateful". Livid criticism of Clinton is not "irrational hatred".

So, let's see some of the ubiquitous examples I've been so oblivious of. Bring em'.

[bridgit]

46. Ah! So Boston remains unsated...

There's nothing new there either ;)

[The Doctor.]

50. That's another way of saying "I have nothing more".

I'm not in Boston right now, BTW.

[bridgit]

51. Change your profile poser...

:rofl:

[The Doctor.]

53. OMG!

You GOT me!

Good job! Here's a puppy-treat!

LOL.

[bridgit]

54. I like puppies, see? I took one for a ride once

;)

[The Doctor.]

58. There is NO WAY...

that a minivan has that kind of acceleration! And that's not a puppy, it's a grown beagle!

Damn you Hillary people and your obvious lies!

:evilgrin:

[bridgit]

60. hahahaha, well he's still a puppy to me...like BO is to others I am quite sure...

:patriot:

[The Doctor.]

69. LOL... there's something to think on...

BO people are 'Dog people' while HRC folks are 'Cat people'. How funny is that.

[The Doctor.]

70. dupe

[Bluebear]

47. The most vile of irrational hatred against both candidates is locked or eradicated

There has been plenty, though.

[The Doctor.]

49. Ah, good point.

If it ain't there, ya can't see it.

[The Night Owl]

87. Stop being so arrogant. Blue Bear is exactly right.

The most obviously irrational and hateful statements about Hillary Clinton are removed and I applaud the mods for removing them.

[The Doctor.]

91. WTF is wrong with you? I didn't disagree with him.

You have to have problems to be in 'permanent contention mode'.

Also, the assumption that a deleted post was 'hateful' isn't well-founded.

[dailykoff]

52. It is indeed a myth.

Obama inspires young and old, but not to mischief. However, Hillary is a ridiculous and scary obstacle. Sometimes it's hard to be delicate, and sometimes people put it too bluntly. They usually get kicked out when they do.

[niceypoo]

55. Read a few threads....

This is the most ignorant thread Ive ever seen...

[The Doctor.]

59. Try reading this one...

and then you'll be qualified to comment.

Thanks!

-Dr. E

[boppers]

61. Not entirely a myth.

It's more an issue of parsing and mental process.

Let's take, oh, the meme of running through a gauntlet of snipers as an example.

To somebody who deeply supports Hillary, every mention of it, every side comment, feels like a swipe, an attack, an effort to "bring Hillary down". It's not "rational" to inject it into every few conversations, so the motive "must be irrational". In a polarized mind, if the motive is not "love", it must be "hatred".

Basically, it's the problem of thinking in polarized terms. Hillary herself referred to the VRWC, assuming that every blogger, every listserv pundit, indeed, the whole force of the internet was either with her, or against her.

Part of it is generational and regional. Boomers (and those before them) were often raised in a world of good/bad, black/white, freedom/fascism, and this perspective tends to color their thinking, their decision making, their world view. There is right, and not-quite-as-right, which then gets called "wrong".

Post-polarized people have grown up differently, and think differently. Opposition is not an enemy, it's something cool and interesting. Dissent is not to be feared or controlled, but embraced.

To summarize succinctly: "Irrational Hatred" is the result of polarized people dealing with those who think grey, rather than black or white, is a valid color. Alternately, there's still a lot of folks fighting over whether their black/white color is better than the other.




tpyo

[Swamp Rat]

62. Can't be done.

1. As Bluebear pointed out the threads have been locked or deleted (no or little data means accurate analysis is impossible).

2. The claim of "90%" is itself is absurd, if not irrational.

3. An absurd claim cannot be verified by the irrational, which is what you requested. :D


Dr_eldritch, I think you must quit your day job, and devote your life to researching the "90% claim," beginning with collecting DU/GD-P data.

$$ Then you can hire me for a brazillion bucks to do the correlation/regression analyses. $$

:D

[democrat_nanny]

63. I have one

I don't know how to look up old threads (nor do I really care to revisit the entire thing) but about a month ago I stupidly wandered in here and posted a thread called "Obama supporters, what's with all the anger?" I did it after being insulted all kinds of times for my support of Hillary. The thread instantly turned to flame central. Even some Obama supporters got knocked around when they asked the others to lay off me and pointed out that they were proving my point. The thread got locked and half the posts were deleted. And some jackass PM'd one of the Obama supporters defending me and threatened them with violence if they ever met them in the "real world."

[MethuenProgressive]

68. Here's a link to the first example I saw this morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5240538&mesg_id=5240538

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

90. That's lame.

Are you trying to be funny?

[WinkyDink]

72. You haven't seen the "Hillbots", for example? The latest "traitors" one? Get out much?

[MethuenProgressive]

76. He's seen them. This thread isn't really about that.

Not even a good try.

[stevenleser]

108. Those terms are not about Hillary, they describe Hillary supporters so they do not provide

examples of irrational hatred of Hillary.

[MethuenProgressive]

74. The OP isn't looking for examples. He's only looking to argue. Flame Bait.

Let it sink.

[Arkansas Granny]

94. Yes. Anyone who was really looking could find several examples

in a short period of time by just scanning the posts on one page.

[crankychatter]

75. If Johnny punched me and I kicked his dog in revenge

THAT would be irrational

[F.Gordon]

77. Oh look!!! DU has its own 'Baghdad Bob'

It's just a myth. B-)

[The Night Owl]

86. LOL! Nice analogy.

[The Night Owl]

85. Another irrational and hateful post about Hillary Clinton found in a matter of seconds...

A Barack Obama supporter compares Hillary Clinton to Adolph Hitler...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=119335&mesg_id=119567

"Yeah I would. Especially if it was Kerry... Even if it was SINator HITLERy Clinton!"

Let me know if you need more examples of irrational and hateful statements about Hillary Clinton. I can go all day with this shit if I need to. Of course, what you should do, for your own sake, is retract the ridiculous claim that Obama supporters have not made irrational and hateful statements about Clinton.

[stevenleser]

88. Interesting example, even there that person said they would vote Hillary in the GE if she was the

Democratic Party nominee. That is the context of that post. So, obviously, their 'hatred' cannot be too serious. I am not sure this qualifies as hatred or comparison to Hitler.

I also have to ask if Hillary supporters/posters are even as adult and reasonable as that poster is since many of you cant even bring yourselves to say you would vote for Obama in the GE if he is the nominee.

[The Night Owl]

89. Calling Hillary Clinton by the name "Hitlery" is not an attempt to compare her to Adolph Hitler?

So, what are people trying to say when they call Hillary Clinton by the name Hitlery?

[The Doctor.]

92. That's not hateful, it's childish... it's also fair game. Welcome to politics.

The use of 'Hitlery' is little more than an attempt to label her 'fascist'. Personally, I would never call her that because I don't have a big problem with her, nor do think she deserves it. Either way, you're going to see harsh criticism and labelling during primary season, and it doesn't all amount to 'hatred'.

[stevenleser]

98. And it seems it was tongue in cheek anyway since the person that wrote it said that they would vote

for her in the GE if she was the nominee.

[The Night Owl]

99. You don't think that labeling Hillary Clinton as a fascist is irrational?

Of course you don't. You're the same person who decided that accusing Hillary Clinton of being capable of anything is a perfectly rational thing to do.

[stevenleser]

102. I think the jury is definitely out on that post...

... I don't go around calling people Hitler like or Fascist like and then say I would vote for them in an election of any kind let alone for POTUS. I'm wondering if that person just forgot a sarcasm tag or something. Actually, I take that back, I have no idea what that person meant. Maybe someone should PM them.

[The Doctor.]

103. Well, it's stupid, I can even agree that it's irrational, but it's not "hatred"

Obviously it's irrational unless there's something the individual can point to as cause. Frankly, I know of nothing that she's done that would make her 'fascist' at all. But 'hateful', no, it doesn't rise to that level.

You don't like 'perspective' or 'context' very much do you?

Let's say that someone called Obama 'Osama'... I wouldn't find that 'hateful', I would find it a sorry attempt to mischaracterize him. If they called him a 'fucking n***er", or a 'God damned terrorist', that would certainly qualify as 'hateful and irrational'.

Rude characterizations are typical on DBs, but they don't necessarily constitute 'hatred'.

[The Night Owl]

109. Please stop with the tortured argumentation.

Changing a person's name so it resembles the name of reviled mass murderers like Adolph Hitler or Osama Bin Laden is both irrational and hateful.

[The Doctor.]

113. Let's put it to a poll.

[The Doctor.]

114. There you go chief.

Now, back to the main point;

"How is it that finding one or two rude posts demonstrates that "90% of Obama supporters are rude"?"

Please answer that, I was good enough to open our opinions up to discussion.

Thanks.

[The Night Owl]

117. I never claimed that 90% of Obama supporters are rude and I am not aware of any such claim.

I chimed in here because your claim that you haven't come across even one example of an Obama supporter posting something irrational or hateful compelled me to point out that you aren't looking hard enough.

If your main argument is that percentage of Obama supporters who post irrational or hateful things is much lower than 90%, then I would agree with that.

[The Doctor.]

118. Uhhh... how about this;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5235825

You see, that was at the top of the greatest page for a day, not hard to miss. (not that I'm saying you couldn't have missed it)

While posting here, I've found very little that could justify even 10%, let alone the 90% that the poster asserted. Yet so many Hillary people jumped on to verify something that was clearly untrue. Obviously, if it were 90%, then nobody would miss it. If it were even 10%, I wouldn't have missed it.

The proof is right here, there are claims of 'hateful rhetoric' that are totally unsubstantiated, and then a total of three posts cited that could qualify for 'irrational hatred' or 'hateful rhetoric'. If we can't find even 20 posts representing this 'irrational hatred', it's hard to claim that even 1% of Obama supporters are 'hateful'. It therefore follows that the notion that Obama supporters are jerks is a myth propagated by word of mouth... er, keystroke.

The rest of the criticism of Clinton is justifiable by her own actions. After that, it's a mere matter of opinion that someone is being too harsh or not, and I imagine I would agree with you on some of that, but 'harsh' does not mean 'unjustified'.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. Really? You read the same DU that I do? n/t

[The Doctor.]

95. As I've explained before, the point of this thread was to find two things;

1) If there is any truth to the 90% myth.

- The answer to that is a very big 'no'.

2) To find out what Hillary supporters consider 'irrational hatred'.

- So far their criteria seems pretty broad, which tells me that they want to believe that Obama supporters are bad people.

When someone links to people talking about how awful Obama supporters are as though that's 'proof', that also tells me their position is rather weak.
You're welcome to provide examples, but so far, there really don't seem to be even a handful that rise to the level of 'irrational hatred'.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. How about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5254182&mesg_id=5254623

Took about one minute.

[The Doctor.]

105. Ok, I'll give you that,

"lying bitch" can certainly constitute 'hatred', but it's only irrational if she isn't both a liar and a bitch. Personally, I really don't think she's a bitch at all. She has assertive qualities that otherwise dumb people might characterize as 'bitchery', but I think they're just being stupid. Now, if one took her actions, say... in elevating her party's opponent over her fellow democrat very seriously, then they may feel justified in calling her such. In my opinion, she's not a bitch, just ruthless, so that part of the characterization is borderline 'irrational'.

She has been proven to be a liar, that part of the characterization is 'rational'.


Bush supporters do not understand the horrible things people say about their favorite guy. That doesn't mean that all criticism of Bush is rational either.

Ok then, in a thread of over 100 responses, we have three examples posted that come close to representing 'irrational' or 'hatred'.

Well done, though it hardly goes an inch toward the claims that "90% of Obama supporters express hatred of Hillary Clinton."

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. It's your op. I didn't see anyone make the 90% claim here.

I would never be so bold as to suggest that there's no irrational hatred of the Bushes here. I'm exhibit #1.

Likewise, there is irrational hatred of (increasingly) both Clinton's at DU. The fact that you feel compelled to parse whether the phrase "lying bitch" qualifies as "irrational hatred" is indicative of how bad it's gotten. At one time, we would have expected that at FR but not here.

[The Doctor.]

116. So taking the rational approach of analysis, even while essentially agreeing with you..

is "irrational hatred"?

That's quite a leap my friend, I'm sure you can find hatred anywhere you look if you can find it there.

It's really quite simiple; If someone has valid reasons for calling someone any name, that's rational. It can certainly be 'hateful', but, as with Bush, that can be "rational hatred".

If someone truly believes that a politician who undermines her own party qualifies as a "bitch", that can certainly be 'hateful', but it's not necessarily 'irrational'.

This is simple logic my friend, and you have apparently forgone that in your assumption that I bear any hatred for Hillary Clinton, rational or otherwise. I simply do not, but, as I outlined previously, you will likely see what you would want to see, despite what I say. Is that so?

As for the 90% claim, that was the title of a thread that went right to the top of the greatest page. Hillary supporters all glommed on and on about how the majority of Obama supporters were 'hateful' and 'irrational'.

This thread demonstrates that to be a myth.

[AGirl]

104. I am still waiting for the INTERNET to arrive; where is this thing called the WEBSITE?

I just don't see it.

[The Doctor.]

107. In over 100 posts we've seen very little that shows "Obama supporters are hateful and irrational".

Your attempt at humor missed the mark.

[BenDavid]

106. the world of Hillary haters. She is vilified for being a feminist

and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” an empty vessel into which can pour everything they detest.” (In this she is the counterpart of George W. Bush, who serves much the same function for many liberals.)

But the people and groups have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the “strangeness” of her eyes — “Analysis of Clinton’s eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries” — and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls “The Crazy Files”: she’s Osama bin Laden’s candidate; she kills cats; she’s a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).

there is an “inexhaustible fertile market of Clinton hostility,” but that “the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary’s most fanatical opponents is a futile one.” The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine.

The closest analogy is to anti-Semitism. But before you hit the comment button, I don’t mean that the two are alike either in their significance or in the damage they do. It’s just that they both feed on air and flourish independently of anything external to their obsessions. Anti-Semitism doesn’t need Jews and anti-Hillaryism doesn’t need Hillary, except as a figment of its collective imagination. However this campaign turns out, Hillary-hating, like rock ‘n’ roll, is here to stay.

I believe on e can find all that in the post by pretty much all obama supporters.
All You Need Is Hate, Stanley Fish, NY Times 02.2008


Shalom
Ben

[The Night Owl]

110. Thank you for the very interesting analysis. I think you're onto something.

I suspect that a lot of people who hate Hillary Clinton don't even really know why they hate her. They just figure that because a lot of people hate her there must be something legitimate about that hatred. I guess hatred of Hillary Clinton is a sort of a pack mentality.

[The Doctor.]

115. That describes the Right-Wings hatred of her particularly well,

But what about the DU'ers who give particular reasons for their criticisms?

Perhaps if she wasn't consistently lying and undermining the party, there wouldn't be as much harsh criticism of her.

Why is it no one thinks of that?

[BeyondGeography]

111. self-delete