Serious question: We have an excellent rule about not bashing Democratic

[niyad]

officials. But what options are available when a Democratic official is bashing us?

[msongs]

1. it's better to criticize specific behaviors instead of general dislike

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes. Criticizing after a specific vote, action, comment seems fair game...

But, expressing general dislike or more, no.

[niyad]

6. You seem to have missed the point of the question.

[hlthe2b]

2. Well, I've seen some sanity applied to that rule. I've yet to see comments about Fetterman

that might even include suggested primary for him, juried and hidden. Not sure if they are even being alerted, but... And that is one example. Schumer seems to likewise come in for justified criticism per DU juries.

I actually hope this level of sanity holds.

[niyad]

7. Oh, they are being alerted on, which is what led to my question.

[hlthe2b]

10. Do you know if they are being hidden? I've made some careful critiques of public figures based on

comments, votes, stances--didn't cross the "threshold" whatever that might be.

[niyad]

16. The few with which I am familiar have not been hidden that I know of.

[soldierant]

36. Fetterman's current voting record

is so inconsistent with his record as Mayor - I can't help wondering whether his stroke took more out of him than anyone thought - including him.

[FoxNewsSucks]

43. They are alerted

Usually shouldn't be as they deserve the criticism.

[Bluetus]

3. And how does that rule apply to people who call themselves Democrats

but actively work against when the entire party is trying to accomplish? If the entire Senate caucus votes a certain way except for one guy, and it is the same guy every time (speaking hypothetically, of course), does the rule allow any flexibility?

[leftstreet]

5. That's a great question

[Initech]

8. Well, when a supposedly registered democrat goes on Fox News and accuses us of "Trump Derangement Syndrome"...

He can go fuck all of the way off and shove it up his ass.

Yes, we hate him. Yes, he is a failure. Yes, he failed us on every level. Yes, he is the biggest danger and threat facing the United States right now. You're brainwashed and in a cult. Deal with it.

[RussBLib]

9. I presume you mean Fetterman....

…charging that Dems all have Trump Derangement Syndrome? Or was it someone or something else?

He really does sound like a Republican with that remark.

https://russblib.blogspot.com/?m=1

[niyad]

13. You are quite correct. I wish I could say I was shocked by that remark,

but I had already blown up about his defense of his vote for his friend.

[Pototan]

51. Sometimes you have to put up with it, other times not

For instance, the best we could ever do in West Virginia was Joe Manchin. He'd vote with us 50% of the time, but he caucused with the Democrats. West Virginia is 70% MAGA. You are not getting anyone to the left of Manchin elected there.

But Arizona and Pennsylvania are quite different. We were fooled by Sinema. That's a swing state and we can elect a more loyal Democrat than her, and we did.

The same thing about Pennsylvania. We could easily have elected Connor Lamb, but Penn. has a closed primary, so the more progressive candidate won, John Fetterman. How's that working out?

This time around (2028) that closed primary system will work against Fetterman. As long as only one (or maybe two) candidates run opposed to Fetterman, he'll be out in the primary. We can elect the primary winner in Penn. without having to have a piece of shit like Fetterman represent the Democrats from Penn.

[ananda]

14. He certainly votes with Republicans now.

I wonder if he's always been a Republican
or whether the stroke affected him.

[niyad]

19. Some people on this board who have known him for a long time say

he has always been this way.. Others I know in other areas say the same, that the stroke had nothing to do with it.

[ananda]

20. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

He's a pig in a poke all right.

[jfz9580m]

48. Contemporary media can play mind games

Though part of that is the power of suggestion.
I can guess the thought process. I notice it casually when I try to decide who to be polite about.
I am not American and I was legitimately totally scrambled about a bunch and DU has helped me.

So I would hate to add to EarlG’s troubles. I feel it is a bit unfair that any contribution I try to make to society seems like a liability risk. And it is really more generically pro American/pro Earth/pro human than explicitly pro Democratic. It is just-hey don’t shoot the messenger litigious billionaire types-that GOP candidates are always way more unviable. That is Colbert’s reality’s liberal bias, but just scratches the surface. But not being American, i worry about frivolous lawsuits.

It is really lousy that one can never rven support the correct people or things without that setting off other unintended consequences. It would be very uncool to attack EarlG over deranged posters who post drivel. That’s the engine of economy of the net- deranged drivel thar is! That’s us! All of our horrible thoughts and dreams and drivel.

I am sort of torn in my posts (as I am in an extra annoying position) between board TOS and my experience by now of how these guys wield lawsuits in actuality.
They make women out to be frivolous complainants or out to be confabulators or gullible etc.
And eventually one can no longer just ignore things and hope they go away and annoy just about anyone else, since the legal implications of that are as troubling as a futile, nuisance protest that angered and confused a lot of already angry and confused people and went nowhere.
Goddamn megalomaniacs and their stupid tacky computers and sad lame social and personal use tech for endless navel gazing by douches who mandate that as a “bot or not test”. Really smooth.
I feel like an imposter to the extent that now apparently one must be all ingenue or equally improbably and atrociously “sensible” when mostly I just avoided these people. They seem to have no goal or plan that is not built on a foundation of bullshit. How can that possibly work? And it is shamefully cruel to everyone else who is truly more a hapless human (or by now in my case, one with an adequate headsup) than a participant or player.

[yaesu]

11. I remember when bashing the then God Garland would get you in trouble here

my how times have changed

[LuvLoogie]

15. Garland isn't a Democrat, though,

clearly.

[yaesu]

28. LOL, who cares

and I CLEARLY don't

[yellow dahlia]

12. Reasonable question.

There may be some nuances in the rule, which can't all be accounted for in the rule book.

BUT! When someone (for example) accuses folks in a certain group of having TDS, perhaps the folks in the group could take issue. Fair!?

AND! There might be some who call themselves Dem officials, but don't act like it. If they are sabotaging the party - what then?

Asking for a friend.

[Wiz Imp]

17. Huh? The rule about not bashing Democrats is clearly (almost) never enforced.

Some days, there may be a dozen or more threads that are absolutely nothing more than Democratic bash fests. They never get hidden. So clearly the option seems to be bash whoever you want because you won't get hidden for it.

[niyad]

22. I specifically asked about Democratic officials bashing us.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

30. Exactly.

Go ahead and bash away.

Or don't.

[Cirsium]

53. Never

A dozen or more threads that are absolutely nothing more than Democratic bash fests? I have never seen that.

[mopinko]

18. jury nullification.

i think it’s pretty much always been the way that juries dont hide posts that r legit. if it’s in the news, w a reputable source, it usually stands. if it’s true, it usually stands.

the rule gets applied to bogus bs posts. sorta the definition of libel. if it’s true, it cant b libel.

[Blue_Roses]

21. I think there is a

finely line. When a Democratic Official works against theìr own party it's fairgame, but I don't mean by bashing them.
I mean by calling out the behavior. It let's those of us who aren't familiar with them see what we are up against.

[Bread and Circuses]

23. I've been dinged ...even though I am very careful..

I try NOT to use names of people when I discuss their behavior, votes, or donors.

I think we can criticize because we are citizens and we want defend our democracy. Alas, some people report posts that have simply stated the facts. I think the DU jury system is good.

DU has a difficult job because we don’t want this nice community to turn into X.

[niyad]

27. I am not criticizing the jury system, which has worked remarkably

well. I am concerned about a fairly new and rapidly increasing problem, and how best to deal with it.

[Bread and Circuses]

29. I know. I simply wanted to support the DU management 🌷

[SSJVegeta]

24. F Fetterman?

[niyad]

35. Are there other Dem officials bashing us? Not sure I can handle more.

[LoisB]

25. Good question.

[marble falls]

26. EarlG already adressed this question. He said that the rule is not absolute regarding obvious Democrats not acting in ..

... our interests, and that the criticism not be personal attacks, but on policy.

[niyad]

31. I obviously missed that in the ongoing onslaught of horrors, but I

specifically am asking about Democratic officials bashing, personally attacking, US.

[marble falls]

33. If they are off Democratic Party ideals and the criticism is specifically about issues and not about personal stuff ...

... it's OK. As in criticismabout Fetterman calling us TACO deranged and not about Fetterman's IQ (for example) no rule is being broken.

[niyad]

34. Thank you. I am running out of poppets.

[JMCKUSICK]

32. I assume this is in regards to Fetterman

and it is a great question.

Can we create a DINO class?

[Iggo]

37. None for me, apparently.

I’ve seen a few threads I wanted to participate in, but I know I’d better not.

[niyad]

38. That is one reason I like my poppets!

[JMCKUSICK]

40. What's a Poppet, lol

[niyad]

42. Known in some circles as voodoo dolls. Which reminds me, I need more pins.

[JMCKUSICK]

55. That's funny, I have the New Orleans Voodoo Tarot Card deck lol

[Blue Full Moon]

39. They need their feet held to the fire.

[niyad]

44. Or possibly other portions of their anatomies!

[LearnedHand]

41. I don't know, y'all, but I think we're working with a pretty nebulous term

“Bashing” is not really well defined, and because of that it’s left up to what each person views as bashing. What one person views as constructive criticism the next views as bashing. I wonder if it would help all of us if we had a common understanding of the term, with examples.

I’m just making this next part up, but using the Fetterman scenario described above, the example could look like this:

- Expressing frustration that he is voting against (and insulting) Dems, NOT BASHING.
- Hoping he doesn’t run again or is primaried, I DONT KNOW. THIS NEEDS DEFINITION.
- Accusing him of having been a plant all along, probably BASHING.

[niyad]

45. Some very good points.

[Aussie105]

46. Wording and context are important.

You can say you are disappointed in someone if you outline reasons for doing so.

eg 'I am disappointed sometimes with Aussie105 because he blathers on too much about topic XYZ.'

[niyad]

47. Hard to do when one is disappointed in their entire existence.

And, I have no problem with you blathering on about xyz. It's the uvw ones! Seriously though, I do understand.

[Ialwaysvote]

49. Voting matters

Support the Democrat who represents your values and can win. Democrats represent all different people with different interests and needs. Having the majority in Congress really matters.

[niyad]

50. All true, but that does not address the question I asked.

[Ialwaysvote]

54. Yeah, I think it does.

[LudwigPastorius]

52. "But what options are available when a Democratic official is bashing us?"

You see a lot of Democratic officials here bashing other DUers?

[ColoringFool]

56. The TOS As Written Are Clear.