Where are the liberal trolls?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ystasino @ May 18 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]445155[/snapback]</div>

A better view of our "red and blue states".

 

Zen, See:
"If "that" refers to FourOhFour and Alric's posts, then it proves a baseline only if you have the math skills of a large soapdish."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 18 2007, 04:43 PM) [snapback]445182[/snapback]</div>

That was directed at Daronspicher's comment alluding that 2 posts constituted the creation of a baseline. I repeat, if anyone thinks that 2 data points creates a baseline for determining political bent, than that person does have the math skills of a large soapdish. That's not name calling, that's commenting on their math skills.

BTW, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to criticize me for "name calling" when you're doing it yourself?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]445003[/snapback]</div>

1. That's their opinion, and I respect it. Always have, and so do ALL of my liberal friends (many of whom DO believe in God, and are STILL liberal).

2. Ditto above. Who the hell isn't "pro-life"? It's a nice term, but what the movement really wants is to make the decision FOR the women, rather than let her make her own ethical decision.

3. Not stupid. Irrational, maybe. Here the slogan is "to protect the sanctity of marriage". Now, the slogan actually IS stupid, because someone else getting married in no way could POSSIBLY affect my marriage!

4. Not stupid. Prideful and arrogant maybe, although many have the best of intentions, and just don't understand how the world works...

5. Doesn't mean the person is stupid, but the position is definitely uninformed. And the entire scientific community agrees. Guess they're all a bunch of liberal jerks.

6. Yeah, cause all of my liberal friends say "I wish the government would be LESS VIGILANT!" Never happens.

I'd be curious, Berman, to see you respond to these specifically. (ie, please don't change the subject, like you did here by implying that bashing older liberals is ok because they do it too). I've never heard a liberal say any of the above were stupid people. Find me a post, please.

As for Dar and others calling you doberman, that's not an insult. I honestly thought that's what your name meant. Lots of people on the web use abbreviations, and it's only one letter different. If it bothers you, change your screen name to DougB (is it Doug?) or whatever. And it's not the same as calling Obama by his middle name. That is obviously inflammatory, just as when (OK, going to admit to a bit of liberal bad behavior) a democrat calls Bush, "dubya".

 

Geez. I think the conservatives are the ones that proved me wrong in this thread. Darwood is getting worked up (who, while not a liberal appears to lean liberal), but dbermanmd is the only one who is really exhibiting troll-like behavior. Well done, sir.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ May 18 2007, 04:54 PM) [snapback]445189[/snapback]</div>

I never thought of "dubya" as an insult- I thought that even his friends called him that. I assumed that it was just a nickname, like "LBJ"; or "Ike" for Eisenhower. Now I admit calling Bush "bonehead" IS derogatory, but I can't help it sometimes...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ May 18 2007, 04:54 PM) [snapback]445189[/snapback]</div>

I don't know if it's inflammatory - it's certainly not polite, since I think it refers to his inability to pronounce certain words correctly...I also think it was to distinguish him from his father (as in #41 & 43)...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 18 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]445197[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: I had that thought too, maybe even Bush sees that as a term of endearment? But since I don't know, I thought I'd hold it out as an example.

The other thing about it is, pointing out the "Hussein" in Obama's name is clearly designed to connect him to things and people he is not connected to, and to exploit stereotypes and fears. It won't work here, but I'm sure it will work against him if he were to make it to the general election. Someone will find a way to get it out there and scare the easily scared, even though it is dumb.

Calling Bush names based on his intelligence or abilities, on the other hand, while possibly rude, is an expression of actual belief, not a smear.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ May 18 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]445189[/snapback]</div>

Oh. Trust me. We are (maybe not jerks, but certainly liberal). Although, methinks the cause and the effect are somewhat different than would be implied by some conservatives. Most scientists are liberal for the simple fact that most liberals have more respect for science than many conservatives. I have no idea why this is, but if I had to guess, I'd say it was because of the religious beliefs of conservatives; there are some rather mixed up ideas out there that religion and science are incompatible (from both sides of the debate, actually).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ May 18 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]445189[/snapback]</div>

This reminded me of this recent strip:



Why does religion require respect beyond any other idea has always escaped me.

 

Wasn't dubya coined by the RNC? I thought their bumper sticker for the election was a big "W".

Zen,
Did you read the whole post?
I've never been a name caller, and I thought everyone called him doberman, it's actually easier to type. I typically try to keep both sides away from inappropriate posting.
But Berman insisted I'm immoral since I'm not a neocon, so I started using his own troll techniques to make a point. MANY of his techniques, including namecalling. Point me to ANY post I've resorted to name calling other than "troll" or this post specifically to DB (hey, that's even easier to type).

The only way to beat a troll is to ignore them or to turn it around on them. I usually opt for 1, but sometimes I get bored.
I now I have a couple of great quotes from him I can use when is getting out of line.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 18 2007, 05:21 PM) [snapback]445222[/snapback]</div>

It might have been, but I doubt they used the slang pronunciation...

I read the whole post (unfortunately); it's like passing a horrible accident, part of you doesn't want to look, part of you does - it's the same feeling I get with most of what dbermanmd (and one or two others) posts. I've learned that anything resembling debate with him is ultimately useless, but even I get sucked in sometimes. I once referred to debating with him as trying to pick up nickels with your butt - very frustrating, and even if successful, turns out not to be worth the effort. I stand by that for him and Daron, who made comments to be in the Falwell thread which were more offensive than what I stated here. Peace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 17 2007, 06:38 PM) [snapback]444497[/snapback]</div>

Deep in their hearts they know they're wrong. They're trying to get by on bluster and intimidation.

 

Poor, poor neocons, troglodytes, "christians", fascists, and racists.

Getting bashed all the time -- it feels like no one wuvs them.

Awwwwwww.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ May 18 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]445209[/snapback]</div>

Bush is well-known for having nicknames for all of his friends. His nickname for Karl Rove, for instance, is "Turd Blossom". So I don't think he could be too upset by "dubya".


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ May 18 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]445209[/snapback]</div>

Someone already has. Fox "News" has repeatedly referred to "Barack Hussein Obama", despite the fact that Obama does not use his middle name (as, for example Hillary Clinton does), and they do not have a policy of routinely referring to politicians using their middle name (they never refer to "John Sidney McCain, for example). It is clearly an attempt to connect Obama with Saddam Hussein. Of course it would only work with someone of limited cognitive ability, but we are talking about Fox "News" viewers. Dr. Berman continues to use "Hussein", even though I have said this to him a couple of times.

 

Yeahh, this attempt to connect Obama's middle name with arab xenophobia is pretty powerful stuff in the US electorate.

The Democrats are making a grave mistake if they do not go all out in stamping it out now. Just as the republicans were successful in stopping discussion of Cheney's gay daughter from becoming a political tool.

As for the doberman -- no reasoning with rabid dogs.

 

[attachmentid=8153]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 17 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]444497[/snapback]</div>

In all seriousness: what degree of liberalism would it take to be considered a "liberal troll" on PC?

"Bush should resign"?

"Impeach Bush"?

"Hooray: Falwell's Dead!"?

I've seen all of these, yet none apparently rise to the threshold of "trolling."

However, if someone tosses Al cans, that's "conservative trolling."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 17 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]444497[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmm, lets see, could it be that the ultra conservative right wing has Rush Limbaugh syndrome, i.e. diareah of the mouth??? :lol: :lol:

 

I've been thinking about the original question. Maybe since the board has more liberals than conservatives, we do let more people get away with outrageous statements as long as they are extreme left? I don't know. I have seen people called to task for those views as well. If someone did say "Hooray, Falwell is dead", then yes, that is extreme (calling for Bush's resignation/impeachment is not inflammatory), and I for one would call it out as unkind. Liberalism is not a monolith.

The key to being a liberal is being willing to accept the fact that you could be wrong. In my experience, a conservative is not willing to reconsider his/her positions, no matter what new information comes to them. This is why Berman has trouble actually answering specific questions in posts.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ May 18 2007, 04:21 PM) [snapback]445221[/snapback]</div>

Because religion is deeply ingrained in the human psyche, is instilled in children at a young age, and points to the inherent human yearning for the world to be loving and make sense. It's also impossible to disprove the existence of God in a scientific manner (and I don't mean the specifics of the Bible, but the idea of a God in general). You can disagree, believe someone is uninformed, and still respect their upbringing, and the good that they have learned from their religion. Christians can be wrong about a lot of details (my opinion) and still want to make the world a better place based on their beliefs. Take for example the recent movement among evangelicals towards environmental activism. I for one welcome them to the effort, and don't feel that a discussion of religion is as important as getting the world's climate under control.