Infiltrating DU: How and Why.

DU is, by far, the largest Democratic board on the net. That makes it a natural target for Rove and his minions (the WHY). Hence, we know they want to affect our discourse, but the question is HOW.

The obvious theory is that the pugs will infiltrate the board as RWers. And while we see this time and again (yes, whether 1 or 100 or 10,000 posts, for the most part it is unsuccessful) it seems that the REAL fertile ground is found in impersonating the far left.

Please let me be clear...there are those genuinely on the far left who have passionate, well-articulated positions. I speak of something entirely different.

I am referring to those w/ phony sounding names, those who pose extremist yet sterile arguments, those who refuse to respond to the tough questions, and those (a new development for me) who operate in tandem. I am speaking of those who wish to WARP the positions of all dems into the limited stereotypes that their RW talking points dictate.

I hope that my post is acceptable under DU rules...but this situation is only going to get worse as the election approaches...maybe it is time to talk. At the risk of boring long-time DUers...is this an issue?

in my old age. That button is still all too clear. aaaaaaiiiieeeeee! The horror! Take it away! Its bad enough to watch my Cubs get beat, but looking at that is just too much.

you the dog!

:shrug:

Most people are pretty transparent. Some fly under the radar for a long time. A lot of us get caught up in their crap, but ultimately it's really irrelevant. DU is just a message board - it's not reality. And we get to keep our claws sharpened - what's not to love? ;)

The point is whether casual viewers realize that DU has all sorts of people, with all sorts of MOTIVATIONS.

(Oh, and I have a more immediate goal) B-)

this board to exchange ideas, opinions, give information to others, swap information, become more involved in local issues, so yeah I agree that this forum can't get up and walk away, but your assertation that this is not reality then I must be fictitious along with every person on this board.

I was talking education and then I was told I should worry about iraq. I don't feel it pretained to my thread but it was one of thoes "hit and run" FR posters or some other disgruntled lied to republican.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2172523&mesg_id=2172523&page=

It's not worth getting upset about...

my ignore list - i have a lot on it. every so often i go through it to check if they've been tombstoned and delete those. the more recent ones usually are, so my intuition is pretty right on in this area. it's kind of a game to me now;-)

but they SUCK too! :)

Are you referring to this post in your thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2172523&mesg_id=2172636&page=
Thanks, ahead of time for your response... Befree

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2172523&mesg_id=2174328&page=


dude went by 'harpsman'

I could almost see where he/she was comming from, but they wouldn't reply back to my response.

oh well, KERRY ON!

DU will be fine. I think that a wide range of people read it and participate to varying degrees. But the trouble-makers tend to become exposed by their nature.

There's an old experiment that I like to show my children: take a tire and bury it at the edge of a field. Place a large rock about 3 feet away. Within two years, the earth will absorb the rock, and expell the tire.

Same thing happens here.

I like your parable but feel we must address the issue of increased " DU participation".

Here's something I've noticed a few times. There will be a thread by someone who seems pretty likely to have a Sean Hannity poster hanging in his office. A few DU people react to a some passive-aggressive crap this type posts. He tosses out more bait. And people bite: a huge angry and hostile thread results.

Now, one thing I see is people reacting to the nastiness, rather than responding to the message. I've mentioned I'm a retired psychiatric social worker, and a lot of it is classic: there are some people who by simply talking make our lips curl. We loose focus, and react to the personality disorders of these people. And that is exactly what they want.

I did plenty of work with families with pathologies as severe as the intruders on here. I worked forensics, with people who displayed the same criminal tendencies as the right-wing republicans in the current administration. (smile) It's important not to "react" to them; rather, we must "respond." Do not hesitate to notify the moderators when you find people are reacting to a provocation.

Also, don't play their game. Find a basic weakness/lie in their presentation, and stick to that. In all likelihood, we'll be having many more of these people on DU in the up-coming months.

Still, keep in mind that even among self-identified democrats, and people on the left who despise bush/cheney, there are going to be a % who have personality quirks that mimmick republican trouble-makers.And the pressures of the political confrontation may result in some of them saying provocative and obnoxious things.

....he's SO a Freeper. I won't name him, but let's just say his SN involves a city name.

Every single thread I see him on, he's parroting rightwinger propaganda - and it's not even subtle.

...and it is a wonderful example of what I had mentioned. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. The bombing of Japan is a sad and tragic chapter in human history .... as was ALL of WW2 .... and while good and decent human beings can honestly have varying opinions on both the war and the use of those bombs, it is difficult to imagine a conversation on a forum such as this NOT becoming emotional and divisive. Which is exactly what someone who is opposed to DU would want.

> I am speaking of those who wish to WARP the positions of all dems into the limited stereotypes that their RW talking points dictate.

I am already secure in my views, and I am not going to let anyone distort what I feel or the actions I am going to take. These past fours years (in my lifetime) have been the absolute worse in this countries history and it's time for some change.

:hippie:

For sure the Rovian WH is here lurking 24/7. So if you are right, they will be going into attack mode pretty soon.

thankfully their lack of competence precedes them!

competence are basically identifiable. Rather than the freeps that post on the extreme right, who think they are being "clever", and who are generally ignorant and obvious, or those that post extreme left, who are either genuine hard core communists, or freepers that are obviously trying to prove that democrats are "commies", the "moderate reasonable" freeper poster is the genuine threat.

These are the insidious infiltrators. They seem so "reasonable", but will interject ideas in their posts such as, "I could not find any provable lies in Bush's statements regarding WMD's, like Michael Moore claimed". But any decent DU researcher could point these lies out with credible links in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, not everyone that visits DU has advanced researching skills , or the time to do research. And good DU researchers do not read every thread and do not always have the time to respond to every post.

If someone from the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation is infiltrating DU, they are going to be subtle. A trained propagandist is going to have an idea of how how to manipulate the innocent and uninformed, and may deliberately post irrelevant subjects in order to to divert attention from genuinely important issues, or how to interject ideas with the intention of deceiving the uninformed.

There are other tactics a trained AEI/Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society propagandist infiltrator might use here, but I don't want to point them out due to the fact that untrained freeps might pick up on them and use them.

DU is a powerful vehicle for truth, and there should be no doubt that we are being infiltrated by paid, trained RW propagandists. If they are good at what they do, they will be difficult to eradicate.

IMO,the really good ones will not be extreme, they will be "moderate" and subtle.

Then gradually they begin to change. It is like playing with minds.

demanding and name calling. True colors started to show and I haven't seen them back for a while.

but you know what they say.......KERRY ON!

perhaps I worry too much. :shrug:

and soon they're gone.

What is *really* upsetting to me is actual, registered DEMs who are hell-bent on moving this party to the right. That's where the *real* damage is happening, not just the frustration.

Kanary

What is obvious to me, is that they are just alittle "off" and/or their statements ring hollow.
Now that I realize YOU have noticed it too, I will just keep ignoring them.

yes, the posts' ring hollow.

:hippie:

posters with the really really high counts that continually ask us to calm down, not get angry, quit fighting back, or get angry when someone asks for help with debunking. As if the rightwing smear machine isn't operating 24/7. It certainly would make sense for them to be operating here. Either that or we have very good Dem's who STILL think that right wing hate radio/TV is just passing fad, purely entertainment value with no lasting effects and the VRWC just melted away when Bush was selected.

in fact, my post is about the antithesis.

there was a thread earlier this evening titled "Are you mortified by partial birth abortion" or some such rot. the fact that someone calls it "partial birth abortion", and then goes on to detail the procedure in words right out of the hate radio daily indoctrination is a clue that Inspector Clouseau would figure out. Ignore them or alert them, then just move along.

until after the election. In the 2002 election, which handed congress over to the Repugnants, they were a major, major distraction on this board, and unfortunately many DUers, whom I know for a fact aren't freepers, fell into line with it. The Repugnants know that this issue is very divisive, even in our camp, so they thrash it to death any way they can.

I have mixed feelings about this issue, but as of now, it doesn't warrant attention. Too much else is at stake. You're right. It's a wedge issue designed to distract. Luckily, most posters here easily refocus on the big picture.

The only people who shouldn't "want to talk about abortion" are the Republicans. Most Americans are Pro-Choice. Most Americans would be appalled if they actually read, and understood, the HLA plank in the GOP Platform-- you know, the one that would essentially make the birth control pill a controlled substance.

They are the extremists, and I, for one, am not prepared to concede any ground on this issue. I was at the march in DC in april, and although the media low-balled the numbers, I know there was upwards of a million people there. Some, like myself, had flown over 3,000 miles to be there. I don't think we should "hush up" on the subject of reproductive rights. I think the GOP's drive toward repression, censorship, and sexual and reproductive jihadism is a tremendous wedge issuse- against the GOP.

It is only a suggestion on my part having been here through the abortion threads. They are deliberately set up by posters you seldom see other than around election time and they are very divisive. Religion threads also should be banned until after the election also. The trouble with these divisive issues is that many good DU'ers have been tombstoned because they were baited and then banned. I wouldn't ban anyone because they posted a subject that was banned, but I would keep locking the threads until they went away.

Of course ultimately administration will decide what is best. As I said it's only a suggestion on my part.

it's pretty obvious when someone with 47 posts starts a thread about so-called PBA, complete with talking points taken straight from a pro-life website, only prefacing it with "of course, I'm pro-choice".. yeah, that's a troll, and enjoy the banning process, bub.

But should we stay away from any and all subjects that people might disagree or debate on? Jeeebus, presumably we're all voting for Kerry-- but after a while, "I'm voting for Kerry. Are you voting for Kerry? Yes, I'm voting for Kerry, too" will get old. I mean, hopefully we can manage to have intellectual debate and still remain cohesive enough to achieve common goals, like motivating supporters, combatting RW lies and sharing information.

Anyway, I don't understand what talking point guru decided that abortion is a wedge issue against our side.. I'll say it again, and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face: Most Americans are pro-choice. Our party has the position that is in line with the majority of the American People-- that whatever you personally feel about abortion, the decision should be between a woman and her doctor.

As for religion, as part of the 15% or so of the population that doesn't believe in a deity, at least in the judeo-christian sense of the word, this is a fairly important topic to me. One of the big reasons I am very passionately opposed to the Republican Party in it's current incarnation is because I see it as having been taken over by a narrow band of fundamentalist extremists who, given their druthers, would love to turn my country into a theocracy. Given that reality, it is almost impossible for me to have any extensive political discussion or debate (which is why I'm here) without the word "religion" popping up once or twice.

Just my 2 cents, of course.

stem cell debate. This is what the neo-cons are working on. We may be able to frame the women's rights debate as just that without allowing the "liberals are baby-killers" trolls to highjack the issue. Both the baby-killing issue and religion go hand-in-hand and it's at the expense of women's rights.

"Conservatives are uptight, puritannical, anti-sex, neo-luddite zealots who want to block scientific research as part of their narrow ideological agenda, and want to establish a john ashcroft police presence in 100 million American Uterii"?

"baby killers"? Yes, please, let's have that debate. let's talk about how the extreme right wing in this country considers a micron-sized fertilized egg a "baby". Let's talk about how every major "pro-life" organization in the USA is also anti-birth control.. Let's talk about how the Human Life Amendment, as written in the GOP platform, would turn the pill into a controlled substance, and women who use IUDs into criminals guilty of "carrying a concealed murder weapon".

I don't know if you were at the pro-choice march in April, but (as I said before) I was--- and believe me, 1.2 million people didn't come out to the mall to have their support for the right of women to control their own bodies be soft-pedaled.

I don't think supporting stem cell research and supporting abortion rights are mutually exclusive- if nothing else, the stem cell debate can go a long way towards reminding people that a sperm and an egg don't "magically" transmogrify into a walking, talking human being the second they go from 2 sets of 23 chromosomes to one set of 46.

And if standing up for the crazy idea that the first amendment means what it says, and that the proper place for religious observance is in the churchhouse and not the statehouse is somehow "out of touch" or divisive, well, screw that! I'm proud to belong to a party that represents everyone- not just southern baptist born-agains. There is nothing anti-religion about standing up for the separation of church and state.. Opposing it, however, is anti-democratic.

It's like the vietnam war. They want to reopen that debate, in regards to kerry protesting it? I say, bring it on. That war was wrong, it was a travesty, and Kerry not only bravely volunteered to fight for his country, he also bravely volunteered to stand up, on the basis of what he'd seen, and say the war was wrong and try to bring his buddies home. Meanwhile, new tapes just released reveal that during the same period of time, Nixon knew the war was lost, but delayed bringing home American troops to further his election chances.. therefore, how many men died between 72-73 because of Nixon's political calculation? Who, in that situation, is the patriot? Who hated the troops? Likewise, if the right wants to launch into diatribes about "baby killing", let's have some real scientific debate on how much of a "baby" a fingernail sized clump of cells is? While we're at it, let's talk about all the legal and social ramifications of criminalizing abortion. And religion? Let's talk about what would happen if the Christian Reconstructionists achieved their dream of "biblical law" in the US. Stonings for being gay? blasphemy? "unchastity"? Let's talk about all those other, great theocracies in the world, and how wonderful it would be for the US to become just like them.

See, I think all these issues are clear-cut wins for us. What we need is more debate, not less.

cleita has not suggested that these arguments are not valid, just that they are wedge issues that the repukes use to divide and conquer. we already KNOW the dem and con sides of these arguments - pick your side and vote accordingly! you can nitpick later!

Who's divided? Again, I don't think there's any cause for us to "stop talking about abortion" because it's a "wedge issue". I'll say it again, until I'm blue in the face: The Majority of Americans Are Pro-Choice. Why are we afraid to point out to them that the Human Life Amendment Plank in the GOP Platform would make birth control pills illegal? Do we really think anyone except the fringe radical loony right actually wants that?

For example, in 1998 John Ashcroft, now Atty. General of the US, sponsored HLA-like legislation that would potentially ban the Birth Control Pill. Shhh! Don't tell anyone! It's a "wedge issue"! Give me a friggin' break.

Does anyone really think that pointing out that the GOP has been taken over by repressed puritans and anti-sex zealots is going to hurt us in November? I understand that we have lots of things to run on, but I don't think that this is not one of them. Again, these arguments are clear cut wins for us. Anyone who genuinely thinks that birth control pills ought to be made against the law, well, maybe they really should be voting for someone else.

And it's mostly because, as you said,

"I'm voting for Kerry. Are you voting for Kerry? Yes, I'm voting for Kerry, too"

will get old.

I mostly post on the open boards on yahoo and get into major flame wars.

I come to DU to relax and to get reassurance from the fact that there are many other people in the world that share my point of view.

I take a few gulps of air, rest a bit, then I dive back into the dumpsters.

:evilgrin:

Haven't wanted to wade into that muck.

For whatever reason, the internet seems to have a higher percentage of these red-faced, crazed, michael savage types than the general population.

In the interest of my blood pressure, for the most part I've stopped having long, drawn out arguments with hard-core conservatives.. it's just useless.

Sometimes it just makes my head want to explode when I see the stuff that's posted on the open boards.

Still, some of it just can't go unchallenged. So I have my cache of quotes from Kafka, Orwell, Goebbels, and even the Bible that I can throw in as zingers.

I know it's fighting the tide, but what the heck. :shrug:

President? Abortion only becomes a big issue every 4 years or so..., same with health care, jobs, and EDUCATION! This is really a sad state of affairs. Iraq is blowing up and we're talking about this same old SHIT! Oil is going up to $50+, gold is going up, the dollar is falling, more corporate crime, the "Fed" is going to raise the interest rate, how many more "bubbles, Housing, derivatives, ..." and please let us please not forget "globalization and Free Trade"!

Let's all really let it happen again. ABORTION! That's the ticket, that's the issue, gay-marriage (another big one), stem cell research (Let's roll)! And more troops in Iraq, just to stabilize, don't you know?

Elections? Just think,

"Touch Screen Voting!"

you only notice the really bad ones!

i like it!

Listen guys..received a private message that we should be "careful" what we say.

This is total bull crap. This board is a breath of fresh air to us that live in repressed environments.

Everyone knows the right is doing their dirty tricks...it's matters not anymore...really think it's backfiring on them.

As my wise Mom once told me.."don't let the limitations of others limit you"

And that's what will happen if we are so scared...

LW trolls live on in infamy.

Does this mean some poor aide at Kerry's campaign has to infiltrate Free Republic? THAT deserves a medal!

Maybe it's my labor background, observing firsthand the work of agents provocateur who advocate illegal acts. I keep looking for evidence of someone stumping for violent protests or even armed revolution. Just remember, when a group plots to blow something up, the one with the good explosives is the government agent.

My point is that the trolls we normally think of as of the RW variety...perhaps we need to consider the (fake) LW variety.

BTW, unions rock!

"someone stumping for violent protests and armed revolution." It always makes me wonder WHERE, actually, they are coming from - far left or, more likely, far right trying to stir things up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2183447

My first thought was.. this guy is a disrupter. the thread is now locked as it should be.

I'm still around. But a review of that thread shows that many a disruptor got the big tombstone. If the discussion didn't serve any other purpose, it weeded out a few freeps.


HAR!

nt

I'm a hero. I should get a medal.

I'm a hero. I should get a medal.

but the more subtle undercover poster is more dangerous, and more insidious, in my opinion.

When they make outrageous statements we must call them on it. What did the founding fathers say, be ever vigilant?

Thanks for bringing this up.

...merely for posing a question about the veracity of a Micheal Moore quote, I would personally like to implore that people NOT be so eager to suspect everyone who even brings up a right wing talking point or debates in what could be perceived as a "right-wing way" of being a disruptor.

I truly believe that at least half of the people being accused or even banned are not really disruptors. The fact is that the right-wing media has had a profound influence on the way people think, and the way they discuss issues. There was a poster today who brought up "partial birth abortion" and got banned. I'm not certain whether that poster was intentionally being disruptive or not, but if we as democrats can't destroy such a flimsy argument without devolving into a dogpile on the poster, I think we have failed.


I agree with the premise about imitating the far left. However, those posters are usually a bit more obvious as the REAL far left are usually pretty intellectual and can express their ideas in a rather sophisticated way.

But when I see someone say: "As a democrat, I want to make sure all gays get married and we have income redistribution and get religion out of society" I know we are dealing with a phony.


All I'm saying is that personally, I wish more people would try to err on the side of tolerance, and give new posters time to learn the ropes, and give them pointers on how to express themselves better if they seem to be exhibiting dispruptive traits.

The D&X abortion thread is a good example because, although it could be a wedge issue, it only works as a wedge when most people fail to understand what it is. That's why so many democrats supported passage of the ban. The thread was locked, and nobody left any more enlightened than before.

I personally see such a thread as a good opportunity to make it clear to those who don't know (there are many) that while it may be a very distasteful procedure, it is VERY rarely used, and should NOT be subject to a blanket ban.

Insisting on ideological purity reduces the diversity of opinion and ideas, I don't see how that's a good thing.

But I also know that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and for now it is where it is. I hope that the consensus will bring it a bit more to the side of tolerance in the future...

We are in a battle for the future of this country. We must be unified and focused. We don't need to debate friggin nitwit points from the Limpballs of this world.

After the election, OK, we can be more tolerant. I like opportunities to crush Freepers with the facts. But not right now.

The Kerry Swiftboat liars accusations, for example, are so ludicrous they obviously don't deserve to be entertained. But the democratic party is a big party whose members are often a lot more conservative than the DU mainstream. It would be a shame if DU only included one segment of the party

you will find it is set up for PROGRESSIVES. It is not necessarily for all Democrats. At least that's how I interpreted it when I signed up.

although the word "progressive" didn't stand out for me. I personally prefer the label "liberal" mainly because of how it has been demonized - I try to wear it proudly. But to me , liberalism is relatively "progressive". I think there is a wide range of people who use the term "progressive", too - ranging from hard-lefties, to fairly centrist dems.

I personally tend to be pretty left on economic issues and libertarian on social issues, but there are a few exceptions.

Anyway, I'm not afraid of a discussion with someone who disagrees with me, so long as there is some common ground. Somebody wants to privatize social security, I ain't discussing it. Period. But, for example, if I were a politician and the aforementioned "partial birth" ban had come up, I could have been persuaded to vote for it, WITH exceptions for the health of the mother, and WITH some kind of initiatives to make regular abortions more readily available where it presently it is not. That's what politics is supposed to be about - give and take, but today the democrats in Congress just give and give and never get diddly back.

I guess what I'm saying is that if our politicians were as rigid as we can sometimes be, we'd probably have trouble getting much done.

Here's a snip from the rules:

WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

To me it seems pretty clear that any and all Democrats are welcome. And that's the way it should be, IMO.

...because the political discourse has been yanked rightward by the rightwing and their collaborators in such groups as the DLC.

Being lied to for so long will drive a populace that way. It's a real struggle to get back to the truth, and a lot of conservative Dems, as sincere in their interest in doing good as they are, are simply wrong about a lot of issues, because they've been miseducated.

I know, I used to be one of them!

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

If you joined the democratic party 30 years ago, you would have been aware of the democratic party's highly successful New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's mixed bag that was the Great Society. In the last 30 years, much of those programs have been scaled back or destroyed altogether, so your contention that the "socialists" have taken over is nonsense.

Bill Clinton got the government down to its smallest in 30+ years, and our defense budget is enormous.

It was nice knowing you pal...

I've lurked over at FR, and anyone who is not a Bible-thumping, homophobic, 100% free enterprise capitalist is usually banned, at least for a time. What is liberalism, if it is not the toleration of a range of views, at least on your own side of the spectrum, for Chrissakes?

You mention abortion threads. Well, there are folks out there who believe that life starts before the sperm and egg meet (if they are unfairly prevented from doing so!), and there are those who believe that it begins at birth. There are certainly people who pick a point somewhere in between, and they have philosophical reasons for doing so, it's not just the glee at seeing "fallen women" have to suffer through childbirth. Why not respect each other's own definitions in this matter, as long as each of us does not force it upon the other?

Thank you for your thoughtful post, I debated for a long time about going from lurker to poster here, not all of my beliefs are on the far side that many folks here have, and I have tried to post carefully, to avoid being labeled as a disruptor, like I see so often on FR.

I have also sometimes made critical (or appearing critical) comments about Michael Moore, and have gotten responses accusing me of being a closet freeper. They even mention how clever it is that someone with over 1,000 posts would suddenly "show their true colors".

Apart from really pissing me off, this just reeks of old-left sectarianism, usually shown by organizations so politically pure that they are entirely irrelevant.

Damnit, some of us really do have different opinions, and put enough effort into the "cause" that we find this mightily offensive.

I shouldn't have to demonstrate the purity of my left wing views to people who think having a different opinion must make you a lurking saboteur!

I've made it very clear that, as a rule of thumb, I hate Michael Moore. I winced when he endorsed Wes Clark, and, while I appalaud "Fahrenheit 911", I'm still furious over the tripe he spouted in "Bowing for Columbine".

(Shrug) Then again, some people here may think I'm a disruptor or a spy because I'm a former LP member and a Clark supporter. Go figure

When I had about 42 posts, I was accused of being a freeper because I dared to use irony without smileys over the infamous seven minutes. After a brief exchange of postings, the accuser publicly apologized.

We are not about purity of thought, but trolls are trolls anywhere and need to be squelched everywhere.

They are often way too easy to spot to even be sport; other times, I've been wrong in my suspicions.

But sometimes, it just takes a little surface-scratching to out them.

from which they want to detract our attention.

Yes they are irritating and you have to engage with them to get them to type something so outrageous enough to get tombstoned, but keep the thread on topic. Their aim is to distract.

You're a racist if you have questions re immigration/out-insourcing.

Gun owners are insane murderers.

The middle class needs to pay more in taxes.

I suppose I have now outed my subjects, but...I grow weary.

Does this not remind you of the fundie Christians?

Religion. Bah humbug.

Having participated in threads on each of the subjects mentioned by sadiesworld and I thought having engaged in thoughtful and considerate discourse with her and others in those threads in which for the most part we all treated each other with respect and conducted ourselves with dignity, I must confess that I am somewhat surprised by the proposition advanced in this thread. I don't recall anyone saying that gunowners were "insane murderers" but a good many of us on that thread expressed our belief that private ownership of firearms has not served our nation well in the recent past and does not from all indications promise to do so in the future. The person who was not called a racist but merely told that his language was offensive on the immigration thread was tombstoned for using perjorative language and references to certain minority groups. Finally there are a good many of us including myself who believe that as a nation we are undertaxed certainly this is true when one compares our tax scheme to those of most progressive western european nations. So I for one disagree on all of the example issues listed by sadiesworld but I do so respectfully and without challenging sadiesworld's right to have a presence within this forum. I don't know if her inspiration for attacking those who disagree with her on an issue stems from paranoia, intolerance or simply confusion but I will forever support her right to express her opinions on this site. Furthermore I will applaud her for usually doing so with intelligence and style. However, in closing I feel that I must put forth this caution to all of us, disruption, interference and the seeds of discord may find their genesis in any dark corner coming from any direction...we must commit ourselves each of us individually to remaining true to our own ideals and the beliefs and fundamental values which brought us here. Allowing discord to be fomented among us is to permit our potential division and we cannot let that happen...not this year...not this election...please...I beg you all...the stakes are far too high for us to fall victim to any plot or scheme to divide us and set us against one another. Surely we here at du can disagree with one another on certain issues without attacking and questioning the credibility of any and all with whom we have that difference of opinion. Lets all try to remember exactly what there is at stake just three short months in our future and at least for that short time try to remain united and cohesive. Please.

that this thread may be a poorly disguised attack on a certain poster at this site.

I have known this particular person for many many years (in real life) and he is not only an inspired voice for the left--but he has also been at the forefront of many progressive/liberal causes throughout the last 20 years.

I am not the only person who has noticed that you are constantly attacking his posts--I am thinking of a recent post you made entitled "what a load". If you have problems with a poster--and you are not straight forward enough to resolve them through open dialog on the site--why not take your problems to directly to that person through pm?

This technique of trying to stir up trouble against a person is not a very honorable way to resolve a difference.

or Drudge story, without adding much of their own comment, and rarely return to the thread.

Other times, they just post grandiose questions, then don't return to the discussion.

their bedtimes, and ignore repetitive single issue types, but the good ones I watch. I want to see what they don't want me looking at.
DU is a diverse place for the most part, and I don't like to see anyone shout down an honest differing opinion.
But we do need to be aware of the paid posters. However, once you point them out their usefulness is lost.
So, we work through it, and like my new favorite term from some bright posters:
Kerry On!
(and then I hum CSN for the rest of the morning)
;-)

But if we're going to be suspicious of each other based on whether we represent ourselves as too conservative and too liberal - well, jeez, why bother trusting anyone at all? There's nowhere to go with that.

we can be free, or we can be free to unseat w. Perhaps DU should not be free until 11-2-04, but I would rather be free.

I am a leftie; if that makes me a Bush supporter, well, with support like me, who needs opposition?

... But, now that that's settled, isn't it time for All Us Leftists to get back to our secret designs for corrupting America's youth and implementing worldwide communism and witchcraft? ;) Arise, Comrades! On to world domination! :D

(</freeper pretending to be a DUer>)


MDN

Dominate away!

in a really unimportant, irrelevant sort of way.

My point was that for all the trolls trying to inject hard-right talking points, there are also plenty of others trying buttress that propaganda in other ways -- in particular, by falsely presenting themselves as "leftists" and then deliberately mouthing GOP stereotypes.

For example: "hi, I'm a communist and a devil-worshipper and I've always felt like an outsider, but thank god I've finally found a home here at DU."

That kind of stuff.

Another variant of this tactic involves fishing for approval of GOP stereotypes ("Let's go burn a flag! Who's with me?!"). This becomes increasingly important the further those stereotypes diverge from reality. The more this becomes the case, they more the RWers have to promote the behaviors they desire to condemn, because without such promotion those behaviors don't show up enough to be politically useful.

Lastly, there is the tendency to promote ideological divisions and excursions that will isolate or marginalize an otherwise effective movement. Books can be (and have been) written on that one, but the point is that when a RWer sees you doing something right, their primary goal is going to be to steer you away from that and onto something else. ANYTHING else. Just so long as your efficacy in opposing their agenda is reduced. Advocating for even ostensibly "left wing" positions can -- and frequently does -- come under this mantle. The key point is not in the ideology itself, but in reducing the cohesiveness and efficacy of the opposition, thereby allowing the RW to advance with greater ease.

Now, look back at my little irrelevent quip. See my point yet?


MDN

.....but it's a good thing to have the more detailed explanation for those who didn't.

sorry :7

Actually, you articulated my point far more effectively than I have.

And you will be assimilated... resistance is futile.

all your base are belong to us :)

have a nice day!

(in a very sophomoric sort of way, of course)

Latent far left impersonators probably are more dangerous than the obvious RW trolls. Not only can they turn people off from generally progressive positions with their extremism, but they usually end up corrupting far longer than any RW troll would.

A typical example would be those who consistently says things like "gun owners are racist fuckwits." That's a wonderful way to court 80 million Americans.

are also useful for right wing sites, who can run out and say "look what the loony-bins at DU are saying now."

same as it ever was.

to think that the right wing, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their views in the society would not be actively monitoring and engaging in 5th columninst work on this site is naive.

For pointing out what should be obvious, but seems tinfoil after a few responses. I was ready for the WHY we should be concerned, and IF it is truly important, but I assumed the WHETHER (it is occurring).

How can it be otherwise? :shrug:

Hey, Democrats are about "democracy" right? And one of the founding principles of our democratic government is freedom - particularly Freedom of Speech.

So let the RW infiltrators come and try to disrupt us. We'll let them speak and we'll counter their free speech with our free speech. Perhaps in the process we might actually turn some of them our way.

Wouldn't that be grand?

If you haven't noticed by now, what it takes to be a hardcore rightwinger is a twisted, deluded mind, and I mean that in all sincerity. Facts and the truth mean nothing to them -- they've spent years if not decades in avoidance mode and are quite practiced at it. Further, they've self-indoctrinated (with the help of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and so many others of course) to the point that you'd have to find just the right highly personalized entree into their little minds to create the required cognitive dissonance to "break through." And that would not be easy. Probably not unlike deprogramming dedicated cult members.

Kidding, I hope you all enjoyed that topic line for a good laugh. I think it is possible to convert an infiltrator, but it's not something that will happen every day, week or even month.

followers frequented this site. As soon as the election was over they disappeared!

how do I know who I can trust here?

So far people have been so nice to me--but now you are telling us that we need to watch out for everyone and not trust anybody!

And that those are appear to be on the left are no more to be trusted than those on the right!

This is very disturbing to me. It makes me feel tremendously paranoid to think that some nice person may be a Rove operative!

I hope that we don't all get so paranoid that we begin fighting amongst ourselves--or that we end up stifling the free speech of anyone slightly to the right or the left of the majority. That would be tragic--and it would be a win for Rove and his gang of thugs.

It's classic game theory: The police arrest two men on minor charges and try to get each one to provide evidence against the other on more serious charges by promising to let him off if he does. But the deal is only good if the other guy remains silent -- if they both accuse each other, they'll be worse off than if they had both kept mum.

Obviously, it's in the interests of the police to stir up discord between the two, make each of them believe the other is prepared to rat him out or has even already done so. And the prisoners will be best prepared to resist that if they have some sort of mafia-style code of honor that that not only compels their silence but gives each one confidence in the other's loyalty.

We at DU are already in the prisoner's dilemma, in the sense that there are those out there who want nothing more than for us to turn on each other -- but with the added complication that those attempting to sow discord are posing as our fellow prisoners.

In a situation like that, you will never know who you can trust, and trying to figure it out will only make you paranoid. The only real answer is to follow a path of right action -- to be true at every point to yourself and to what you believe in. If you do that -- if you have your own personal code of honor and obey it implicitly -- you can't be duped, you can't be demoralized, and can't be induced to betray anyone else.

In practice, this largely consists of paying attention to the message rather than the messanger. If someone tells you something that seems unreliable, check it out. If someone gives you a message that makes you feel either irrational hope or irrational despair, be wary of it. If someone tries to lure you into acts that go against your conscience, tell them so in no uncertain terms. If someone you don't know intimately asks for confidential information, tell them that would be inappropriate. If someone gives you a wrong vibe at any point, be more skeptical of them in the future.

These are the ordinary, common-sense rules of everyday social interaction that you would rely on instinctively in any business or hobby group. But they apply just as well among prisoners. And if you follow them consistently and avoid hysteria, you can't go too far wrong.

Douglas Hofstadter did an analysis on the extended prisoner's dilemma (Scientific American Mathemagical Themas). What he found was that it is only a dilemma in one time propositions and end-games. In other words, if you think this is the last time you're going to interact with someone, then you'll be inclined to try to maximize the outcome in your favor. But if you expect a long term relationship, then there is no dilemma; looking out for the interests of the other guy is in your own self interest. i.e., this is the origin of cooperation.

Where am I going with this? A very simple proposition:

The reason the Repugs have screwed us so badly these past four years is that they don't expect to remain in power for long. Therefore, it is in their own interest to get as much advantage as they can before they get thrown out of office.

The irony is that in doing so, they just about guaranteed that is EXACTLY what's going to happen.

IMHO :evilgrin:

Trust yourself.

Why trust anonymous internet posters, who you will probably never meet in real life?

Just enjoy the wealth of material they bring, and don't get caught up in the shit.

And don't forget to balance out your DU experience with plenty of Bartcop, Smirking Chimp, The Dumbya Chronicles, (my old friends from Media Whores Online's defunct forum,) and of course the intrepid bloggers, especially Kos and Atrios.

There are lots of good sources for information now, besides the idiot mainstreamers/lamers, and DU is only one of them.

I think this site must skew young, based on a lot of the threads I read, but that's only a guess.

You can trust me, if you want, but I wouldn't. Remember what Willie Dixon said:

I don't trust nobody
Not even myself
Well I don't trust you and I don't trust nobody else

I think it's in A, but I could be wrong.

It would be if I wrote it.

Generally, if they're infiltrators, you'll find they're writing the sort of things we associate with the freepers. Not in terms of their opinions, but in terms of threats, namecalling, racism and the like.

That way the Right-wing pundits can quote them and say they're typical of the sort of crazies you find on DU.

Just something to watch out for, folks. If you see someone with a low post total threatening death to Bush or making fun of the Bush twins in a very low common denominator way, it's possible they're logging on from Rove's offices.

I have no idea how some posters made it to that many posts, when they so heavily reek of rightwing talking points and bullshit arguments.

(That does NOT include you, btw! :) )

Muddle was one.

I always thought he was just a very conservative (and extremely annoying) democrat. I thought it amazing that he used MLK as an avatar, but was totally against the "income redistribution" that MLK favored...

People who have to take the opposite view on any subject just to be different, or difficult.

Never could stand him. Glad he got banned.

there was an infiltrator who was trying to pass them-self off as a 'lefty' claimed to be hardcore left on a laundry list of stuff and wanted everyone else to tell them why Kerry was "Liberal" enough for them to support. It was obvious they thought they had a clever way of getting us to tell them how BIG a Liberal Kerry is so they could go back to the freak republic and brag on outing Kerry. I tried to find the post but couldn't but they were "tombstoned" within probably an hour of posting and never made it beyond a dozen and a half posts.

:)

In my life I've encountered:

* Young men raised in a CPUSA home--there were bullet holes in the living room wall from an early 60's drive-by.

* An old Wobbly who was a veteran of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade

* SDS'ers with trust funds; not all of them did, I know, just the ones I met.

* Socialist Workers Party members; I've even bought their paper & gone to a few meetings co-sponsored by them.

* A gentle Marxist-Buddhist-Vegetarian who was also a good VW mechanic.

All of these people called themselves (& each other) all sorts of things. But they never used the phrase "Far Leftist"!

That would be terrific!

Not just the Yahoo slug fests though. Vocabulary, tone and the very common tandem approach where they settle in dominate and flame out whole boards if possible. In the matched pairs it has been my experience it is like tag team wrestling, though sometimes with fake differences to keep the dialog going. I even wonder how stupid the enraged baited "victims" really are who also perpetuate killing threads. The smart guys, the ones with the references, the citations, the statistics wielded with that sadistic pomp, usually need backup after a while since the books- if delved into- are actually shallow and cooked and spun outrageously. Take one out, the others crumble fast.

If they really could imitate decent democrats, not smug tricksters wallowing in shallow wit disguised in what they think impresses and disarms, it would be like changing their brain. By repeating the decency act so much they would in fact be contributing not destroying and in imminent danger of converting themselves to sanity(which has happened in history at least, such is the power of truth).

The only ones to fear are those who in no way believe in any cause or what the RW holds dear. Pure paid actors, spooks. But what could these accomplish in the moral spirit of DU? The scent of sulfur always begins to rise, the purpose, the familiar terminology, the direction that makes the effectiveness of infiltration so minimal here.

But it is too easy to stir up the nest among the honest, the sincere. Shout Nader in a crowded room, feed the flame bait in the borderlands between groups. Get someone to go overboard with quotable hate to be quoted in the press(or post it themselves if they can keep it from being removed). Hasten outrage, misinform, confuse. Argue past all logic.

Paranoia? Itself a destructive purge? From what I have seen they have left a vapor trail that actually grows DU in confidence and strength, because what we are up against is not a deep thinking alternative ideology- it is a type. Maybe not all a**es vote for Bush, but all who do with vincible ignorance pretty much are, and it cripples their cognitive and rhetorical talents into the mere sophistry of deception, especially self-deception. Self-interest and bloated egos emanate like
post done in all caps.

It has actually helped create etiquette and boundaries that have increased value in DU where, absent attack, we might have naturally have descended into those mistakes which the blundering Bushistas are trying to inculcate. Like a Venezuelan coup, or the sorry propaganda minus any trust in the media props. here we have rendered the bogeyman pathetic, a loser revealed, a Mephistophelian argument really not worth the bother. No longer are we bound to play their game by their rules, and we can wonder now why we ever felt obligated to the trap, since we know what building and tearing down is about in a responsible civic society in crisis.

Here's why:

When I found DU almost 2 years ago, it was my perception that most of the board was "far left." By the time the primary campaign was in full swing, moderates began appearing and/or making themselves heard more frequently. Still fine. By this spring, it became obvious to me that DU was dividing into moderate and "far left" factions. There seemed to be many more moderates, and many of those, on the march to November, seemed determined to sweep the "far left" under the rug of the Democratic Party. Obviously a popular tactic, if the convention is any indication.

All of this is still fine; Democrats aren't all, or, these days, even mostly, "far left."

But when the next step is to suggest that some of those "far lefties" remaining on the board are Rove/RW plants, I am disturbed. It seems like the next step in a pretty determined campaign to silence the "far left." Yes, I know you spared a couple of seconds on the keyboard to acknowledge "those genuinely on the far left who have passionate, well-articulated positions." Then focusing on the real "threat."

This itself seems like a RW/Rovian/McCarthy-like tactic, to raise fear/concern about "infiltrators," as a way to paint the far left as some sort of threat, and further marginalize/disenfranchise them.

If you think you've found a disruptor, hit the alert button. Don't respond to their nonsense; the thread dies quite quickly with no response. I think that people who allow a disruptor to push their buttons and drag them into a flamewar do the disruptors a favor by keeping their crap on the front page, myself.

If all else fails, hit your ignore button. It isn't conducive to party unity, or to the atmosphere on DU, to participate in a campaign to oust the "far left."

Or the Conservative Dem? Either flip side would seem natural choices but I think they might just try to insinuate themselves into loyalties where suddenly their RW underpinnings and vocabulary suddenly jars.

ALL groups on DU fight, even competing boards. Their have been sincere Socialists, enraged atheists, crusading Greens, various flavors of anti-DLC, anti this candidate or that, but never except for the odd post has it descended one way or another to the horror show that is Free republic. Why? because they are mainly good people with basic underlying values and a sense of self worth that respects others.

We constantly have people disappointed when all is not glowing with harmony good will and consensus and the specter of outside boards or conformity invades the illusion. The reality is free discussion by a people dedicated to freedom when that word itself is compromised in the culture. Keeping a sense of critical humor and strength is paramount and healthy. A sense of purpose too. This is not Paradise or immutable or guaranteed. Everyone should help to keep it alive, because this indefinable something is rare.

Without going back to reread it, my understanding (as a pretty far Lefty myself, mind you) is that what she was talking about are those who pretend to be far left. Faux leftists. I've seen them. So have you, probably. Sometimes they even adopt real leftist-sounding IDs. They are caricatures of a leftist, sometimes more skillfully done than other times. I don't think you and I are in any danger here of being ousted, or thought of as rightwing plants. :evilgrin:

:P

I know she was talking about Faux leftists, and I know they are out there, just like the Faux centrists are. My concern is more about encouraging suspicion. I think the "faux" are pretty easy to spot and ignore or alert, as seems appropriate. By ramping up the suspicion, we give them more power than they really have, and we legitimize casting the rest of us lefties as possible plants, whether it's believable or not.

You make a good point, though. There are some of us who are not at risk of being "outed."

:evilgrin:

for whom "suspicion" is a GOOD thing. I don't want DU infiltrated, and AFAIC far more of it has gone on than should have.

all know this happens. I have no doubt about it. There's not much that can be done about it, but they sure are pathetic. Probably compatriots of the swift boat anti-Kerry people and hired by the same neocons.

when I was employed as a psychiatric social worker, I helped facilitate a number of "groups." A significant part of group dynamics is "dispute resolution." This can include in family therapy, jail groups, and even meetings between agencies.

My favorite "style" of dispute resolution was based on a program started in the 1970s for working within the jails of NYC. It was later expanded in scope, and some valuable additions were contributed by the women of the traditional Iroqious society.

It helps define differences of opinion, without increasing tensions to a point where there is verbal or physical violence. Everyone's rights are respected, and the inability to respect other's rights kind of marks one as "the problem."

I'm curious if anyone thinks that this type of information could be of value on DU? Not a rigid set of rules, but a flexible set of guidelines that promotes active discussions where differences are not as likely to create divisions. I think it might be good, not only to isolate the right-wingers who do seem to pop up from time to time, but even more so to help insure that the potential for divisions within our community does not increase.

****on edit: the group format was started by a group of Quackers.

I've known people who were involved in the restorative justice movement, which is clearly related to what you're talking about, and I have a lot of respect for it. But so much of what happens there seems to depend on personal interactions -- such as bringing offenders and victims face-to-face and compelling them to recognize one another as human beings. Is it really possible do to that in text messages alone? And how would you get the people who needed it most to participate?

As I think about it, I can imagine something like a conflict resolution forum, where the most contentious issues are brought up in a highly controlled environment, but I don't think it could be done in the free-form manner of most of DU. It would take hands-on moderation by people with experience in conflict resolution, because otherwise things could easily get out of hand. As a result, it would probably have to be scheduled in advance for certain limited time-slots.

At present, I think anything like that might be more of a nuisance than a benefit. But if things get more contentious here -- as could easily happen after the election (no matter what the outcome) -- it might be worth considering.

Perhaps doing nothing different is the best, as DU works quite well as it is. Another option would be to have a small group of select people who work in the manner of the moderators, but are more pro-active in their participation in certain threads. There would be obvious requirements: for example, if there is a subject that is very hard for one of these people to remain objective about, they wouldn't try to "referee" it. I think that it is an idea that has potential.

Their mission? Create dissension.

into your mind it will creep"

there seemed to be an effort to create bad blood. Exaggerating the bad feelings between Kerry and Dean, for example.

Some supporters on both sides that were very vocal about their candidate, and very down on the other candidate, and who are no longer with us.

when someone posts something they don't want seen or talked about, they quick make many new posts so that that post flies off the first page faster then the speed of light.

Attempting to discredit certain ideas by using your trickery.

Just playing Devil's Advocate mind, but, other than the regular freeper dumbasses, what would be achieved by infiltrating us?

The whole freeper troll thing is way overblown. So what if they troll here? The mods do a pretty good job keeping this place clean.

Keeping movements from being coherent and actually effecting change is one of their games. Wait until they get serious.
For more info google Judy Bari and Fred Hampton.

Of course, this is only my opinion...

Somewhat related:

Somehow, all my local news stations, all the news reporters - at least, all the stories that I have seen (granted, I don't watch the news very much) paint unions in a bad light, and make Christians look like the victims of athiests and secularists... The news rarely gives the perspectives of unions or secularists.

It's all about public opinion. And any way the RWers/corporations/capitalists can manipulate public opinion to benefit themselves, they'll do it without thinking twice.

..their actions often have no logic beyond spite.

and not just complaints or divisive rhetoric. A genuine leftist will believe that the world can be made a better place, and that there are actions we can take to help move the world in that direction. Most of the disruptors are unable to understand the kind of hope that drives us. They are limited by their cliched and fallacious understanding of who we are, so their attempts to paint themselves as leftists comes off as cartoonish.

But yeah, there's plenty of them.

Of course RW losers try to post on here surreptitiously. After a while, you can read between the lines. A calm, rational or "sarcastic lite" response is the best antidote. They don't ever reply.
More urgently, I find that some topics are so hot-button that the whole DU crowd gets mega stirred up.
There are going to be disagreements here, but don't immediately assume that someone is a poser. I have had this happen to me and I have to laugh every time. My Yellow Dawg voting record speaks for itself. (Just voted Tuesday -straight Democratic punches!)
Let them come. Actually, this is the best place they can come be enlightened, and who knows, some may be converted if they stick around to read enough posts. They are just 'fraidy pants.

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

Too bad you can't stay...

the SS & Vaderlund Sekurity undoubtable have plants here to categorize those dangerous to the regime & to lure the unsuspecting into "seditious" comments: remember, "entrapment" is valid under the "Hatriot Acht".

i suspect a fair amount of "disinformation" is posted, also.

That's an old FReeper trick! The wolf pack attack has been going on, on these dem boards since early 2001! I've seen as many as five Freeps on one little board at one time! The mods at DU do a DAMNED FINE JOB of keeping the peace! The best way to deal with the fleas and ticks is not to respond if you suspect! The Alert button works!

All that being said, this cat loves to play with a mouse as much as anyone, so I know how hard it is not to light the slimy bastids up!

It's much more dangerous that Du would be infiltrated by a right-winger, than say, a paranoia driven witch hunt. The motivation of those that don't agree with the majority can only be ascribed to a desire to disrupt. Lists must be created and maintained just as some have already announced that they are doing. Since there's a good possibility that Mary's list will have different names than Joe's, they should be submitted to the mods weekly to create a master list. The mods will then have to weed out the posers lists', much like they tombstone them now.

OR

Let the mods do their jobs.

I agree it's a problem because it's not always obvious to everybody. But when you see a thread with 200 responses and 150 are from two to three people, you have to be suspicious.

How about we purge the DLC apologists? The ones who applaud every compromise with the rupugs as being "realistic" "practical" or "needed to win".

Seems like they have a lot more in common with the Bush/Rove cabal than those naughty "leftists" who dare to point out the hypocrisy and timidity of "our" leaders.

There is a left wing of the Democratic Party. Get over it, we aren't going away, and we aren't going to shut up.

Personally, I think it's pretty easy to tell when people post things they don't believe in.

Christian trolls, I don't think this kind of far left wing language helps. It's exactly what happens to me everytime I put up a "I hate fundies" thread. As a matter of fact, I got tombstoned last Sunday and still haven't been able to figure out why. I'm back thanks to Mongo. I did post a "I see dead Christians" thread that day that referred to the 5 church bombings in Iraq. I put a disclaimer that it was a joke (takeoff from I see dead people in Sixth Sense) but got attacked anyway by the "Your making us all look bad" crowd. As you remember the "your making us all look bad crowd" came out in force during the Saint Raygun funeral. Which really pissed off the anti-Raygun forces on this board, a lot of whom were black. The whole thing died when MoPaul finally started a thread that was only for people who wanted to make us look bad. I'm highly suspect of people who try to demonize the more outspoken far left DUer's. Or Christian DUer's who never have one bad thing to say about George Bush's most loyal base. It's just my opinion but I don't think Duer's should be able to use the alert button unless they have 5000 posts. I've never used it once.

I said it first! I said it first!

Seriously, though, most of the time I can spot 'em a mile away. They're usually not smart enough not to be totally f*cking transparent-- after all, look where they come from.

I have no doubts that there are paid infiltrators lurking and posting and trying to manufacture dissent and disillusion. I mean, c'mon, if they can train my local news reporters to give unions and secularists the short shaft - if even the local news is important enough a tool for the RW to use to control public opinion - then DU is probably more important. Hey, it's anonymous; there's no accountability; a lot of people come here for information.

As far as attacks and infiltrators and agent provocatuers themselves...

I hope caution doesn't lead to paranoia.

I have seen DUers get treated like sh*t for not being thrilled with the Democratic Party as it is. I imagine the "real Democrats" think the "dissentors" are Nader- or Bush-supporters trying to draw people away from voting for Kerry.

And maybe they are, and maybe they aren't.

But when I see liberals get treated sh*tty for being too liberal - for being too liberal and still calling themselves Democrats - I have to wonder who the infiltrator really is.

Wow... You mean somewhere, some doofus is actually receiving a paycheck for logging on and posting drivel like--- "I'm a liberal democrat fully committed to Bush losing in 2004.. But I can't help thinking that Michael Moore was just plain unfair to Bush in Fahrenheit 911"

Wow. What a cushy gig! Who says Bush hasn't created "jobs"?

Personally, I think "too liberal" and "not liberal enough" are two sides of the same coin. Ideally we can put our differences aside to work for common goals, the most immediate being Nov. 2-- Personally, I consider myself pretty damn liberal, but I've actually been called "reactionary" here (and not in a "you're advocating an extreme position you don't believe in" sense), for instance, because I had the nerve to say I oppose the drug war, and I also don't think the government has any business regulating what consenting adults do with each other or with their own bodies, and I don't think the government has any business censoring (provided, again, we're talking about consenting adults) what people watch, read, etc... Yeah, I'm pretty "reactionary", over here.

I think dealing with the obvious freeps is one thing, and seems to be handled fairly well.

Trying to enforce one particular narrow ideological party line (I mean more narrow than, yes, we are all democrats, and we all presumably want to be rid of this nightmare of an administration this fall) is a horse of a different color, and I personally think it's anti-democratic and anti-free discourse.... particularly when it's insidiously done in the guise of "outing" so-called disruptors.

maybe even likely, to have paid infiltrators perpetuating a disinformation campaign, and a divisive campaign.

But I'm not going to insist that you believe it.

I find it oddly funny that you would be called "reactionary" for opposing the drug war. Opposing the drug war implies - to me, at least - that you're better informed than the average joe... Hardly "reactionary"...

Those who treat the Democratic Party like it's an elite club - Conform or you're not a member - are the one's I'm wary of. Even so, it's a fine line. How can anyone really know for sure?

I'd love to see proof of this. Does anyone here know anyone who has ever been paid to post disinformation to political websites and internet news forums? The net is full of whackos already, without having to create more.

No, these people are not paid. They're bored ideologues with far too much free time on their hands. And after their masters turn on them like a black widow does on it's mate, we'll not be hearing any more from these cronies..........

They've got whackos who'll do it for free.

:silly:

for my 'alternative' spelling of wacko (or whacko). In short, I was just goofing around.

I didn't mean to correct your spelling. For all I know, "whacko" is right and I misspelled...

I meant to stress that wackos (or whackos) will infiltrate for free. I wonder if there aren't professionals, linguists like Frank Luntz, trying to misdirect and misinform and divide and provoke and whatever... That's what I meant to convey... ("Yeah, the wackos will do it for free; the professionals would expect to get paid...")

(edited because I finally understood)

you're a paid disruptor!

could I possibly satisfactorily prove or disprove it?

I can tell you why it's possible: public opinion is that important to RWers.

Maybe you can tell me why it's so unlikely...? Why it's so ridiculous of an idea that you would laugh it off...?

It's possible that there are martians making crop-circles in the midwest corn fields too.

I just don't think it's likely.

Proof would be for one of them to out their buddies and break the oath of silence. The CIA is full of people like that, visit your local library; many books by ex-spooks telling the way things really are.

Maybe one of these internet disinfo spooks has written a book about his or her conquests?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

apparently it was too obvious who was breaking the rules that way, lol.

that many of those posts did not break any rules.

IS allowed, I thought.


I'd compare it to Nightline's Swiftvets for Bush coverage -- an attempt to be 'fair to both sides' lol.

:shrug:

I think part of the mistake I made was in that I referred to myself as (small-l) "libertarian on social issues", which I believe some confuse with the Big-L Libertarian Party... I think my response was, in effect, that I wasn't aware of organizations like the ACLU being particularly "reactionary"

I have come across some who believe that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with their particular brand of liberalism, or disagrees with them on certain pet issues, isn't a "real" liberal.

I say, you want to know where I stand, read my blog, or - if that's not enough, I will be happy to share the past 2 decades of my voting record with ya.

That's what the rwingers used to accuse me of back in the good old days when there was still a USSR to blame for "infiltrators".

I would train and pay a few propagandists to infiltrate DU and a few other Dem forums.

They brag about infiltrating DU and making a mockery out of Liberals and such. One tactic is to caricaturize a leftist and to make their persona out to be so leftwing that no one could compete. Then when anyone takes the bait and tries to refute thier nonsense, they report them to the Site Admin as being a freeper.

Fortunately, DU moderators are often too smart for this tactic.

someone might think that my motivations are other than pure. I'm sort of a leftist libertarian, meaning that my whole worldview is based on Marxist-feminist critique, basically, but that, at the same time, I don't believe that government and taxes can fix everything.

At this time, I stick with the Democrats for two reasons: even though I believe in classical liberalism, and a lot more "personal responsibility" (from the poor to the rich), I believe we've already fucked things up so much, and concentrated so much wealth and power, that the libertarian solution is only good in a vacuum, or if you have a time machine.

The second reason is that I consider the Christian Right to be an infestation, and since the GOP is rife with this ideology, it behooves me to stand with the group most likely to punk their asses. Meaning the Democratic Party, or a united left.

I do want to say, though, that I do share some things in common with right wingers -- I'd like to see governance (that doesn't have to do with basic civil liberties, which should be federal) acted out on state and local levels, I do believe in protectionism, not pre-emption (which is an element of paleoconservatism -- though the new GOP with its neocons, when falling back on the "humanitarian" argument, are basically justifying the leftist/Roussau-ian claim to governance), and I believe that property tax is the equivalent of theft, and that the tax system needs an overhaul.

I also believe in personal responsibility, for everyone -- not just the "welfare class," but that businesses should not be subsidized, nor granted human status, that consumers are responsible for their choices and to whom they offer their labor, and that people are responsible for helping, monetarily and physically, their neighborhoods and communities, and that everyone who can work, should. Unfortunately, it is not just the GOP, but DEMOCRATS TO A LARGE EXTENT, and even the poor, who we're trying so desperately to protect, are some of the worst, or at least equally egregious participants in the soulless pursuit of waste, laziness and consumerism.

I've worked with poor people, who, when they got their EIC and tax returns back, upwards of three grand, from having four kids blew it on GAP clothes and stereos, when they barely had a pot to piss in, the state was paying their back electricity bills, and they were on food stamps. There's no excuse for this shit. Ever. I don't care how you're socialized.

Now, that said, I also do not believe that poor children are ever responsible for the actions of their parents, and that for pennance of living in this great society, we do not have certain debts to our fellow citizens, such as the disabled, the elderly, the sick and children -- because, for some people there IS NO OTHER ANSWER than charity or government, and government is more dependable, and doesn't come with evangelism.

However, think about it. Part of the reason that people don't have support systems are because the individual family home, a partial construct of consumerism/capitalism, which seeks to cut you off, symbolically, from the care and debt of your extended family. Why? To create a "standardized unit" to participate in the consumer process. If people were forced to take care of their elderly parents, they might not have so much goddamn money to spend on Princess Cruises and SUVs.

We complain all the time about the rich, but the rich don't get rich, in OUR system, without the participation of a fleet of willing employees and millions of consumers. Again, I think the rich are slimy and dodge their "personal responsibility," but I see some problems with calling in the government to clean up the mess that we've made by being greedy and stupid consumers.

I don't have all the answers -- this all piggybacks, and some of it is no good in "real time," but only in theory.

One thing that I will argue, though, is that I have the same goals as the left -- there's no malice, or believing that a certain race or people is "better than another," or Social Darwinism, or that, when worse comes to worse, that you would turn away another human in need.

It took me a long time to "get" it, but the large government benefits the ruling class and the corporocracy, as much as it does the left -- probably a lot more.

A complete societal re-organization, both in terms of priority and lifestyle is in order. It's very unlikely -- and I believe that any GOPer/Libertarian who thinks that the solution to everything is to roll back government, without addressing the fact that the damage has already been done, and wealth concentration, corporate organization, infrastructure, etc., would have to be rolled back as well, is fucking insane, and is a tool and a pawn.

Just because you don't like "paying your taxes," doesn't mean that systematically privitizing things are going to solve our problems. That's just horseshit, and the common jackass who believes this IS being fully manipulated by the rich. It's a bait-and-switch deal, like the lower class white male who votes against his own interests.

I am more interested in personal responsibility, classical liberalism, syndicalism, consumer responsibility, virtue, community and extended family solutions, etc.

This does not make me a right-wing whack job -- on the contrary, it wasn't until I saw the sickness, hypocrisy and hatred that is the GOP, for me to question my own allegiance to state socialism.

So, if anyone is tempted to label me a troll, please don't. I stand with you. I'm voting for Kerry -- I've never, in fact, voted for anyone but a Democrats in my entire life. I still, however, believe that before any change takes place in government, it first has to take place in people. And that starts with awareness of what civil rights are, personal responsibility, humility, etc.

I think the left is actually far closer to realizing these things, but identity politics, the lack of self-sacrifice, and the same propensity to be brainless consumers as anyone else, keeps us from this.

It's really too bad. Anyway. I'm not a right winger, but sometimes my arguments will seem to come from the right. Sorry this is so long. I get on a roll...:)

I think I agree with everything you wrote. There are a lot of people siding with the Democrats not necessarily out of concurrence of ideologies, but because of justice and conscientiousness.

not all who write posts here are freepers or DU purists.

Bashing Kerry=enabling Chimp. Enabling Chimp=dumb.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.


Vote for Kerry.

But I will not support him in any other way. When I talk to those I meet and the Prez election comes up, I always tell them that I dislike Kerry but am voting for him because Bush is the worse Prez this country has ever had. That is the only kind of support Kerry gets from me.

If you can't generate genuine enthusiasm then you don't belong in our party. Now, get out!!! :spank: :spank: :spank: ;-)

You don't have to be a Democrat to vote for Kerry.

All you have to be is a registered voter with a sincere love of country.

you must be enthusiastic or we don't want your vote.

I simply can't wait until Dubya gets kicked out of the White House.

in order to read or post on DU.

Insomniacs recommend it. :evilgrin:

If you're not sure about someone, do a search. If you see someone who repeatedly knocks dem/lib ideas and candidates, while never criticizing repukes.....

It's not that big of a problem.

but I would think it would be fairly transparent. At least that's what I hope, because I sometimes post opinions that are contrary to the average Dem. If I only posted when I agreed, all my posts would look like this : "Hear hear", "I agree", "You are so right", "Ditto".
Sounds pretty boring to me. I wouldn't want to scare people from some good, honest debating. Sometimes it's good to have a devil's advocate. If we become too rigid, we become them. :puke:

upon a time I was in the same shoe as you're on today, and I could not imagine the response I got, it was unbelievable.

I know exactly your, don't want to go into details but it saddens me to see that sometimes it feels like the fighting is in vain, how we can allow these trolls to come here and dictate the pace is beyond me. I suppose the SAGA continues, it never stops.

They will forever feel that they have the upper hand, because we allow them to be obnoxious and arrogant (stiff upper lip, look down the nose mothafuckers).

:mad:

This thread has gotten old fast. It is taking valuable time in which we could all be working together toward achieving the common goal of kicking rw ass in the upcoming elections and instead has us all now suspiciously eyeing one another. Okay...I too have fallen victim to this thing...in going back and reviewing posting by this "sadiesworld" I find that she consistently espouses views that are quite far from being progressive. Now she has created dissension and suspicion with this post. Perhaps she is more right than we even know...perhaps there is a rw plant here on the du whose purpose is to stir up some trouble, create a little discord and set us against one another. If that is the case and I am not saying that it is...because I don't know for sure...none of us except for "sadiesworld" does, well then, she has been pretty effective in accomplishing her objectives. In closing let me say that I sincerely hope that it is not the case that "sadiesworld" has any nefarious motives because I for one have generally found her to be articulate and capable of presenting her ideas and opinions in a concise, cohesive and well organized manner...I just always seem to disagree with those ideas and opinions finding them far from the progressive ideals that I and hopefully so many of you cherish.

I am still new here and have written some posts that some may take as "not Lefty enough," whatever that means. I'm not a freeper or RW, but I could see how my posts could be taken that way. Frankly, I've been shocked by the sexism and nastiness on these boards more than once (calling any woman someone disagrees with a ho or worse, name-calling, flat-out personal attacks), and I've even left the boards for a few days to calm down. I don't think those posts were by freepers (too many of them), but there were intolerant in their own way. It's a big board and we should work to make sure everyone, even new posters, feels welcome to express true opinions.

Instead of wasting time on trying to find moles and subdividing even further, let's work together to make sure Kerry is elected in November!

Thank you. And although I am even newer than you...welcome to the du. All of us should be able to express our views without being attacked or even looked upon suspiciously.

*YOUR* right to free speech is SO IMPORTANT that it overrides my right to criticize what you say.

:crazy:

Question my motives?

Try these on:

The "outsourcing" (or increased insourcing if * is successful w/ the Indo-US FTA) hits closer to home every day. My SO and I will go from a REASONABLE middle class existence to the soup lines in a NY minute if * has his way.

SS-We have put in over $75K b/t the two of us. I LIKE the idea of an insurance policy, but I have NO DOUBT that * will destroy SS in a second term. Aside from the fact that it would be DISASTROUS to invest the $ privately...does anyone REALLY think the cabal will reimburse them for the payments previously made?????

* will destroy the housing market--major bubble burst here we come!!!!

All of this is aside from the fact that I don't want to live in a Banana Republic. I worry about the environment, corruption, education, women's rights, science & technology, etc.

Sorry, you don't impress me much.

Made in this last post and as usual made articulately and intelligently...you do impress me...guess its fortunate though that my objectives do not include impressing you. A bit disengenious though to present that little progressive sounding market list of issues and positions while ignoring your recent pro-gun and anti-tax and immigration stances taken in recent threads...not to mention the dissent and discord you have managed to create with this one. If indeed this is "sadiesworld" it is a "scaryworld" indeed. I don't want to beat this thing to death...so this will be my last word on this subject and hopefully also on you. All the best.

Damn, and all this time I was really a repig? Whaddya know?

on edit-- no disrespect intended </ingratiating reasonableness>-- I just hate to see people's paranoia stoked up everytime someone disagrees with the party line.

I don't know about you, but i don't really care. Let them say
whatever and make a more eloquent argument for your views. In free
speech, the one who has the cajones to speak the truth, is the winner.

I infiltrated DU years ago to speak up, as clearly saying nothing
was not working. Frankly, i've not labels for me own political veiws,
and rather look at each discussion as unique; a moment to share
shakespearean dialoge with another writer.

As it turns out, my views are much more radical left than the
democratic party. They are also much more radical right given my
love of libertarian values.

It takes a lotta time and energy to write on DU, and to make a
concerted effort. I respect all who give it a try, as amongst the
darkest demons of hell, even, we'll find converts.

Be patient, we're winning.