I think that we may be lacking a perspective on the issue of 'whose supporters on DU are worse.'

I've seen a number of posts complaining about all the bashing of Hillary that goes on at DU, while neglecting to acknowledge the ample hatred that's directed at Barack.
First of all, I agree that hatred for Clinton goes over the top...I've seen sexist language directed at her on a number of occasions, and other vile crap that belongs on FR. However, there's also been veiled and not so veiled racism directed at Obama, and every insult in the book used to describe his supporters, crap that is also worthy of FR.
The bottom line is this: there's a lot of nasty shit being thrown back in forth between the Obama camp and the Clinton camp. Yes, there are more posts that are directed at Hillary...and why is that?
Because most DUer's support Obama. It's a simple matter of numbers. The Clinton supporters are vastly outnumbered, and therefore, the volume of bile that is spewed from that camp is less.
That's not to say it's not there, but it's all in the numbers. There are more Obama supporters, so the number of assholes is greater.
I'm sure if the majority of DUer's supported Clinton, the reverse would be true.
Just seems to be the way of things.
It bothers me when people try to make it sound like Obama's supporters on DU are somehow WORSE than Clinton supporters. Neither side is worse, it's just a matter of proportion. I just wanted to put it out there, and give everyone something to think about. Please don't come here to start a pissing contest about 'Shillbots' and 'Obamaniacs.' I don't want to hear it, and I don't want it fouling my thread.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled flamewars.

but I've been called many in return, including "a ugly harpy", and (my favorite) a "paleofeminist". And that's just for starters. What the heck is a paleofeminist anyway?

and I still have been called 'Obamababy' 'obamacrybaby' 'cultist' 'fat ass' and many other fun things.
It's not exclusive to either side.

Just today, I've been called an Obamabot, accused of living in my parent's basement and being unable to support myself, and accused of worshipping a false messiah.

but other than "Obamabot", was it directed at you personally? (The two I mentioned were directed right at me).

"Fat Ass" is unacceptable and I apologize on behalf of whomever said it.

However, the "paleofeminist" comment I took really seriously, because it demeaned what a lot of people worked hard for in the 60s and 70s (when I was a kid, BTW).

Telling.

I just meant that "fat ass" was so completely random that it made me laugh. I'm not DEFENDING it. It's stupid.

But the fact is, in my experience, there is more name-calling on the Obama side. Your guy is AHEAD. If you can't be gracious NOW, and if you think this isn't going to bleed into the GE where there are people who aren't inclined to ultimately unify with you, then the whole campaign will be ugly and you will have a lot of Republicans licking their wounds in November, regrouping like they did in 1994. Is that what you want?

Back when I was an Edwards supporter, no one threw names at me. When he dropped out, and I became a Hillary supporter, I was quite shocked at what I saw and heard.

You only need to look at the first page of GD: P to see the discrepancy between the anti-Hillary post and the anti-Obama posts.

As for namecalling... I got that as an Edwards supporter, too. And even before I'd settled on Obama... when I was still checking out Obama and Clinton, I got called a hater by supporters from both camps, for daring to ask questions.

*sigh*

and other HRC supporters.

Can you please provide a link?

You were not called an 'ugly harpy' by an Obama supporter, so stop trying to smear Obama and his supporters by suggesting that you were.

Here's the post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4935905&mesg_id=4943868

And, for those who want to see what completely innocent :eyes: OP prompted that angry--and out of line--response, here's a link to that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4935905

I would also invite anyone who buys into these smears to use that nice little Google box in the upper-right hand corner to do your own examination of such claims. The search feature is your friend.

So OK, I ASSUME that it was an Obama supporter who called me that. How do you know it wasn't?

It was still ridiculous.

I also do not believe that coming on DU to tell everyone who you don't listen to any more is rather, well, silly at best. It was flamebait, and she got flamed, and now she wants to play the victim.

Huh ... Whadda ya know?

show a bias when one looks at which things they choose to criticize... or not criticize... as the case may be.

Not saying that's what the poster there is about... because I don't know... just saying.

But I have been called many by Clinton supporters. The point is, it has gone BOTH WAYS. That is the truth.

I have been milder in my criticism of Obama than any other candidate, but have been more attacked by his supporters than by any other supporters of any candidate ever. I have been extremely critical of the tenor and behavior of many of his followers, that is true - but which came first? That always gets ignored. There is some sort of insanity going on. One is attacked for supposedly attacking - when it is the attacks themselves that you are originally objecting to. So objecting to being viciously attacked when you express even the mildest criticisms of Obama are then portrayed as attacks and then used to justify retaliatory attacks. It feeds on itself and gets stranger and stranger.

No doubt what I have just said here will be called an example of "hatred toward Obama." No disagreement of any kind will be tolerated - that is the truth about it - and before long you will be accused of defending racists, or being a racist or being DLC or whatever. You are seen as the enemy is you merely fail to completely and uncritically promote Obama. I just haven't seen anything like that from Clinton supporters, and I am no supporter of Clinton by a long shot.

which happens damn near every day. Hell, I've seen supporters of each candidate attack their own for not uncritically supporting their chosen candidate. I find the whole thing to be insane, to put it mildly.

Do Obama's supporters lock threads?

That makes no sense at all. There is no defense for smearing Obama's supporters that way. None.

Both are cults of personality, as far as I can tell, and generally when I'm talking about shutting down debate, I'm talking about them going off on tangents that make, literally, no sense and has no relation to the issue at hand.

Common tactics include, accusing people of supporting opponents(Including Nader, and McCain), making assumptions about their motives that have no relation to what they just said(for example, your post), Etc. I just find critical thinking skills to be severely lacking on this board, from both sides.

wherein the person I responded to acted as if they were above it all, when in reality they are right down in the mud, smearing OBAMA's supporters (no one else's, despite their claims to be not for either candidate).

So your jumping in the middle and then acting all surprised that the topic is actually about two camps and not your objective viewpoint is a little ridiculous. We were discussing two camps of supporters. Perhaps the next time you jump in the middle pretending that what you MEANT to imply was that BOTH camps are cultists, you might be more specific.

By turning them into pure flamefests.

Here's another one for you: in the Campaigns forum, someone went after Deep Modem Mom because she posted a newspaper article that was critical of Obama. She was more or less told (paraphrasing), "if you're going to post that you need to have an Obama avatar so no one comes after you."

That's why some of us call pro-Obama posters "thugs." It doesn't get any more clear than that example.

are not solely responsible for turning threads into flamefests... neither are they the only ones doing stuff like that.

Nothing can rationalize broad-brushing all of his supporters on this site. It's nonsense.

You asked a question. "Do Obama supporters lock threads?"

If the question had been: "Are Obama supporters the only ones getting threads locked," you would have gotten a different answer.

No, I didn't.

When you don't like a truthful answer to the question you DID ask.

Jesus.

This is beyond ridiculous, I thought you were a reasonable supporter, but I was wrong.

Seriously, you made an assertion of something you KNEW, for a fact, could never happen, and then knocked down other people's assertions over this bullshit you peddled. You know that mods cannot show partisan bias in their moderating, otherwise they wouldn't be mods for long. What bullshit.

*sigh*

What bullshit, indeed.


on edit: the accusation was made that Obama's supporters were shutting down discussion.

I said "Do Obama's supporters lock threads?"... because... WTF? Like we have that power!

Hope that clears things up.

But thanks for saying I'm not reasonable. One more for the pile.

don't you just hate it when others make assumptions about you? :eyes:

is hypocrisy.

Which is why it bothers me so much that people who claim to be un-biased only seem harp on one side.

I've been spending most of the afternoon defending Obama against mindless Hillary supporters. So please, illuminate me about this hypocrisy that you speak of?

I don't think I have called Obama supporters cultists. I have tried to not do that. I have pointed out what I see as cult-like behavior and I have not singled out anyone and personally attacked them. The reason this is so difficult to talk about, is because any critical observations of the Obama phenomenon are taken personally and seen as personal attacks by some Obama supporters.

Why then talk about it at all? Keep in mind that I am not opposed to the Obama candidacy, have criticized Kucinich and Edwards, whom I supported, more than I have Obama, and have criticized Clinton - whom I never supported - more than any of the candidates. So I have no motivation to insult or offend or hurt Obama supporters, no ulterior motives or covert agenda. I criticize the cult-like pack behavior of many Obama supporters that I am seeing - not all Obama supporters, of course, but many and with the tacit approval or acquiescence of virtually all Obama supporters - because I find it frightening and destructive, and because I think it will sink the party in the general election. You may disagree with me about that, of course. But ask yourself this question - if you were certain that you were seeing what I describing. and were certain that you were seeing it, would you not feel compelled and morally obligated to speak about it? I am certain about what I am seeing and I do speak out about it.

You and too many others are too willing to single out cult-like behavior on the part of Obama's supporters, while ignoring it in other candidates' supporters. It may SEEM logical, due to the fact that there are more Obama supporters on the site, but that's an illusion due to the volume of his supporters. The same type of crap was done to Edwards' supporters, was it all right then?

There is no need to talk about cult-like behavior if you're only going to single out one candidate's supporters because that is unfair. ALL candidates have that type of supporter.

The phrase "virtually all" says volumes. You haven't done any studies... you just take your perspective as gospel and run with it.

As for calling attention to it, because you're scared it's going to ruin our chances in the GE, that makes absolutely no sense at all. The primaries are pretty much over. There is nothing that can be gained by antagonizing his supporters here by insinuating that most of them approve of the cult-like behavior.

All it is is shit-stirring.

My perspective is a problem for some people.

and most 5th graders are really good kids. but about 10% are rotten, and they get 90% of the attention and are the topic of 90% of the discussion.

not much different here.

I don't think it's fair to say "10% are rotten"....Kids are kids, doing what they do. They are not inherently "rotten".

Yeah, they act out and react in ways that can be considered "unconscious", but that doesn't mean they're "rotten".

Not much different here.

People are just doing what they're doing here and our challenge is to not get hooked by it. :hi:

If teachers gave up on 'em, they'd get about as much attention as they get at home.

sorry if you took issue to the word, I just wanted to make the analogy stick.

:toast:

I have been called racist many times, among other things. I have seen Clinton called just about every name in the book. I have seen Obama supporters say, "I hate the bitch." I would be tombstoned if I said something equivalent about Obama (and I don't hate him anyway).

Obama supporters are worse than Clinton supporters.

from the worst of the Clinton supporters.
A pissing contest is pointless. You only say we're worse because you're a Clinton supporter.
I'm saying NEITHER is worse. Every Obama supporter here can tell you an encounter they've had with a Clinton supporter where they were insulted or mocked. Every Clinton supporter can do the same.

a certain slack that the obama supporters got, but then again they are the majority so it's not surprising.
i was posting on another thread this morning about what happens now that the primary season is all but over. i noticed a number of posters who claimed to be obama supporters but mostly were just bashing hillary. bashing isn't even the right word, a lot of stupid proclamations about what hillary could and couldn't do now that obama is the probable nominee. they didn't have much to say after i pointed out that hillary wasn't being banished, and she will get some consideration now that obama will need her support.

it seemed to me that the idea of hillary getting anything except publicly humiliated and openly crushed was completely unacceptable to these particular posters.
the posters did in fact remind me of the foam at the mouth right wingers.

on the other hand i've seen plenty of questionable posts by hillary supporters as well.

I have seen feces flung on both sides. Most of the anti-Hillary stuff comes in response to something she has done. Much of the anti-Obama stuff is just made up.

Hillary has pulled some spectacular gaffes on the campaign trails, has done some execrable things, has personally and publicly mocked Obama and his supporters.

Much of the vitriol aimed at Obama -- that he has no program, that his followers are some sort of idiotic, elitst cultists -- comes directly from the Clinton campaign -- and has been spouted on the campaign trail by both Bill and Hillary.

I'm not saying some Obama supporters aren't over the top -- but much of the stuff directed against Hillary has a basis in things the Clinton campaign has done. They've run a dirty campaign. That tends to bring out the worst in people.

an Obama cultist and a shillbot. Mostly a cultist though.

Assholes abound on both sides.

In response to one single post! I kid you not!

Validation is sweet... I must have been spot on:)

:rofl:

You must be one of those Hillbamacans I've been hearing about.

:rofl:

maybe a thread is in order.

My curiosity is piqued!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5940645&mesg_id=5940645

that doesn't mean it can't return.

I believe we need to keep the bigger picture, the bigger perspective of Unity and Change.

How can we rise above our differences, within our party, within our country??

How do we create a "more perfect union" with the ideals our nation was founded with??

Those are the sorts of conversations we need to be having, not ones that continue to foster upset and angry feelings.

Continuing to focus on what separates us does not serve us.

...and arguing whether Obama supporters or Clinton supporters have been more negative is counterproductive and silly.

We're all Dem supporters and the opponent is McCain now.

:toast: I predict landslide for Obama in the fall. Seriously.

McCain is toast.

Neither camp is without its emotionally overwrought assholes ... but the Obama camp is somewhat larger. Neither has a lock on rude, predjudiced, or un-Democratic behavior. Fortunately, none of these idiots provide an accurate reflection of their candidate. Hillary plays rough (hey ... this is politics) and has crossed some lines that should not have been crossed (e.g. the whole "hard working whites" riff), but I think she would be shocked and dismayed at the conduct of some of her supporters here. Similarly, I think Barack Obama would regard some of the statements posted in anger from his camp with equal discomfort, and would probably cite it as an example of the kind of political process he is trying to overcome.

Some of these assholes are bound to be trolls, here simply to stir up tension and apprehension. Others are just so heavily invested they have lost their balance for a minute. Things will settle out. Me, I just try not to take internet posts too personally.

Good to "see" you again ...

Trav

Obama has moved on from the acrimonious primary. He's not arguing with Hillary over who hurled the most insults. In fact, he is no longer responding to her anger-baiting.

What happened in the primay, IMO, stays in the primary.

You will note that Obama is in WVa speaking about the GI Bill. HE's working his tail off in a positive direction, and I think that's an excellent idea.

It becomes incumbent on the nominee's supporters to help bring the opponents supporters into their camp.

Assuming that Obama will be the nomineee, the behavior of Obama supporters can influence people to avoid his campaign. Antisocial behavior from a Clinton supporter wouldn't have any effect. If I were to behave like an asshole, it won't prevent anyone from supporting Obama.

But, just for the sake of argument, please find me a thread in which a Clinton supporter accuses Obama of being a murderer.

a murderer?

Link, please.

http://www.google.com/search?q=vince+foster+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS221US221

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:VnN86h7fRwwJ:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dshow_mesg%26forum%3D132%26topic_id%3D5926070%26mesg_id%3D5926300+hillary+vp+kill+obama+site:democraticunderground.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

Happy to save you 30 that seconds of googling.

And reading those posts, I see nothing there except people pointing out stupid it would be to dredge up the old Vince Foster smear. So, again, I ask you--where's your link to a post?

BTW, if the second link--the 88 post wonder troll--is the best you can do and you really, really think an 88 post wonder troll represents all Obama supporters, then no one can really help you understand why that is wrong.

On edit: I was going to post some excerpts to show how ridiculous the whole thing is, but I can't ... people will have to click through and see for themselves. It's really beautiful, because the FIRST link on the list, someone asks who the Clinton administration 'disappeared.' I have no idea why that person wasn't banned immediately, but sometimes there are back-room shenanigans that go on here at DU that you and I and the rest of the peons are not party to. But I ask that all DU'ers unite and ask Skinner to BAN THE OBVIOUS TROLL WHO ASKED ABOUT THE CLINTONS DISAPPEARING PEOPLE!

If you wanted two, you should have said so.

That said, I was willing to sacrifice 30 seconds proving the obvious, but I wasn't willing to sacrifice 45.

And I will happily inform them of that if they try.
If there were some idiotic right-wing claim that Obama had killed somebody, I'm sure a DU'er would try to use it.
How many threads on Larry Sinclair were there?

I hadn't heard that story before.

Possibly because the first thread that Google found had been locked within 7 minutes of posting.

Locked everytime, it finally died down when it became clear the story wouldn't pan out.
Any thread on Vince Foster is, to the best of my knowledge, locked as well.

Find someone who wasn't a troll who 'seriously' brought up Vince Foster.

I see Vince Foster brought up--hell, I even did it once myself--to be cited as an example of what is clearly out of bounds. I raised that ghost--pun intended--in (a poorly constructed, mind you) response to a DU'er who had dug up some year old shit from the Chicago Tribune about Obama. IMHO, BOTH are out of bounds. Yet, one seems to be tolerated, while the other is not.

And now, you see, some HRC supporters can say, "OMG! NHDem brought up Vince Foster! See, he's crazy! Put down the Kool-Aid, Obamabaton!" Then they swoon from the vapors. :eyes:

"Waaah, people were mean to me on the intarnets."

Big whoop.

Anyone who makes important life decisions (like voting for high office) based on what people on the internet say about them has issues that go far beyond anything that could be resolved in an online discussion forum.

Personally, I think it would be much more helpful and entertaining to save these LOLtastic whinefests for posterity in the form of Encyclopedia Dramatica entries. (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com -- WARNING, Highly Offensive and Not Safe For Work) We aren't going to change the nutbars' minds on either side, so why not let the reasonable sorts derive some much needed amusement at their expense? :3

Yes, there are more Obama supporters here than Clinton supporters. That's why Clinton is attacked more than Obama.

The worst thing we can do is get mired down in Hillary's cesspool of anger-baiting.

Hillary supporters may be seriously outnumbered here, but they've certainly been as nasty as any of the Obama supporters.

is greater."

:spray:

:P

you got some brass ones

i'm not 'complaining about them,' just pointing out that clinton supporters are not innocent.

comment about an African American, muchless Obama.

Please, I really want to see one. I still havent, I have heard Obama supporters talk about them... I have yet to see one.

If there are, that is wrong. But I would like proof, because I have been looking.

:hi: