you had the same thought i see. too funny, and probably too true.

but it was the first song that popped into my mind when I saw this thread. Well played!

DU = Hotel California

*shudders

Lol

I am not a bot.

I remember a time when Democrats actually were called out for bullshit - it wasn't supported and defended by the equivalent of 5 year olds stamping their feet, fingers in ears....DU was better before them and it will be better after

It's a lot more like the comments section of any website than when it used to have so much more thoughtful and content filled posts.

and more data to work with.

Yes indeed?



Please?

I love you Skittles!!!

sometimes it is worth taking a jury hit to call them out for what they are

I am SAYING there's WAY more quacks here now than there used to be

David Irving's Institute for Historical Review used to get cited with regularity here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=americanfreepress.net&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

https://www.google.com/search?q=americanfreepress.net&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl#q=ihr.org+site:democraticunderground.com

Almost 100K hits at DU for Rense alone

https://www.google.com/search?q=americanfreepress.net&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl#q=rense.com+site:democraticunderground.com

and by the way, worship is not the same as SUPPORT

doesn't help make DU suck? Yes, some people are overly partisan in their defense of Obama, just as some will be for any Democrat who runs for President, or who wins. So what? That's what partisanship is.


You didn't support that stuff, but you and a lot of other people seem to be in denial as to just how many crazies were around here back in the day.

what exactly do you call that?

done here; waste of time

even "blind partisans"

and Alex Jones was considered a hero for talking shit about Bush?

There's been a lot of addition by subtraction.

you did not see an entire group supporting such garbage

but also General Discussion.

Try doing a site search for:

rense.com
ihr.org
americanfreepress.net
whatreallyhappened.com
serendipity.li
thetruthseeker.co.uk

Note: I think we can all agree that having Holocaust denial websites being cited as mainstream is 10,000 times worse than having overenthusiastic supporters of a Democratic president here.

If you want the real culprit to the rightwingers' gateway to DU, there's a forum whose letters when rearranged spells "BARK"

Certain subjects function as disease vectors for the extreme rightwing and anti-semitism here. And supporting Barack Obama ain't one of them.

I never saw multiple holocaust denial threads

that were published by Neo-Nazis.

It's how that crowd tries to infest legit websites, by mainstreaming themselves.

Do a site search for rense if you don't believe me

it's a political discussion board.

but some things are way, way over the top, and as a category zealous Obama supporters are FAR better than people who get their news from David Irving and Willis Carto and Alex Jones.

I don't post half of the things I want to, due to the "get my candies in a wad" squad.

I just don't bother.

I find those people and their faux outrage, exhausting.

they have done plenty to quell discourse on DU.

and who are "they", we all have an idea.

it's gonna be fun holding their words against them when we have a different president - yes indeed

named DemocraticUnderground should be a "put a pin in it for later use" point!

good days and bad.. but obviously the good's heavier.. I'll give it that.

Been here since 2002.. and when I left for two years in 2010... I slipped away and then came back under the radar.

I resemble that remark, Cha

resembling, Hekate.

More traffic/page views/replies over internal conflicts than external politics.

Good threads that years ago would have been k&r'd, commented on, etc, can drop like a rock - post something about DU though and it will get a lot of attention. For the lack of a central, external, enemy we have tended to focus more inward on each other.

Many fewer substantively helpful posts in the areas I care about; or if they're still being made, they're a lot harder to find, even though I subscribe to a number of Topics/Groups.

It used to be the Greatest Page was packed with more important news/insight than I could handle. Now, I have to hunt for it, and often come away disappointed.

The one change that I do think was for the better was to get rid of the unrec function, which I'm convinced was used by trolls to bury many important OP's.

I beg to differ.

To say that DU – or any other website of its type – has not changed since 2001 (when DU was launched) would be ludicrous.

Of course DU has changed. Everything changes over time. If DU was stagnant water, it would have dried up and disappeared long ago. People come, people go; and with each changeover of personnel, the dynamics change and take on new direction, new perspectives, new purpose. The question is really whether it has changed for the better or the worse.

During the Bush fiasco, DU was a community held together by its disdain for a common enemy – Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the gang – and that commonality was key. There was also the fact that the outrages from BushCo were daily occurrences – each opined on, spit upon, satirized, photoshopped, and often laughed at for the sheer sense of insanity of it all. It’s what drew people together here; it’s what made us feel like family.

DU’s first real turning point was the 2008 primaries. Suddenly posters who had been ad idem on everything during the BushBaby’s years were at each other’s throats over their own – Kucinich, Edwards, Hillary, Obama, et al. For the first time since becoming part of the DU family, brothers and sister were no longer screaming from the bleachers, but standing on the mound, up at bat.

In the end, everybody kissed and made up, and celebrated the election of one Barack Hussein Obama (D) to the highest office in the land.

But then things changed yet again, and site rules changed along with the times and the tenor of conversation. In the olden days (she said as she adjusted the light of the gas lamp, along with her bustle), the Mods ruled, and the rules were clear. Certain things were allowed to be said – and no amount of alerts would change things. Certain things were not allowed, and no amount of cries of “censorship” would change things.

Now there is the jury system, and what is allowed or prohibited fluctuates from jury to jury. Some think this is a great system; others think it deplorable. But despite your personal opinion of the jury system, one cannot seriously argue that it hasn’t impacted DU in a major way. Again, to say that DU hasn’t changed other than what you refer to as like... some rules here and there is naïve at best. DU would have to have been DOA for such a change not have had serious consequences.

Things that were once strictly verboten here are now considered acceptable. Things that were once acceptable are now considered verboten. Again, to say that DU has not been changed by “like – some rules here and there” flies in the face of logic. Certain changes in the TOS opened the site to certain participants denied access before; certain changes in the TOS caused certain former members to leave. That change is not a rocket-science analysis – it is a matter of human nature, and common sense. And DU has changed as a result.

Again, the question is not whether DU has changed (of course it has). The REAL question is whether that change has been for the better, or the worse. And that is a truly subjective question, and will be answered by each according to their own perceptions.

But to say that DU has not changed is to ignore the facts, along with the concept that change is inevitable – especially on a political message board, where the politics of the day are always a moving target, subject to change without notice.

P.S. Although we may disagree on many things, I think the term self-eulogize is brilliant!

Things do change, people change, politics changes... it's the way of everything. But I think the question is whether after the changes one still belongs here or if they want to evolve with DU. But honestly, I think if someone doesn't feel they belong, it's ridiculous to keep posting or stay here. Move on and find a better place.

And many have chosen to stay - to evolve with DU, as you say, or to hang on in hopes of reverting things back to the way they were. THAT is the real battle being fought here.

In the end, it all comes down to who embraces the obvious changes, and who rails against them. But to say that DU hasn't changed is simply nonsensical.

The population was about 15,000 when I joined in September of 2002. It's now 14 times bigger. I used to know a lot more of the residents -- that is, a much higher percentage of the residents. I used to share personal information -- now I delete about 90% of what I start to write about my personal life. There's a lot going on all the time, though.

Nice to see you, Nance.

... DU is not fourteen times bigger. The number of registered members is all-inclusive since the site started. That number is not reflective of how many current participants there are.

But there is no denying that DU has changed - whether that change is a positive or a negative is in the eye of the DU beholder.

Plus those who only post in the outlying regions. But seriously Nance, the population has grown a LOT.

So good to see you.

You know my views on whether DU's change has been positive or negative. I just read yet another series of articles on Obama's support among liberals. How his support among liberals is as strong as it's ever been. And then... I come here where denial ain't just a river in Egypt and the perpetually petulant love to claim that the reason they despise every single action taken by the man is because they are liberals. I mean to call this behavior INCONSISTENT is an understatement to its core.

... we both recognize that DU has changed - and we both have consistent views on whether that change has been positive or negative.

One of the major changes has been how reflective of the Party DU once was, as opposed to what an outlier it has become in terms of gauging the Party's position as a whole.

There are too many Egyptian River Dwellers here for my taste - but apparently, the mileage on some barges varies greatly.

(Always good to see you, too!)

It seems that, just as with conservatives, tea-partiers, racists, misogynists, and all other extremists, one's personal opinion/world-view represents the position of the larger population. And no amount of polling or evidence to the contrary will change that opinion.

:::::::WHAP:::::: (Sound of Nance hitting it out of the park)


:::BANG::: (Sound of Nance hitting the nail squarly on the head)

So good to see you post, Ms. Greggs.

Honored to know you elsewhere


.

Most of what you say makes perfect sense, but i don't think it's as substantive as you make it out to be.

The differences are far more subtle and i don't honestly believe the changes caused by the shift of mods to the jury system are that profound. You say i can't seriously argue is hasn't changed DU. But, you're slanting it negatively.

Perhaps some would agree the change is profound but prefer it this way. Hence they would be agreeing with your statement but disagreeing with the sentiment. Count me on one of those.

I read folks here in criticizing the jury system talking about cliques. They clearly haven't been here long enough. The old mod system was a enriched feeding ground for cliques. I see that a bit(!) better now.

There are changes, to be sure. I like your stagnant water analogy. Quite apt. But, i think the differences are small and more importantly, minor.
GAC

... when you go from allowing "constructive criticism" of Dems to a post calling the Democratic president a "piece of shit used car salesman" topping the Greatest Page, and appearing on the Home Page - right along with the "Impeach Obama" ads.

The Mods enforced rules that were clearly set out. Juries follow no rules except their own, which change from one jury to the next, depending on the make-op of each jury.

There is a HUGE difference between what used to be alerted on and removed and what is now allowed to stand. And offensive posts are rarely "removed" anyway - just hidden, meaning it merely requires a mouse-click to read it in its entirety.

Many people left after the Dem/Obama bashing became permissible - many people signed-up for the purpose of joining in the bashing. That alone changed the tenor of the site dramatically. If bashing LGBTers was suddenly permitted, a lot of people would leave - and a lot of gay-bashers would sign-up. That's just common sense - and to say that wouldn't drastically change the site would be ridiculous.

So, we are at an impasse.

or 5, which starts

"DU’s first real turning point was the 2008 primaries. Suddenly posters who had been ad idem on everything during the BushBaby’s years were at each other’s throats over their own – Kucinich, Edwards, Hillary, Obama, et al."

Oh, older timers could tell you about flame wars/purges involving the 2004 primaries, beginning in late 2003.

Then there was the 2006 elections. Once Dems took control of the house, the Pelosi bashing really revved up. I remember because I complained about it in my journal, and even sported a Pelosi icon for a few months to show support.

And this "In the end, everybody kissed and made up, and celebrated the election of one Barack Hussein Obama (D) to the highest office in the land."

was only true for about three days. The Obama bashing started pretty quick and pretty heavy.

There was even a period when it seemed to me like we were being invaded and I mentioned it once or twice. We had a whole slew of registered users with 4 years duration and less than 500 posts who suddenly felt moved to start "I am so disgusted by Obama" threads.

Threads with the same list of complaints and which got knr'ed to the sky.

Of course things change though. We once had a meta forum, and now we do not, and so on.

during '04, and neither was the OP. So I was only talking about the years we 'shared' here.

Oh, absolutely agreed about the kiss-and-makeup only lasting a matter of days.

What caused the biggest change here, IMHO, was the rule change from allowing "constructive criticism" of Dems to allowing any and all "criticism". The result was exactly the same as it would have been had FreeRepublic announced they were allowing "any and all criticism" of Dubya two years into his pResidancy, i.e. lots of libs would have signed-up there posing as "disappointed GOPers" just so they could bash Bush endlessly.

That was the end of my days as a DUer. The welcome mat was laid out for the RW trolls - as long as they maintained their "I'm just a disgruntled Democrat" cover story.

I'm sure that if I could go back in time and post a DU poll before Obama's inauguration asking: "Do you foresee a day when a post calling any Democrat, no less a Democratic president, a piece of shit used car salesman will wind up at the top of the Greatest Page?", the answer would have been a resounding NO FUCKIN' WAY!

DU used to be, as the TOS once stated, a "sanctuary" from the endless Dem-bashing in the MSM. It has now become the go-to place for the worst of that bashing.

what year was that supposed to have been?

I remember a lot of bashing of dems, some of which I even participated in. I remember way back when I was a n00b somebody jumped on me for bashing "the big Dawg".

I also remember from way back, jumping in to correct people who were bashing the Democratic Party for "voting to invade Iraq" or "voting for the Bush tax cuts".

Before Obama's inauguration, there was plenty of bashing of Nancy Pelosi - the Democratic Speaker of the House, although she probably was not called a POS used car salesman. Even I got tired of it as evinced by this post in August 2007 http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/51

And there was plenty of bashing of Obama and "Obamabots" during the primaries.

And there may have been some bashing of Hillary too.

But I am pleading the 5th on that.

... but after the DU "survey" the Admins conducted (2010?) the TOS was changed from allowing "constructive criticism of Dems" to allowing "any and all criticism".

I thought the "constructive criticism" rule was a good one. It meant one had to present their criticism based on specific statements, actions or policies they disagreed with. After the rule change, simply posting things like "Obama is fucking liar" became acceptable, without any context or reference to a specific action. IOW, name-calling now passes for "criticism".

BTW, just read the post you linked to - really enjoyed re-reading it!

Democrats/liberal are doing what we always do ... seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

We seem to relish opposing whomever happens to be on top.

We, you and I, disagree on a lot of things ... This, we do not.

to even get on top.

A history of the 19th century labor movement really showed me that.

Ruskin wrote in the 1830s that we should "find something good to do and get busy doing it, you can't argue in a side by side push".

now that it's a Dem president doing the same things, or worse, it's all okay and people actually defend it. At least they defend him - no matter what he does - even if they aren't actually defending the policy since they refuse to have policy discussions.

Used to be there was room to have a good debate about issues but now as soon as there is a criticism of anything Obama there is a loud and rude group who come in and post content free retorts coupled with smileys. Once upon a time DUers cared about the constitution, now it's just a quaint piece of paper. Because Obama.

Yes DU has changed. It has moved much further right, just like the Dem Party and its leader.

I do think it is ODS though

But the OP is an epic rant though... very well done. .

why you get pushback on a Democratic website.

Here's a shockeroo for you: maybe your theory that Obama is worse than Bush on abuses of power is not correct.

Just like your support of Ron Paul's call for Obama's impeachment puts you on the wrong side of what constitutes a liberal or a Democrat.

Or do you have proof that I support Ron Paul's call for Obama's impeachment? If so, please show it.

Nor really that complicated.

Or do you have proof that I support Ron Paul's call for Obama's impeachment? If so, please show it.

Also, you completely misrepresented my post. And perfectly illustrated my point while doing so.

and you post multiple times to support the argument of the person advocating impeachment, and to rebut those opposing impeachment, you're not being subtle

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact that I agree with Paul's complaint does not mean I think Obama should be impeached. You are the one not being subtle when you try to twist my words to mean what you want them to mean.

Look at the posts on the board when Bush did things to a lesser degree than Obama and you'll see plenty of outrage. Why shouldn't it be the same when Obama does it?

I'm guided by principles, not by party loyalty no matter what. I leave that dangerous behavior to others.

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

And said Obama is as bad or worse than Bush... If you are going to say something that incendiary about someone you better have the facts to back it up.

You jumped on another poster above for "hyperbole". Now show that it's not you using the hyperbole and show everyone where Cui Bono specifically said Obama is as bad or worse than Bush and should be impeached.

And I don't mean something that you think he/she meant, I mean where they actually said it.

Edit... Nevermind, I see your post above. HYPERBOLE.

I mean the unconditional defense of Obama no matter what, even when his actions are the same as Bush or worse.

just about every time there is a "bye cruel DU" post, there is an incident connected to it, a ban or a nasty put down, a difference of opinion that can't be crossed without fainting.

They don't seem to come out of nowhere, there's some recent activity that precipitates it.

websites like DU are anonymous. I don't expect to have really personal interactions online in places like DU. Arguments on all sides are discussed. That's a great thing about DU. I learn a lot and have experienced some great "conversations" here on politics. But we have to separate our levels of interactions from those that are related very personally and DU. I just can't get too worked up about someone disagreeing with me here...

Thanx for posting

pretty much spot on, in my opinion. I'll say another constant is people complaining that the board is becoming too conservative - I've never not heard that complaint on a regular basis.

Bryant

A DU experience is really what we make of it. The same exact thing can be interpreted completely differently by different people based on our own internal biases and assumptions or even our mood at the time.

Anytime anyone gets too emotionally invested in an online discussion board, its time to take a break and go do something else. There's lots of fun things to do in the real world. Election years always need people canvassing door to door and registering voters.

GD has an SOP that is to the hosts as the Constitution was to GW Bush.

Not since skinner told hosts to leave just about every thread alone.

Certain posters have abused this laxity to promote material that couldn't/didn't drive people to their personal blogs in the first place. Wonder why?

OMC was garbage, but I bet he is still here posting under another name. If only all of us could be as polite and courteous as H2O Man.

When I first arrived (under a different username back in the extreme early days), the mere mention of taking the fight to Republicans in the same way they were doing to us for years elicited scorn from DUers. 'We're above that' was the common sentiment.

When I came back in mid-2002, THAT sentiment had been, thankfully, replaced.

and it seems to increase a notch or so after every primary.

Julie

corporate welfare...all mainstream positions at DU, now.

Not with your two examples, lol. Those are spot on.

The evolution I see, while predictable and understandable, is disheartening.

When I got here in '02, I was a political moderate. There were all kinds of people to the left of me, and it was, frankly, refreshing. That's why I stayed. A new and enjoyable experience for someone who has spent her entire adult life in red zones.

The shift happened in '08. First, the wheels came off the bus in the primaries, when the vast majority of so-called "liberals" lined up on gender/race lines. As a group of people who supposedly supports equality and social justice for BOTH, that was revealing. It was a mud wrestling match of epic proportions, and nobody came out clean. As someone who supports both gender and race equality, but neither neo-liberal Obama nor neo-liberal HRC, I was appalled. The shine was off the apple.

I also immediately, because I wasn't all excited about the new Democratic president, suddenly the enemy, taking a constant barrage of hits from the loyal party drones. It was at this point, with the election of a Democrat, that the site shifted from "underground" opposition to fiercely supporting the mainstream, no matter WHAT he did, or WHAT position he took on issues. The disconnect was staggering for me.

The shift from DU2 to DU3 recognized that evolution; language changed. DU was no longer a "left-wing" message board; that term was replaced in "About DU's" self-identification. The site attracted more people because of the "Democratic" part of the name than the "underground." Opposition to bad policy turned into excuses.

Of course, eventually, those excuses no longer held water, and many stopped hopefully waiting for change and began to again oppose bad policy, although it's a hell of a lot more difficult to do so when it's a Democrat at the helm. By then, membership had grown. Many of the "left-wing" posters had grown discouraged and moved on; more had been purged, and the site had gained a core group determined that party and personality would drown out issue.

There are still plenty of great posters here. The joint is crawling with people. There is still a contingent from the left, although it's smaller and posts from under the bus. It's not the same place it was. I know better. The unity found in opposing the Bush selection is fractured between those who stand on issues and those whose goal in life is to support and promote party and personality. I'm not going anywhere, this is not a GBCW post, and I am not "utterly full of shit."

We have a host of disruptors that come in and post outrageous words and thoughts. We do not do a good enough job at beating them back. Then we hear on cable news that even liberal websites are starting to turn on (fill in the blank).

I have been here since 2001, and the thing I miss the most are the thoughtful, original essays people took the time to write, post and defend or explain. One could actually learn a lot from this site at that time. Many of the people who used to do that are now MIA (although we still do have a few) and I would love to see them return and pick up where they left off. Not going to happen though....

Sam

It has become infinitely more hateful and viscous since the introduction of the jury system. I'm sure many can remember a time when the sniping, insults and personal attacks weren't tolerated - for the most part.

There were a number of DU'ers who were TS'ed for behavior that now seems pretty commonplace. DU'ers in control of "community standards," has resulted in a personality-based system, with cliques in control of both tone and content. All one has to do is spend some time in the 'host's forum' to see it in action.

SOP, TOS, and CS standards have become relatively nonexistent, or at least subject to loose interpretation. IOW....anything goes if you have enough "followers" who are in control of making the call.

Yeah, this place has changed, alright.

but now I have come to actively dislike it. You are right that it has resulted in a "personality-based system with cliques in control of both tone and content." That's a very good way of putting it.

eom

OMC was a mainstream poster, until he was a banned troll. I wonder which of our "ex" freepers and "sensible centrists" will be the next outed?

They have a little PR operation here that makes way, way more noise than its numbers should allow, and it has changed the site considerably.

I doubt that all of them are on the clock, but I have no doubt that some are. This isn't paranoid fantasy-- maintaining a presence in online communities is considered a pretty fundamental aspect of PR these days, and we're talking about groups that sell nothing but policy and ideas.

Especially when the party gets more and more corporate and centrist at best.

Without criticism the party will never return to one that really fights for the working people and stands up for their civil rights.

but more like an issue of supporting our team.

they act like we're as stupid as their members

a member of the BOG?

when you speak of the "party establishment", doesn't that suggest that it represents the core of said party's values? And the dissenting voices, while still a part of the party, represents a/the minority position?

This takes me to the gop intramural wars, we are seeing ... the is/are the "establishment" republicans trying to beat back the far more extreme, and far less in numbers, tea partiers.

People discuss the political maneuvering of the party's career politicians here every day. An enormous amount effort goes into building political cover for unpopular decisions, and they do everything from manufacture legislative helplessness to simply moving the range of the debate rightward by ceding points that have not been lost.

This is what liberals on this sight have been pulling their hair out over for several years now. The party establishment is not representing the will of the voters-- they're selling corporate policy.

and plenty of people somewhere in between. true for 2004 and true for 2014

I've taken breaks - sometimes years at a time, because of the ass-hattery around here at times.

Sometimes, the ass-hattery was my own.

We all bring our issues, and when I joined my mother was terminally ill, a long-term relationship had just ended, and my finances were in ruins (that hasn't changed much, haha!)

I was outraged about the theft of the 2000 election, and I vented ALL my frustrations, personal and political.

I cringe over some of the stuff I remember posting.

I was angry, I was frightened, and I thought (as a liberal) that everyone would feel the same way as I did about all issues.

So, I fought - a lot.

I've grown up a lot since then. I don't take stuff personally anymore.

I laugh at the silliness here, rather than getting angry.

I can appreciate the good without blowing up about the bad.

When I see people losing their shit for no apparent reason, I remember that it probably has nothing to do, really, with me, but what is going on their lives.

Peace, everyone!

To get as good as DU use to be you have to put many people on ignore.
This board was a place where people brought information to share. Now it is a pissing contest 24/7.

DU is a sum of it's parts, and it ain't the same, IMHO.

I really appreciate that you think of me that way.