Hillbots

[cali]

That folks, is a personal attack. It suggests that those supporting Clinton are mindless automatons, who can't think for themselves. How about Johnbots or Denbots or Barbots? I notice that supporters of those candidates are just as adamant in their support as Hillary supporters are.

I may disagree with those supporting Clinton, but the contempt displayed by those calling her supporters Hillbots, sticks in my craw. I see no reason to call her supporters names. And if her supporters here are calling supporters of other candidates something similar, that sucks too, but I haven't seen it.

Attacking the candidate with names is one thing, attacking her supporters with derisive labels is another.

[jeff30997]

1. Must...Vote....

For...Klinton...

Gouliani or Klinton:

[Forkboy]

2. To quote Hillary's most obnoxious supporter here...

(and it's a tough choice)

"can't take the heat...get out of the kitchen."

And if her supporters here are calling supporters of other candidates something similar, that sucks too, but I haven't seen it.

You should look around a bit more.

So fuck 'em.No pity from me, and no intent on playing nice with them either.There's some cool Hillary supporters and I'll still be nice to them, but the rest are shit and go fuck themselves with a chainsaw.

And if they don't like it...they should listen to their buddy's words above.

[cali]

3. That's disgusting, but

it's no excuse for calling people posting here, names. That's an attack on Obama, and one that I consider racist at that.

And your post is so violent and over the top, that I think people deserve to see it. You sound utterly deranged- like a bad shredder movie.

[Forkboy]

4. Oh well.

If it sounds deranged to you then too bad.I don't care what YOU think either, especially if you can't see a little literary exaggeration when you see it. :shrug:

[cali]

5. Literary? LOL! Boy, do you flatter yourself. n/t

[Forkboy]

6. Well, it was still a literary device.

Deal.

[rox63]

26. The ignore function is your friend

I've put many of the most obnoxious Clintonites on ignore, and my visits to DU have gotten much more enjoyable.

[ronnykmarshall]

65. Don't blame me, I voted for Ghidorah!

[jgraz]

7. "hater", "basher", "misogynist", "freeper"

That's just part of the lexicon of epithets that have been thrown at me for daring to criticize Queen Hillary. I think both sides could use fewer insults and more substance. Calling out the offenses of only one side draws a very biased picture.

[cali]

8. I did say if it's being done by those supporting

Hillary, that sucks too. And I don't think that what you've been called is any more acceptable, but the prevailance of the 'Hillbot' meme is what prompted me to write the OP. I see it over and over and over again.

But you're right. Personal insults over criticism of a candidate, do detract from any substantive discourse.

[saracat]

9. Some of the nastiness of our frontrunner's supporters is over the top.

I too have been called a myriad of insults. "Stupid" and "liar" are among their favorites.I have also been called a hater, basher and misogynist.No discussion of this candidate is tolerated.

[jgraz]

10. You've put your finger on the real problem

The attempt to shut down dissent over Hillary is just plain scary. I don't think the Hillbot epithet is helpful, but the sentiment that some of her supporters are only capable of a programmed response is pretty well-supported from what I've seen.

[cali]

11. I haven't been called any of those things

and I've written 4 OPs in the last week critical of Hillary, and stating why she shouldn't be our candidate.

[saracat]

12. Maybe you were under the radar.I don't know why but she has some very rational nice supporters too.

I can respect those people. I do not like the term Hillbots either but it is mild compared to what some say about other candidates supporters.

[jgraz]

13. The responses usually take the form of callout threads

"To all the Hillary-Haters:"
"Please stop lying about Senator Clinton"
"Can we please stop with all the sexism against Hillary?"
"Some of you Hillary-bashers sound like just like the freepers"


These are quoted from memory so I might have gotten a few words wrong, but you can't tell me you haven't seen posts like this on a daily basis around here.

[cali]

15. Sure I have.

But the fact is that the OPs in opposition to Hillary far outnumber any others in GDP. And the fact is that I have seen numerous lies about Clinton here AND sexism. Not to mention that name calling like "Hitlery" is straight out of the freeper handbook. There's so much of it, that even though she's my dead last choice, I've felt compelled to address it- not defending her so much as defending against bullshit.

[jgraz]

17. objections should be directed at individual offenders, and not used to broad-brush any and all criti

For every truly offensive post against Hillary, I'd guess I've seen 5 or 6 accusing legitimate critics of being freepers or misogynists. The goal seems to be shutting down debate, and that tends to get people mighty frustrated.

[cali]

21. Well, we all see things through the prism through which we view

them. I can tell you that right now there are 10 anti-Hillary posts on the front page of GDP. Some are reasonable. Some aren't. But you have no evidence for your claim that for each truly offensive post you've seen 5 or 6 accusing legitimate critics of being freepers. That's simply you and your prism. I suspect that what you see as offensive and what I see as offensive may differ. As I said; prisms.

[jgraz]

57. Which is why I said "I'd guess"

You've seen for yourself how many anti-Hillary posts are met with these kinds of attacks. I contend that critical posts on Hillary are met with far more vicious and ad hominem attacks than are pro-Hillary posts or attacks on other candidates.

I'm not sure if there's a scientific way to measure this, but I'd be interested in suggestions.

[mwb970]

28. Some of the Hillary-haters *do* sound *exactly* like Freepers.

The hate sounds exactly the same to me, whichever side it comes from. Sorry, that's how I see it.

[jgraz]

52. As do many of the Hillary supporters

Watch how often criticisms of Hillary's support for the war and her pro-corporate leanings are attacked as "right-wing talking points". It's a straight-up Rovian tactic of going after the messenger to obscure the message.

[MGKrebs]

44. "Use fewer insults...he says while referring to her as "Queen Hillary".

[jgraz]

51. Taking shots at a candidate vs taking shots at DUers. Learn the difference.

[MGKrebs]

54. I know, it's crazy.

I had this bizarre thought that they might be related.

[jgraz]

56. Related? Sure. The same? not at all

Do you not see the difference between saying "this candidate is an idiot" and "her supporters are idiots"? Pretending these comments are equivalent is one of the key tactics uses to shut down debate over Hillary's shortcomings.

[MGKrebs]

58. They aren't equivelent, but if you hope to reduce insults to each

other here but continue to bait supporters with slurs against their candidate, I suspect you won't get far.

[jgraz]

59. I suspect you're right

Of course, I wasn't trying to reduce insults. I was just objecting to one side constantly playing the victim while acting as bad or worse than others.

[Solon]

14. Your point? As far as I can tell, all these people are unthinking automatons attached to cults of...

personality. Of course, I don't use the term Hillbot, but Hillaryite, Obamaite, Edwardist, Bidenite, Kucinichist, Richardsonites, Gravelists, whatever. Of course, considering I don't have a dog in this race to screw the American people, again, I find it fascinating, if disheartening, to see. I saw it in 2003-2004, and I'm frankly surprised at the dirty tactics of all sides, I generally comment on a candidates positions or votes, not for who they are, but what the stand for.

[cali]

16. Then you're being arrogant and dismissive of others' points of view

There are plenty of smart reasoned posters supporting each of the candidates.

[jefferson_dem]

19. Oh please, stop with the sanctimony.

All the candidates are attacked in ways some that some of us may consider over the top and disdainful. Hillary is not alone there and she deserves no special "victim status" treatment.

[cali]

23. Sorry.

The facts are that Hillary AND her supporters are attacked with far greater frequency than any other candidate. Period. And many of those attacks aren't reasoned opposition. Just count the number of anti-Hillary posts on the front page of GDP, and then count the OPs attacking any other candidate. Hillary supporters are the smallest contingent on DU.

[bpeale]

67. in my experience here, that is not true

Edwards supporters, & Edwards himself, are subject to horrible vitriol here ... the worst in my opinion.

[jefferson_dem]

20. dupe. sorry.

n/t

[Solon]

22. I have no doubt about that, but they are drowned out by the acolytes who follow...

and don't think for themselves. In addition to this, I've found that I actually learn LESS about candidates when their cheerleaders and detractors are posting. The fact is that I can't dismiss a person's point of view when they don't post anything of substance to begin with.

As I said, I criticize candidates on policy positions, votes, and maybe speeches, and I do NOT get information about any of those from DU. 3 independent sources first, and then I may comment on it, then again, I most likely will not either, I've been avoiding the primary flamewars for weeks now. Occasionally I get drawn in, like right now.

But seriously, its well past the point of ridiculousness, I remember, it must be a few months ago now, a bunch of Hillary supporters were attacking sniffa for an OP he made that had a reasonable criticism of Hillary in it. You know what the attacked them on, the fact that he capitalized the L's in her name. Seriously, people like that cannot be reasoned with, I know I tried.

[JNelson6563]

18. I agree Cali.

For several reasons. First of all it sets the tone and almost gives "permission" for supporters of Sen. Clinton to get as nasty as they wanna be.

It does fall under "name calling" which is childish and counter productive.

Lastly it is not fair to those who suuport Clinton that are NOT obnoxiously offensive.

Julie

[Perry Logan]

24. Error. Error. Malfunction. Shutting down.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. This Site Is Becoming Unintentional Parody

I suspect people come here for comic relief...

[cobalt1999]

29. I think there are a few Hilbots here...

and Obamabots, and Edwardbots, and, definitely, Kucinichbots.

By that I mean, folks that are a little "over the top" in their support of a candidate, assumes anyone that isn't a supporter doesn't know all the facts, can't admit when their candidate makes a mistake, refuses to see the negatives of their candidate, or can think that other candidates are capable of being good presidents too.

The rest of us are not into the "cults of personality" and are looking at candidate logically, not emotionally.

This is coming from someone who has Clinton ranked #1 on his list right now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I keep reading that campaigns pay people to post

Is that true?

I will post for pay for almost any Democrat...

I will charge $2.00 for posts less than five sentences and $4.00 per post for posts more than five sentences....

[cobalt1999]

31. If campaigns are paying people to post...

then they aren't getting their money's worth around here. :)

How does someone get a sweet gig like that though? I'm with you, I can be bought. Hear that campaigns? I'm available too!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. It Would Be Sweet

eom

[radfringe]

33. I'm a TOO-DANG-EARLY bot

but if I had to vote today it would be either for Kucinich, Biden or maybe Richardson, then again, Edwards, Obama, and Clinton do have their points...however there's something to said about Gravel too...but if Gore gets into the race I may change my mind all over again

[radfringe]

34. ok made up my mind

Godfry the Garden Slug because I KNOW he's slimy

[againes654]

35. Well Cali, being guilty of using the term "Hillbots"

I have to admit that you are right. It is over the top, and takes away from the real issues. I don't support Hillary at all, but I don't want to attack people that are free to support whom ever they want.

I wrote a post last week that I was through Hillary bashing, and I stand by it. I can't support her, but I don't have to be childish either.

[Hydra]

36. Some of them are bots

and this OP isn't helpful. It just reminds many of us how many people really are posting in thumper fashion.

Oh, well. Perhaps it reminds some of us to ignore said people.

[cali]

37. What a muddle your post is!

Just how exactly is my OP unhelpful or harmful? Read the thread and you'll find that some people do find it helpful. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean that others feel the same way. And of course, you can simply ignore my posts and avoid the problems they cause you.

[Hydra]

41. Your post is unhelpful in the same way the people who are starting flamewars are

You're highlighting the problem while trying to stop people from seeing it in that fashion.

The people who are rabidly posting for Hilary are doing the same thing- pushing people further away by their actions.

[Rhythm and Blue]

49. You don't want to play the polarization game with Hillary,

unless you are a Hillary supporter. She has an 88% approval rating among Democrats--attempting to make the primary a referendum on Hillary will lead to a Hillary sweep.

If I were an Obama or Edwards supporter, I wouldn't be saying a word about Clinton.

[Rhythm and Blue]

38. If her campaign is really capable of engineering

bots capable of passing a Turing test, I'm switching my vote to her immediately.

[sniffa]

45. this shouLd be deLeted

[Hydra]

47. Thank you for proving my point n/t

[sniffa]

50. you're weLcome

zooooooooooooooooooom

[BeyondGeography]

39. It's an appropriate term for her most mindlessly partisan supporters here

whom I can probably count on one hand (or maybe 1.5 hands...). Not appropriate for most of them, some of whom are among the best people here.

[Carolina]

40. oh, puhleeze

get used to it, it's gonna get a lot worse as the queen sews it up which her supporters here presume is the case.

The names for HRC and her boosters will know no bounds. Hell, Hillbots is tame. I really don't have a dog in this fight as I curently support no one, but I wouldn't give a rat's ass what someone called me if I did.

It's what these friggin candidates did especially in 2003, are doing today and won't commit to doing in the future that deserves way more than name calling.

Sheesh, get a thicker skin. Insults are the least of our problems!

[Froward69]

42. I adhear to the

sticks and stones will break bones. but words wont hurt. obvously not to supporters of others.

[cali]

46. I've noticed that you have a considerable problem with

reading comprehension: I do NOT support Hillary. And in case, you weren't aware of DU rules, name calling is verboten.

And I still maintain that it's not that hard to criticize a candidate or his/her supporters on salient points, without the name calling.

[Carolina]

48. Spare me

I came, I read, I comprehended just fine. And I still say such name calling or insults as you put it are no big deal because they WILL get worse. Hillbots will need to deal with it.

You have the comprehension problem and need a thicker skin!

[cali]

53. Spare you? Not a chance, dear.

When I see bullshit, I call it. And thin skinned is hardly what this is about. More a low tolerance for bullshit and stupid.

[Carolina]

61. And to think you

started this bullshit thread about name calling, yet you sling words like bullshit and stupid around.

You are so full it and yourself, honey.

[cali]

62. Oh, poor wittle Carolina. Her wittle feelings are hurt.

She can dish it out but she can't take it. You came into this thread defending name calling. And oh yeah, I haven't called you a name. And I won't. I'm perfectly able to snark without name calling.

Talk about thin skinned.

[Forkboy]

68. "Not a chance, dear."

I'm sure you meant that in the best possible way, not as an insult.

Good job invalidating your own thread. :thumbsup:

[BootinUp]

43. That kind of thing was against the rules in '04

probably still is, try the alert button. Apparently the children need their hands spanked.

[Catherine Vincent]

55. Cali said....

"The facts are that Hillary AND her supporters are attacked with far greater frequency than any other candidate. Period."

You are 100% correct. I'm not even a Hillary supporter but still get called one when I call them on their attacks again Hillary and/or her supporters.

[DeepModem Mom]

60. K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

63. Attack? Criticism? Eye of beholder?

Regardless of the style people use when attempting to persuade their fellow Americans not to support Hillary, the fact that she gets more negative comments than other candidates might just be because she deserves them.

And the fact that her supporters will brook no criticism is highly reminiscent of the bunch currently in the White House.

In other words, maybe the 'Hillary haters' know something.

[OneBlueSky]

64. some of us who don't support Hillary simply don't believe her and don't trust her . . . n/t

.

[avrdream]

69. That's fine. You are allowed to feel that way.

The point of the thread, I believe, is to ask everyone to respect other supporters and not call them names. I choose Hillary for my own reasons. I'm not paid by the campaign. In fact, if you check my profile, I'm currently living in Australia. Being called a Hillbot (rampant these days) won't change my vote whatsoever but it will show me which members of DU are more reasonable than others.

[illinoisprogressive]

66. I dont' call them Hillbots. I call them hillarybots.

[TSIAS]

70. Where were these people in 2004?

I remember when people here were allowed to call Dean supporters "Deanpers", inferring that they were Freepers in disguise.