when will we give the term "HIllary Hater" a rest?

why do some insist that disagreement with her policies on the war and upcoming Iran war as "hatred".
Its a form of ritual shaming and marginalization of a point of view out of proportion to it context.

why not just deal honestly with the person and say "why do you think HRC is pro-war in Iraq"?

Some don't, because then they'd have to actually debate the issue, and bring in evidence that she is NOT supporting the Iraq war and furthering aggression into Iran.
Some don't want to do that, because they don't have evidence that she is not.

Instead, it becomes this childish "you're a HILLARY HATER!" and attempts to deflect valid criticism of HRC by shaming the critic rather than debating the issue.

so, the question is, are some EVER going to stop the ritual shaming and actually start debating?

Can some defend, in argument, HRC's stand re: Iraq and Iran?

or even if they don't want to defend HRC, can they give the demonizing of her critics, simply because they don't agree with her on a policy level, a rest, and simply debate?


thanks.

That's being a HillHater.
(And why is that kind of sockpuppetry allowed, anyway?)

and try to do so without the word "hate"?

K/L calls for diplomacy, not saber rattling as HillHaters keep spamming DU with.
Calling for the end of the Iraq war isn't being a warmonger, as HillHaters claim it is.
Can you back up your claims she's a Iraq warmonger and wants war with Iran?
With out insulting her personal hygiene, claiming she's a bad tipper, or had her cats killed, that is.

it is not a diplomatic resolution at all:
Its a document that labels a sovereign govt's army as a terrorist organization and threatens sanctions if certain conditions are not met. That is not diplomacy, that is all stick and no carrot. It is instead, an implicit threat...about as far from diplomacy as you can get.

HRC has stated she sees no removal of troops from Iraq until at least 2013, making it a decade-long occupation. That's not calling for the end of the war, that's promoting its continued existence.

Ok, I"ve just backed up my position. If you'll note, I've not used any insults.

http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=202&page=

Do you think you can hide behind another site?

See post 4... See my response in post 14 to what was deleted...

The thread was locked...

supporting the continued occupation in Iraq?

notice I'm not saying anything about her hygiene.

And, BTW, mentioning that website here is also forbidden
in this "democracy".

Tesha

:grr:

Stopping the debate by name calling is not the right direction. Dissent is Patriotic. Questioning all and every aspect of a person asking for a job to represent the people and the United States is very important. It is our duty to question Hillary and all the potential candidates. I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton. She is not progressive and will cave into special interests and corporate conglomerates.

I disagree...As vile as Limbaugh and Inanity are they would never suggest a female they don't like has vaginosis, as some "denizen" at DU has...

What's to debate? Blind brand loyalty/recognition begets that type of response from some.

"Whore," "Bitch," "Queen," "Old Lady," "Repuke," "Witch" or any other such pejorative when referencing Hillary for one week...and I guarantee to never ever use the term Hillary Hater again...and will encourage others to desist from it as well...

Until then...it is what it is...the term is quite often accurate

Our friend suggest Ms. Clinton has vaginosis...

I have never called her a name. I have used the term Hill-Nippers for the people who only seem to be here to knock anyone who is not HRC. Rarley do the hits, or the post have any basis in reality, or substance. And what "facts" they often seem to have is badsed on RW talking points.

Read more

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller

"meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

And since you are taking this so personally...have I ever called you a Hillary Hater?

I use the term "corporate whore" in relation with Hillary. I also use it to describe her husband, various Congressional Dems, and various 'Pug leaders. It is, in my opinion, the most apt term to describe those who take corporate money and then enact pro-corporate legislation. If that offends you, oh well:shrug:

If that offends you, oh well...

Don't offend me. What offends me is mindless partisans who attack others without engaging their cognitive processes, who feel that anybody who doesn't have their exact same view is somehow an enemy to be destroyed by any means necessary, who takes any criticism of their candidate as some sort of personal, blood feud worthy insult, who has let their own hatred of the dreaded other, combined with binary thinking to reduce them to the simplicities of for us/against us, who can no longer discriminate between honest, and/or constructive criticism, and rather think about why the critic has come to their conclusion, instead mindlessly, viciously attacks, lashing out with all possible weapons at their disposal, looking to destroy rather than listening and learning. That is what offends me.

What is sad is that this is the attitude that has been adapted by the Bush administration and its adherents for the past seven years(and much longer in reality). Sadly, we're now seeing Hillary adherents adapting this same sort of mindset in relation to their candidate. What is highly ironic is that these were some of most vorciverous critics of these tactics when applied by the Bush administration, yet they don't recognize the same traits and tactics in themselves.

No, I don't hate Hillary, really, how can one hate a person that one hasn't met? Her policies, her positions, her record, that is a different matter. Based on all of these, I think that she is probably one of the worst candidates, out of the current crop, to represent the Democratic party. I also think that she will be abysmal as a president due to her very hawkish attitude and her many any extensive ties to Corporate America. She may present a kinder, gentler facade to the world, but my fear is that much like her husband she will continue to sell this country and the people down the river, all for a handful of corporate silver.

But I expect that even if you've gotten this far in my reply, you really don't care about what I've said. All you care about is that in your eyes I've dared to insult your queen, therefore you're going to mindlessly attack, and mindlessly hate. Really, you should take a break my friend, because so much anger and stress is not good for you. That's why it is a rare thing for me to hate anybody. It is virtually useless most of the time, and unhealthy for one's state of mind and body.

not female politicians?

Interesting.

And what does that have to do with the topic?

I appreciate that you answered the question without insulting me personally.
We disagree, see post #49, but at least you disagreed without insulting me. I appreciate that.

Instead, you do it on that other site

http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=202&page=

a part of the adults and try to never use the Hate term anymore as well as encourage others to follow your mature lead. You are being no different than the people you dislike if you continue to exist on the same level as they do, for you children, make the step to go above and beyond those who speak those words about your candidate and show the world that you are a different person than those detractors are. If you are unable to reach that level of maturity, maybe you shouldn't be commenting on the subject because people will only jump on you for being a hypocrite?

that people on DU are just dissenting. They are not name calling. They are not suggesting that Clinton is Hitler like. They are not calling her vile names and calling those that support her vile names. They are not with "every fiber of their being" attempting to take her down. They are not posting lies and distortions about how she killed cats and is having a lesbian affair. Where are you Hillarybots getting this stuff?

Those hillaryhaters are not about democracy that are the antithesis of democracy when they, not even knowing the source of the lies, spread, distort, repeat until it becomes part of the consciousness and becomes truth to people. That is what the neo-cons did from the moment Clinton got in office until they successfully re-defined Clinton as well as what it means to be democrats.

It pains me to see the same tactics here. And then, when brought out in the open, the messenger gets posts like this one.

in lemming like fashion rather than reading her statements, which would show you that her position on Iraq has been JUST THE SAME as every other candidate but Kucinich.

"saber-rattling" is also a distortion of what Clinton had in mind. Sticks and carrots. (and obama said the same thing earlier this year). So, you are, unfortunately, one of those who they depend on when spewing the propaganda: that you will take the superficial distortion at face value, not check for the TRUTH and repeat it as fact.

Sad day for democracy this.

I don't believe I am distorting the intent of Kyl-leiberman at all, I think I"m accurately describing its intent. Its ALL stick and NO carrot. Can you point out the carrot in Kyl-lieberman? thanks.
I can easily point out the "stick":
Kyl-lieberman labels a foreign army as a terrorist organization, which tacitly allows bush to include its regimep-change in his overall "war on terror", it threatens sanctions if Iran is noncompliant. I fail to see any "carrot".

there's no need to call me a liar, another act of ritual shaming, if you simply disagree. Just disagree. see? easy to behave respectfully.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2301867&mesg_id=2301867

When posters start using right wing talking points verbatim,it stops being "disagreement. If you can't see the "demonizing" being thrown around here by Clinton haters,then I have to believe you're willfully turning a blind eye.
"Its a form of ritual shaming and marginalization of a point of view out of proportion to it context." What the hell does that even mean?

It's ok to smear Hillary Clinton by innuendo, hearsay,and relationships six relations removed...

that gets the anti-Clinton talking point memos around here.

Where can I sign up?

Blind partisan, lock step, unquestioning, support of a person for a political office sounds like so much fun.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kidding.
I just don't have that herd mentality.
I question my political reps and the wannabes.
When I get evasive or contradictory answers, I scratch them off the list.

Maybe you can clear things up.

Has Hillary promised to "End the War in Iraq" and "Bring the troops home".

OR

Has Hillary promised to extend the Occupation until (at least) 2013, continue combat missions in Iraq, and use the military to "protect American (corporate) interests in Iraq" indefinitely.

I don't see how it is possible to do both.
Please explain this to me, and please keep it simple.

Where do they get that stugg anyway?

stuff... hee-hee, new keyboard.

Does that make me a Hillary hater?

But if you say she has vaginosis, cackles, or smear her by innuendo without a scintilla of evidence you are...

for those who do?

that's the passive aggressive form of ritual shaming going on here.

That is overt aggression combined with the the "Broad Brush" logical fallacy.

you make a valid point: nothing passive about it.

Get in line and vote Hillary!

Whoever it is.

and over-the-top fucking LOONY that one would have to be a complete idiot not to see it. It goes BEYOND policy differences and is as bizarre and equal to the rightwing nutbag crap in the 90's! She does well in a debate and the whole place erupts in bizarre fucking conspiracy theories as batshit crazy as any ken starr loving rightwing nutjob in the 90's would conjour up! :crazy: :crazy:

your attempts at trying to tell people not to point out what they TRUTHFULLY are seeing is not very "progressive" of you. I am sure Hillary supporters picking up for Hillary and calling it as they see it ( Hillary hate) is NOT stifling anybody from speaking their negative opinion of her. I seriously wonder what is going to happen to all of you rabid HIllary haters if/when she wins the nomination and you aren't allowed to trash her as you all do now.

and I don't even like her all that much myself, believe it or not! the over the top HATRED is just too beyond the pale for any rational person to deny or stand by and watch without speaking up about! She is a Democrat for chrissake and the last time I checked the rules this site is FOR Democrats, INCLUDING Hillary supporters!

complete with little mustache, bears out everything you say in your post. It's beyond disigenuous to suggest that the venom spewed is simply disagreement about her political stances.

do the same. You asked me in a PM

I honored my agreement with you.


the quote from your PM:

"In any case, I do think it's better if you keep your distance from my threads and posts and I do the same."

...with equal time for all -- especially for Dennis Kucinich, who is being marginalized while Hillary, first, then Obama, second, and then John Edwards, third, get three times the amount of air time as the other candidates.

I will never support Hillary, but it isn't because I hate her personally. I supported her strongly when she was standing behind her man against Ken Starr, in 1999, and when she openly talked about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband. She seems to have forgotten that little fact, and is now much too cozy with the evangelicals for my taste.

Hillary's enabling the Iraq war is on the record, and she keeps looking in the other direction every time she is called on it. Her vote recently for the amendment declaring the Iranian military a terrorist organization speaks volumes about her intentions in the Middle East.

I felt her claim in this last debate that "mud-slinging" was going on against her was the pentultimate female retreat into helplessness. John Edwards was not slinging mud; he was pointing out inconsistencies in Hillary's policies. By the same token, those of us here who are against her are not engaging in hatred, just because we cannot -- not ever, not in a hundred million millenia -- support her flawed policies, and her failure to take a strong stand on the substantive matters that must be addressed if we are to save our democracy.

Hate is an accurate discription of those posters. I was told not that long ago that Hillary and her supporters (this was directed at me) "want Osama to go free." Terms like whore and bitch are used.

Not to say that all who are critical of her are guilty of spewing hatred toward her, but there is plenty of hatred here for her, which, I guess, is how the term sprang into being.

look what happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3728689&mesg_id=3728689

The election is a long way off, and lots of things will change during that time. For the sake of our sanity, why can't we sort of agree to disagree and ignore it for awhile? At this rate everyone will be so totally pissed off by election day that no-one will even bother. I feel like I personally need a break from this crap.

advised to not debate. to label anyone who disagrees, with the "Hater/crazy" moniker. Because they know she is a thin candidate light on the real issues. and if the followers of hillary really learned the truth they would no longer be hillbots. Her "Let them eat cake" attitude is working to break her supporters cycle of hillary addiction.

This is commonly called a "Reality moment". or if poised by someone not a hillbot an "Intervention".

once this happens we "haters" need to care for them as someone who is recovering from an addiction. (as it is) Use of a warm blanket, cocoa, Love is recommended. Lots of hugs and support to counter act their withdrawal symptoms. they may shake and tremble, or lash out at those of us who really care. above all Do not give up on them. reassure them they will be fine once they recuperate. or after we win the GE with someone else.

A lot of people here fucking HATE Hillary, period. You would think she was the anti-Christ the way they carry on.

I hate Edwards. Call me an Edwards hater because it's true, I own it.

She voted for it and she owns it but she doesn't want to stay in that mess any more than any other democrat does.

But she is running for president and is a woman. She has to appear tough. Like ten times tougher than any man. The vote on Iran was stupid but you will have to call democrats who voted against IWR warmongers too, who voted for that. She wasn't the only democrat voting for it. She also co-sponsored the Webb amendment before anyone else bothered. This is all political bullshit and they are ALL FULL OF SHIT.

But I don't for a moment believe ANY democrat running wants more war. It is stupid and pointless and bleeding this country. Only a fanatical neo-con wants more war.

The Clintons were always centrists and realists when it came to the economy and foreign affairs and I don't expect that to change.

They also didn't start World War Three.

that's a continuing occupation.
In my opinion, that's pro-war. And, as you point out, she did vote for it and she owns it.

I also agree other democrats own it as well, but that doesn't negate that issue as a criticism for her. In other words, the bad judgement of others does not excuse hers. And if someone disagreess with her judgement, do they deserve to insulted as a "hillary hater?"
that's the point of my OP.

there are plenty of posters here that go well beyond "disagreeing with her judgment".What should that phenomena be called,in your opinion?

extrapolating that to everyone who disagrees with her policies.

is that really all that hard?

of Clinton as "Hillary haters".

have you been reading this very thread?

The one where you put DUers on a Complicity Watch List and then come here and pretend you don't like name calling

http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=202&page=

When they won't give her a break for minute, blow up her positions to the point that she seems worse than Bush, say they won't vote for her as the nominee and use any excuse to insult and slam her and basically make their HATRED of her obvious.

Most of them won't commit to bringing the troops home any time soon because until they get into office and really find out what the fuck is going on, and who knows what the situation will be by then, it would take a lot of guts or stupidity to say, 6 months after I take office they will all be out.

Like I said, there is nothing to be gained by staying in Iraq for any democrat.

That's what you're saying, isn't it?

"I have to look tough to get elected, so even if I really want to end the war, I have to pretend that I don't, on the off-chance that I might win over some slack-jawed armchair warriors."

cling to hate as a legitimate response to disagreement.

As long as hate is legitimate, then so is hate speech, and acts of hate.

I don't need to admit "hate," because I don't. I don't hate any of them. I don't hate ANYBODY, including the current administration.

That doesn't mean that I don't vigorously and adamantly disagree with and oppose them.

I disagree with HRC's platform, her rhetoric, many of her votes, and the way she runs her campaign. I adamantly oppose her candidacy. I will not vote for her. EVER.

That is not the same thing as "hate."

Why not admit that "hate" and "oppose" are not synonymous, if we are needing admissions to move on?

You are saying you will not vote for the nominee, should she get the nom.

How much do you have to hate a candidate to do that kind of shit.

Please. I would vote for Edwards, even if I had to get fucking drunk to do it.

I don't have to hate to reserve my votes for better candidates.

I just have to determine that the candidate does not represent what I want for my country.

That's not "hate." It's also not "shit." It's discernment.

It's exercising my rights and responsibilities as a citizen, to make an informed choice at the polls.

I like words. I like language. I like words used skillfully, to express ideas and concepts clearly, powerfully, and elegantly.

I find the misuse of words to be lazy and sloppy. Lazy, sloppy language comes from lazy, sloppy thinking. Or it is deliberate propaganda: dishonest and unworthy of principled people.

You don't like the word, don't use it. I don't give a shit.

I've never said I hated anyone. It's others who have been throwing "hate" all over the board.

For the record:

Goody for you. You don't like the word, don't use it. I don't give a shit.

is a juvenile response exhibiting a high degree of adolescent petulance.

I agree "hater" is too strong a word and doesn't apply to the majority of the posters who simply don't agree with Hillary's views and who just happen to speak about it all the time.

you post at and you titled it "Before it's locked and deleted".

OOOH THE IRONY. you are implying that you are about to be censored here at DU while the whole point of this thread is to censor people! UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!! :rofl:

Can you elaborate?

and the irony is lost on you that I was speaking AGAINST the form of censorship that ritual shaming and namecalling imposes.

Then it is "ritual shaming", lol.

and take it out of the realm of personal attack?

what about that suggestion bothers you?

You should start a thread about it; I think that might be an interesting read.

I already started it.

Well, I submit that you are using the term "ritual shaming" in the same way that you think people are using "Hillary hater". It's an attack on the speaker and their motives. So that's where I got confused.

I'm not being inconsistent, here. I'm saying the ritual shaming IS the namecalling of "Hillary Hater".

so, yes, you are confused.

where you pretend to not understand someone's point and make them repeat what they already made clear.

so, exactly, that is why I'm saying shouldn't we move beyond this sort of pointless histrionic and move toward actual adult debate on the issues?

They can try to explain what you mean by "ritual shaming" if it doesn't mean a repetitive attack on the speaker's motives, lol.

It couldn't POSSIBLY be because of her less-than-democratic positions on free trade and job offshoring.

Or the Middle East.

Or Single Payer vs Big-Insurance Health care.



:rofl: :rofl:

thanks for the laugh.

in regards to her positions on free trade and job offshoring. Trade is only great for RICH America. For Poor and Middle Class America . . . not s'much.

Her Middle East positions are indeed a sore spot, don't get me wrong. K/L gives me Main Reason #2. It reinforces her continued belief in this shitbag non-president, and that's NOT the kind of person I want running this country.

when referring to biden or edwards.

so, it's interesting that those who (i guess) are trying to defend Clinton use her first name in a dimunitive fashion. kinda shows the paternal thinking that comes out of.

Robert Kennedy was known affectionately by his devotees as Bobby and Edward Kennedy was affectionately known by his devotee as Ted...If you just said Kennedy folks might not know which one you're referring to...

Sports fans call Shaquille O'Neal Shaq and Kobe Bryant Kobe out of affection...

Perhaps folks call her Hillary out of devotion or familiarity or not to confuse her with her husband...

is a repeat. the dynasty effect is very much a negative for me. maybe that's why i prefer she used the surname, b/c it's more direct and truthful.

After all, she's your girl!

when this issue came up and she corrected her earlier statement saying she was being attacked b/c she's the frontrunner (rather than the woman) -- like, you could see the self-satisfaction that she had a snappy comeback. or, self-satisfaction that she'd corrected the record.

using "Hillary," i guess makes sense considering she has a herd of consultants running focus groups to identify just the right phrasing of everything.

i'm tired of being pandered to. i don't want a "personable" president. i want someone i can trust.

ugh.

Claiming she wants war with Iran is false. Claiming she's a Republican, as many do, is false.

The problem is not that you disagree with her at a policy level, it's that you disagree with a strawman and claim it's Hillary Clinton. Claiming her critics hate her is not shaming. It seems a pretty accurate depiction of the situation.

just works better than
"Biden Basher"
"Obama Abominater"
"Dodd Despiser"
"Edwards Excluder"
"Richardson Resenter"
"Kucinich Kicker"

Plus, of course, the prospect of more corporate governance well into the new century just frightens so many thoughtful people that there may actually be some hatin' goin' on.

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

:shrug:

There are a great many DUers who clearly do hate Hillary. That's not to say that they are wrong to do so, or that all criticism of Hillary on DU is motivated by hatred of her, or that those criticisms of her that are are automatically invalid. But I do think that there is a massive amount of hatred of Hillary Clinton on DU that isn't paralled by feelings towards any of the other candidates.

"Hilshill", "Hilbot" etc, on the other hand, should definately be retired - Clinton's supporters are no more "Shills" or "Bots" than any other candidates.

showing not only their hatred of Hillary, but their support for traditional Democrats like Hubert Horatio Humphrey.

Then again, if I was not 6 years old in 1968 wouldn't I be a Humphrey hater because he was more pro-war than McCarthy? :crazy:

at "the other site" over this one.

Did you post a "Hey gang! Look what new shit I'm gonna start to bash Hillary" alert?

Do y'all smoke one afterwards?

If being Pro-Union makes me a Hillary Hater, I'm a Hillary Hater.
If standing up for American Families makes me a Hillary Hater, than I'm a Hillary Hater.
If restoring America's leadership in the world makes me a Hillary Hater, I'm a Hillary Hater.
If Investing In Our Future And Our Communities makes me a Hillary Hater, I'm a Hillary Hater.
If having College available to every American makes me a Hillary Hater, I'm a Hillary Hater.
If Guaranteeing Quality Health Care for Veterans (like me) makes me a Hillary Hater, I'm a Hillary Hater.
If Ending the Disgrace of Two Criminal Justice Systems makes me a Hillary Hater, I'm a Hillary Hater.
If it means Equal Rights for Same-Sex Couples, than I'm a Hillary Hater.

Yup, I'm a Hillary Hater all right!

then the hatred against her will have to die down or lots of people will be eating granite pizzas.

should you be tombstoned in that event?

I would vote for any one of them if they were to win the nomination. Will you vote for Clinton when (and if) she gets the nomination? Anyone who speaks ill or attacks the Democratic nominee deserves to be tomb-stoned, wouldn't you agree?

but otherwise I"d disagree that no one should speak "ill" of any candidate if they have a legitimate issue. We aren't sheep, we're democrats. The whole lockstep mentality ill befits democracy.

only HRC supporters keep crowing about tombstoning other DU members.

She "cackles". She's a "witch". etc. But you would probably find those posts to be "legitimate" no doubt. I say stop whining about her being the front-runner. If your candidate is able to get his message across, so be it. If not, quit sniveling and move on.

I'll save you the time. I never said those things.

but you are doing a good job of illustrating the problem.

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

it's against the rules. that said, it certainly is a deranged little place.

*Edited for typo.