2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs it appropriate to cite websites where Hillary Clinton is referred to as "hitlery" any where on DU
SMHriversedge
(69,721 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)When I saw it I had more sorrow than anger.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I'm not a big one on alerting, but that seems a bit over the top.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)They hyperlink has "hitlery" in it.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I can not even think of a political figure another Democratic candidate could be compared to that would be as odious...
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I tire of this kind of hyperbole but that is just me.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)If that's the best they can do then it doesn't belong here
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)That is pure right wing baloney.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)eom
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)LexVegas
(6,005 posts)SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)With him, it seems like it's a noun, a verb, Hitler.
Cha
(295,907 posts)pathetic loser.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)and the playing of any "cards" belong in the RW trash heap.
I'm assuming your question is rhetorical, but for the sake of clarity let me just say...OH HELL NO.
Number23
(24,544 posts)You have said nothing but the truth.
But considering the (consistently unintentionally hilarious source) of the "cards" idiocy, I'm sure you were as surprised by that as the rest of us.
It's been a banner week on DU. Race cards, Stockholm Syndrome, and pointed political discussions at clubs ('cause that happens ALL of the time, you know) that had the whole damn board laughing. It's been a hell of a week.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)when it becomes clear beyond all doubt and spin that Hillary Clinton is going to win the nomination, handily.
And after the polls this morning she is 3/4s of the way there.
Unless the owners finally step in and start enforcing the TOS anyway.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)I'm sure someone will create a thread and it will probably go straight to the top of the "Greatest" list!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)It's only going to get nuttier over there as the endorsements roll in. At this point it doesn't really matter anymore.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this is electioneering 9.0. ...The rest of the world will catch up in 12-16 years.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)and he endorsing Hillary! How could that matter in the real world of unicorns and rainbows???
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)cpompilo
(323 posts)This was all over DU in 2007. It wasn't appropriate then nor is it now.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)GusBob
(7,286 posts)If I asked about a specific post in that thread just by number, as in:
I really don't understand post (#)...... is that a call out and hideable offense?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It's not so much about what is done; but, by whom (visit the African-American Group and look for the posts about "alert-stalking" there are several of them) and who it offends (you'll get that from the threads in the AA Group, as well).
mcar
(42,210 posts)And the poster should be looked at by admins.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)GusBob
(7,286 posts)mcar
(42,210 posts)alittlelark
(18,886 posts)Spazito
(49,761 posts)Anyone using that in a post should be turfed, imo. Appalling rabid right wing language, imo.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I guess in fairness ... I doubt any of them read beyond the: "poll shows Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton...Trump taking 70% of the electoral votes" title ... or, they would have immediately backed out of the thread ... beyond the "hitlery" term, and beyond the site's tagline: "Dedicated to the restoration of and strict obedience to the United States Constitution, the site cites to "Based on an average of the RCP (Real Clear Politics) polling data from all the states and all the 'head to head' matchups between Donald Trump", that don't exist ... well, don't exist on the RealClearPolitics site.
Spazito
(49,761 posts)at least I sure hope so anyway. Surely if they would have seen the word "hitlery" they would never rec something like that, right?
I tend to hold the OP poster responsible for what they post and where it comes from, ie rabid right wing sites.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think this gives new meaning to the term "silly season" when long time folks are affected.
Spazito
(49,761 posts)I think that ended August 31, we are now into "throw crap at the wall and see what sticks" season. It is unfortunate to see long term posters using sites like that one as they must know it's genesis.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I suspect that's a violation of copyright law.
(Occurred when the poster changed "Hitlery to Hillary."
BooScout
(10,406 posts)But it doesn't surprise me that it's here. Sad.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)I think next week the rhetoric on both sides will escalate
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Most people here seem to have answered the first question but your wording more naturally suggests the second.
As to the term, it would be permissible to employ it in an "inverted commas" use, where the DUer is reporting that a person or website used it about Clinton. That would often be legitimate information. As for using it oneself, as a description of Clinton, I can't imagine any context where it would be acceptable here.
I do not, however, agree with blacklisting an entire website. It might be a forum, like DU. There have been some statements on DU, including some that survived juries, that some DUers found grossly offensive. If you say it's never acceptable to cite a cite where there's an offensive term, you'd be barred from citing DU on DU.
Even if it's the same author, not just the same website, I don't agree with a ban. Suppose the author refers to Clinton as "hitlery" in the course of criticizing her actions in connection with the Honduras coup. If the criticism is, for example, that Clinton was publicly saying X but actually doing Y, then that criticism is valid or invalid without regard to the author's overheated rhetoric. The author's personal credibility might or might not be relevant to the criticism, and if it's relevant then a valid response could include pointing to "hitlery" as an indication that the author had an ax to grind. Still, even people with axes to grind sometimes stumble upon the truth. In general I tend to favor responding to the substance of the criticism rather than an ad hominem attack on the messenger.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I don't think the site should be blacklisted. I do get a sad that some folks can be so hateful.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)if someone made a post criticizing Sanders on some relevant issue and, in the course of making their argument they happened to post a link in support of their position to a white supremicist website in which Sanders is referred to as 'Bernie the Jew scum," you would think it inappropriate to ban that site from legitimate discussion here?
I certainly wouldn't. I'd find it outrageous to use right-wing sites to make ANY kind of argument, for or against a candidate or for or against a policy, here.
Writ simple: we should not link to any right-wing sites here, unless it is in the service of showing how wrong (and sometimes horribly wrong) they are on a subject.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The question would be what kind of support the white supremacist site provided. If it said, in essence, Sanders cast the following votes in favor of aid to Israel and thus shows himself to be Jew scum, then thered be no value to the link. A DUer who wants to criticize Sanders on Israel issues can just set forth his votes (from official sources, which the racist site would have had to use) and explain why theyre objectionable. If the white supremacist author wrote that someone on Sanderss staff had been convicted of some crime, there would be a link to a reliable source in which case cite that instead or there wouldnt be, the accusation being based solely on inside information supposedly possessed by the author, in which case an accusation that would be dubious if it came from someone else becomes totally worthless when coming from an obvious bigot.
The only case I can think of where there might be a reason for the link would be if the white supremacist author took some publicly available data (with link(s) provided), and performed some further analysis. For example, if the author used FEC data about contributions and computed some further data, such as percentage of donors who come from New England, and thats of interest to a DUer for some reason, you might decide to (a) report the analysis; (b) credit the author because you dont believe in plagiarism; but (c) note that the author is both someone who did the tedious work of statistical analysis and a raging bigot who used an anti-Semitic term about Bernie.
Note that the OPs question was about the site. If a white supremacist site includes one piece that calls Sanders Jew scum and another piece by a different author that attacks Sanderss college-tuition plan as too expensive, I dont think a DUer would be barred from quoting the second author just because of the racism of the first.
In general, as a practical matter, this wont come up. A site that allows anti-Semitic insults is probably not going to have anything worth quoting or citing. Even Fox News is more likely to have something to contribute than is Stormfront.
Speaking of Sanders's proposals, there actually were posts on DU that referred to the attack on him in the Wall Street Journal. That's certainly a right-wing site but is certainly a cut above the white supremacist sites. That particular attack by the WSJ was debunked. Nevertheless, I don't think that's a reason to bar quotations from the WSJ, for all its general wrong-headedness. If a Clinton supporter wants to point to something on the Wall Street Journal site that says Sanders's proposals would cost too much, or that Clinton is right in not seeking to reinstate Glass-Steagall and that Sanders is wrong on that issue, I don't think that would be outrageous. As a progressive, I would disagree, but I wouldn't vote to hide. DUers can consider the source.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)At the same time there have been some people hurting the last two weeks. I have seen gibirish come from people I believe to be very intelligent. Politics is very personal. I was recently taken back for a day when I learned something about Clinton. There is an investment and attachment.
Not that it is acceptable here at all, but I can think of one way that term could be used that would be amazingly offensive.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it is acceptable in the eyes of those posting and recc'ing it.
Never mind the article doing an analysis of "averages of 'real clear politics' polling" that doesn't exist ... well, doesn't exist on the RealClearPolitics site.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Thank you in advance.
Autumn
(44,755 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)A jury made Socrates drink the hemlock, sentenced Jesus to be nailed on a cross, sentenced the Scottsboro Boys to death, let the Klan members who blew four little black girls in a Birmingham church to kingdom come to walk...
Juries and jurors aren't infallible...
Autumn
(44,755 posts)a list of banned sites.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)eom
Autumn
(44,755 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)eom
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Infallibility of juries ... "
But, your response is far more cogent.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)nt
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)
m-lekktor This message was self-deleted by its author.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)site's tagline: "Dedicated to the restoration of and strict obedience to the United States Constitution."
But for real "patient folks", like myself, I would never cite it as a source because the site cites to "Based on an average of the RCP (Real Clear Politics) polling data from all the states and all the 'head to head' matchups between Donald Trump", that don't exist ... well, don't exist on the RealClearPolitics site.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Do you think it would have been hid if a Clinton supporter cited it?
Do you think a link from stormfront would be hid if the right people cited it?
Thank you in advance.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The latter would be assured protection by it being posted in the Bernie Group; but, the former would have been unsafe anywhere on DU!
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... and the first one that such sites are generally accepted by some.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I mean now that you've referenced it, DU is now a website where Hillary Clinton has been referred to as "Hitlery"--even if just to criticize the practice.
Thus, the question is now inclusive of Is it appropriate to cite DU on DU?
In all seriousness, I'd argue that it's not inappropriate to cite such websites on DU (They may have other valid content) but it is inappropriate to actually call Hillary "Hitlery" on DU.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)...So long as said author is making up complete bullshit about Bernie Sanders.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Here's her piece about Obama from 2006.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/obama_scores_as_an_exotic_who.html
And here you can see Cali's takedown of it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251616648
For which she was alert-stalked by hillaryclintonsupporters. Thus my sig line
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)they should be ashamed of themselves but apparently they don't care period.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Can't say they are a winger ... just coming across as comfortable in wingerish ports.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Beaverhausen
(24,467 posts)are you justifying that name for Hillary?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Autumn
(44,755 posts)Because you see, according to them, what he says is Bull Shit. So the story behind that is, when you see the people who find that to be such a wonderful fitting description of Bernie Sanders at their site using the initials BS here? It is offensive, because they aren't using the BS as his initials. A little insider joke if you will Calling a candidate by anything other than their name is not appropriate. calling Hillary Hitlery and Bernie Bull Shit are not okay, both are nasty RW names.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)Using someone's initials is comparable to calling Hillary hitlery?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Thank you in advance.
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)Evidence of right wing trolls with a mission for disruption.... That is my educated guess on the matter.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The DUer that posted it is a long time DUer with 84K+ posts ... unless he/she was deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep undercover, with impeccable mission discipline.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Absolutely not!
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and sometimes it's hard to tell who's who.
Sid
seaglass
(8,170 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'd object in that thread, but cannot. I hope, though, that DUers, regardless of candidate affiliation, will refrain from using right-wing sites that use such vile names for the leading Democratic candidate in their posts. It shows extreme disrespect and no common sense at all.
Cha
(295,907 posts)Orrex
(63,085 posts)If they're content to let Rush Limbaugh write their talking points for them, then why wouldn't they latch onto any hateful term they can find?