This thread may not go well.. but it has to be said...

[Peacetrain]

As one who sat through some of the worst attacks ever on President Obama.. and things got so bad that the Obama people either went to a private room, or had to go to another site to even discuss policy or cheer when things were going well.. a Heads Up..

I left for over a year..

And I heard all the same nonsense about getting a thicker skin.. my rights to say how I feel yadda yadda yadda..

I am telling anyone who cares to listen as one who has been there and experienced that..

When someone is criticizing a politician or candidate that someone supports with derogatory name calling.. the supporter of said same candidate/politician feels they are being called those names

When someone calls the President names they would not call their worst enemy, they are calling me that name.. because I support him, and by using that type of language is dismissing me as less than.

But calling out bad policies that any of us finds is a good thing.. good to have the information.. it expands us all makes us better. Good to discuss.. Maybe we do not have the full story.

Just leave the childish name calling and belittling out of it.

[MineralMan]

1. Good suggestions. Most are followed by

the vast majority of DUers. I hope the rest read your post and think about it.

[mcar]

2. This thread should get hundreds of replies

I agree wholeheartedly.

[mythology]

34. Indeed

[alc]

3. "names they would not call their worst enemy"

I probably just skip the D name calling threads. But my impression is that Rs get called much worse than Ds. (I really wish santorum would go away so DU could ignore him)

In any case, the name calling of both Ds and Rs keeps me from recommending this site. I used to be that I could send a link for a thread to an undecided friend (yes, they exist). But I no longer mention the site's name.

I'd prefer to see good discussion and no name calling of anyone - R or D. There are plenty of facts ("bad policies" as the OP said) that can be posted to get the same point across AND provide information to people who may not know why politician X is a *#?!*. Those facts are why I started on DU - they gave me tools for talking to friends/neighbors.

[DFW]

22. I went through the same thing

A friend of mine used to be pretty popular on DU. He has been a governor, a presidential candidate, and our party chairman. I used to send him links to DU posts all the time, and encourage him to join (he never did, although Alan Grayson, a guy he knows and has worked with, did). The way things are now, over 20% of the posts here would probably cause him to ask me if I didn't send him the wrong link, as there are just too many ugly posts here for him to think it's a place I belong to.

Don't get me wrong, I accept the place for what it is (it got ugly in 2008, too). But it's not for everyone, and definitely not for certain people I wish I could bring to post.

There's a gathering I attend every New Year's, a sort of "meeting of the minds" type of thing. NOT a TED conference where VIPs give talks, but a true gathering where everyone wears a name tag, whether your name is Joe Blow or Bill Clinton, and EVERYONE participates. If you're there, you contribute. And no titles on those tags, just your name. One iron-clad rule is civility must rule at all times. Of the extremist right, one, count 'em, ONE person has managed to follow that rule all these years. He likes to say he "leaves his guns at the door," and this is a guy with plenty of firepower. His name is Richard Viguerie, and he is the Prince of Darkness politically--a true off-the-wall right wing nut job. But he is there every year, and he is the only radical Republican I call a friend, because he DOES manage to keep it civil. His pal David Keane was invited to not come back ever because he started using the kind of language many on DU now use toward each other--mean, angry, words intended to insult and hurt. It figures that he went on to be Wayne LaPierre's #2 man at the NRA. Perfect place for him.

I have been told to "grow a thicker skin." An offending poster I complained about was gone, banned within 2 hours of my alert, because it became obvious to others besides me what their agenda was, but when it was just me? "Grow a thicker skin," the jury told me. That was my last alert, and I will definitely never be on any jury.

So, be prepared for this place to go on being as it is, and accept it for what it is. I do. But I don't bring along the family for a picnic any more, so to speak.

[Phentex]

30. I once asked Skinner...

about a name I wanted to use. I was worried it would cross the lines. There had been a discussion of making sure you weren't making threats against anyone. This place seems different now...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x2539

[marble falls]

32. There is problems with enforcing of rules that gets made worse when we don't alert and join juries..

by alerting and being on juries we get to help set standards. I hope you reconsider your stepping back from them.

[DFW]

37. My experience was a direct opposite to what you said.

I have used the alert exactly once in ten years. By most standards, that would not be considered excessive. Even though my objection was vindicated when there was (apparently) a massive follow-through, and I was only the first of many. However the reaction from the jury to my alert was negative and demeaning.

I have been on DU for somewhere around ten years, but I was cured for life from being on a DU jury with that incident. There are some really good people on here. There are some less so. The screening process for jury members is one that places people on there that tell me to grow a thicker skin when I object to an obvious troll that is picked up on by numerous members, but not the jury. I do not think asking to be included in such company would result in a positive outcome. I have a day job, I live in a time zone far from North America. That plus the rest tells to me that DU can find better fits for the task.

[marble falls]

41. There have been rumors that some people alert late at night to use smaller jury pools to drive out..

other DU'ers. I don't think thats true, but if it were you're being available for late jury duty would be good for DU. Also it seems a lot if not most of the real MIRT work is done very late at night and early in the morning.

Giving the field to the hordes won't stop the hordes.

[MADem]

48. Your objection was vindicated....yet you complain that you aren't being

heard? Because some anonymous jackasses were mean to you?

The only way this place improves is if people with higher standards participate. If you don't join in, you are, in effect, voting for the trolls to hold sway.

My opinion of you is not elevated by your refusal to help craft the tone of this site. It's entirely up to you to decline to assist, but you need to understand that your refusal helps to make this place exactly what you're griping about. You aren't going to get your way every time you participate in a jury, but the admins do see the results, as do the other jurors. Over time, your input will have an impact. But you have to become part of the solution to make that happen.

[awoke_in_2003]

77. "There are some really good people on here."

And you're one of the best

[DFW]

86. Thanks for the vote of confidence!

Your opinion is NOT universally shared!

But it's OK, the symptoms are not life-threatening.

[MADem]

36. If you refuse to serve on any jury,

you are abdicating your responsibility to all of us. How can you decry poor community standards when you refuse to do your part to help shape them?

The admins take their cues from what juries will tolerate. You would do well to be part of the solution.

[marble falls]

39. Exactly right. Everybody should also join Mirt for a term. Next one starts up for July1, I think....

Mirt really opened my mind.

[DFW]

40. I respectfully disagree.

See my post to the poster who just said basically the same thing you did.

The community standards are set by the owners, not juries. Juries are there to see that those standards are adhered to, not to rewrite them as they see fit. I don't decry "poor" standards. They are neither poor nor good. They are set by those who own this place, and there is no good or bad. There is what the admins say there is. We can all weigh in on what we think, but we (at least not I) can't impose our will, only offer an opinion.

I came, I saw, I got zapped, I got the hint. If the standards are reset, I'll take another look, but it's not my place to make demands there. I'm playing in their sandbox, not the other way around. Plus, the time difference and my work situation wouldn't change in any case. Some people seem to live here. Good for them if they can spare the time. I sometimes go 2 days without time to log in. Would the other six jurors appreciate having to wait between 6 and 48 hours for the seventh to weigh in? Not likely. I'd be doing the system a disservice by making them wait, even if I did change my mind.

[MADem]

47. No they are not. I invite your attention to those community standards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards

These broad community standards of behavior are maintained through the combined efforts of members posting and serving on citizen juries, using their own best judgment to decide what behavior is appropriate and what is not.

You are either part of the solution, or you're not. The odds of getting called to jury duty for anyone isn't that huge--even for paying members. Using time zones as an excuse doesn't cut it either...If I'm in Europe or on the west coast I still get called...in fact, if you are a fan of civility, your input would be valued in the wee small hours, as it were.

This is a sandbox that we're ALL expected to police. You can refuse to help, if you'd like, but if you do that you also lose any credibility when you complain about the "tone" or attitude here.

It's also obvious from your remarks that you don't get how the jury system works at all. No one would be "waiting" for your input. If you aren't online, you won't get called to a jury. The pool is people who are logged in...No one waits very long for jury results. As a juror, you have 15 minutes to do your thing, if you dither, you get dropped from the pool and someone else steps in to finish the job.

You can and will do as you please, but you are wrong about how community standards are determined and you don't understand the mechanics of the jury system. You might give it a try before you reject it out of hand.

[DFW]

85. You did explain a thing or two I didn't know about how the system works.

But is doesn't change my experience. You maintain there is a "solution," which implies a problem. I see a situation, not a problem. I note the tone or attitude, but it is not my place to complain about it. I comment, I get trashed, I move on. I don't ban people, and I normally don't trash people. The tone here will be set by who posts. My experience with the jury system won't be the same as others, and I wouldn't expect it to be so. I am not exactly a major player around here, so it's not like DU is somehow poorer for my lack of input into the jury system. DU is not a cancer patient, and I'm not morphine.

I spent my last year of high school at a boarding school I decided to try because I was fed up with the restrictive attitude of my old school in Washington DC when I got back from living in Spain. It turned out to be a place even more restrictive unless you were a member of the "in" crowd, which as a southerner and a first year senior, I was definitely NOT. The "in" crowd was composed mostly of kids of rich New York and Connecticut parents, and I didn't come near qualifying. The school told me they had to maintain certain standards to please the alumni, many of which were conservative, rich donors. Well, now I'm the alumnus, and I get solicitations for donations every few months, which I ignore completely. I got treated like trash while I was there, both by the majority of the students and some of the nastier of the administration. Fair enough, it's their school, but let them get their alumni contributions from the Bush family. My parents paid my tuition, and as far as I'm concerned, our accounts are settled.

I DID give the system a try. I found it a demeaning and insulting experience--insignificant in the large scheme of things, but it left a lasting impression all the same. I have no quarrel with those whose experience gives them a different perspective, and react differently.

[MADem]

87. Well, this is a 'situation' that you have the power to improve.

Every person who values civility and who eschews participating in the jury system is potentially giving their slot to a troll. Many jury decisions are very close--your participation could change a 3-4 leave of a rude remark into a 4-3 hide.

You are a member here like the rest of us. Hell, I am not universally adored here, I've been called every name in the book because I like Obama AND Clinton. And even though I think Senator Sanders is a fine man, because he's not my first choice I've been thrown some shade. So WHAT, though?? Don't let strangers on the internet bully you into not being a full member here--because that IS your "place to complain," and jury duty is where YOU can help all of us mold the community standards into an environment that doesn't put up with trolls and taunters.

Find common cause with people who are like-minded and ignore the assholes. They only have the power to make you feel bad if you LET THEM. You have the power--not them.

I spent most of my youth going from school to school--over a dozen between grammar school and my baccalaureate. I spent a long career as The Nail That Sticks Up. I couldn't blend in and rather than give up or get resentful, I embraced it. I refused to get hammered down. People who can't deal don't have to engage, that's my view.

After a certain point in your life, you KNOW who your friends are. Cherish them, be open to making new ones, and fuck anyone who wants to give you shit or a hard time...those people are NOT your friends.

I am accepting of most viewpoints but I can't abide cruelty or bullying or vicious insults. If I see that as a juror I will vote to hide. I wish there were more jurors who refused to put up with mean, nasty remarks--maybe if there were this place would be less fun for the trolls that keep MIRT so busy.

[WinkyDink]

43. You call Viguerie a friend because he's "civil" around other people?

http://www.frtv.org/2009/08/freedom-fest-richard-viguerie/

[DFW]

94. No, because he's civil and respectful to me. Therefore, I am to him, too.

Politically I think he's a dangerous nut case, and he thinks the same of me.

Fair enough. When I first met him , I expected to hate his guts. Too bad. I didn't and I don't.

It's a fact of political life that not every right wing nut case is an asshole, and not every flaming true progressive is nice to spend time with. It doesn't change my personal views on any issue, and it sure as hell doesn't change any of Richard's.

[cui bono]

51. I agree.

A while back I tried to stop using names for Republicans as well as Dems or other DUers. I do have the occasional slip on certain things, but in general I try to stick to political terminology. How are we supposed to change anyone's mind if we are calling them insulting names? There are plenty of Republicans who are just as disgusted with the economy and the corporate takeover of our govt. If we can talk to them and tap into that we can bring them around, but if they come here and see all the name calling and infighting they will see this place as an ideological joke.

[KingCharlemagne]

4. IOW, calling Hillary a "dupe" for her Iraq War Vote in 2002 is a no-no, as is calling her a

"baby killer." But pointing out that she landed on the wrong side of history in the first substantial military conflict of the millennium is OK?

[Buzz Clik]

9. Exactly.

[Cha]

5. Mahalo Peacetrain~

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Let's be frank

Most folks don't give a rip how they talk to other folks from the anonymity of a computer but they do seem to practice a lot more restraint in real life.

[JDPriestly]

13. Depends on the milieu and how drunnk they are. But anyway. . . .

We all have bad moods, and we all make mistakes, and we all say or write things occasionally that we later regret. We are all human --- to varying degrees.

I tend to forgive.

My father taught me that people who use swear words use them because they don't have the intelligence to say what they really mean. Swear words don't really have much specific meaning. They tell us more about the lack of creativity and careful thought of the person who uses them than about the person they are used to describe.

So, I don't get bothered by swear words. They are just sounds that we associate with bad feelings. They don't really harm the reputation of the person who is sworn at or about.

[raouldukelives]

27. Yep. I've always considered swearing a crutch.

As such, I tend to try to be a little more understanding and try to read between the lines a bit when someone is ranting. As they are generally more easily upset and distracted by trivialities, I try to introduce less of them.

It is interesting though how certain words alone, or grouped together, a series of guttural grunts and whistles, can hold such sway over us. They can cause damage more defining & long lasting to the user than perpetuating and sanctifying actual physical & tangible attacks against living people, living animals, living forests, living oceans and living in peace.
Unlike corpses, the written word has staying power.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Only if you let me be Jim.

The only Jim I know would never be emotionally invested in politicians.

[paleotn]

24. Amen! (nt)

[Jim Lane]

49. No, you can't be Jim, I got there first. (n/t)

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. Damn. And me, a James Christopher. n/t

[wiggs]

7. Glad to rec. nt

[Buzz Clik]

8. Well said. +1

[Thinkingabout]

10. I have observed the name calling happens when name calling is the first resort to a reasonable reply

Name calling does not "win" the discussion and reflects badly on the poster.

Having said this there are some words which are deeply offensive, whether you word twist or continue to use the letter the word begins with does not lessen the implication. It needs to stop, we are adults, we do not need to offend whether using the name in reference to a candidate you may be opposing, your next door neighbor or anyone.

[JDPriestly]

19. It's just a cultural thing. If you came to America and did not know the language, you would not

recognize the "naughty" words as "naughty." The words that are found so offensive are only offensive because both the user or speaker and reader or listener believe them to be offensive. Words in and of themselves are neutral. That is why I am not so bothered by the use of this word or that word. The "naught" words are just noises that express frustration.

I very much agree with you when you write: "name calling happens when the name calling is the first resort to a reasonable reply. Name calling does not "win" the discussion and reflects badly on the poster."

Name calling is just noise-making, just like screaming "Ahhhhhh."

I grew up in a home in which there was utterly, and I mean utterly, no profanity. I was not taught to use or think in profanity. I couldn't read one of the books by James Joyce when I started college because there were a lot of words I did not understand. It was almost like a foreign language and I saw no point in reading it. People are offended by "naughty" words because they are trained or taught to be offended by them. People like me who are not offended by them probably don't have the same emotional or subconscious baggage associated with the words as those who are offended.

[Thinkingabout]

31. I was born in the USA, as a female I find the word VERY OFFENSIIVE.

[marble falls]

33. As well you should. Its used to be offensive and drive women away from the conversation.

[PersonNumber503602]

50. I have a similar take on words as JDPriestly does

and I know many people across various walks of life who have similar takes on it. However, I recognize that not everyone has that same sort of mindset, and some (such as yourself) find the words themselves to be hurtful or offensive. I don't want to upset anyone, so I avoid words/phrases that some people find offensive if I do not know the person's personality. And for sure avoid certain terms if someone explicitly asks you not to use it in their presence. This isn't just words that are often times panned by various progressive groups, but I wouldn't say "god damn it" in a christian bookstore or in front of a church.

I think things would be far nicer if everyone adopted a similar take as mine when it comes to words, but I don't foresee that happening. So the best solution is for people to try to understand where everyone is coming from and work with each other to create an environment where no one feels too uncomfortable. It's really not that hard to do.

I will also say on the other side. If someone says something you find offensive or even hurtful, don't go straight on call them a horrible person or say they're misogynistic/racist/sexist/hateful/ignorant for using. Why not just say explain why you find the word hurtful and then respectfully ask that they not use it around you. Most normal people will be like "oh okay, I didn't mean it like that, but I will try to tone it down." If the person becomes combative after that, then it's open game on calling them out for being a jerk.

[Thinkingabout]

54. Some words should never be used, it really does not matter how and where they grew up,

surely we know some words are never acceptable, it is a horrible. How would you suggest to a person this isn't acceptable unless you go straight to the point? If you are referring to NYC_Skip, I saw post where he was advised to chill, but it was completely over the top and it did not really matter who this was intended, it affects women and probably men in a negative manner.

[KingCharlemagne]

83. As a male, I find the word VERY OFFENSIVE when used toward women. I have given my

ESL students explicit instructions that the men are NEVER under any circumstances to use it when referring to any woman. No exceptions.

[Thinkingabout]

84. Thank you, we appreciate your help.

[LiberalLovinLug]

58. You are one to talk

The OP states: "When someone is criticizing a politician or candidate that someone supports with derogatory name calling.. the supporter of said same candidate/politician feels they are being called those names"

How about Snowden and Greenwald? Although not politicians, they have made clear public stands. You have been one of the most hateful and derogatory towards those two. Even though you know there are a lot of supporters on here. Thus, you are the same way to those of us that support them, if you do agree with that premise I quoted.
Just one small example I easily found:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023191259#post1

Snowden Effect, the Spy and Lie Team, he needs to go away, the best we can hope for is some country takes the scumbag and we can be rid of a criminal. We have enough criminals left to satisfy everyone. As I have heard before he is not worth the lead it takes to kill him.

[Thinkingabout]

60. I have called him a thief of which he admitted he had stolen files, you can not find a vile name

Calling event from me. You are wondering far away from the subject here.

[LiberalLovinLug]

70. So "scumbag" isn't vile?

And you insist on branding him a thief over and over. You push that technicality. But he "stole" from a company that was contracted out to YOUR government with YOUR tax dollars. He only revealed what you were paying for...secretly, and at odds with what the head of the NSA was saying at the time. You use the word thief as if there is only one type of thievery. He "stole" these documents not for personal gain, in fact he has sentenced himself to a life on the run, away from his home country who he did it for, and if he returns will be prosecuted under the espionage act, making it all but certain he will get a long sentence, and most importantly, his reasoning for doing what he did will not be allowed as defense.

If a person is violated or attacked in someone elses home, if that victim, sees a chance to escape grabs a phone tape, or weapon used, or some other evidence of the crime, would you call that person a thief too? Because it sounds like it..even if the victim had paid for that weapon or tape! And lets say that abuser is a very powerful person in the community that declared we shouldn't look at his crime, but rather focus on the fact that this "thief" stole information on the phone tape, or stole a very expensive knife (that the victim had bought as a present for him). I suppose there are some so mesmerized by authority and the power they wield to the point that they will actually fall for that.

[Thinkingabout]

71. Surely you know the difference.

Snowden is the one who said he stole, he also jumped up and said he was the one who committed espionage, maybe he needed better advise. To wit, he is the one who said he had access to all of the telephone records which included my records and he did this without a warrant. He has given the justice department everything needed for conviction. He violated my Fourth Amendment rights.

[LiberalLovinLug]

93. You sure have it twisted around

You decry Snowden for violating your 4th amendment rights, which "prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause"

...which is exactly what he is trying to fight with his actions. By "stealing" data you paid him to look at, whether you were aware of or not. You demonize one man, who COULD have looked at you personal information without a warrant, and I guess subsequently used it against you somehow. What are the odds of that? .0001 %

And if Snowden did not "steal" data revealing how the government and NSA have been lying to everyone, and actually IS collecting mega data (that's YOUR data) secretly? If left alone, what are the odds that the NSA will violate your fourth amendment rights in the future? A prominent member of a well known "liberal" news forum? I'd say your odds of your 4th amendment rights being violated from that department are much much greater. And do you think they would have even thought about creating and enacting the US Freedom Act, which Obama signed just a few days ago without the actions of this man? I personally, along with digital media rights groups, don't think it goes far enough to protect American privacy, but its something.

But in your mind all that is moot...because in order for this to happen, one man, who didn't know you at all, may just have stumbled upon your personal records - BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTED HIM TO DO SO. How does the logic even add up in your mind?

He "stole" evidence from the scene of the crime. The crime was being committed by the authorities that he would normally give the evidence to. So he gave it to the Court of Public Opinion to decide for themselves. He has done a great service to the American public and also made other western democracies citizens wary of their own governments secret civil rights violations.

Bravo Edward! I for one appreciate and applaud your good deed and the sacrifice you have made to your own personal freedom in doing so.

[Thinkingabout]

95. Wow, even you could testify for the FOJ against Snowden. BTW, I know what data is in the phone call

Records. Yes there has been violations of my Fourth Amendment rights, unless there is proof of a warrant requested by Snowden, then my rights have been violated. The charges of espionage and theft are valid. Would I ever trust Snowden, so far he has not shown he can be trusted. Did he tell me something I did not know, no, George W had already said in 2006 they was collecting the data. Changes was implemented in 2008 and since the Patriot Act was very young it is not unusual to tweak bills after they are passed.

You are saying he had the right to look at the records because he was contracted to do so by the government and he stole files and gave information of the dealings of the NSA which resulted in espionage, he was not contracted by NSA to reveal the information. Yes, you would make a fine witness for the DOJ.

[LiberalLovinLug]

96. Your mind is like a forest

I fear I may lose myself in it if I venture too far.

So who violated your Fourth Amendment rights? Snowden? Not the people that hired him to do it? The ones he finally had enough with and squealed on? ....ok

And no, I'm not saying he had the right to look at "the records" because he was contracted to do so by the government. That's the whole point! I'm going around and around in circles. Its getting late in this tangled forest and I have to find my way out before dark.

[Thinkingabout]

97. Yes, I can see the forest and the trees. Glad you pointed this out, perhaps others will begin to

see the forest and the trees. Was he contracted by the government to collect the records? The answer is no, did he obtain a warrant, no, he just authorized himself to take what ever he wanted, yes, he violated my Fourth amendment rights, he did his without a warrant, the NSA got warrants.

[Vattel]

11. I agree, but would add two things:

First, I don't mind it so much when some political figure I like is called names, but I really hate smearing (unsubstantiated accusations to damage someone's reputation). I will defend the worst republican against a smear.

Second, your point should be extended to political figures other than politicians. Greenwald and Snowden, for example, have been subjected to horrible treatment at DU, including being relentlessly smeared.

[libdem4life]

12. Count me in. Pretend you're talking to a beloved relative...debating...discussing...but with

the respect that goes along with it. I believe that, ideally anyway, Liberals allow a thought, incoming our outgoing, to stop at their brain for assessment. Conservatives tend to bypass that process and directly go to emotional reaction which is pre-programmed...lizard brain territory.

I've learned many things, for good or for ill, in my short time at DU...important things. We should never stop learning, and part of that maturity is to allow that, even if brief, thoughts stop at the frontal cortex (I think that's the one.)

[cwydro]

14. I agree.

Whether all will follow this admonition is yet to be seen.

Personally, when I see name-calling - I immediately lose respect for that poster. It's just juvenile behavior.

[Agschmid]

15. Yup.

[silverweb]

17. Well said.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]A little common courtesy goes a very long way.





[font color="lt blue" face="Arial"]Women For Bernie Sanders - The People for Bernie Sanders
#WomenForBernie #FeelTheBern #BernBabyBern #ReadyToBern[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]

[99Forever]

18. Agreed.

But I would add this caveat, pointing to the things a candidate has done in their history that trouble you and make them non-supportable to you, is not "bashing" nor is it "name-calling." The simple fact that you find something said, a negative, doesn't make it "hideable" or a personal offense to you or your chosen candidate.

[Enthusiast]

21. Thank you for making that distinction.

[grasswire]

29. nor is it "hate" nt

[yardwork]

20. Name calling doesn't help elect candidates imo.

Nobody ever decided to support somebody because they were insulted into it.

[Hekate]

23. Glad to KnR, Peacetrain

[Half-Century Man]

25. One of the advantages with having political discussions with this sort of format is

the lack of need in responding rapidly. We should take the time to reflect prior to keying Post my reply.
Let the spark of anger ignite inspiration, not insanity.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. K&R

[BeatleBoot]

28. You mean when, back during the 2008 Primary...

WillyT called me Pat Boone for supporting Hillary at the time?

White shoes and white belt.

That's when I stopped posting here for a long time.

[treestar]

35. Very good post.

People need to be more positive about who they do support rather than cutting down the other candidate - save that for Republicans.

[DFW]

92. Amen to THAT!!!!!!!!!!

But I fear you are preaching to a very small choir.

[Spazito]

38. Well said n/t

[cheapdate]

42. One of it's names is civility.

One of the basic premises of civility is the assumption that all parties in a civil discussion are motivated by the same desire to improve society and expand the public good.

Honest disagreements exist over how to get there, and over the expectations for particular policy choices.

Even most f#@king Republicans honestly (but incorrectly) believe that their policy ideas are in the best interest of the country.

[Rex]

44. A GREAT idea is to support all our potential candidates, while being critical of issues

you think might hinder their job performance as POTUS.

It really IS that simple...no need for vulgarisms.

[cui bono]

53. Disagree.

There are sometimes candidates which one just cannot support.

[olddots]

45. cyberdisinabition grows daily with the internet's population

I believe it will get worse till it implodes . ( make believe you are in a room wirh the people here ,show some imagination for other's feelings )

I leave this room all the time .

[Andy823]

46. K&R nt

[mahina]

52. WORD

[Maedhros]

55. This place would be much better if we all avoided using pejoratives.

Alas, that's all some posters seem to have in their arsenal, so they get the ignore.

[yuiyoshida]

57. As far as I know, there are

no children on this web site. There are no teens or if there are, they are an exception... (Most teens I have talked to, would be bored out of their minds, being here, as politics is not cool enough subject to talk about.) People here who are adults should act like and conduct themselves as adults.. not behave in a manner that shows immaturity. There is enough of that on right-wing websites, or places that allow both parties to battle things out.

We are supposed to be better than that... I always want to do my best...(ganbareyo!)and I hope others agree we should.

[Paladin]

59. K&R. Thanks for posting this. (nt)

[RecoveringJournalist]

61. It's Human Nature

Glad to K & R this.

I look at name-calling as an unfortunate aspect of human nature. And there have been numerous studies which equate people's views of politics with people's views of sports. Our "team" is trying to defeat their "team." The opponents must be defeated at any cost. We've all seen a lot of screaming and yelling at sporting events at opposing players, umps, and even fisticuffs among the opposing fans. When "we win" we high five each other, laugh at opposing fans leaving the arena and generally celebrate our superiority. When "we lose" we let our fingers fly in the air, quietly (or vocally) seethe, and plan our way to "get them next time."

I see that reality becoming the norm in politics. Anyone from the "other" party is a member of the other team. Therefore, they MUST BE DEFEATED.

I don't associate myself with any political "team." Therefore, the names don't really hurt me. If other people would do the same, it might not sting so hard. Meanwhile, we all need to realize that some people unfortunately put their entire life experience behind a political ideology. Putting it down (or a candidate which support it) is putting THEM down in their eyes.

[63splitwindow]

62. If only...

"Just leave the childish name calling and belittling out of it." didn't even need to be said. However, I've seen a few examples of really nasty, personal, ad hominem political attacks going back throughout history. So I am not really sure if it is worse today other than being WAY more easily distributed to the masses.

[betsuni]

63. I've suprised myself how personally I've taken those ...

names-you-wouldn't-call-your-worst-enemy personal attacks against the President. For people who think they're smarter than everybody else, they've certainly spent a lot of time baracking up the wrong tree.

[tjl148]

64. K&R this entire thread.

This is one of the better and thoughtful discussions I've seen on DU.

[DrBulldog]

65. You must nevetheless admit that when a President breaks his promises to the middle class . . .

. . . as badly as Obama has done, many people in this country who have been long suffering from the oligarchy the Republicans have erected in his presence have JUSTIFIABLY become very ANGRY at him. The name-calling is simply the exhibition of frustration, desperation, disgust, and hopelessness at this President's betrayal of the middle class.

[calimary]

69. Welcome to DU, BOTH of you! DrBulldog and also tjl148!

Glad you're both here! Seems to me there's more than just President Obama to be angry at. He's done a pretty good job in spite of all the ridiculous Sore Loserman pout-fest that we've endured from the GOP for the past six+ years.

And I appreciate Peacetrain's OP. Saw a post on this thread describing feeling surprised that insults and rages against President Obama could be taken so personally - since the poster supported the President. I sometimes find myself reacting that way, too. Some of us Hillary supporters get treated to a pretty big once-removed drubbing around here, too. I guess it just comes with the times and the territory. It's so frustrating to see how far we've sunk since reagan, though. I can fully understand why people are angry. I'M angry, too.

[Scurrilous]

66. K & R

[dpatbrown]

67. Ditto

Very well said.

[lovemydog]

68. Thank you Peacetrain.

I agree.

[sheshe2]

72. KnR~

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

73. If you can't get your point across without calling someone a name

it is you who are lacking.

[daredtowork]

74. Agree

And I think the majority on DU would agree.

IMHO, most of us are also tolerant (and non-political) jurors because we realize people are human and use extreme language when they feel passionately about something, or they will use crass language in the heat of argument. I would never add on the extra personal jab that a person alerting a jury about an insult should grow a thicker skin - but I've seen this remark at least a dozen time.

The common sentiment, at least as far as juries go, is that DU is a tolerant, easy-going community.

I don't think that's incompatible with your principle that we strive to treat each other with courtesy.

Part of courtesy is respecting that there are those who don't think that over-careful focusing on language should be a priority for feminism - that this patrolling will give feminism a bad reputation. I don't speak for myself here: I point to my agreement with the banning of NYC_SKP - I probably split the difference as far as concerns with language go. However, I think setting up situations meant to exclude and create hostilities with other feminist groups is discourteous. As a result I'm seeing women I regard as feminist and anti-misogynist as anyone else being twisted into the oddest shapes because of the way they are being positioned by various Lecturing posts.

Isn't that the opposite of the childishness and belittling this post seeks to transcend?

[awoke_in_2003]

75. I was a moderator during

the 08 primaries. Years of therapy later I am now back to normal

[tymorial]

76. You aren't considering when emotionalism overrides objectivity

How often have we seen people consider disagreement of policy that is promoted by a favored politician as personal attack? We've seen it time and time again with President Obama. I support him in general but I have also taken issue with some of his policies. I have been called racist more than once because of this. The same thing is going to happen with Hillary (and as some have pointed out.. has already begun). Disagreement with her politics will result in a summary accusation of misogyny. Some people are so devoted to their candidate that they just cannot imagine any reason why another person does not agree. They cannot consider any objective reasoning why differing opinions exist. The only conclusion they come to is that hate is the motivating factor. Look there are plenty of racist republicans but claiming that the entire party is racist and using a lack of support for the president as proof is preposterous. It creates cognitive dissonance in honest people. There will be democrats who do not support Hilary and that doesn't make them a misogynist. Last point, I am _NOT_ discussing what went down here with another user. I didn't read that thread and though I've lurked a long time, I didn't follow the individual in question.

[Skittles]

80. very well said

I will call out hypocrites every time, and there's a lot of it going around

[Kalidurga]

78. That is brilliant

I don't know who you support, nor does it matter to me. I tend to shy away from name calling. It doesn't mean I don't fire away at people's opinions I think are terribly wrong, but I don't call the poster names. There was a time where I would be somewhat to extremely insulting to other people, I have moved away from that to a great extent, it wasn't an effective strategy for discussion. In any case I hope people do realize that we are mostly for the same things and mostly against the same things, that we want a more equal society and a better country for our children and grandchildren to grow up in.

[seveneyes]

79. Cyber sticks and stones

Should be avoided with extreme prejudice.

[jimlup]

81. Well said and thank you /nt

[SnohoDem]

82. Agree 100%

It's surprising how ugly we can be on the web, when so few of us would be that way in real life.

[the_sly_pig]

88. I appreciate what you're saying, however....

"sticks and stones"...... Since becoming a member in 2004 I've had one of my threads hidden by jury decision. Folks can call me and my politicians whatever they like. Being belittled by anonymous members is a reflection of the poster. I feel these things just don't matter...

[blondie58]

89. An adult Has entered the room

Thank you for Saying this!

[yourpicturehere]

90. Bless you

Gee, I am sure posting a lot (for me) lately.

Peacetrain, you have hit the nail on the head for me.

I have been wondering lately, why a derogatory word toward a candidate (doesn't bother me, even if used toward me...I am one of those people with a swear-word arsenal!!!) bears more weight than the seemingly endless diatribes against certain groups...think southern, red state, etc. I fit into several of these groups and I can't understand why no one understands that we are on the same side. Y'all don't need my support?

I left one liberal site because the cliques had taken over, and was so happy to find DU, where I could get the REAL news and read the interesting comments posted by members. Talk about deja vu all over again.

I don't post new threads at all (why bother, no one will see it) and I leave comments rarely, because I prefer to lurk. This is my information site.

I am glad for the camaraderie (sp?) between members. I am too paranoid to post much information about myself...same reason I NEVER get on FB...besides I doubt anyone cares. If this seems distant and cold, I am sorry, but there are too many ways to find out who someone is, where they live, where they work and I like my privacy.

Like Peacetrain, I don't have time to get into a keyboard war with anyone, once again, I am sorry, but I have LOTS to do, and that makes me happy.

One last thing, my husband is a member of a reenactors group. He likes the time period and the way people got along back then (not me...modern woman). However, some of these people in his group believe that, if he is in that group that they must all hold the same ideas near and dear. He doesn't. One time I DID get into a keyboard war with a guy was when he kept sending us anti-Obama propaganda and my husband had asked him to stop (my husband's acquaintance, let him do it). Well, here came another one. I emailed the guy and reminded him that my husband had asked him to stop. He replied that he didn't know it was MY computer. I told him that yes, women were allowed to buy computers and even to teach their big, manly husband to use them. He emailed back that his wife didn't like the way I had talked to him...is that hilarious, or what? The point is that, even if we are all in the same political boat or hobby group, or whatever, that there are always shades of gray...very little is totally black and white. We are ALL different and we ALL have different opinions and that is a good thing.

Thanks, again, Peacetrain.

[Vinca]

91. I had hoped this election season the site would be more civil. I was wrong.

Most of us who support a particular candidate would probably vote for the other person of interest if it comes to that in the general election. Ronald Reagan was an idiot, but his advice to not speak negatively about members of his own party was something to consider. We have a whole bus filled with clowns we can trash . . . we ought to try to keep our discussions about policy rather than person.