Is Clark a disruptor?

[stickdog]

Think about it for minute.

We had all sorts of Kerry vs. Dean vs. Kucinich vs. Edwards threads here for months. However, other than a handful of easily identifible haters in each camp, the tone of the discussions was almost unerringly intellectual.

Yet since early August, the GD has had almost a constant linear rise in the type of tit-for-tat spam that characterizes a free-for-all disruptor-fest like the yahoo/MSNBC/Slate political commentary message boards -- where the sheer volume of crap drowns out most of the important, reasonable and thought provoking discussion. Other posters have linked to the logical fallacies that were always used here as they tend to be in any "open" argument, but are increasingly the SOLE basis of many posts. Because I frequent a couple of "everybody's invited" boards, I've traditionally characterized this behavior as "arguing like a Republican."

So are we seeing classic disruption techniques at work here? What happened to DU's admirable and long standing intellectual vigor? Has this wonderful marketplace for ideas been purposefully jammed with the disrupting supporters of the DLC's chosen disruptor candidate? And what about the "supporters" of other candidates who willingly play this tit-for-tat game? Are they disruptors are well? Or are there just a few well-placed disruptors and a bunch of reactive dupes who can't restrain themselves from fighting spam with spam?

Note that DU's "most successful" disruptors have historically been Repuke or Repuke-sympathizing posters pretending at least somewhat convincingly to be staunch liberals.

[Caution]

1. No, enough of this crap

this is about the 1x10E100th thread on this.

[MoonAndSun]

3. I agree!!

[tjdee]

2. If the new rules pass, will you be able to post this?

I don't know, it's an honest question and I"m not bashing you.

[wyldwolf]

6. The post will be a violation tomorrow...

It accuses a Dem candidate of being a disruptor.

[bluefire2000]

9. I support Clark; I'm not a 'disruptor'

Not sure why you're so intent on stirring up this crap against Clark, unless you're really a lurker from freep, which sounds more likely than your theory.

I see these titles keep popping up here--sounds more like some freeper ploy to smear Clark.

[roughsatori]

27. That is the pot calling the kettle black

You just used the same innuendo that you are responding too. Odd that you seem to think that makes the original poster part of a freeper smear--but you seem to let yourself off the hook. Hypocrisy in a supporter never enhances the candidates reputation they claim to support.

It is funny that someone with 4 posts is calling a member with a 1000# part of a Freeper smear. You are exhibiting the rude behavior (that some of us both "pro" and "anti-Clark" have used). That behavior has caused many here to completely avoid Clark threads.

I am attempting to limit my own incendiary words for the better of the DU. I decided yesterday to stick to facts, not innuendo, about Clark and his supporters. I invite you to do the same.

(Note this is not a comment on Clark or any other of his supporters--this comment is being made to you specifically.

[bluefire2000]

43. you're right, i did

And shouldn't have. It just seems so underhanded to post titles like that--it smacks of the right-wing smear attempts I see going on continuously--that is, a negative accusation which can neither be proved or disproved is made, and although it cannot be disproved, it raises doubts in peoples' minds, even though was nothing to it in the first place. This is how Rove works, so...

However, I should not have resorted to the same innuendo the original poster did. In fact, as you can see from my few posts, I have not posted here in the past, and probably got naively sucked into a flame war.

I'm of the view that discussions should be generally positive and civil, so shame on me for getting sucked into the negative crap.

[janekat]

90. I'm afraid I have to agree AND to disagree with your post....

I agree with you that the dreaded "freeper" word shouldn't have been used but I have to admit that these sorts of things make me want to scream the same thing. I've been trying to behave myself lately... LOL!

Things like this DO make you question the various poster's motives. Do they merely just want to ensure that people go into their thread? Are they trying to be clever or cute? Or is there a more sinister motive? Why is it almost ALWAYS done to one candidate - Clark?

I'm finding it very annoying myself...

[indigo32]

15. absolutely not

and GD will be the better for it.

[stickdog]

21. No.

So thank God for the "hands off Clark" rules!

BTW, have any of you ever heard of the term "parable"?

[proud patriot]

4. I want to give you a heads up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=431693&mesg_id=431693

[VermontDem2004]

5. I agree

that the level of civil discource keeps going lower and lower day by day but I don't blame Clark for that.

[Padraig18]

7. Flame bait

[boxster]

8. Nice counterpoint to your own argument there.

Oh, yeah, they haven't taken effect yet.

Can you not see that this is exactly what you're espousing to detest?

You just provided a perfect counterpoint to your own argument. You talk about logical fallacies, then you claim this is probably all a conspiracy and Clark's fault. His supporters are here only to disrupt the normal flow of intellectual discussion.

No offense, but that is just too funny.

Edit: changed subject line to better reflect post

[edzontar]

10. No

but posts like this tend to attract and/or encourage disruption.

I dont like the proposed new rules, but threads like this are the best argument FOR them.

[eileen_d]

11. That's laughable.

There have been as many disruptive anti-Clark threads as there are from Clark supporters IMO.

Clark made a BIG splash when he entered, no matter what you think of him. And DU got wet.

But please, do continue with your vaguely disguised disdain for supporters of a candidate you don't like. It's a real breath of fresh air. :eyes:

[molly]

12. Maybe your candidate is the disruptor - who is it?

:boring:

[The Magistrate]

13. No, Sir, He Is Not

Nor are those who support him.

Some who oppose him are certainly causing a bit of division and disruption here....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Japhy_Ryder]

14. Of course he is!

In that Clark, like the other 9 candidates, would like to win the nomination. In that sense, his supporters would probably like for you to vote for him, whereas a supporter of someone else would like you to vote for his or her candidate.

Unless of course you are suggesting that Clark entered the race specifically to disrupt a message board on a web site. Which seems the most plausible reason he entered the race.

[Closer]

16. Oh, Christ, get over yourselves people

This poster makes a very valid argument. Unlike most here, THIS is NOT a flame bait.

With that said, He/She should have known not to expect valid responses though with the current intellectual climate (or lack thereof) of DU. (Just look at the responses so far).


To the orginal poster: Yes, I concur. Disruptor is a nice way of describing what Clark is.

I have other words I'd use though.

[returnable]

18. Hardy har har

S/he makes a valid argument? With such subjective claims as "Has this wonderful marketplace for ideas been purposefully jammed with the disrupting supporters of the DLC's chosen disruptor candidate?"

That is flame bait, kiddo. Or don't you recognize it unless it's directed at your preferred candidate?

I can't wait for the new rules. The sooner, the better.

[ShaneGR]

17. TOMORROW, THIS WILL BREAK 4 RULES

1. Discussions about Democratic candidates for any political office must be based on a recently published news item or op-ed piece. Where possible, references must include a link to the original article.

Hypothetical reasoning with no sources. Violation #1

2. If you start a discussion thread which paints any Democratic candidate in a negative light, you must clearly state whether you support or oppose that candidate, and if you oppose that candidate you must clearly state which candidate or candidates you support.

Violation #2

3. Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden.

Clear Violation of #3

4. Discussion topics which advocate splitting the Democratic Party into separate parties are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate that a particular group of people leave the Democratic party are forbidden. Discussion topics which advocate supporting parties other than the Democratic party or supporting candidates who are not Democrats are forbidden, except in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

You get a pass on this one. But I love the rule by the way.

5. Discussion threads which paint supporters of any Democratic candidate in a negative light are forbidden.

Clear violation #5

[stickdog]

23. Sort of strange, isn't it, that such an innocuous discussion starter

(from the POV of any non-Clark supporter) is so damn felonius by the standards of the new rules.

So did Clark "draft" all the rules or just rule #3?

[Padraig18]

30. "innocuous"???

Note the logo. Now, look up the definition of 'innocuous'. Thank you for your time.

[stickdog]

37. All things are relative.

Of course, this aphorism applies most encompassingly to the BFEE.

[Padraig18]

50. This is about as innocous as...

... shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. :eyes:

[stickdog]

55. Yes, just before depleted uranium shells rained down on it ... (NT)

[returnable]

31. What's innocuous about this?

"Has this wonderful marketplace for ideas been purposefully jammed with the disrupting supporters of the DLC's chosen disruptor candidate?"

You attack the candidate as a DLC plant - citing no evidence. Does Clark have the support of some Dem veterans? Sure. As does Dean. As does Kerry. As does Gephardt. And so on. These folks are running for the Democratic nomination. They're gonna have Democratic support.

Has the DLC issued an official "We support Clark"© press release? If so, please share. Until then, such a claim is flame bait.

You insinuate that this candidate's supporters are newbies intentionally spamming this forum - citing no evidence. In fact, if you look around, you'd see quite a few of the diehard Clark supporters are members with 1000s of posts under their belts.

Your post was pure flame bait. And I hope to see less of these kind of threads after the new rules are enacted.

[ShaneGR]

38. Innocuous???

Actually, I think your post is clearly hypothetical and obvious flamebait.

[stickdog]

53. I would characterize it as a thought provoking analogy.

A "parable", if you will.

It is merely asking a question.

It is merely asking the "guilty parties" -- myself included -- to look in the mirror for a second, as opposed to simply "condoning" this behavior as "inevitable" as others might argue.

[The Magistrate]

60. Well, You Would, Sir, As It Is Your Product

The focus group convened does not really seem to agree, though.

[stickdog]

65. Undoubtedly, as this was the intended focus group

Think I'm ready for a job at Gallup?

[ShaneGR]

89. A parable?

Where you're shouting things like BFEE and other such things? Come on, you're reaching and clearly looking for flames if you're trying to link Clark to the Bush family. That's just plain ridiculous. I know for a fact you're smarter than that.

[stickdog]

92. You are misinterpreting my posts.

Not everything I've written is Clark-centric. I'm often just quipping for quipping's sake.

[Mz Pip]

19. I have never

talked trash about any candidate.

Ever.

MzPip
:dem:

[10digits]

20. Clark.

He has the same EMP ray that crashed the Wellstone plane.

[Pastiche423]

22. Yes

[zeemike]

24. Let’s be factual

It is a fact that the disruption came when Clark entered the race.
Logic would say that Clark entering the race was the cause, not necessarily Clark himself, but the action he took.

[eileen_d]

25. Now *that's* spin!

There's a job in cable news waiting for you.

[zeemike]

29. Well then

You are saying that Clark entering the race had nothing to do with it. What thing did cause the “disruption” in your opinion? Is the answer the paranoid Dean supporters?

Or are you saying that there is no disruption, or that it was here before Clark came?
There must be a answer that makes sense.

[eileen_d]

33. My answer is: "Nice Spin."

Personally I think it's a Skull and Bones conspiracy.

[zeemike]

42. Nice spin back

It always works to invoke the conspiracy theorists argument when you don’t know how to answer a legitimate question.

[eileen_d]

45. This whole thread is a conspiracy theory

and so I'm conspiracy-theorizing back.

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

[zeemike]

79. You are right, there is no RW conspiracy

It is just all a bunch of coincidence. How could anyone believe Hillary right?

[Julien Sorel]

28. Not good logic.

It's post-hoc fallacy: after the fact,therefore caused by the fact. Actually, there are people here who have attacked each frontrunner in turn -- first Lieberman, then Kerry. The more logical conclusion might be that the frontrunner is going to be attacked no matter what.

[zeemike]

32. Perhaps so

But there was no complaint of disruption before the fact that Clark came into it. Why not?

[The Magistrate]

39. Because It Suited Certain Persons To Make Such A Claim

Accusing those "not quite so left as thou" of being reactionary disruptors is ancient sport here. Some persons, additionally, felt the need to blacken the name of a candidate they do not much like, and displayed a great deal of energy in doing so: in some cases, in their zeal for left purity, they willingly spread slanders from reactionary sources, where Gen. Clark has long been disliked as "Clinton's General", and for ending the slaughter of Moslems by Christians in the Balkans, that many reactionaries thought ought to continue.

[zeemike]

44. You are right

But who are those persons.

[The Magistrate]

51. Oh, We All Have Our Little Lists Of Those Who Would Not Be Missed, Sir

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Darranar]

62. That's a bit unfair...

ending the slaughter of Moslems by Christians in the Balkans, that many reactionaries thought ought to continue.

Much of the opposition to the Kosovo war wasn't based on a wish for genocide to continue, but rather about worries about the effects on the bombings on ordinary Serbs and other innocent people.

[The Magistrate]

68. My Reference, Sir, Was Specifically To Reactionary Opposition

In which that note played a prominent role.

Some on the left amused themselves with conspiracist notions that it all related to "Socialism" in Serbia, or Yugoslav disinterest in NATO, or "World Domination" on a scale familiar to players of Risk.

Serb nationalists tended to blend the critiques, and made some play with the one you have proposed, while denying the ditches full of corpses the Serb government had created, each corpse of which had once been as live an innocent as any Belgrade cafe-goer.

The critique you propose, Sir, must in the end be rejected: to have refused to harm a small number of Serbs would only have led to the deaths of many, many more other people. Butcher Slobo had to be stopped, and by force. No other thing would serve.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

75. If Clark Had Had His Way, Less Innocents Would Have Died

He wanted the threat of ground troops right away, rather than the sterile, 30,000 feet war that Clinton and the rest of NATO imposed.

Clark's way would have spared many innocent Serbs.

DTH

[PROGRESSIVE1]

26. NO!!!!!!!!!!!! He's my choice to be our next President!!!

:kick:

[Toucano]

34. Define "disruptor", please.

If a disruptor is someone who replaces apathy with passion, Clark is it.

You can cast suspicion on his motives, and you can like him or not. But you cannot deny that his support is deep and wide.

Some people know him better than others, and those that know him better seem to like him more.

The fact that some who oppose him here at DU have slipped into the very same right-wing smear tactics and truth-twisting, even after evidence that refutes them has been repeatedly furnished, speaks more to the effects of living in a authoritarian state than anything else; abused children often grow into child abusing adults.

The bad guy is Bush!

[stickdog]

46. Dude, his support is shallow and ephemeral.

How can Democrats "deeply" support a politician that they don't know from Adam?

[Pepperbelly]

58. Give me a break ...

1) your claims of Clark disruptors is as silly as the complaints of Dean disruptors. Many of us here thought that they went far overboard. I do not recall starting any threads discussing their puppy-like behavior.

2) I think that your ire springs from the fact that your candidate is trailing.

[stickdog]

69. No, give ME a break.

Your claims of Clark disruptors is as silly as the complaints of Dean disruptors. Many of us here thought that they went far overboard. I do not recall starting any threads discussing their puppy-like behavior.

Yeah.

Bush I didn't "recall" anything about the Iran/Contra scandal, either.

Memories are so beautiful, and yet ...

[Pepperbelly]

72. you need to grab hold of yourself, dude/dudette ...

I did not post any such thread. Are you claiming that I did?

And btw, if you want to point fingers, bud, point them as well at the people who spam the board regularly with Clark bashing. I note no mention of that and that has become the most egregious spamming I have ever seen on the board.

[stickdog]

76. I'm a dude. And like most dudes, I can assure you that I'm continually

grabbing ahold of myself.

[Toucano]

78. Time will tell.

You may have only just met Clark and may not know him from Adam, but that isn't true of every Democrat.

You say you don't know him from Adam, yet you've formed an opinion. Is that fair?

It is a measure of the depth and strength of the support for Clark that some of his supporters will not allow false and previously refuted allegations to continually pop up without challenge. To remain silent would give credibility to the lies. If they said nothing, some would say his support is "shallow". If they speak out, they are disruptive. Hence, the lack of valuable discussion of late.

Yet his detractors insist on regarding his supporters as rubes and suckers; victims of some wildly convoluted Trojan horse conspiracy that no one has adequately explained. This insults both their sincerity and their intellect, and Democrats are notoriously proud of both these qualities which we have in exponential proportion to Republicans.

I would wager that if Clark had a perfect Democratic voting record and had never said anything that could even be construed as positive about any Republican who had ever lived, he would still be greeted by some in the Democratic party with the same suspicion he receives now.

The reason is simply that he has excelled in an institution which many of us feel stands in opposition to our goals. What they don't realize is that he excelled in that institution of conformity as a unique individual. His values and ideas were often in conflict with those of the military norm.

Wesley Clark is the the sheep in wolf's clothing. We shouldn't be suprised that some of us are crying, "Wolf!". It's been a long time since we've had one who wasn't trying to devour us.

[Shanty Oilish]

35. He's a uniter in my book

Now that Clark's in the race, I will never again complain about Lieberman's R leanings, Edwards' inexperience, Kucinich's pro-life past...
Can see the virtues of anyone but Clark.

[zeemike]

48. I love uniters

Look what the last one did for us.

[WilliamPitt]

36. snarf

Clark is not a disruptor.

Zealot supporters of other candidates shitting their pants because Clark became the immediate front-runner?

Others genuinely concerned about his Democratic pedigree and lack of articulated policy stances?

Yes and yes.

Or, in other words, duh.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. "the tone of the discussions was almost unerringly intellectual"

you must have been somwhere else. :) Clark's entry has certainly stirred the pot, but it's not that much different than it was before - it goes in cycles.

[stickdog]

47. I wasn't talking about the threads you frequented.

;-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

54. you frequented only the intellectual threads?

and only made well thought out, non flame posts? I didn't realize :)

[stickdog]

61. No. However, you were among the the small class of posters I specifically

exempted from my generalized characterization. ;-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. you started a thread called "Is Clark a disruptor"

and you're claiming the high road? incredible!

[chadm]

41. Well, he is a Republican, so it does make sense

.

[Padraig18]

52. Prove it!

[Trek234]

49. Of course he is

He serves a multitude of negative purposes.

I think more immediatly, however, he will split the primary vote. This may allow a candidate to come in who otherwise would not. (i.e. one who can not win, such as Lieberman) This will be assisted HUGELY if the republicans can have some kind of organized movement to vote in the dem primary.

The CA recall proves they are more than able to organize and act. We'll see what happens.

[Julien Sorel]

56. Was this thread started to increase support for the new rules?

I think the evidence is obvious.

:tinfoilhat:

[sweetheart]

57. he has bad manners

by shadowing on edwards with his announcement... and omen of ill tidings given he's a new entry with a democratic party objective... a more subtle entry in to politics might suit someone with as little civilian government experience as Mr. Clark. I support him as a Veep for any other candidate, but find his entry as a candidate directly to be distruptive like ross perot was to bush 1... just if he was within the republican party.... which he kinda split.

Clark seems to have polarized this board similarly when i look through the numerous numerous clark threads to find a real political comment. This reflection of his presence in terms of bringing moderate and difference in to this board has been healthy in one sense, but the rules of time are that all threads sink.

Rude behaviour is not appropriate politically. It indicates an insensitive ego ill-prepared for the subtlety of high office. Clark to me is kruschev as an improvement on stalin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. "he has bad manners"

I alos read he flatulates in mixed company....

[The Magistrate]

70. Kruschev Was Quite An Improvement On Stalin, Schatzi

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[sweetheart]

73. beat the bush

indeed. Realpolitik says whatever wins and a general could be that... a democratic eisenhower, blah blah blah... i've read all the rhetoric. I don't trust his late noncommittal entry in to the race. It stinks of opportunism. For someone making a strategic committment to govern a country, its all a bit hasty. If he teamed up with another candidate to make a democratic unity administration, i think he's a jammin dude.... but it does strike "disruptor", "bad manners", "poor form", "accidental tourist"

Kruschev may indeed have been an improvement.. a rather dubious one.

kucinich in 2004!!! and whomever is nominated... "NOT-bush" in 2004... YEA!!!

[The Magistrate]

74. The Delayed Entry, Sir

Seems rather a sound strategy to me, nor does the act seem non-committal.

As we will both vote for whoever the nominee turns out to be, we have no important disagreement, to my view, anyway.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Lurking Dem]

81. Since his entry

was exactly one day after Edward's official announcement and exactly one day before Braun's announcement, it leaves me wondering "why all the fuss?"

[The Magistrate]

86. Well, Ma'am

It is in the nature of the beast to exalt trifles.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[sweetheart]

93. this is no holds barred spin doctoring

clark... whatever." that is my real opinion. If he can't stand up to a trifle tug in a friendly playground from a writer, he'll never survive candidacy. I'm sure hes brilliant. Its funny, but i think all the democratic candidates are brilliant men. Just of different luminosities with networks of agents. Clark's agents need to move without bullying or they reflect militarism inside a uniformed commander. The omens are on the ground, and clark is a worthy contender.

exalting truffles is my favorite. ;-)

[paulk]

80. kruschev a dubious improvement over stalin?

you shoot your whole argument right in the ass! Stalin murdered how many people? 20-30 million? How many did kruschev kill?

That's like saying a 747 is a dubious improvement over a paper airplane!

[sweetheart]

94. you misunderstand

For the average man in the street feeding a hungry family, "just getting by" is dubious. Sure he did not kill a zillion, but the mistakes that ultimately brought down the soviet empire were solidified round those times... and had that society become benign and very wealthy, it could have truly embarassed american rhetoric... and yes i fault kruschev as a dubious "great leader". The choices of the cold war were made one at a time and kruschev is one of a gaggle of forgotten responsibility for setting in motion a tragic folly.

[Trek234]

59. Also

I notice that a VERY large number of Clark posters are people with under 500 posts, who have only gained those posts within past several days. Very odd to have so many new posters that support Clark...

[Julien Sorel]

63. It's a brilliantly planned and organized conspiracy.

Now you can see how Clark got those 4 stars.

[eileen_d]

64. Also, we all love Crystal Pepsi.

:tinfoilhat:

[stickdog]

67. THAT WILL NOT STAND!

;-)

[Padraig18]

77. Dear GOD!

"I've been here at DU since dinosaurs walked the earth's cooling crust, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ..." :puke:

Elitism at its most offensive! And you folks call REPUGNICRATS 'elitists'? *hands you mirrors*

[stickdog]

82. Dude, it was a legitimate observation.

Don't take it so personally.

Many DUers reasonably question the motives of any seemingly coordinated group of newbies.

It's part of the healthy suspicion that keeps us from buying anybody's load of shit hook, line and sinker without giving it a thorough sniff test.

If the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to try another.

[Padraig18]

83. No!

It is an offensive, snide and elitist observation! :puke:

[Toucano]

84. You don't get it?

Clark brings people back to the Democratic party!

People have renewed hope. They are participating again.

[Tinoire]

85. You're so mean

Clark is the President I was promised as a child



you're mean!


so m-e-a-n!!

[stickdog]

88. LOL.

Here, let me wipe away your tears with my dress blues.

[janekat]

87. Are you trying to tell us that it's CLARK'S fault? LOL!

I don't remember seeing anyone here having been programmed by Wesley Clark into becoming a "disruptor." Are you telling us that he is that powerful of a person?

I think it might be a little bit our fault...

[quaker bill]

91. No

He is simply a democratic candidate for President of the United States.

It's a free country, he gets his shot, just like the other nine.