Are the trolls on DU attacking the Kavanaugh thing?

[Cyrano]

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2018, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Over the past day or two, I've been reading posts about how the Senate is handling the assault accusation regarding Kavanaugh.

As a disclaimer, I don't know whether the accusation against him, is true.

Having said this, I've been scanning threads about this issue and posts that have been questioning the veracity of the lady's accusation. Added to this are posts here and there that come very close to calling "bullshit" on the whole thing.

On each of these posts, I've checked how long the poster has been a member of DU. None were members before 2017. I've also noted that there have been many deleted posts on threads about this subject.

IMO, the trolls are doing their best to discredit the whole Kathinaugh accusation thing.

Hopefully, their efforts here on DU will be futile.

[murielm99]

1. We can alert if we see that.

We can challenge them, too.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[SCantiGOP]

2. On the other hand

There are a lot of folks here who see a troll anytime someone disagrees with them.
We need to avoid self-censorship.

[LanternWaste]

3. What of skepticism?

"We need to avoid self-censorship..."

[SCantiGOP]

4. I didn't mean to say that there aren't trolls

But some are very quick to see that as the only logical conclusion when someone disagrees with them.

[LanternWaste]

6. I think disagreement is the normal default on DU.

Yet there are statements and consistent narratives which often rise beyond disagreement, and curiously echo those talking-points coming from the right-wing. And I think those should be called out and mocked.

[arthritisR_US]

14. Absofeckinglutely!

[Trust Buster]

26. Yes, there is way too much of that nonsense going on in here. Thank you.

[honest.abe]

7. Also, some are trying to make us believe its hopeless and just to give up.

The "dark force" is among us.

[fescuerescue]

8. I don't understand the fear of trolls

So what if they are? It's just a bit annoying, but they don't impact anything.

It's not like the Senate is constantly checking DU to see how we feel about Kavanaugh.

Think about it, what would success for the trolls look like? It would involve people getting upset and writing about the trolls, and then people arguing about the trolls.

But the Senate will do whatever, totally oblivious to what is said here.

[hlthe2b]

16. The best of them know how to use repetitive, overtly false arguments to incite others

and how to manipulate both the MIRT (early on) and the jury system-- which has as an unfortunate effect the tendency for their posts to go less challenged or even unchallenged over time, as many members get "burned".

Is it an overwhelming problem? No. Is it a problem? yes.

It always has been-- with cyclical patterns and increases.

[Trust Buster]

28. Your "overly false argument" is just your opinion and not trolling. Everyone is not required to

Agree with you on everything. This site is not called the “Robot Underground”. It is called the Democratic Underground. I have had posts hidden for posting much less than you just posted calling out MIRT and the Jury System.

[hlthe2b]

31. Overtly false argument means RW talking points or conspiracy memes. Are you unwilling to

characterize THAT (including just about everything out of Trump's mouth) as ANYTHING other than overtly false argument? Really?

I find your accusation towards me repulsive and totally unwarranted. BTW, it is OVERTLY not overly.

[Trust Buster]

33. A talking point is quite different from a fact. Please be more specific.

[hlthe2b]

34. I said "false arguments" I never said "facts".. . I was VERY specific, including saying OVERTLY

NOT overly.

[Trust Buster]

36. Who determines what a "false argument" is ? That is my point.

[hlthe2b]

37. Most DUers know a RW meme when they hear it, especially when being regurgitated all over RW media

Should you be confused, there are a number of political fact checkers, Snopes.com and others where you can find valid information on the veracity of such claims.

[Trust Buster]

38. I have noticed that sometimes a factual statement can be categorized as a right wing meme.

I think if a statement is factual then it should not be categorized as a right wing nor left wing meme. A fact is a fact.

[hlthe2b]

41. They are RW arguments. Facts are inviolate. Fake arguments based on made up assertions are NOT

[Trust Buster]

44. Not totally true. I could give you an excellent example why that is not always true but my

Example of a fact vs. a right wing talking point would probably considered a right wing talking point and thus hidden. That’s is the dilemma as I see it from time to time.

[hlthe2b]

45. DU has been targeted for DOS attacks, continually trolled and thus the MIRT system was created

So, it is only natural that DUers, especially those who have been around for years are sensitive to this and posters are questioned if they present as "fact" that which has no valid evidence, especially if it is being used to promote RW based policies and philosophies.

All of us like to question and periodically to play the devils' advocate, but as in my original post on this thread, it is only smart that when you do so, you let other DUers KNOW that you are doing so. THAT has been my point all along and one which I do not understand why you took issue.

[Trust Buster]

46. We are just going in circles now but I still maintain that you might be categorizing a poster's

Position as playing devil’s advocate because you refuse to accept that said poster just might sincerely hold a different point of view.

[hlthe2b]

48. Right... All of us who have been here since 2001 inception, don't have a clue re: differing opinions

Right...

[Trust Buster]

49. Seniority holds no sway in this debate. We will just have to agree to disagree.

[hlthe2b]

50. That's the irony. I don't think we are disagreeing.

You seem to resent that I advise ways to ensure not being misunderstood and risking a jury hide when you bring controversial points & arguments or try to understand potential memes being propagated around us. Every one of us has, at times been misunderstood and risk that. Perhaps you could have avoided the jury hides to which you alluded earlier, had you followed that advice.

And yes, experience here doesn't sway debate, but it does mean you might (on occasion) learn from others.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Trolls are why putin is prez, I mean rump. And DISCOUNTING them is a tactic they are

taught to use.

I see it here. Right now.

[hlthe2b]

53. Ya think?

[Eliot Rosewater]

55. Remarkable how we have to dance around, isnt it. There is a reason for that too.

[honest.abe]

21. Trolls helped get Trump elected.

Facebook, political forums, online news comments, etc. They swayed public opinion on Hillary and convinced many voters she was evil.

No need to fear them but we do need to be aware of them and how to fight them.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. And they are active on DU, very much so. Thanks for saying the truth.

[LanternWaste]

23. I think you're confusing 'fear' and 'concern'

And a simple concern about a malignancy is more often than not, not unwarranted, regardless of whether that concern may impact its subject or not.

[bettyellen]

27. Actually we had a huge infestation in 2015-16 and they actually grew to be a very disruptive force

They spread a lot of fake news, insisted HRC was the devil herself and alert stalked and ran off many valuable members because it became a cesspool of hatred against most Dems. The harassment of long time members was endless.

[Kingofalldems]

9. Yes they are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Do they belong to think tanks ?

I have avoided getting emotionally invested because I just don't know enough.

[Kingofalldems]

11. I believe there are some, yes.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. That and there are thousands of paid operatives who post all day long everywhere

[demmiblue]

12. I haven't noticed an uptick.

Sure, maybe one or two here or there... nothing different from the baseline troll activity. The removed posts are probably from trolls who have been zapped by MIRT.

And, it is futile.


Edit: though, threads like these serve as a magnet.

[Hoyt]

13. I'm fine with Kav's nomination being derailed by just about any means; HOWEVER,

if this latest accusation turns out to be more questionable than believable, it will hurt Democrats. It shouldn't, considering what the GOPers have done, but it will. On the other hand, if it continues believable, it will help Dems, or at least should with all but the inveterate white wingers.

As to trolls -- if folks have been here awhile, but still question this accusation arising at seemingly the last minute with questionable aspects like lady can't remember where it happened, I can see how some might feel that way.

[Squinch]

24. What, knowing what we know now, whould make it "turn out to be more questionable than believable?"

[RobinA]

15. Most People On DU

for any length of time know to keep their mouths shut (figuratively) if they disagree with the groupthink once the majority builds up a righteous head of steam.

[fescuerescue]

17. +1

It's probably the worst aspect.

[hlthe2b]

18. Well, it is true that if you want to take a "devil's advocate" position, you have to be VERY clear

that that is what you are doing. I've long wondered how many jury hides result from misunderstandings of that nature. We aren't always patient/understanding of those who are merely asking uninformed questions-- largely because that has long been a tactic of intentional trolling.... Every now and then it is good to take a step back and remember what it must be like for earnest "newbies" or those who missed the "big story" in "real" time.

[Trust Buster]

30. Uh, no you don't. People should have the right to express their opinion without such qualifiers.

Who are you to determine what the central opinion should be in the first place in order to define a poster as making a devil’s advocate opinion ?

[hlthe2b]

32. I don't. I merely point out that you will be often misunderstood by other DUers if you don''t

make that clear.

[LanternWaste]

35. No one is denying anyone the right to express an opinion lacking relevant qualifiers.

But in doing so, we leave ourselves wide open to obvious misinterpretations stemming from our own lack of clarity.

For myself, I believe that clarity of expression is an obligation any person who can read and write at better than a seventh-grade level (though of course, the right to be vague, ambiguous and indefinite is yours).

Regardless, express any opinion you want-- you are wholly and fully free to do as much. You will however, find that many opinions bring with them self-evident consequences-- those too being merely opinions.

[Hoyt]

25. +2.

[Trust Buster]

29. BING-friggin-GO - Thank you.

[uponit7771]

39. I don't, be factual while linking and posting and most people on DU listen to a high degree while

... there will be few who retort with ad homs.

facts matter more than feelings here has been my experience

[LanternWaste]

42. Odd that, as so many posts and so many posters prescript their options and narratives with...

Odd that, as so many posts and so many posters prescript their options and narratives with "I know this won't be popular around here..." as though it were a badge of honor, and construct such imaginatively creative crosses from which to hang themselves and loudly advertise their self-styled oppression to the world.

Beyond that though, what, other than simple counter-opinions, are the resulting consequence that prevent you from expressing something counter to the prevailing sentiment?

Or are these counter-opinions such an abomination to you that fear of criticism prevents you from voicing them? I certainly hope not... I'd hate to believe that a large segment of DU's population lack the simple courage of their own convictions, and are cowed by (again) mere opinions others may hold.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. I think the Russian agents are out in force

This morning on my way to work, listening to Minnesota Public Radio's news channel...

Caller says, "I've been a Democrat all my life but I can't believe they're going to try to deny Kavanaugh because this!"

Once again: "I've been a Dem all my life BUT..." says the troll.

[UTUSN]

20. "I don't know accusation/true" - I *do* know/believe it is true. But:

I don't know what direction a troll argument manifests on this subject, but I feel like if she doesn't testify it was a big detour for nothing. And I'm no troll.

First, let's put it out there that the Repukes have the power and will *ram* KAVANAUGH through no matter what. When the news was that she would not testify, my post in one of those threads was, "I feel dread."

It just lets the Repukes off the hook, after getting us all revved up only to leave us twisting in the wind. If she would be willing to testify in a closed session, well, she pretty much painted herself into a corner making *everybody* want to see and hear her for themselves/ourselves. In a closed session, we would have to take the Repukes' word for whatever, which we wouldn't do. Whatever the venue, her presenting herself would be the same first step of an "investigation".

If she will be a no-show at all, then why did she lead us around?

[Squinch]

22. She has been inundated with death threats and has had to leave her home. She fears for

the safety of her children. And let us not forget, she was the victim of a sexual assault at the age of 15.

She was not "leading us around." She stated the truth. And this is where it got her.

She has a right to decide whatever she decides. Even if she stops this right here, she has shown more courage than most of us would have been able to muster.

[UTUSN]

43. You and I are on the same side (stating the truth). I fully "get" the 1-threats 2-home 3-children

4-assault 5-age15. Please don't talk down to me on this.

"Even if she stops this right here..."

^^^THIS is what I'm referring to in my "leading us around"^^^

I never said she *didn't* "state the truth, I started out by saying that I BELIEVE her here and now without hearing more. "She has a right to decide" - please, yes she does. "has shown more courage" - please leave out the "more than" in the entire history of humanity.

Everybody else who is affected (us, in the lurch of KAVANAUGH being rammed through) also have a right to decide what to think and to weigh the stupendous effects her right to decide had a part of.

Now, I'm hoping that you and I can go back to our previously agreeing co-existence honoring our separate rights to have our own opinions, just leaving this here since it is totally unlikely that our minds will be changed by further discussion, certainly not by a flaming. Thanks in advance.

[Squinch]

47. Not sure what you are talking about with many of these comments, but have a nice day.

[karadax]

40. Your concern about the trolls expressing concern is noted.

Isn’t that what used to be said around here? It’s been awhile for me. I’m just getting my feet wet again on here.

[saidsimplesimon]

56. "Do not feed the trolls"

I read this advise on DU from a member who used Jon Stewart's birth name, long ago. I try my best not to respond when reading a comment intended to derail a thread or a troll diary. It's a blog, my judgement based on experience and observation are my only tools to find a truth I can accept.

There are times I would like a chance to go at toe to toe. It's just a momentary thought.