haters or apologists

[G_j]

both terms are intellectually dishonest when used in debate/discussion. It's name calling, and essentially a personal attack meant to blanketly discredit the other's viewpoint.

come on kiddies, we could all do better.

[sharp_stick]

1. Intellectually dishonest

maybe, but I guarantee you that the repeated use of terms like that exposes the most lazy of lazy posters.

[Buzz Clik]

2. "cheerleaders" comes to mind.

Troll, mole, too.

Accusing someone of owning stock or working for some business that is involved in a debate.

Intellectual laziness and a weak attempt to change the subject.

Many times, "racist" fits the same bill. One needs to be very judicious in the use of that word, making sure that the accused has shown a long, consistent trend of this behavior. Calling someone a racist forever changes the conversation.

[G_j]

5. it really depends on if a person desires

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 07:27 PM - Edit history (1)

to have a productive conversation
where perhaps something can be learned,
or creative solutions batted about.

Or.. just entertain one's self and others with a food fight.

Sometimes it can be entertaining, but it gets old quick, as we who supposedly care about improving the state of the world, simply waste our energy.

[redqueen]

7. I don't recall anyone being called a racist.

What I saw was someone proposing that perhaps the reason for the hyperbolelic, childish slurs directed at Obama... not any and all criticism, but the way out there stuff... was possibly due in part to racism.

I posted a video where bystanders treated black and white bicycle thieves very differently. They were much more comfortable being aggressive and confrontational toward the black suspect. I found the idea not so unbelievable at first, and on further consideration, I'm convinced it plays a part.

That is not to say that any particular insult-slinging, invective-hurling individual is in fact "a racist" per se... just as those people who reacted differently to the bike thieves were likely not racist either. Just as people who hold sexist views are not therefore sexists.

[Hydra]

10. Did you somehow miss this thread then?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023049348

And the OP and posts that came before it?

It was a new low, even for DU. I could almost hear crack widening.

[quinnox]

23. hell, she was cheering it on

they have been cheering on the racist accusations in at least two different threads that were along the same lines. And now they say "I haven't seen that" >

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Too late

The damage has been done.

I think the PMs and offline Facebook Messaging must be going crazy today. Mine is.

[Raine1967]

4. I think you make a good point.

DU3 has a lot of great things. I really do like it -- but I find the use of these terms a disheartening. It's not so much that people say them to fellow DU'rs it that community standards that are derived from the jury system allow it.

Sometimes, (and in ebb and flow) it seems like DU dips into 'Lord of The Flies' mentality.

I wish that DU as a community would falling into an either/or mentality.

Personally, and I mean this sincerely, I find the the use of the word of *authoritarians* to be just mean. It paints members of DU in a corner and shuts down discussion.

There are a lot of people here that want to discuss issues. They are often shut down with the very use of that word -- once it's used, time and time again I see a sharp turn away from the discussion many an OP had tried to begin.

Haters and apologists are also things I see being used to turn the discussion into something personal as opposed to discussing the issues.

Community standards should mean something. The past few weeks have given me pause.

[bunnies]

6. Well said. nt

[pscot]

15. It's been discouraging

and damaging. People start reacting to one another and reason goes out the window.

[Raine1967]

17. I really agree.

something is going on here -- it's almost as if people on DU are being placed in segments of DU.

You are this.

They are that.

Obviously you think this so you must be that.

For the record, I tire that most responses to posts that begin with "so, you..." end up with a poster having to respond to a strawman argument. It does happen very often here on DU.

[G_j]

8. yes, those other words too

personally, I am going to try to be more careful. I tend to use snark more than name calling.

[BlueCheese]

9. I agree.

Also, some of these terms are meant only to offend and not add to a discussion:

poutrage
hair on fire
cultists
Obamabot

I'm sure I could find a lot more, but in general, there's too much fighting and not enough talking going on.

[Raine1967]

16. Exactly.

I think it's the name calling of this sort that just makes DU have more suckage.

This doesn't help to create discussion on -- ironically:

a discussion board.

terms like that are used to make posters become defensive about the thing they write as opposed to discussing issues.

It's not good. It really isn't. It drags down the community.

[G_j]

24. I so agree

and I can get sucked into it as well as the next person. I'm more passive aggressive I suppose, prefer to use the "clever" snark.
Arguing and one-upping almost seems to be an addiction on the internet. The majority of people here are sincerely passionate about the issues. I don't think most are here to argue, but with emotions always running high, its easy. When W was pres., we had a pretty clear goal.
I wish that we could take a collective deep breath and just be nicer.

[Raine1967]

39. So often, my deep breath moment is to type and then decide to not say anything.

and that is a shame, because it means I can't participate in the discussion.

I choose to do this in threads where I see that very *one-upping* that you speak of. I take that deep breath.

that said, I know that none of us are perfect; I actually appreciate snark, G_j -- I also can see the difference between using it to blow off steam as opposed to shutting down discussion.

[ZombieHorde]

11. "Hater" yes, but "apologist" less so.

Many people refer to themselves as "apologists." Seems fairly recent that "apologist" is being used as an insult. DUers are Social Security apologists, civil rights apologists, fair election apologists, etc. We're verbal defenders of these things, so we are apologists.

[pscot]

12. The term is by definition negative

It says that what you're defending or advocating needs to be apologized for. It's a slur.

[ZombieHorde]

14. No, it just means "argument in defense of something."

The term isn't about apologizing or being sorry about anything.

https://www.google.com/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=apologist+definition+webster&oq=apologist+def&gs_l=hp.1.3.0l2j0i22i30l8.9.605.1.5093.4.4.0.0.0.0.100.362.3j1.4.0...0.0...1c.1.12.hp.4dajsIb1960&pbx=1&biw=1051&bih=501&cad=cbv&sei=FGTDUav1GcKZiQKfhoGoAw

[Bobbie Jo]

20. True...

but that is not how it has been used here. It has been used to denegrate DU'ers as hero worshipers, blind followers, and idiots.

[Just Saying]

53. This ^^

It's absolutely being used here as an insult.

[JVS]

13. I agree with you. OP is making a false equivalence argument.

[AsahinaKimi]

18. I tend to like the term

"Haters", as I have come across many, (not on DU) but on other websites. On IMVU, for example. Some have come into my chat room with the idea of disrupting and intentionally race baiting some of us, or spouting their racist terms to get a reaction. They are trolls, but those who use racist words against us, really are "haters" in the deepest sense of the word.

Rush Limbaugh also comes to mind, imitating the Chinese representative by saying "ching chong, ching chong" in his little on air diatribe.
The word "Hater" perfectly describes his views on non whites and women. There are other words that could be used, but tend to be more offensive to most people.

The internet seems to embolden many of them to come out and say nasty crap since they can hide behind it. All you have to do is check the responses from places like Yahoo News to see the raw sewage spouted in response to some news story. On wws.sfgate.com, many of the responses are disgusting, and I am betting those, who respond to those stories in a negative way, are not San Francisco Residents.

[Egalitarian Thug]

42. I suggest you look to your own culture. IRL I'm a chameleon and have passed back and forth

from one group to another my whole life. In no place have I ever encountered as much culturally entrenched racism as within various Asian cultures. The most vile, screaming Southern American racists, if they had the capacity and anonymity to be in their presence, would stand, staring in awe, at the prejudice that is pervasive among Asians.

Edit: Standard disclaimer; no, this does not mean absolutely every Asian.

[AsahinaKimi]

43. I am fully aware of the culture of Japan..

but of course I was born in California. I know what you mean, and you know its funny, if I were to go to live in Japan, I would be just as much called a "Gaijin" as you would be, if you lived there. Though I may look Japanese, the moment I open my mouth, and speak.. my very accent would give me away as an outsider.

I know many who have gone to live in Japan, and have never felt welcome there after many months of living there. Being asked, "So when do you return home to your own country? " is a constant reminder. I have been offered the choice to go live with my cousins in Osaka, but have graciously turned them down. I would love to visit Japan or even South Korea, where my Grandmother is from, but never would want to live there, with the constant reminder of being an outsider. I do love the culture there, but can very well appreciate it from my own backyard, which is blocks away from Nihonmachi (Japantown) and so, feel I have the best of both worlds.

[Egalitarian Thug]

44. That is exactly one of the things I learned. One of my best friends in college lives with just

what you describe, and most of his, very prominent, family still lives in Tokyo.

The Japanese hate the Chinese who hate the Koreans who hate the Vietnamese and everybody hates the Filipinos, and on and on. I did get the impression that the Japanese are the most tolerant of the lot.

Oy Vey (pun intended)

[AsahinaKimi]

47. Perhaps...

But as I learned, even politely saying " So, when will you be heading back to the States" is just a polite way of saying.. "You know, really, you are not wanted here..just sayin". There are other phrases like, for example "Oh, you speak Japanese very well " which totally negates anything intelligent and concrete you have just said. Things like that can be annoying to hear, year after year.. but I suppose those who stick it out, will eventually get used to it. Its annoying to think you could spend 20 or 30 years in a country, and still be considered an unwanted outsider.

Incidentally, I went to high school in San Francisco. We had in our school those who were Chinese, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Singaporeans, Malaysians and Indonesian. We all got along just fine. In fact, we kind of referred to our school as a little United Nations, because we had so many people who's background came from other countries in the world. We never had problems, and got along great. Not sure what it's like there now..but hopefully they still have a positive environment there.

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. Exactly. We may understand that it is pretty bad here in the U.S., but it is still better

than in much of the rest of the world. One of the reasons Scott doesn't go back to Japan unless there's no way to get out of it.

[hfojvt]

48. except I found the same thing in Wisconsin and Iowa

many Iowans, when I told them I was from South Dakota, exclaimed to me "wow, you are a long way from home" as if I was from South Korea. They don't really mean to exclude you, but they already have a bunch of friends that they have known all their lives, so it is kinda hard to fit in as a newbie.

My paternal ancestors settled Richland County, Wisconsin in 1863. I bought land there in 1987, lived there for a year, went to graduate school for two years, and came back in 1990. In 1991, I opened a business. I was an outsider there too.

My parents say they felt the same way in my home town. Which for me, how could I be an outsider when I lived there my whole life? But many other people there, had roots in that town going back 3 generations. As such, my family was outsiders. But dad did still get elected to the school board twice.

[cliffordu]

19. You are absolutely correct.

Apologist hater.

[carolinayellowdog]

21. false equivalency-- apologist is a perfectly legitimate word, "hater" is abusive

for one among many virtually identical definitions:

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

added on edit-- of course "apologist" very often applies to both parties in a dispute, defending or justifying different things (NSA, Greenwald, for example)

[G_j]

22. your are right, I suppose "authoritarian"

would be more equivalent with hater, as neither have any positive implications as far I can see.
I chose apologist for the way it gets used sometimes, but you are correct. They aren't technically equivalent.

[carolinayellowdog]

26. "Obamabot" seems more equivalent to "hater"

in that whereas "apologist" is a neutral description of observable behavior, and "authoritarian" is an objective but pejorative description of a set of attitudes, "hater" and "Obamabot" both are totally subjective, dismissive, and hostile attacks on the whole person.

[hfojvt]

52. I embrace the label "hater" just like I did when Bush was President

it would have been dishonest back in 2001-2008 to deny that I hated Bush.

But the question needs to be asked - is hatred never justified?

I am reminded of the scene from "A time to kill" when Samuel L. Jackson is asked (about the guy who raped his young daughter and who Jackson then shot and killed) "Are you glad he's dead?" and he gives a straightforward answer "Yes, I am glad he's dead and I hope he burns in hell!"

If I care about reducing inequality because I think it is bad for society and bad for democracy, should I not get upset about a President who increases inequality and keeps lying about it?

I mean, if I believe that Obama has helped the rich far more than he has helped the working class, then why shouldn't it piss me off if he lies about it and says something like this?

“I’ve got to have folks in the United States Senate who are willing to stand up for working people just like I am,”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3013769

If I can still feel the pain of the scars from when he stabbed working people in the back, then why shouldn't a LIE like that piss me off?

Yes, I do hate. I hate being betrayed and I hate being lied to.

Other people do not perhaps feel like they were betrayed. Like Tom Hanks and George Clooney, perhaps they are much richer than I am. Or something. To me it is kinda mind boggling in some ways, but in other ways I can certainly see the propaganda being catapulted too. Even by DUers. There was a DUer who was very proud that his essay in praise of ATRA (which I consider to be a major betrayal by Obama) and then said essay was also read on Stephanie Miller. In such a way is huge betrayal sold as a great victory. The same thing was true when Bush was President except that there was a larger contingent of Democrats who were not buying it. These days, most Democrats are buying it hook, line and sinker.

[Just Saying]

54. I think any name calling lowers the level of debate.

Why do we need to label or belittle each other.

[karmalk]

25. much of the NSA 'outrage' is thinly disguesed Obama hate

a lot of racism has come out over this

[HooptieWagon]

30. provide a single example.

Everybody on DU decried the Patriot act and Bush's spying......to a single person. Now, that Obama has doubled down on it...to the extent of partnering with BFEE Carlyle group... some DUers remain steadfast to their principles and oppose this policy, even though they walked neighborhoods, pounded doors, donated, and voted for Obama, twice. This position is supported by such Democratic stalwarts as Al Gore, the ACLU, Alan Grayson, Noam Chomsky, and others. A different group of DUers has hypocritically cast aside whatever few Democratic principles they might have had, and chose a position backed by the likes of Dick Cheney.

So again, give one example of a DUer taking a racist position or remark.

[karmalk]

32. I trust Obama nt

[HooptieWagon]

37. That's nice. So, you can't provide one single example of the racism you allege?

[Apophis]

41. I'm confused.

How can this black man be racist towards Obama? Hyperbole much? I don't hate him either.

What I do hate is that he's continuing Bush-era policies when it comes to spying on US citizens. I didn't support it when Bush did it. I don't support Obama doing it. I wouldn't support Gore or Dean if they supported it.

I value my privacy and my Fourth Amendment rights.

[99Forever]

27. You need to update.

Haters is passe. Now we're racists just for having an opinion that doesn't jive with the Prez.

[bigwillq]

28. Most people act like children on a message board

Myself included.

I don't really care if someone is a hater or an apologist or a cheerleader or whatever they may be.

You shouldn't care either.

But that won't stop me from calling any of you those names!

Bottom line:

We shouldn't take a message board that seriously.

[Kolesar]

34. speak for yourself ... eom

[bigwillq]

35. Awww

is someone upset?

[Kolesar]

36. Wow. Perfect example. eom

[Logical]

46. See, you took it to serious. Please reread his post and edit your answer! :-)

[bigwillq]

50. Love ya too!

[Raine1967]

40. With respect, I disagree;

We are all asked to be a part of the DU community should we choose to be here, that is part of the TOS and community standards.

We have been told/advised by the Admins at the start of DU3 that we get to determine said community standards and as thus it should be taken as seriously as we want to be taken as individuals.

[bigwillq]

49. HA!

edit: That happens here? HA!

[Texasgal]

29. come on kiddies, we could all do better

talk about being intellectually dishonest.

yeah, it's name calling.

[G_j]

31. sorry

if you took that way. I include myself as one if the kids in the sandbox.

[Kolesar]

33. I wanna know who stole G_J's identity ... eom

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. I understand the sentiment, but the recent episodes merely point out the underlying

division that has formed over 20+ years. This is a real problem that is far bigger than DU. This party has been controlled for far too long by people that simply do not share the fundamental goals or principles of what most of it's supporters want this party to stand for.

We often talk about how the republicans "march in lock-step" and work together. Why is that? It is because their party has, and to a large extent still does, stand up and fight for the ideals that their base demands. Of course, I am not in any way endorsing those ideas, but I am pointing out that the republican party "dances with the one that brung ya".

What we call the Democratic party today has made it perfectly clear that they could care less who "brung them" or what they want, and thus we deep division. Neither or any of the factions that make the coalition that is the Democratic party is willing to accommodate the others any longer, and for good reason. We have one faction that has no principles beyond winning elections. They have betrayed their supporters every time and welshed on every agreement, and now more and more of the other factions have finally come to the conclusion that there is no upside in helping or supporting them any longer.

So now the Democratic party's only victories are completely dependent on the only other choice (republicans) being so horrifying that there really is no choice, and that strategy is short-term and ultimately doomed to fail.

The evidence is 2010 and, barring some miraculous turn-around in the next few months, will be demonstrated again next year.

[Fumesucker]

45. Well put, I agree n/t

[BainsBane]

51. I disagree on apologist

It accurately reflects a set of beliefs. I try to avoid it when disagreeing with someone, but I refer to that position in general as apologia or apology. Rape apology comes to mind. It is what it is.

[WI_DEM]

56. there are a lot of haters and a lot of apologists on DU

There are many posters who will post anything they can find that is critical of Obama and yes, I consider them haters. There are also people who will find only good in everything he does and never posts one damning word about him--yes, they are apologists.