Who Is Being Truly Insulting Here?

Never posted a diary before, but I thought this was a point well worth raising.

We know that McCain has started his blog brigade very publicly. But I'm sure that GOP worms are already wriggling their way through, devoted to the total lack of moral and ethical standards that is their trademark. I don't think we will see pro-GOP remarks from a lot of these people, I think we will see anti-Democratic remarks.

And looking at a couple of posts in here, I notice that there are a lot more very virulent Obama supporters that give a lot of us a very bad name. These people don't do anything but stir up anger and tear down any bridges that might be formed between the two sides. And I can't help but wonder whether GOP operatives might be deliberately trying to raise as much ire among the Clinton supporter base as possible, knowing that they are already assuming Obama will be the candidate.

I'm not saying that GOP interference is the cause of all of the arguments and anger here. Lord knows I share blame for some of it. I am just thinking that some of the most insulting and thoughtless remarks might be attributed to that. We'd all do well to remember that while we might still be at odds with one another, we both have a devoted enemy in great numbers. One that truly has no shame.

So supporters on BOTH sides, the next time you see a remark so offensive it makes you angry, please stop and think about who might be making it and whether they're more interested in building someone up or tearing someone else down.

If you see someone that is offering nothing but insults and inciting anger, take them on and defend your fellow Democrat. We can ALL do a lot better about this. You don't have to abuse troll ratings, all you have to do is just speak up against a statement you think isn't right.

No matter who is nominated, we all have to start fighting the GOP right now.



Display:


Re: Who Is Being Truly Insulting Here? (none / 0)

Good points, but don't you also mean to include Clinton supporters taking on and defending their fellow Democrat?  That's conspicuously absent from your diary.


by rfahey22 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST

Re: Who Is Being Truly Insulting Here? (none / 0)

I hoped it was implied, but I should add that in.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I for one as a Clinton supporter am not in the (none / 0)

mmod for any reconciliation.  I'm still waiting for the Holy Annointed One to apologize for those cracks about the 1990's.  That to me was THE most offensive thing I heard in this campaign.


by handsomegent on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST

Re: I for one as a Clinton supporter am not in the (none / 0)

You for one are welcome to step off the train whenever you wish.

This is a DEM site dedicated to electing DEM candidates


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I for one as a Clinton supporter am not in the (none / 0)

That Holy Anointed One remark is unwarranted and over the line. You are absolutely right that Obama said some things that might have been unfair, but that's what campaigns do if they want to win. It's not hardball out there, it's rollerball.

Clinton supporters, this is what I'm talking about. You can denounce this Anointed One nonsense without liking Obama. We all just need to respect each other.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I for one as a Clinton supporter am not in the (none / 0)

The 1990s weren't exactly wonderful for everyone...


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a specious statement (none / 0)

Please name a decade and/or administration that WAS wonderful for everyone.


by Swedie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a specious statement (none / 0)

Well let's put it this way then, it wasn't wonderful for some of the most loyal Democrats in the nation.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's still a specious statement. ;-) n/t (none / 0)


by Swedie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's still a specious statement. ;-) n/t (none / 0)

Nah. Now it's accurate if you know who I'm talking about and what was done to that group.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I for one as a Clinton supporter am not in the (none / 0)

During President Clinton's tenure in office January 1993-January 2001, just about the only statistic that DIDN'T improve was Ronald Reagan's I.Q.  Or do the Obama lovers still persist in his fantasy that the Republicans were the party of ideas.


by handsomegent on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I for one as a Clinton supporter am not in the (none / 0)

Don't start that, at least not in this thread. "Obama lovers" is offensive and your "fantasy" is a deliberate misstatement of what Obama said. What was wrong with just the first part? Why does everybody feel like it's not okay to just make a point or dissent on policy, they have to insult their opponent as well?


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I for one as a Clinton supporter am not in the (none / 0)

The Prison Industrial Complex agrees but the poor saps locked up there don't.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmmmm. I don't know. (none / 0)

I think that the McCain supporters might be more clever, and get the camel's nose under the tent flap with statements like:

"I notice that there are a lot more very virulent Obama supporters that give a lot of us a very bad name"

Then they could move Clinton supporters to their side. Ya. That's it. And then they could make them feel comfy and then tell them that voting for McCain would really be voting for Hillary. Ya. That's it.

Hmmmmm. (Looks suspiciously around him, seeing his fellow bloggers for seemingly the first time.)


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:43:00 PM EST

Re: Hmmmmm. I don't know. (2.00 / 1)

Put on these sunglasses. They'll help you see the truth.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:47:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think this poster is capable of rehab (none / 0)

He is what I refer to as a fanatically incorrigible Kossack.  Looking in the mirror for problems just isn't a trait of the breed.


by lombard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think very few of these are GOP operatives (2.00 / 1)

Most of the worst offenders on the Obama side have been nurtured under the slash and burn netroots world and have developed very bad mental reflexes.  They are much like the zealous young Gingrich followers of the nineties.  Gingrich himself knew it was time to stop most of that when the job of governing came along but he realized that once the monster is fed, trained, and released, it doesn't go so quietly back to the cage.

The worst Clinton supporters are of a slightly different circumstance.  First, they are on the losing side and they're are still not happy about what has happened and what may be developing.  Second, they have spent months as a disrespected minority on the netroots and they have developed a very strong sense of resentment.


by lombard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:48:41 PM EST

Re: I think very few of these are GOP operatives (2.00 / 2)

It only takes a few clever, vocal supporters, though. It only takes one user to say insulting things about Clinton or Obama to rile up one side and tar the other. Even if they get banned, they can get a new account.

Even if not, the point still is true. We have to start defending each other in good faith without insisting on reciprocation.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My suspicion (none / 0)

We'll see, at the very least, two varieties of troll:

1. Anti-Clinton crowing from a supposed Obama supporter.  They'll demand that "Clintonistas" fall into line and that their candidate is a loser, etc.  They'll use the most heinous rhetoric about Clinton imaginable.

2. Supposedly disgruntled Clinton supporters that are planning on not voting for the Democratic nominee in the general.  The subvarieties will be:

a) Nader
b) Green
c) Stay home
d) McCain

Now, the (d) people will be easy to weed out, but we have to develop strategies for outing the rest of them.  

For the Nader and Green party supporters, the weak spot is Iraq.  Even though the real-life Green/Nader voters are for pulling the troops out immediately of both Afghanistan and Iraq regardless of the regional reprecussions, from a logical standpoint, they have the power to help a candidate that will get the soldiers out of Iraq and hopefully finish the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan so we can get out of Middle Eastern quagmires.  

If they're trolls, they probably won't be able to actually debate the merits of these positions; they'll be a charicature of anti-war activists.  Real Nader/Green people will have talking points about how it won't matter if we get out of there or not, since the Democrats are just the same as Republicans and will still be engaging in warlike policies in the near future, and that Obama wants to increase the size of the military (no wingnut troll will be able to admit to themselves that a Democrat will be good for the military enough to actually write it).

For the people who are going to stay home, well, folks that honestly are tempted to do this are still probably Democrats and can be lured to voting downticket.  It's their call whether they want to vote for the presidency or not.  Trolls will say that they'll stay home no matter what; that a party that nominates Barack Obama deserves to lose.  

So there are strategies for outing these people, we just have to understand how to seperate the sincerely disaffected folks from the agent provocateurs.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:50:31 PM EST

I must respectfully take issue with #2 (2.00 / 1)

I don't think you can call someone a troll because they are not sure they can vote for the party nominee for president.  Trolls are people that are just making trouble or have bad intent.  Deciding to vote or not to vote for a certain person is a right of people in a free society and doesn't mean someone is deliberatly making trouble.

Don't ever demand strict loyalty oaths.  They are a very bad thing for a party's health.

Lincoln Chafee did not vote for Bush while he was a sitting Republican senator.  Numerous Democratic officials of the past admitted later that they did not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee.  Were these officials trolls?


by lombard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I should've been clearer (none / 0)

I meant to imply that there are people out there who won't vote for the Democratic nominee based on policy, ethics, race, misconceptions, or whatever when I said:

we just have to understand how to seperate the sincerely disaffected folks from the agent provocateurs.

I'm just saying that we can out the trolls while still allowing for debate with people who simply don't agree with us.  Hence, getting the stay-at-homers to vote on the downticket races and by making sure the Nader voters actually understand his policies and strategies for achieving those goals.

Apologies if I've offended.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No problem (none / 0)

In fact, people who have problems with a nominee may mostly agree with "us" so I just get a little nervous when I hear talk that makes me think of purity demands and the potential to drive people away from Democrats.


by lombard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've got no problem with dissent. (none / 0)

It's sabotage that bugs me.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've got no problem with dissent. (none / 0)

How do you distinguish between the two? I am a Clinton Democrat not a troll Republican double agent.  And I will not be voting for Obama, and I don't care who knows it.


by handsomegent on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just explained several methods (none / 0)

Usually by talking to someone for long enough, you can determine what their real agenda is.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've got no problem with dissent. (none / 0)

The difference is priority. Are you pro-Clinton or anti-Obama? GOP trolls have no interest in policy discussion or passionate campaigning for one candidate over the other. They only care about causing havoc.

And you have to admit, even hating Obama, that we are still closer than those who even now hold the reins of the Republican party's nominee. That's what I'm talking about.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good try vcalzone, (none / 0)

as you can tell by the comments already posted, this contentiousness will take more than reason to get past.

I think the end of the primary, and a decent amount of time to lick wounds will be needed before reconciliation.

I have found the best approach is to try and stay out of the pit when it gets really bad.  There are a few names you will always see spewing absolute vitriol.  But I've noticed with time, there are really only about ten users who continuously participate.  They will all be gone before long.


by jontabb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:02:46 PM EST

Re: Good try vcalzone, (none / 0)

Well, too often I have seen a comment that I thought was unfair and just let it go by. Or saw a comment with a really cruel remark that had a point and figured, "well, I can't troll-rate that, too bad". It's more than that, though. More important. Neither side has to like the other, that's not important. But we do need to rid ourselves of the people on each side who most offend the other side. That would help the healing process when it's ready to start.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you--a good reminder (none / 0)

A good reminder for all of us, in such a heated primary season.

Recc'd up!


by luckymortal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:55:50 PM EST

Re: Who Is Being Truly Insulting Here? (2.00 / 1)

I've been saying this for months. Too many anti-Clinton comments are just the same-old-same-old that the right-wingers have been spouting about the Clintons for decades. By pretending to be Obama supporters, it gives them cover to spout this trash to an audience of Democrats.

Democrats should be too smart to fall for these GOP tactics.


by LakersFan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:50:58 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.