Do we have trolls lurking here?

I had an interesting experience this week that I wanted to share with you all. I ran across a pretty scary website called AR15.com, the posts at which are hardcore freeper stuff, how Obama is a communist devoted to taking away people's guns and destroying the American way of life, liberals are evil Satan worshippers who are taking over the world, you know, the usual, paranoid, demented ramblings of the extreme right-wing. What I found interesting was that a number of posts there made references to posts here in this very forum. For instance, one thread referenced a gun poll listed here and instructed members to come here and freep the poll.

The whole thing kind of got me wondering, as groups like AR15.com are very militant and activist - many of their threads urge members to - both overtly and covertly - go out and tilt polls, disrupt discussion, and engage in other such obnoxious, obstructionist behaviors. One of their favorite targets, not surprisingly, is the Brady Campaign and their members constantly show up to call Brady Campaign supporters traitors, assholes, idiots, etc., etc.. In other words, not a real pleasant group of people. And apparently, a number of them hang out here.

So my question for you all is: what do gun-supporting DUers think of that? Does it trouble you that some real psychos may be hanging out here with you here, contributing undoubtedly highly partial and subjective material to your threads, and in turn utilizing the information you post to support essentially cyberterrorist activities?

...I'm sure. Some of those folks must consider trolling DU their holy grail, if the amount of time they spend talking about it is any indication. :rofl:

I mean, in fairness, I've posted at freerepublic.com myself, but I think it makes a difference that, when I've done so, I've always been 100% forthright and immediately identified myself as a DUer, explained that I meant no disrespect by posting there, that I was genuinely curious to know what freepers thought on a particular topic, if they'd care to share their views with me, great, I'd be glad to listen respectfully, if not, I understood that too. But I can't imagine going there and pretending to be one of them in order to carry out the internet equivalent of guerilla warfare against them. But I guess that marks one of the key differences between liberals and the right-wing: the right-wing respects no rules of behavior.

is, of course, yes. You show me an internet forum and I'll show you a playground for trolls.

To be completely equitable, however, I think you have to agree that there are content and POV restrictions in place at DU that are not there at freerepublic. I've never been curious or interested enough to peruse that site until your post made me go look. Under their "Rules" page there is the ubiquitous admonishment against obscene language, illegal activity and "inappropriate materials" and a request to remain civil. There is, however, no suggestion that one must be of like mind to post there.

Here, at DU, things are a little different. On the page, "How We Enforce The Discussion Forum Rules," under the "Who we are" section is the following; Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned. The DU admins and moderators set the rules as they see fit and it is absolutely their right to do so. But I have seen posters get banned for posts that were evidently deemed insufficiently progressive and it seems a fairly subjective thing. Again, that's their right.

My observation is that the vast majority of those on the far right are not just willing to identify themselves as such, they revel in it. It's like their mission to tell you where you're wrong, why you're wrong and what the truth really is (as they see it). I suspect that the freepers who post here do so surreptitiously to avoid getting banned.

Black Pot to kettle: "You're black!"

(No racism intended)

Some we get before they make a single post. They tend to be not very creative with their usernames.


One guy with a zero post got it because he alerted on a post instead of replying to it and posted his racist dribble in the alert message! :rofl:


Yeah, he saw a bright light pretty quickly. Fission vision.

I mean, they must know that their views are not going to find a receptive audience here, so what are they hoping to accomplish other than to be insulting and abusive? Do they really have so much hatred within them that they're willing to waste their time on such a pointless exercise? How incredibly naive must I be to wonder about that? :-)

Still, it really is kind of scary if you stop to reflect upon the fact that there are so many people out there who possess that level of mindless hatred. :scared:

That's my guess.


Or the personal challenge... how long can I last? Some opt for the crash-and-burn, some go for stealth.


And some don't even make a first post. :rofl:

they are fighting for OUR 2nd Amendment Right. And if you are going to FIGHT for something isn't it reasonable to think that they would fight that way???? How much of a fight would YOU put up for your 1st Amendment Right or any of the other amendments?

"Israfel4 (17 posts) Sun May-17-09 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
44. IMO, its NOT mindless "hatred"
they are fighting for OUR 2nd Amendment Right. And if you are going to FIGHT for something isn't it reasonable to think that they would fight that way???? How much of a fight would YOU put up for your 1st Amendment Right or any of the other amendments?"

Perhaps you could extend to others who don't happen to share it the same courtesy, or is that asking too much?

Suddenly, I'm not sure whether the source of info is from an honest DUer or from some hardcore wacko with an agenda.

Portraying Democrats as gun-friendly undermines their chief talking point.

But it would bolster their assertion that everyone has and loves guns and therefore efforts to pass gun control legislation would run contrary to the majority position on guns in this country.

Have and account over here? Do you have an account over there?

I don't think one need even "wonder" about such a question...

they must be AR15 reverse trolls.

DU has trolls all over, from the right and from the left. And pro-gun (and anti-gun) DUers sometimes go out baiting people in other forums. It's part of life on the internet, not "terrorism."

throwing around the terrorism label is 'so George Bush'

The only understanding I can get out of your post, is you are saying people expressing view points can be called terrorism.

Thought police anyone?

I just couldn't think of a better term. But what we're talking about here is not "expressing view points." I mean, here at DU, we express opinions and we can and do disagree. But there's a substantial difference between "expressing a view point" and seeking to infiltrate a discussion with the conscious, deliberated goal of bending, twisting, distorting, misleading, or otherwise obstructing or derailing it. I mean, slackmaster and I will undoubtedly disagree on a number of points, but I cannot conceive of him engaging in that sort of conduct, anymore than he can hopefully conceive of me doing something so dishonest. Despite our differences, at the end of the day, we're DUers and share respect for each other even as we disagree. I would sincerely hope that everyone here would agree that willfully disruptive or misleading conduct is unacceptable. Or would we? That's why I'm asking. Do you condone such tactics?

I do at times go on tangents off of a thought in a thread. This might be a distraction from the original OPs thought. So thinking of how I post, I could see that can add a distraction to a thread.

But it usually is not inflammatory, or set to break thought on the OP. So in that way I would say it is not bad, just a side thought.

If inflammatory topics are used to move thought from thinking to arguing, especially if on an irrelevant point, but a more visceral point, I would think that is distraction that hurts the conversation.

But in another way, it can help people learn to pull there mind back into the flow of the regular conversation, back to important topics.

In a way, the more thinking of the American people is the training of thought that comes with communication methods like the Internet. The forum idea, of having to think and respond, is getting people thinking, not just passively watching.

That might also be why TV is making such a big push for Twitter, since its limited text length removes indepth thinking.

:rofl:

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

And actually listening to what people have to say. :eyes:

... is that when you strip away the paranoia and hysteria, the racism and xenophobia, they have valid points. Unfortunately, because gun ownership has become a left-right thing (like torture, say), both sides tend to attract a certain political party. Right-wing pro-gunners portray the gun-control movement at a larger attempt at World Government, socialism, communism, tolitarianism, the welfare state, fascism, Nazi-ism, the destruction of the white American majority, destruction of Christianity, etc.

The left-wing pro-gunners, on the other hand, take issue more with the illogic and arbitrary nature of the gun-control side, the questional effects on crime, etc.

However, both pro-gun sides must use a common set of facts. "Assault weapon" IS an arbitrary term, for example, and it's use is part of the framing argument designed to be perjorative and evoke an emotional reaction. So in decrying use of the term... pro-gun lefties have to use the same reasoning as the pro-gun righties.

The Brady Campaign DOES spread disinformation, so when you're debunking it, pro-gun lefties and pro-gun rights use the same logic.


:shrug:


There are at least two sides to every issue. At some point the Democratic Party decided to not only be on the "anti" side of the issue, but to make being "anti" a big part of it's national and local political strategy, which by default makes the GOP the "pro" side, which they then made into a big part of THEIR national and local political strategy.

We see this happening now with torture. One day, the Repubs decided that "torturing defends America", and now the issue is partisan. It's difficult to be a Republican and stand with the Dems on this issue, and it's difficult to be a Dem and stand with the Repubs on this issue. It's well on the way to becoming part of each party's platform.

Say, for instance, that I come up to you and introduce myself as a representative of the Adolf Hitler Fan Club, whose purpose is to restore the teachings of our beloved Fuehrer to their rightful place in history, and I'd like to hang out with you and support your cause, because I too happen to support private gun ownership. Aren't you going to look at me, make a concerted effort to keep your lunch down, and conclude that you don't really need help badly enough to accept it from someone like me? It seems like agreeing with your position, or even having valid points, is only meaningful insofar as the source has credibility to address those topics for sane reasons.

-a baseball sized hunk of salt, and question the sources and logic of whatever assertion is they're making.

However, if the logic stands as do the sources, you gotta admit that. I mean look at the national enquirer- totally trashy rag. But every so often, they actually get something right (wasn't it the John Edwards infidelity that they broke ahead of the rest of the media?).

If you want to know about Hilter, one of his fan clubs would be a good source of info; for info in private gun ownership, not so much.

AR15.com is a excellent source of technical information on AR-15 rifles and other firearms. For politics, not so much.

They are consumers of information and opinion.


When I read about why the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was not effective, it's not an idealology, it's an analysis. And both sides, the pro-gun and anti-gun side that fought against or for the measure knew the weaknesses of the legislation. Both sides knew what the real purpose of the law was and fought a battle in the court of public opinion.


Now I won't be joining the Adolf Hitler Fan Club anytime soon, but the fact that they are on my side in an issue is to be expected. Hitler, for example, basically made real the idea of the limited-access highway, what we commonly call an interstate. So if AAA and the AHFC were both lobbying Congress for interstate expansion, what do you do?

You grin and bear it.

In the example you gave, I would tell the representitive of the AHFC something along the lines of "you do what you're going to do and I'll do what I'm going to do. Regardless of the fact that we're on the same side of this issue, your world and mine are fundamentally in conflict, and any alliance or coordination of our efforts will not happen." The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, you see.




I also have to consider the source of the anti-gun movement. I did some research by looking up the party platform of the DNC for the past 50 years to try to find out when, exactly, Democrats got such anxiety about guns. Turns out it happened about 16 years ago, when all of a sudden in 1992 we got all hot and bothered about "deadly assault weapons". This was a decade after the assassination attempt on Reagan that crippled his aide, a guy named Brady, and his wife took up a crusade in his name.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136200

Before that, all that was in the party platform was concern about "cop-killer" bullets (1988), handguns (1976, 1972), and attempts to keep criminals from getting guns (1968).

So what was the AWB? A serious attempt to target crime guns, or an attempt at creating a wedge issue that would favor Democrats? And how did it work out for us?


The issue with the AWB was that is was basically a ban on combinations of cosmetic features, along with a ban on the sale of new magazines of over 10 rounds capacity to the public. People who knew about guns knew it was a farce, and people that didn't know about guns thought it banned full-auto firearms. To the former, the unknowledgeable looked gullible and soft; to the latter, the knowledgeable looked dangerous and shrill.

I have no doubt that white, conservative, Republican America saw such a law as yet another attack on their world. After all, that world had been under attack for a while. Separation of church and state, desegregation, interracial marriage, civil rights for minorities and women... my GOD, what was their world coming too??? And I have no doubt that many liberals secretly enjoy talk of banning guns because they see it as another battle in the cultural war against stifling and repressive white conservatative male values.

However, unlike secular laws and public services, desegregation, inter-racial marriage, civil rights for minorities and womem, etc., gun control laws typcally restrict, not expand, the opportunities and conditions for gun ownership and use.




I'm not going to pretend that civilian ownership of guns is any kind of check on governmental power, or that I'm some badass killing machine because I own a gun or two. That's why I'm here, not at ar15.com.

I've never quite understood the disparity between Democrats being the party of civil liberties and progress AND being anti-gun until I read Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff. Now I understand the major aspect of it, between the "strict father" Republicans and the "nuturing parent" Democrats.



Well, I've been rambling on for a while now, so I'll end this post and pay some attention to my cat, who's on my lap and not happy with the keyboard taking up all my attention! :-)

I find the whole practice of encouraging wars between boards to be really tacky.

The gun boards I frequent forbid that type of behavior. Not forbidden at AR15 and not forbidden here.




Bear in mind also, that what ever board you go to most of the vocal people are the extremists who want to start shit with you. It is true at all boards I have seen including this one.

I mean, there is some middle ground even on as divisive an issue as guns. For instance, we can all agree that we would prefer to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Yet there will be areas upon which there simply is no potential for agreement. And when it comes to those areas, there seems little point in belaboring the fact that we're not going to agree upon it; all that can accomplish is inflaming people's rage and animosity towards each other, thus polarizing the issue and thwarting any substantive progress on those areas upon which we can and do agree. I dunno, maybe that's the goal. :shrug:

But on AR15 you will get hammered by a tiny group for being a commie traitor pussy if you don't want everybody to have access to machine guns. Here you will get hammered by a tiny group for being a mean hateful evil war monger full of blood lust if you don't want to get rid of all guns.

I can tell you that after 3 pages of that crap on AR15 the moderator came on and told the 2 jerks to knock it off. He apologized for their behavior. He told them that I had showed more class even if my views were not popular, and said I was welcome to stay if I wanted to.

I mean, if someone wants to set up a website to promote a viewpoint, no mater how radical, hey, it's free country. If I don't want to be told that I'm a commie traitor pussy for having a different view, I don't have to go there. I may be mistaken, but I don't imagine that DUers make a point of going to AR15 with the goal of infiltrating and disrupting their discussions; they just stay away if they don't agree. Apparently, the same cannot be said for AR15 members, at least some of whom - and with the moderators' knowledge and tolerance, if not active encouragement - rouse themselves and as many of their fellow board members as they can to do precisely that at the sites of those who do not share their point of view.

has been that I have seen threads that encourage people to go to freerepublic and disrupt their forum. I asked on that thread if that was acceptable here and I was told yes.

Interesting! I haven't seen that before, but I guess it shouldn't surprise me so much. Well, I still think it's a pity, even when the good guys are doing it.

But I found it pretty surprising. On many of the gun boards even mentioning another board in a negative manner is likely to make the thread disappear. As far as I am concerned, if you don't like the board then don't go there. It is a private club, not public property. And people congregate on a board so they can be around others with similar ideas, not to fight.

It's just kind of disheartening, that's all. I would like to think that we here at DU behave a little more honorably than that.

...you're a very gentle soul, aren't you? :D

You'd think the Bushista junta would have prepared me for anything, but, nope, I'm still shocked when people behave like assholes. Apparently I'll never learn. :hi:

Who are either trying to "correct" the beliefs of their opposition

Or posing as the opposition in order to make them look silly.

If you notice, most partisan forums are also pretty paranoid about this fact and usually the worst epithet you can call someone is that they are from the other side.

Pro-RKBA people posing as anti-gunners, antis posing as ugly pro-gunners, other forms of black propagandists, Canadians who just want to stir up shit, etc.

It takes the Village People to raise a child.

Hi, slackmaster! :hi:

Thanks, I needed a chuckle.

:rofl:

to consider tilting Internet polls (which are as meaningful as newspaper horoscopes in the grand scheme of things) as "cyberterrorist activities". Ditto for disrupting discussion, every forum I've ever seen has an "ignore" button.

I guess my training in network administration has influenced my thinking on this. Compared to hacking a website, or launching a denial of service attack, expressing one's opinion, no matter how unintelligently, is difficult to view as "cyberterrorist".

I can't tell you how thoroughly unreassuring this conversation has been, but I guess I'm a little less naive now than when I started. On that note, I think I'm going to go watch Bambi or something innocent.

We get DU users posting nasty stories from freeperville and ar15.com, so at least some folks are 'keeping an eye on the other side'. I surf multiple sites, depending on what kind of information I'm looking for- glocktalk, 1911forum, thr, ar15, dailykos, 538 (during the election, not since), digg, engadget, slashdot..

I haven't seen a lot intentional subversion- those guys tend to disappear pretty quickly around here. I've seen a few DU'ers do the same at some other sites, too, so I don't think our hands are especially clean.

Part of being on the net, I suppose. It's much easier to accuse someone of being a plant from another community so that you can dismiss anything they say, rather than accept that there will be those in our own communities that might not hold all the same viewpoints that we do.

Browsing around AR15 is practically indistinguishable from browsing freerepublic.com. The pages are filled with references to the "Demonrats" (by which I understand them to be referring to Democrats), cheering on the "heroic Tea Party patriots," blasting Obama for bringing the planet to the verge of some apocalyptic catastrophe, etc., etc.. As for the intentional subversion you consider to be so rare, the pages of AR15 are filled with what they term "Fire Missions" to go out and to other websites and disrupt the discussions there, to verbally assault and abuse the participants, to skew some poll, the list is endless. This brand of guerrilla activism is plainly very much a key feature over there. If you're hanging out there, you're hanging out with a pretty scary bunch of wackos.

I also believe that there is a fundamental difference between passively keeping an eye on the other side and actively seeking to disrupt the other side's right to engage in discussion. As another poster in this thread noted, most websites are not public, but rather are privately owned and operated. Anyone may set up any website they like to discuss any topic they wish and, as long as their design is not criminal, more power to them. Those who have no respect for the right of others to hold what views they will and actively organize and engage in "fire missions" to obstruct others from holding views different from their own, that is not at all the same thing as "keeping an eye on the other side."

Nor do I agree with your suggestion that taking umbrage at such conduct is merely an easy way to dismiss the viewpoints of others. If a person seeks to sway me by willfully misrepresenting him/herself as a member of a group vis a vis whom s/he has reason to believe I will more receptive, that's called fraud and it's highly unethical to say the very least, and, in many instances, is even legally actionable. I therefore consider it entirely appropriate to question the credibility of someone who knowingly perpetrates fraud.

.. I meant intentional subversion _here_. Our mods are pretty savvy when it comes to sussing out those kinds of trolls.

Personally, I visit ar15's tech forums when I have a specific question, or I'm interested in the latest tech for ar-15s. Same for glocktalk or 1911forum. I'll occasionally dip my big toe into their political / current events sections, but just to see what the latest tempest in a teapot is (always good for a laugh). I'm sure I'd be labeled a 'du troll' were I to start posting my political opinions widely at any of those places. But hey, I get my tech there, my politics here.

Re the 'fraud'- I don't personally give anyone credence based on their stated political philosophy alone. Call me a cynic, but the actions they profess, the reasons and logic they use- those are the things I analyze for value / disdain. My wife jokes that I'm an open-minded* cynic- I'll argue anything with anyone, but I fully expect that most people are idiots. :)

*open minded as willing to listen and evaluate a position on it's merits, not open minded as willing to believe anything as true, ie, gullible.

Sorry, misunderstood there for a minute.

And I hear what you're saying about willingness to listen, I guess I'm just more paranoid. I mean, I don't know that much about the technical capabilities of specific types of guns, so it wouldn't take much of an authority to convince me of a gun's technical attributes. So I'm very, very careful about who I'm willing to listen to, because I'm not sure I'm savvy enough to know when someone's bullshitting me and when they're not. Here, I feel pretty comfortable that, while DUers may disagree, I don't imagine that they will knowingly lie to me. Someone who describes themselves as being on a crusade against the "evil Demonrats"? That person's views, I'm not so sure about. Such a person might very well be willing to do anything, up to and including lying through their teeth. Then again, they may genuinely believe what they say, but may be so disconnected from reality that they also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

If firearms tech is something you'd be interested in learning more about, I'm sure folks here could come up with some reputable books.

I guess you could call me a ar15 troll since I heard of DU there. I visit here and there from time to time. (mostly there) I gave up trying to figure out where I fall politically a long time ago. I share interests from both main parties but gun control will always be my deciding factor when I vote. I guess I'm more of a constitutionalists than anything. I am one of those that doesn't want anymore gun laws and would like to see many we have repealed. I do think you would be surprised at the number of people on ar15 that are pro-choice and pro gay civil unions (I am). On the other hand I won't speak for them here or people here when I post there.

General Discussion forums. Check out the reloading forum or some of the other more technical forums and you will get a lot out of it. The GD forum is just a cluster f*ck.

DU is no exception.

There are extremists everywhere, and yes DU is no exception.

As for me? I'm a lifelong Democrat, a veteran Party activist, and gun owner.

The suggestion to go to sites and hit polls, although not for a while now, so it doesn't surprise me that some other sites would have people suggesting that they do the same.

how you've been on here since 2002 and haven't seen the multitude of posts linking to other internet polls requesting that people DU this poll. It happens all the time. Fact is, I've seen it done over in GD and the lounge on this very subject (gun control). That said I wouldn't spend time on a lot of internets forums including the one mentioned. There are many good and informative firearms forums without digging the bottom of the proverbial barrel...same is true for nearly every left or right wing cause....no need to soil yourself over a tiny group of tiny minds.

So my question for you all is: what do gun-supporting DUers think of that? Does it trouble you that some real psychos may be hanging out here with you here, contributing undoubtedly highly partial and subjective material to your threads, and in turn utilizing the information you post to support essentially cyberterrorist activities?

I think it is stupid and a waste of time to go into public forums where you don't ideologically agree with the fundamental group that is there. Some people, I think, get a rise out of going into such places and stirring up shit. Fortunately, they usually don't last very long around here.

As for internet polls, they are pretty meaningless.

There are a lot of real Democrats here that are pro-gun. People who are tired of pro-corporate, anti-environment, pro-war-on-terror, pro-war-on-drugs, pro-religion Republican ideals, but still see the right to keep and bear arms as the final insurance against oppression.

I troll over there because it's fun to see how desperately paranoid they are. If you ever need to feel better about yourself, just go over there and check out their pathetic lives.

in this forum. I'm one. Bit of a difference between southern/mid-western dems ideologically (as a mass) and their "big tent" friends from the north east and west coast. Different lives, different concerns and all that. I consider myself a Democrat, but honestly, I'm not sold on the "progressive hegemony" that reigns on DU. Which is why I rarely stick my head out of the Gungeon.

Edit: oh yeah, we got trolls too. Honestly I don't consider the occasional wandering libertarian who seem to occasionally show up here "trolls" - they tend to blatantly state they are libertarians. They just ain't allowed in the club :) But we do get a rash of trolls once in a while.

Edit II: I love the Gungeon because here we get to talk guns a bit without the political baggage. Same reason I like the high road - but there it is 90% right-wing, the mods just crush all political discussion :)

Its all a part of the noise at DU, but the good news is that facts are verifiable, sources of information can be confirmed, and logical rational discourse is still easy to spot regardless of who says it.

Warrifles, GlockTalk, FrugalSquirrels...

I generally stick to the non-political topics there, but there's a lot of good non-political information at those sites.

...and as far as them calling Brady Campaign supporters names, I've seen plenty of DUers calling NRA supporters names, too...

It makes these conversations so much more trying. No one has suggested that the people at AR15 are not entitled to their opinions, no matter how ugly they may be. But, as I have pointed out several times on this thread if you bothered to read it, there is a fundamental difference between having ones opinions and sharing them with consenting like minded individuals, and taking that opinion on the warpath and using it to assault those who do not share it. DUers are free to call the NRA names and the AR15 folks are more than welcome to call the Brady Campaign names. Where they cross the line is by hosting "Fire Missions" urging members to go to the Brady Campaign's privately owned and operated, moderated website or facebook page or whatever, and attempt to shut it down by calling them names to their faces. I've seen posts at the Brady Campaign discussion board, made by AR15 members acting upon such "Fire Missions," tell a woman whose daughter was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting that it was somehow the mother's fault for being a bad mother and not arming her daughter. The First Amendment is a fine thing, but it is not without limits. It does not, for instance, authorize citizens to engage in intentional infliction of emotional distress. It does not authorize citizens to engage in assault. Those sorts of expression are not protected speech; they are tortious, illegal, and actionable. And more importantly, they're fucking cruel. Would you go to a rape counseling group and lecture them on the rights of rapists? Would you go to an AA meeting and tell them all that they're a bunch of pussies because they can't handle their liquor? Would you go to a Holocaust survivors' reunion and sing the praises of the Third Reich to them? If you would, then you're as big an asshole as your friends at AR15 are. If you wouldn't, then you might want to give some thought to the company you're keeping and whether they deserve your defense.

I've seen people here make fun of somebody who inflicted life-threatening wounds on as friend...because they had different beliefs.

I've seen people here gleefully report the outing of people...which caused those people great personal pain...because they had different beliefs.

I've seen people here accuse others of pedophilia...because they had different beliefs.


My point is that the cruelty exists on both sides of the fence...and both sides also have their good people. The behavior of extremist lefties is no better than the behavior of extremist righties.


Mote and beam.

But it seems to me that your brush is the broader in this instance: mine is no wider than a single specific practice engaged in by a single specific group. That there are plenty of other assholes in the world goes without saying, but that does not excuse the first behavior.

All I'm asking is that you put yourself in the shoes of somebody who really does believe that Obama is going to take people's guns and that homosexuality is a heinous sin. To them, DU is a "scary website".

Frankly, I'd ask people here to DU a few of their polls, but I know that things would get ugly...and there's no need for that.

To answer your OP question...does it bother me that people from Arfcom and other "gun boards" post here occasionally? Not at all. 99% of the pro-gun posts here are from legitimate Democrats. The other 1% is no different than those of us who have/had accounts on sites like FR. A small number of them slip through the cracks to push their agenda, but the rest of their views usually come out and get them banned.

... to nurture whatever paranoid delusions their fevered imaginations can concoct - it's a free country. The only reason I went there in the first place was not to spy on them or to troll, but in an effort to ascertain whether or not they were in fact, as their posters voluntarily indicated, the source of a whole series of particularly violent assaults on the Brady Campaign. And, judging from all of the "Fire Mission" threads over there, and, as you can see from their discussion of this thread linked to in post 60, they're not looking to be left alone; rather, they're looking to attack and abuse others who don't share their views, and I'm sorry, but that's not excusable behavior, no matter how petrified they may be.

There are people in the thread you linked to (which responds to your OP here) that are laughing about this thread. There are those who are a little pissed about being called terrorists. There are others who are doing what I've been doing here...explaining that we just have different views and that most of us can understand that...although there are always the extremist whackjobs on both sides.

The "fire missions" at Arfcom are a call to action...voting in polls sometimes, but usually calling legislators or the media to make their views heard. Do some people do things like troll Brady Campaign supporters' boards and post "mean" messages? Probably, but that's NOT the purpose of a fire mission nor is it the way most Arfcom members deal with opposing views (at least not outside their own site).

Well, I don't think I saw a single post there that didn't include some profanity or vulgarity. I especially like the post which asserts that DUers are pussies who piss themselves in the presence of free men, while secretly longing to suck their cocks. Yep, we got ourselves some real literary giants there. I wonder if that guy's ever read anything other than a comic book in his entire life. How refreshing, normally one has to go to a penitentiary to make the acquaintance of such semi-evolved simians. And these are friends of yours, are they? I suggest you look a little higher up the food chain for your friends.

But that is all beside the point. As I've said repeatedly, they're free to wallow in their own filth to their heart's content over there and I couldn't care less. When I do care is when they take their hate show on the road and attempt to impose it upon others. What strikes me as interesting is that the very term "troll," to most people an insult, is a badge of honor for these guys. They freely admit to trolling here and elsewhere and take pride in being so rude, belligerent, and offensive that they speedily get banned. There's no need for me to make a case here, these guys admit to being trolls and are proud of it.

some narrow-minded shithead like that can post here without being tombstoned? 10 posts? 20? And if it's drive-by filth that does get them nuked, and the mods delete their posts, what of it? (Aside from causing the moderators more work I guess)

By posting a thread like this, you give trolls exactly what they seek satisfaction in. You've encouraged more of it. Report the trolls, don't acknowledge their filth, and life will be just fine. Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.

And a lot of them detest the idea of private firearm ownership.;-)

The person who posted it there may very well be one of the people who posted here on this thread. It rather elegantly makes my point, doesn't it?

Was that you Dave? You do fit the profile. But no, you and they can holster your paranoia; it took no participation from me to find its way over there, someone else was kind enough to do that for me. Not being a troll, I don't have an account over there to post even if I had wanted to.

Both here and at other sites?

I've read posts here at the DU Guns forum that come across like the old Radio Tirana, complete with neo-Stalinist rhetoric.

Now, I had to wonder- are these for real, or just a 'black op' to discredit gun control?

You also have to wonder if some of the posters at Arfcom aren't 'playing' David Duke-types to
discredit *them*.

Ah, what a tangled web we weave...

Or one of their mods could have looked at a trackback from a link, etc, etc. The almighty power of the internet can bring people together without any malicious, overt act whatsoever. Someone could be a true democrat, AND a member of arfcom. Something like that usually starts from a search, for instance, looking for takedown information on a manufacturer you're not familiar with. You might hang out in the technical forums, without ever coming into contact with their idea of 'political' forums.

I've certainly been referred to ARFcom by a few google searches. My Colt didn't come with a manual, so I had to look up care and feeding.

(No, Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of AR15.COM)


But now there's blood in the water and the people over there that get off on trolling the internet for yucks, or plain old meanness, are certainly aware of this thread. Without knowing by what vector they became aware of this thread, you haven't proven any point at all. Hell, for all you know, two siblings might have been arguing over it, one a Democrat, one a Republican. Once it's linked, the curious and the mean are damn sure going to wander over here. Set a good example, don't smear them all as assholes, and maybe you might interest a few of those curious people in some progressive thinking.

You wonder why people on ar15.com think that obama is going to take their guns? I don't.

If you haven't noticed, if it's not obama directly, someone is always calling for "closing the gun show loop hole" or a "permanent AWB" or "ammo coding" or something. If these people would stop focusing on guns and move on to another issue you might see less of this.

Also, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to call them out on their attitude tward the brady campaign considering peoples icy attitude tward the NRA here?

See post 59.

Especially with the format DU uses. I tend to only read replies to my posts and titles that spike my interest.

Anymore DU has become redundant on both sides anyhow.

The NRA doesn't care about party affiliation if that's what you're implying. They donate to who ever has their best interest(gun rights) in mind.

It just happens to be republicans support gun rights more often than democrats.

Wasn't there a figure posted here on DU that the NRA donated close to $300,000 to various democratic candidates, and 900,000 to republicans?

Are you willing to confront the DU member who admitted to do so in this thread?

No one here has admitted to infiltrating other boards and verbally assaulting anyone for the purpose of disrupting their conversations, but if they were to do so, yes, I would have a problem with it whether the perp was a wing-nut or a DUer.

COnsidering how many times you chastise people to read the thread -- you should read your thread.

A spectator, s/he does not admit to interjecting him/herself into their discussion with the purpose of disrupting or being otherwise obstructionist or disrespectful. Try doing some reading yourself.

Trolling is "interjecting him/herself into their discussion with the purpose of disrupting or being otherwise obstructionist or disrespectful."

Lurking is the term for merely being spectator.

From his/her comment that he went there to "see how pathetic their lives were" suggests to me that s/he may be lurking more than trolling. But regardless, I already answered your question: if someone interjects themselves into someone else's private discussions in order to disrupt them, then yeah, I would consider it very poor manners regardless of who did it. And if DU were to, like AR15, organize "fire missions" to get DUers riled up to engage in that sort of behavior, I would say that's very irresponsible conduct on the part of the board.

I await to see you criticize our own as well as you criticize others. ("...many of their threads urge members to - both overtly and covertly - go out and tilt polls, disrupt discussion, and engage in other such obnoxious, obstructionist behaviors.).

This kindergarden recess tit-for-tat game of yours should be beneath you. Grow up.

Or at least the first one.

Do your parents know that you're playing on their computer? Maybe you should come back in a few years when you have something more insightful to offer than this lame nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah fare.

I asked a simple question to see if you would apply your criticism to DU in general or if your purpose was to just disparage posters in this forum. You evaded the issue. I gave you a couple of chances to be consistent, and you chose to dodge. So be it. You are what you are.

I answered your question directly no less than twice. See post 77: "... if they were to do so, yes, I would have a problem with it whether the perp was a wing-nut or a DUer." and post 85: "... if someone interjects themselves into someone else's private discussions in order to disrupt them, then yeah, I would consider it very poor manners regardless of who did it." I also addressed this same topic in at least two other place before you posted. See post 25: "Well, I still think it's a pity, even when the good guys are doing it." and post 29: "I would like to think that we here at DU behave a little more honorably than that." I think of myself as being reasonably fluent in English, but I know of no way that I could possibly make any clearer my answer to your question, having now answered it at least four times. That you choose to consider answering a question four times to be evasive demonstrates to me that you simply are not listening and that it makes no difference what I say, that you will continue to read into my statements whatever paranoid delusion it is that you wish to see in them. Had you been paying attention, you would also know that I am not disparaging posters in this forum, I am inquiring of them what they think of posters from another site altogether which trolls here and elsewhere. Once again, you are plainly not interested in that fact, it being so much more fun to take little snippets out of context and invent imaginary positions which you can then misattribute to me in furtherance of your delusions. Fine, knock yourself out. Why, I think I mentioned somewhere in here belief in the Tooth Fairy, I also used the pronoun "I" any number of times, it's childplay to put those two things together, credit me with believing in the Tooth Fairy, and gleefully cry "Gotcha!" Fine, you have fun, little boy. If/when you're ever ready to participate in an adult conversation, I'll be only too happy to listen. Until then, life's too short to waste it on such a meaningless and pointless form of childish amusement.

Oh, and before you grace us with some such witty riposte as "I am rubber, you are glue," know that I put you on ignore, so I won't get to "enjoy" it, so you may as well resist the temptation to get in the last word and just get on with your day.

Not if you had "a problem", not if you thought it were "poor manners", or a "pity" that the good guys do it. I asked if you would extent to DU the same term you used for AR15 members --cyberterrorists. As I can all see, you won't.

As far as being on ignore, I expect no less from you. But I bet you ask someone what I wrote.

Adios, primo.


eta: As far as disparing posters in this forum, you seem to forget from your OP...

"The whole thing kind of got me wondering, as groups like AR15.com are very militant and activist - many of their threads urge members to - both overtly and covertly - go out and tilt polls, disrupt discussion, and engage in other such obnoxious, obstructionist behaviors. One of their favorite targets, not surprisingly, is the Brady Campaign and their members constantly show up to call Brady Campaign supporters traitors, assholes, idiots, etc., etc.. In other words, not a real pleasant group of people. And apparently, a number of them hang out here."

Now who was calling who childish? I'm taking my ball and I'm going home.

Be my guest, I'm sure whatshisname would love to waste it with you.

Especially since you sound and act so much like a barfcomer yourself.

If Primavera had simply said that yes DUers who troll elsewhere are cyberterrorists too, then I would have had nothing else to say. I would have been forced to admire her consistency.

I am doubtful that after 7 years of posting on DU she never saw the same DU admissions of trolling other sites.

Its true in other posts Primavera says s/he has "a problem" with similar DU behavior, and doesn't like when the "good guys" do it, but that's far lesser criticism than calling a group cyberterrorists.

So yeah, I stand by what I wrote -- I think, after giving Primavera a chance to be consistent, Primavera came to this forum to stir up shit (i.e., to troll).

By the way, welcome to DU. :hi:

It looks to me like primavera already owned up to a poor choice of wording and explained what she was trying to say. What shit is she trying to stir up? It sounds like her beef is with trollers from barfcom, not with anybody here. Since her profile say she's been here for seven years, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt that she's not a troll.

Primavera doesn't retract it in post #8. Instead we get, "I just couldn't think of a better term.", which is another way of saying that is the best term s/he could think of. If the term was retracted, then a simple answer to my question could have been, "No, but I no longer thing the other group can be considered cyberterrorists either" (or something like that). The subthread would have been over right there.

You may wish to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I've seen more than one normally good DUer (even long term DUers) start posts in the Guns forum to merely cause trouble because of the many Democrats who support the 2 Amendment post here. More than one have said or implied that pro-gun DU posters are merely NRA, arfcom, highroad, freeper, etc trolls to discredit true Democratic 2nd Amendment supporters. Because you are new here, you may not have seen such things. There are as many (if not more) hostile anti-gun folks who post about gun policy merely to antagonize as pro-gun folk on DU. Some of them are DU members; some of them are from other boards who take on DU usernames to cause trouble. I don't think Primavera is the latter, but could be the former with this OP.

If that wasn't Primavera's intent, then I apologize for my accusation.

But I'm afraid "benefit of the doubt" is an exceedingly rare commodity in this forum. As you can see, hostility and suspicion are the norm. You might try LBN, GD, and the other forums. I promise, we're not all so discourteous! Welcome to DU! :hi:

that forum and this one. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the AR posters didn't know that there are DU'ers who are into firearms as much as they are. Their "General Discussion" is chok full of randomness, both good and bad, as well as funny and serious. From "Dinner Pics" to "My son was racially profiled". I thought this was a pretty good post:


If any DUer is actually reading this... here's a bit of what true conservatives think about our government:

What makes this country unique and great is the fact that our founding fathers believed so strongly in individualism that they placed the rights of the individual above the rights of the collective society, or the "common good." It was founded on the precepts of individual freedom and individual responsibility. It is not the role of government to protect you from yourself, your bad choices, poor judgment, ignorance or bad luck. It's not the role of government to provide you with food, shelter, medical care, vacations or employment or anything else. Nor does the government have the right to take away what is yours to provide these things for others. The only legitimate role of the government is to protect your rights from the infringement of others. That means law enforcement, criminal justice and a strong military. If you want to give your money to someone who is having a hard time that is fine, matter of fact the people of this country give more by far than any other nation on earth. But the government should not be able to take your money and give it to others to provide these things.



Basically, we want to be left alone to succeed or fail on our own without the government helping or hindering us. It's the standard everyone should live under. When we say that the government's role is not to bail people out, that doesn't mean we want anyone to fail. We believe everyone has the same chances to succeed, but they need to EARN it.

I disagree with much of it and it's internally inconsistent, but at least it was thoughtful, refrained from gratuitous vulgarity, and used complete sentences, which is more than can be said for the other posts there.

a poison pill, indeed. The party platforms of the past were no eye opener for me.. I remember when gun control was a republican elite issue... actually, it still is (helmke, repub mayor of Ft. Wayne, IN, Bradys, etc.).

How many litmus test gun banners would leave the democrat party if it were pro gun?

How many gun rights folks would join the party if it were like the past (JFK in the NRA)?

I would say that losing the banners would be a great trade and a way to permanently marginalize the r party.

of your post and welcome to DU if you are a Democrat or Progressive, if not, we pro 2nd Democrats and Progressives can handle ourselves here quite well without any help from the right.

I must say that referring to the Democratic party as the 'Democrat' party is viewed as hostile and was actually coined by the right (most notably Limpballs) as an affront to party members.

A troll is just as likely to spout vicious gun-owner-hating rhetoric, anti-NRA venom, or pro-confiscation strawmen in order to try to prove to moderates that "those people at DU want to ban your guns." Having said that, I think the mods do a pretty good job weeding out the false flags, on both sides.

Also, I would point out that the AR-15 is the most popular centerfire target rifle in America, as well as the single most popular defensive carbine in U.S. homes; the site also has a great deal of info on other popular small- and intermediate-caliber carbines. Unfortunately, the froth rises to the top, and I don't post much there for that reason, but the technical threads and FAQ's are a very good resource for owners of modern-style civilian rifles, and there are plenty of non-wingnuts who lurk there.

IMHO, that site would be vastly improved by better moderating.

I've seen other posters use that term, but I'm not entirely sure what it means. Is that pretending to be a subscriber to the prevailing views on a board in order to gain acceptance so that you can sabotage the discussion?

'Astroturfing' is a variant, i.e. pretending to be 'grassroots' while actually run top down to
make something appear more popular than it is

Sometimes, it's being the most helpful 'volunteer' in order to collect information, like one woman did
to various gun control groups recently.

Sometimes, it's creating an operation that is:

1)actually working against what they state as their goals.

I would say GunGuys.com fits this definition. IMO, also qualifies as astroturf as they don't have
anyone you can actually contact

2)or aren't who they say they are in order to 'play' the opposition.

American Hunters and Shooters Association are the 'astroturf' variety.


Sometimes, it's acting or posting like an asshole to make the opposition look bad, aka provocateurs

I suspect some of the more Stalinoid gun control posts might be of this nature

Cops sometimes do this at demos, dressing up like "black bloc"

Occasionally, they get caught:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Okay, I feel really naive now; I had no idea there were so many variants on internet deception. Thank you so much for the education!

Republicans dressing up as Democrats on a street corner in a swing state, waving "Support gay adoption!" and "Obama/Biden '08" signs a week before an election.


The term has it's origins in politics and war. If you need an excuse to go to war, you dress up some disposable people (say, prisoners) in yours and your enemy's uniforms and stage an attack on some target in your own country. Of course, all those prisoners die in the "attack", you take lots of pictures, the media goes into a feeding frenzy, the leaders whip the nation into a nationalistic self-righteous frenzy... and BAM! Instant war! Just add ammunition.



Hitler did it to justify the invasion of Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident



In the case of a false-flag operation here, a disruspter would enter a thread and say something like "Damn those health insurance companies. We should expand Medicare after we drag those greedy CEOs into the street and shoot them. Stalin would have."

For example, a pro-gun-rights person could pull a false flag op on the pro-gun-control people by pretending to be anti-gun, while being rude, calling gun owners names, and advocating for bans. Or an anti-gun person could pretend to be a gun owner and act bloodthirsty, stupid, or right wing. Either way, you are pretending to be someone you disagree with in order to make them look bad, or start flame wars, or whatever.

All of this wasted energy! I mean, people have different values and priorities and that's natural and entirely as it should be, and, as a consequence, there are going to be some areas upon which people simply will never be able to agree. And in such hopefully rare instances, there won't be any compromise solution that makes everyone happy, one side is going to win and one side is going to lose and we'll have to await the verdict of history to see whether the "correct" side won. On such irreconcilable points, there just doesn't seem to be any benefit to be derived from beating each other up over it. It seems like it would be more useful to direct that energy into something more productive, like discussing those areas in which there is some middle ground and hope for mutually acceptable compromise. Of course, working together on those areas doesn't mean that each side doesn't still want to advance their side of the debate and won't continue to work towards that objective, but does it really serve any purpose to throw one's self into head-on collisions with the other side when you surely must know that you're not going to change their views? That the only thing you're going to accomplish is to piss them off? What a waste.

Oh well, thanks for the education! :hi:

But it doesn't take long for an Arfcommer to show his true colors. One reference to man-goose love, WalMart, or our President is usually enough to blow the cover.

Many folks on the left were equally vocal about our previous President and his policies.

It's nothing new. People have been pulling political dirty tricks since they elected the first tribal chief. If people were targeting DU, you'd see it in a big way.

on now Walmart it's not like my small town has a big selection of other stores

Some of those guys can turn a 1:00 AM trip for some orange soda into a mission complete with zombies, little old ladies at the door, and a massive adrenaline dump. Did you know that the little old ladies they have as "greeters" are actually agents of forced disarmament and probably working for the U.N.? The threads where some idiot decides to discuss his sex life are epic.

Once you get past the political rants, which are understandable, there is some very funny, very dark, humor over there. I stay out of the politics threads over there because they are good enough to put up with me. A moderator did ask me if I wanted someone banned for abusive language directed my way once but it was really kind of funny and I can take it. If you go there, avoid politics, you'll get banned quickly for inciting a riot.

so, ummm, where to begin...

RKBA in some aspects is primarily a liberty issue. It is no different than opposing warrantless wiretapping - the premise of the faulty government position is that "for the public's own good", government will constrain, diminish, reign in, restrict, the public's civil rights in order to achieve a purported collective good. With similarly specious supporting arguments, and a disturbing atmospheric background of the creation of a nanny state where people who are supposed to be peers we selected to serve us take it upon themselves to try to define our self-interest for us and then legislate that opinion of theirs into binding regulation.

Associated with it is the stupendous arrogance of the perpetrators of these instances of bad government. The Founders knew that democracy cannot function when the people are ignorant or disengaged, and we have both in spades. Whether it's gun control advocates proclaiming that incendiary bullets are heat-seeking (ASSemblywoman Eddington of NY) or buffoons squawking "if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care about privacy", they reveal what know-nothings they are, where their lack of knowledge is compensated for by their loud mouths.

So then - the reality is that RKBA folks have a legitimate concern about the infringement of our inherent rights, in this case both to self-defence and to pursuit of happiness. So they're not intrinsically psychos, now are they ? Any government, this one included needs to prove by actions, rather than a priori acclaim from good-natured followers, that it understands the role of government vis-a-vis the public in a democracy, and further that its understanding of the public interest is adequate so that it will actually serve the public interest. There's no free lunch, particularly for politicians, and while the President himself shows signs of greatness (and also intellect, which is more important, it being in such short supply amidst 20 years of Connected admonitions not to think too much) the drag this administration has brought in, as all administrations do, in this case consists of the same crowd who lost two of the easiest elections in US history (2000 and 2004) and they're definitely needing to prove they're not losers.

The other half of the solution of your problem is to tune out the incessant drumbeat of demonization of gun owners by the gun control crowd as hicks, extremists and criminals. In reality, they come from all socioeconomic demographics (including many who can use the phrase "socioeconomic demographic" correctly in a sentence) and in many cases are way more in tune with political issues and fundamental questions confronting the citizens of a democracy than all the "progressive" lemmings we see scurrying around here too frequently. The reality is that the AR-15, of which the referenced website is a namesake, is the most commonly used firearm in civilian target shooting competition, and that there are probably several in homes in your neighborhood, owned by nice people you enjoy talking to. If they use it for target shooting, they're probably pretty smart, and if we want to engage in classist snobbery, they probably make a middle-class income that gives them some leisure time.

So step back from your premature judgement, form a new one based on your own perceptions rather than conditioned groupthink you suffer from (it's nothing to be ashamed of, happens to us all) and come back and report what you came up with. Best plan would be to find a gun owner who doesn't scare you and ask them to take you shooting. Offer to buy a box of ammo to share (ask them what kind to get) and then give it a try. Rather than your becoming a psycho, you'll discover that your gun-owning peers are not.

Oh, by the way - I lurk, and post, lots of places, so if you want to conclude I'm a troll, be my guest, although traditionally trolls aren't supposed to decloak while they engage in 'disrupting'. I also don't live under a bridge and try to bite people's ankles as they walk by, that would be more in line with people who have low regard for inherent civil liberties.

I have seen this same behavior advocated here on DU a THOUSAND times.