I’m sick of DU bullies and cowards hiding behind anonymity

In my opinion, there are far too many ugly sentiments expressed on DU these days. Perhaps it was always thus, but I’ve begun to notice it more and more.

I’m not talking about original posts, or posts by those who disagree with the OP. I’m talking about the extreme rudeness, insults and intentional cruelty of some DUers.

Someone complains about something and the “Quit Whining” crowd shows up.

Someone posts an unpopular opinion and, rather than a counter argument, too many are content to tell the OP that he/she is an imbecile, using words that don't break DU rules.

Someone posts something that not too many people are interested in and they’re told to “Get a Life.” If it's something you're not interested in, why not just go to another thread without hurling an insult?

And even on what most would consider an “intelligent post,” there are always those who will tell the OP that he/she is insane, again using words that don’t break DU rules.

I read DU far more often than I post. But, over time, I’ve noticed that many of the bullies and cowards are the same people. I have no idea what they’re problems are, but they are taking them out on us. And they are doing so because they can do it anonymously.

Why am I using the terms “bullies” and “cowards?” Because they say things online that they would never say to someone’s face. And this is the worst form of being a bully or coward. They are totally avoiding the possibility of getting slapped, or punched out.

I can’t wait to see how many bullies and/or cowards show up on this thread.

for every person who rails at any criticism whatsoever, there's someone that never got over the primaries or who thinks kucinich is the only real dem, and their goal is to make the board as miserable as they can for the obama supporters.

insn't that cute?

the cheerleader\pom pom shit gets used here ad nauseum as well.

there's a huge difference between people that have valid concerns and those who have done nothing but complain and smear, on every single issue, going back for the last year +.

It's like someone's reading things off of a list.

I'm not talking about the civil posts disagreeing with Kucinich, I'm talking about a certain variety of uncharacteristically vile posts that pop up from the same posters, as if on cue.

It's totally out of character for DU in a non-primary season.

in my opinion, i think people in positions like DK get to say things without the backlash a president would get for saying the same thing.

i think dennis would get more results being a party organizer than a legislator.

I also don't see the same name-calling of Obama I see towards Dennis.

I also happen to know the insurance lobby has made Dennis public enemy number one, since he drafted a single payer plan. IMO, the VILE attacks on Kucinich are an extension of that lobby's attempt(or Obama & Rahm's attempt) to take single-payer off the table. Doubly effective if you can diffuse the argument for single payer on the blogosphere. It's pretty cheap to hire people to influence the blogosphere--as opposed to paying for publicity in traditional print media. Why wouldn't they?

thread, the OP is expressing their concerns as he is entitled to, so please do not hijack this
thread by discussing DK, thank you very much.

Let it go...

... wine."

Really sounds like someone who'd hate DK, huh?

Nobody listens.

since that was never really politically on the table. It does get a little tiring hearing some people constantly whining about something that is not possible.

There's that W word, but it's hard to avoid. Some people here are not gonna like any health care reform bill that is not single payer and others here would like to see a good bill passed rather than a bad one.

As for why wouldn't the insurance lobby pay people to oppose single payer on the blogosphere? Because they don't have to. There's already a solid 40% of Americans who are dead set against single payer, and probably another 40% who realize it is politically impossible. You don't hire somebody to win the game for you when you are already ahead 52-6 with two minutes to go.

I sincerely doubt that 80% (40 opposed, 40 discouraged - what % favoring?) have any idea what single-payer is. As it gets NO coverage in the MSM, I would guess that no more than 60% of the population has even a clue as to what it is - and the more a person knows about it, the better it looks.

You have maybe 3% dead set against it - those who make their livings sucking money out of the system as it is. That 3% has scared a huge number into opposing something that they don't understand. The entire reason you can say '40% dead set against it' is because of the efforts of the 3% to influence that 40%, through such things as editorials, ad campaigns and, yes, the blogosphere. They have billions to lose - why wouldn't they pay a hundred schmucks 20K each to bad talk single payer as a part time gig? They know they can only win the game when THEY control the scorekeeping.

Companies spend millions on fake grass roots astroturfing campaigns on the internet. I regularly get ads to post positive reviews on sites for cash. Why would anyone not think that the GOP wouldn't spend some time on campaigns to disrupt groups such as ours?

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

Very funny!! But sick.

the voters in maine you should blame. when was the last time you saw a president involved in a state referendum?

and your riff on the old cult meme isn't that clever.

As for Obama's lofty distance from the common man... your argument doesn't hold water. Where is the beer summit for Maine LGBT families that were stripped of equality last night?

His sudden embrace of states' rights is puzzling. If his parents had been refused marriage rights or forced into an interracial civil union, Obama would be lucky to be head Janitor somewhere in Kansas right now.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, really I'm not. However, this complacency or outright hostility toward marriage equality among democrats starts at the top.

I would hate to think that I missed qualifying for either.

...

There are a bunch of you...

I think Socrates would...

And FTR, you are doing exactly the kind of stuff the OP is talking about.

Oh, the irony!

FTR, I did Unrec this thread as I consider it whiny (and I generally comment when I Rec *or* Unrec a thread).

Plus, Vickers is my real name, "CTyankee".

If you Unrec a thread, you basically are saying you don't like it but if you don't explain WHY you don't like it and enumerate your points, if you just "hit and run" unrec it, you act cowardly IMO. Step up and give your reasons against what the OP is saying. State your side of the argument. Take responsibility for your Unrec.

I don't know about you, but I like a vigorous debate on DU. I don't use the Rec or Unrec because I feel it is a waste of my time. I come here to get information and to meet on common ground with many other Democrats. I have deep admiration for several posters here on DU. I feel welcome here. I learn a lot. And I have changed my mind on some things because I have heard people out and realized that they are right.

I like to think, discuss, agree and disagree, and often commiserate with other Democrats. If there is something wrong with that, then so be it...

I wish I could Rec your post (speaking of irony).

And thanks for the rec. I appreciate it...

People don't always explain why they rec a post either.

If you state your reason that's laudatory. I may not agree but I have the chance to rebut with my own idea. Anyone can see my argument and side with me or against me. That's a discussion; it's open and it's fair.

or (b) they are whining, or (c) it is an obvious troll (in which case I also Alert).

FTR, I Unrec'ed this one because of (b).

and REC this thread because I think it is relevant, the OP does have a point and they should be allowed
to express themselves instead of people coming on his thread and being snide with their comments.

It comes up every single time someone complains about unrec. I think that's on the list next to "trash Dennis Kucinich" and "accuse progressives of being conspiracy theorists."

...but if you keep track only a tiny percentage of Unrecs get owned and explained in that way. If it were otherwise I woould be OK with the Unrec function, but given how it is used in practice I really dislike it. Wait until the nect primary season when teams get organized to do Unrec hits on all threads that question their favored candidate. It's gonna happen.

I don't have a problem with you if you are brave enough to explain yourself.

i think giving a reason is fair. my opinion. i was unrec'd once, i don't know why. hell i don't even know what i posted anymore...

but doesn't bother to respond and say what's on their mind. To me they are damn dirty cowards.

But I don't see anyone complaining about the anonymous recommendations they get.

Both rec and unrec are features offered by the DU Admins and no one should be ostracized for using the board's features.

But I never see K & U.

They're afraid to.

Further, it's nobody else's business how individual members use the features provided by the DU Admins.

and, for what it's worth, I also think some particular DU'ers are way too obsessed with whether their oh-so-original opinions are recc'd or unrecc'd.

It's just a fucking message board, people. Your value as a human being doesn't depend on whether your post appears on DU's Greatest Page.

Sid

Could it be you're...scared?

Is it any of your business how other DUers use the features provided by the DU Admins?

If people DID post every time they unrecced you'd probably accuse them of being bullies.

You can check my posts to people who have posted their unrecs. I have often said things like, "Well at least you have the guts to post why you unrec'd," or some other similar phrase.

And I wish you would do your research before you start throwing around accusations. It makes you look really silly.

That's simply not true. If I unrec a thread based on its lack of quality, why on earth would I kick it up by posting "Unrecced"? It has nothing to do with cowardice.

I'm an anonymous poster on an internet message board, and I'm scared of the opinions of a bunch of other anonymous posters.

Sid

like a little kid.

I unrec, and then stick around to watch you make a fool of yourself.

Sid

I always appreciate it when someone like yourself makes a post (or many posts ) that let me know to put them immediately on ignore so that I am not bohered again with such nonsense in the future.

No one owes you an explanation for why they unrec a thread.

not all unrecs are anonymous not all recs are named. You've assumed something for which you have no evidence.

Here is a clue: try comparing the top ten by recs with the ten top posts on the greatest page. They generally are close to the same list. The power of the U is mostly in the minds of the unrecophobic.

Along with the curiously timed and over the top attacks on Dennis Kucinich which just so happened during the time that single payer was being kneecapped to start the reform process.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You seem to believe that it's cowardly for folks to anonymously unrecommend DU threads. Allow me to educate you about the way many DUers, including myself, use the Rec and Unrec feature.

How I use the Recommend feature:
1. Recommend a thread that is especially timely and/or of interest to this progressive community.
2. If the thread is dropping and has few replies, I often post "Recommended" to kick it back up so that others can see it on the front page of GD or other big forum.

How I use the Unrecommend feature:
3. Unrecommend a thread that is unprogressive, has absolutely no political or current events context, mean-spirited, blatantly unreasoned, or redundant (as in, this has been posted a jillion times, not unlike the pout fests about the unrec feature).
4. Do not post "Unrec" for a couple of reasons: 1. Posting "Unrec" would kick an unworthy thread back up and kick more worthy threads DOWN; 2. "If you don't have something nice to say..."

No one should be called a coward for using the Unrecommend feature, which was provided to all of us by the Admins. If you've got a bone to pick about the Unrec thread, take it up privately with the Admins. Somehow, I doubt you'll be so eager to call the creators of this very fine feature "cowardly."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


1) The thread is not about politics. This is a political website (aside from the Lounge, where rec/unrec is not an issue)

2) The OP is complaining about "recs & unrecs". (Bad Form = automatic unrec)

3) The OP is seeking personal attention, instead of rational discussion. (also Bad Form)

4) The thread is posted by a troll seeking to sow discontent. (Obviously, this is subjective.)

5) The thread adds nothing. (ie. "FUCK REPUKES!" or "Did you just see what _____ said on TV?")

6) The thread is stupid. (Again, this is very subjective, but I know stupid when I see it. If I'm wrong about the stupidity of a thread, my vote will probably be overruled so there's no harm done.)

AGAIN!

Hey, PeaceNikki!

get out of the kitchen.

Which reminds me.....(ignore)

The way you decided to hijack my post last week about the inhumane practices of factory farms without even reading the article outed you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

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

Anyone with something like "Bushsucks" or "Blue Stater" reeks of overcompensation, especially when you read their posts that obviously shill for the DLC.

Yet some with those type of 'sounding' user names often come on with horrible, impassioned, pitch-black hatred for any who even tacitly supports the questioning of the official/establishment/orthodox position re any potentially controversial matter ("controversial" because there's obviously the ugly reality of the situation, versus what the two Name Brand party position more or less is on the subject - often denial of any obvious wrongdoing - and is subsequently espoused by the majority of M$M outlets and pundits, thus creating a pseudo "reality" for the public mind)

I've definitely noticed what you're seeing, too.

... and, gee, surprise-surprise when they in fact come off that way in how they choose to interact w/others while using an anonymous medium. Those types remind me of the big-mouths every neighborhood had when I was a kid...the ones who would wait until they were at least half a block away before running their mouth at someone who could and di easily kick their sorry ass. The Orwellian names are the ones that more so come off as having an agenda here.

it's like seeing day light.

Am I on it?

be proud. You're in good company.

Sid

I guess I need not try so hard.

They stick out like a sore thumb. Basically, if the use name contains something like "radical" or "activist" and there's a Marx or Che avatar, we're talking Troll-O-Rama.

Really?

Somebody has way too much emotional investment in this internet thing.

Still butt hurt about that.

have noticed me before and will again in the future.

I dont have to notice you anymore. Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever ignored on DU.

I think that is the one feature on DU that should end before the unrec feature.

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

Seems to me that a valid critique of an unnecessarily high temperature and not being able "to take it" are two completely different things...

If everyone gave back as good as they were given, people would be a lot nicer. I know I've had to school a couple of people who came at me with guns a'blazing and then got quite the shock when those same guns got turned right back on them.

Having said that, there are a few posters here who are INCAPABLE of typing a single post without using profanity and screaming as though the whole damn world was ending tomorrow. Their sad attempts to look all Billy/Betty Badass actually make them look more like Goofus from those old Highlights magazines.

you really should consider stepping away from the computer for a while.

I hear that a lot on "teh internets".
"Oh,It's only the internet".... "Oh, don't take it seriously, it;s not real life"

And frankly that, in my opinion, is the sort of immature thinking that allows the worst offenders to keep on offending.

No, it's not "only the internet". It's a real person making hurtful remarks in writing to another real person. It's real and it's inexcusable.

I don't have a filter (I'm told) I'll just tell a jerk they're a jerk to their face. I don't seem to have any control over it.

BTW...your screen name is ironic for this post

I generally ignore the bullies. Though sometimes I find even myself having written something, with no rancor--merely an intent to contest an opinion and argue a different way--and wonder if my post looks bullyish, too. Without tone of voice, it's really difficult to impart the subtle things that personal communication allows.

That said, you have a point: I think that on both the left and right, the kind of Internet communication has leaked out into the real world, in effect coarsening our entire conversation about politics. We see it on tv every day. I was remembering back to the days of William F. Buckley and Crossfire. Didn't agree with a thing the guy said or stood for, but he was a gentleman, more or less, and respected his adversaries. That just wouldn't happen today.

negative tone when a post disagrees. I've seen a lot of accusations of 'bullying' when a neutral 3rd party (me) can clearly see that the posts are really just stating an opposing view. However, there are a few people who seem to be here just to spew bile, and I don't think it has to do with the primaries or anything else, I think it just makes them feel better/happy in some way.

Something I often wonder about your second point is whether things really used to be more courteous in the good old days, or if we just remember the high points. It could be that the coarse and obnoxious types have always been here, they just get forgotten more quickly...

I don't know why I don't use my Ignore List more often. This might be the only personal solution. At least it's not against the rules to let the offending person know about it in advance and then *zap*.

each time some one on it gets tomb stoned. Most of my ignores are no longer here. Of course I occasionally have to add a new one, but I know that person will disappear from DU in time.

many that have been/are on ignore are no longer here. They have been tomb stoned yes.

I won't be advertising that fact.

I'm convinced that announcing it would give the Ignoree a sense of smug satisfaction.

how lucky I am that these people are not part of my real life.