Complaining about ABC on DU is hypocritical

[Enrique]

If DU really was sincere about wanting a substantial discussion about the primaries, then why is the discussion of the primaries on DU itself so fucking stupid?

Why does posting "I hate Hillary Clinton" immediately shoot to the top of the "greatest" (ha!) page?

[democrattotheend]

1. I didn't tell the Clinton supporters to leave

I wish it were more balanced, so we'd have a more interesting discourse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Sadly, you are in the minority. n/t

[stray cat]

2. ABC is a mainstream noncable news channel with news broadcasters moderating

DU is a chat site for anyone and everyone to say whatever they pretty much want no matter how wrong, stupid or hateful.

[cliffordu]

5. Until last night. ABC stopped being a news outlet

in any legitimate fashion.

[Enrique]

6. and DUers CHOOSE to totally ignore substance

DU could discuss substance. We have total control of what we discuss, the media has no control over what we discuss.

And what do we CHOOSE to discuss? Certainly not substance.

But then we complain about the lack of substance in the media. Like we fucking care.

[endarkenment]

30. We are discussing this issue. Has it no substance?

[Crunchy Frog]

41. SOME DUers choose to ignore substance. Some do not.

Indivduals posters on DU are only responsible for what they themselves post. What part of "DU is not a professional news organization" do you not understand?

[Nay]

64. Thank you, dmordue. DU is a CHAT SITE, not a major news media

outlet. You'd think it was the other way around, from the stupid shit said at that sham of a debate last night.

[Selatius]

4. DU itself doesn't endorse one or the other. Individuals do, however.

The problem is people mix up comparisons on one level with comparisons on a different level. As a whole, DU is really just an arena for ideas and folks to duke it out. On the individual level, people have opinions and move in a way that serves that opinion.

Just because Obama has more favorable greatest page threads simply means more DUers like Obama, not that DU as an entity endorses Obama.

[Enrique]

9. I'm not talking about favoring candidates

I'm talking about subtance in the discussion.

[0007]

14. Be my guest Sire! Please start with your holy subtance for said

discussion.

Are do you just like to bark a lot?

[papau]

23. holy substance" - we begin with Revelation - Obama does not walk on water and is a liar

[0007]

35. I don't believe Barack walks on water and I don't think he lies as

much as hilzary.

This is not a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.

[emilyg]

54. !!

[meow mix]

7. DU is an echo chamber of fanatics, not the mainstream media.

your premise is flawed.

[Enrique]

10. then the fanatics don't care about substance

but they pretend to care about it when bashing ABC. They're hypocritical fanatics.

[meow mix]

15. fanatics rehash every little thing 10,000 times over, wether it has substance or not.

so the argument doesnt really apply to DUers. sorry

[Drunken Irishman]

8. Well at least you agree ABC News is on par with a partisan message board.

[Crunchy Frog]

42. Excellent point!

:thumbsup:

[MethuenProgressive]

51. I agree DU is a partisan message board.

I remember when it was Democratic Underground...

[Swamp Rat]

11. Complaining about ABC on DU is legitimate and appropriate.

If you think there should be a moratorium on complaining about corporate media, then take it up with the DU Admin.

[Enrique]

13. I don't think there should be a moratorium on it

I'm just saying it's hypocritical.

[Swamp Rat]

20. dupe

[Swamp Rat]

22. Complaining about ABC on DU cannot be "hypocritical"

unless you can prove the complainers support ABC outside of DU. Then only those particular 'complainers' could be criticized as acting like hypocrites.

Nevertheless, "Complaining about ABC on DU is hypocritical" is itself an illogical statement.

[Enrique]

28. you don't understand my post

if you don't want to understand it, that's fine. If you do want to understand it, let me know and I'll help.

[Swamp Rat]

32. Apparently you do not understand English syntax.

Puedo ayudarte con esto.

[Mz Pip]

12. Comparing DU

to ABC is really pretty bogus. DU is an Internet discussion forum that lets people post anonymously. ABC is a national broadcasting corporation. THe posters on DU don't have to comply with decent standards of journalism. We sort of expect ABC to do so.

[Enrique]

16. the individual posters are saying they want a subtantial discussion

but then when they have a forum where they could discuss the primaries in any manner whatsoever, they have total control, do they discuss substance? No!

Therefore they don't really want substance, which makes them hypocrites.

[smiley_glad_hands]

19. You know some of the most

hate filled right wing bs I've ever seen has been posted by supposed Hilliary supporters here. What you say may have some truth but it goes both ways.

Fact is, we have a nominee. Obama. Alot of people want this to be over, but she just keeps on dragging it out.

[Enrique]

21. I didn't say it doesn't go both ways

[smiley_glad_hands]

26. Fair enough. eom

[Mags]

39. get real, he is not the nominee yet!!!!!!!!!

[smiley_glad_hands]

45. For all practical purposes he is. Hill is only putting on a show. eom

[Mags]

47. are you ok?

[smiley_glad_hands]

63. You should be asking yourself that question. eom

[endarkenment]

34. We wanted the nationally televised debate to be substantial.

We do sometimes have meaningful discussions here in GDP. There are substantial posts scattered amidst the mindless smear jobs. But this is not a national campaign event, it is an increasingly stupid political message board.

[Mz Pip]

49. What substance

would you care to discuss?

[smiley_glad_hands]

17. I bet the admins wish they had the income of ABC.

Public airwaves vs. internet message board....see the difference?

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. It's a good question, but that thread WAS eventually locked

(took a long time though)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. No shit!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5544677&mesg_id=5544677

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5545436&mesg_id=5545436

[Enrique]

33. thank you!

your experiment is exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm sure that people have attempted to discuss the primaries in a meaningful way, but such threads sink so amazingly fast. I've done it. It really is amazing how fast they sink.

[Buzz Clik]

25. "why is the discussion of the primaries on DU itself so fucking stupid?"

Gee, thanks for elevating the discourse.

:eyes:

[question everything]

27. I know. As soon as I saw what was the main story on DU Home Page

I figured that the Obama supporters are pissed. This being ObamaUndergroun of course they will when Obama does not send a shiver down Gibson's and Stephanopulus' legs, when they do not bow in reverence and praise him constantly, they way Olbermann and the Newsweek crowd do.

[Enrique]

31. lol

Tweety's "shiver up the leg" comment will never be forgotten. :-)

[Enrique]

36. delete

[endarkenment]

29. Good point. I forgot that DU is an official campaign event of national importance.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Enrique]

37. it shows what we really care about

if we cared about substance, we'd see it here where we discuss the primaries any way we want.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. Maybe it's because DU posters are not professional journalists?

Is it possible to expect professional journalists to adhere to some sort of standard, since that's what they're supposed to do, even if we are not professional journalists living up to those standards ourselves? I guess not in Hillaryworld. :shrug:

By those standards, complaining about anything on DU is hypocritical.

[Enrique]

40. but we choose how we discuss the primaries here

and we choose not to discuss substance.

It means we don't really want substance, we just say we do.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. Some people on here choose to discuss substance, some people don't.

I put it to you that it is possible for one to be a shitty message board poster and still have some expectation of professional conduct from ostensibly professional journalists.

I'm happy for you that you are apparently comfortable with our mainstream media being what it is, since in your view, it apparently doesn't have to meet any higher standard than an internet message board. I myself expect a higher standard of behavior from professional journalists.

[Enrique]

53. what I'm saying is not about our standards or theirs

it's about what we are claiming we want.

We're going to write letters to ABC saying we want more substance? If they'd put more substance in the debate, we'd ignore it or twist it into our silly Clinton vs. Obama mud fight.

[damntexdem]

43. Hypocritical -- really? And I suppose that complaining about Faux News is treason.

And, of course, there have been absolutely no Hillaryite complaints about MSNBC's Countdown.

[KSinTX]

46. Enrique, we're in an era of "mutually-assured destruction" and it needs to stop

"I hate Hillary Clinton" posts shoot to the top because there is a great frustration over the fact that the Republicans have settled with great civility their battle for the nomination and this party can't. It's not that most people really "hate" Hillary Clinton (those of us old enough to remember may have great disdain for Bill Clinton's legacy), it's more that what you're hearing at this stage of the game is impatience and venom originally held in reserve for the opposition candidate, but instead has turned inward (from a party perspective) because the time has passed for this race to end.

Another point to note is that this election cycle is unlike any in recent history. The message of change has brought record numbers into the election and they're not here for the Democratic party. They were energized by a particular candidate and that in itself means they're not going anywhere. Negative attacks are generally geared toward the undecided. With the exception of older party regulars, there's just not many undecideds this time around. So, the infighting rages on.

It's not the fault of either candidate that this has gone on so long, there were just too many procedural flaws in a system unused to such overload. If you want a real "debate" on issues, post one that doesn't start with "Complaining about ABC on DU is hypocritical" or "discussion of the primaries on DU itself so fucking stupid." I suspect that you'll find fewer replies in the negative. You are attacking the very people with whom you wish discourse using the trite "ad hominem" fallacy.

Try reason and logic, you might just get a different response.

[nichomachus]

48. Why? Because . . .

Why does posting "I hate Hillary Clinton" immediately shoot to the top of the "greatest" (ha!) page?

Probably because all Hillary supporters seem to offer are posts saying "Obama supporters are just stupid childish idiots who are in some kind of cult."

Maybe if Hillary supporters would post positive things about their candidate, telling us what she's done and what her platform is better, they'd be taken seriously.

[Enrique]

57. here's one about an issue DUers care about

I was inspired to post it by the thread which posted pictures showing the effects of the Iraq war, the post concluded by "Fuck you Hillary!"

So I posted the endorsement of Lynn Woolsey, leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, Woolsey saying "I trust Hillary to end the war in Iraq."

I was thinking it was possible Woolsey's comments might cause some people to question their own ideas about Clinton and Iraq.

The "Fuck you Hillary!" thread, which was devoid of substance was at the top of the Greatest page, my own thread sank quick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5526346&mesg_id=5526346

[nichomachus]

60. An endorsement isn't an issue

Seriously. I really pay no attention to endorsements -- other than to investigate the mechanism behind them. Why, did Richrdson, for example, switch at the last minute from Hillary to Obama. There's something going on there, which is interesting in a poly sci kind of way.

But the fact that Richardson endorsed Obama doesn't really affect what my ultimate choice will be -- and neither does the endorsement of Woolsey or some Pennsylvania mayor. People climb on different bandwagons because of past loyalties or the hope of future benefits -- so it really doesn't say much about which candidate is better for the country.

[Enrique]

61. getting out of Iraq is an important issue

ABC asked each of them about it last night. (Is anyone discussing this part of the debate here on DU, by the way? If so, how are they discussing it?)

One of them is going to be president, and that president will make important decisions which will affect how long we are there.

One of the things I'm thinking about is what either of them will do if they become president. I don't know what they will do. I can't go totally on what they say because of course there's going to be some posturing.

But what someone like Woolsey says does help me decide what I think about what they'll do about Iraq. It shows to me that Hillary's previous support of the war doesn't make it impossible for someone committed to the Iraq issue to think she can get us out.

[nichomachus]

62. I agree that it is an issue

And I would like to hear Hillary's plan and her timetable for doing that. When would she start withdrawing troops. When will they all be out? What does she plan to do about Blackwater?

[MethuenProgressive]

50. k&r

:thumbsup:

[Life Long Dem]

52. Ahhhh???? Because

That's what hate is. The emotion of hate is a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action. Thus the Greatest Page, thus this action is seeking more action, and so on and son. Get it?

[earth mom]

55. DU has become the Obama echo chamber-someone upthread got that right.

There is little if any real discussion, just blind devotion and a feeding frenzy if someone posts anything negative about saint Obama.

To criticize ABC is a total joke because where were these people when the networks ignored Edwards & Kucinich?

So let the media hammer Obama on his connections to Wright, and all the other sketchy characters he's friends with.

At least some truth is getting out there.

[LSK]

56. why do YOU assume that DU has one poster???

I don't post much in GDP, I don't like all the GOTCHA bullshit, so why are you labeling me in that group???

Maybe some of us still are about issues and want to see them discussed.

[Enrique]

59. I'm excluding myself as well

and many others.

But there is a reality about how DU behaves collectively.

[cbayer]

58. The irony is stunning, isn't it.

The very topics that DU members obsess about day after day after day are somehow unimportant when the candidates themselves are asked to discuss them.

I read a few threads last night before I watched the debate and expected to see a train wreck. But I did not experience that at all. I thought it was a good debate with a reasonable balance of issues - some related to the ongoing campaign, some to the bigger issues. I think they both did quite well, but in different ways.

I was stunned this morning to see all the "Kill ABC" threads, including the "Official Fuck You ABC" OP at the very top of the page. The only explanation I can come up with is that there are a lot of people who feel their candidate did not do so well and they need someone to blame.

The lack of substantive discussion may have to do more with the lack of substantial difference in the Clinton and Obama platforms than anything else.