DU has not "changed"

[Soylent Brice]

At least not in the way people tend to insinuate around here.

DU *HAS* changed. Like... some rules here and there. Star membership stuff. Juries. No more Top 10 Conservative Idiots (I'm looking at you EarlG)

But DU is no more awesome and full of super cool, talented, well informed people... and/or troll infested, wackadoodle-laced, and sociopathic internetz freakazoids as it ever was.

I found this oasis of sanity/insane asylum (because duality) back in 2004. I lurked until I joined in 2006. DU is almost identical in terms of atmosphere, fun, shenanigans, wit, and facepalmery.

So... With that said...

I don't really give two shits when someone posts a GBCW as they self-eulogize (I made that up. I like how it sounds.)

As a matter of fact I love that shit. I don't have cable or even regular tv so this is as close to Guiding Light as I'm going to get. I grab some popcorn. I snuggle under a blanket, and laugh my living ass off. Because schadenfreude

But, the best is when they start whining and moaning about "oh this place just isn't the same!!!!!11ONES ZOMG they've ruined DU whinesomemore blahblahblah..."

Okay dude. Like, you'll be back in what 30, maybe 60 days? Okay buddy. *wink

Look, here's the deal. I'll give 2 examples to prove DU is not so fucking radically different.

1. H2O Man
Totally cool. Totally liberal. Totally rocket surgeon smart. TOTALLY nice and respectful.

And there's like a bazillion others like him here.

2. OPERATION MINDCRIME.
A.K.A. OMC
A.K.A. Complete Fucking Sociopath

If you know who that evil little bastard was you don't need an explanation. If you don't know him just search because you won't have any problems finding years worth of unrepentant, vile, horseshit of that herpe of humanity posting here.

And this is my point. Some cool peeps stay. Some leave. Some new ones show up.

Same with trolls, shills, asshats, automatons, and generally unpleasant dillholes. They come, they go, they get TS' ed.

Whatevs.

That's DU. Ironically it's a lot like life. Go figure, the joint is crawling with other people just like in the real world. Shocking - I know - bit its'k. *hug

So if you wanna keep posting obviously not well thought soap box diatribes in the form of a grandstanding Internet suicide note/stomping away/g'bye post... cool with me. I'll don't have DVR but I can bookmark that shit.

Just know that the majority of us who know better know that you're utterly full of shit.

[lunasun]

1. I was actually eating popcorn while reading that stuff today

[Soylent Brice]

3. yay!!!!

!!

[countryjake]

2. So there.

[leftstreet]

4. No one ever leaves here n/t

[seabeyond]

6. lmao...

[Soylent Brice]

9. Oh shit you posted the vid.. LMAO!!!

[seabeyond]

10. and still those voices are calling from far.... away. such a lovely place.

you had the same thought i see. too funny, and probably too true.

[TBF]

43. I can't believe there's a video -

but it was the first song that popped into my mind when I saw this thread. Well played!

[Soylent Brice]

8. ikr

DU = Hotel California

*shudders

Lol

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. I always thought of it more like this...

[SunSeeker]

27. LOL nt

[Javaman]

70. "Just when you think you are out! They suck you back in!" lol nt

[Lint Head]

7. It is and always as been the "Democratic" Underground.

[Still Sensible]

11. Well said n/t

[littlemissmartypants]

12. Thanks for your post.

I am not a bot.

[immoderate]

13. I like it.

--imm

[Skittles]

14. it HAS changed

I remember a time when Democrats actually were called out for bullshit - it wasn't supported and defended by the equivalent of 5 year olds stamping their feet, fingers in ears....DU was better before them and it will be better after

[cui bono]

22. Agreed.

It's a lot more like the comments section of any website than when it used to have so much more thoughtful and content filled posts.

[Demeter]

29. Yes, well, you and I have a broader and longer-lasting involvement with the site

and more data to work with.

[Soylent Brice]

38. Am I gettin' an ass kickin'?

Yes indeed?



Please?

I love you Skittles!!!

[Skittles]

92. BACK AT YA BABE

sometimes it is worth taking a jury hit to call them out for what they are

[FSogol]

39. You mean BS like assuming that the BOG and HOF are behind every single issue here?

[Skittles]

91. I am not ASSUMING anything

I am SAYING there's WAY more quacks here now than there used to be

[geek tragedy]

100. That is absolute nonsense. Rense.com and Neo-Nazi sites like American Free Press and

David Irving's Institute for Historical Review used to get cited with regularity here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=americanfreepress.net&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

https://www.google.com/search?q=americanfreepress.net&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl#q=ihr.org+site:democraticunderground.com

Almost 100K hits at DU for Rense alone

https://www.google.com/search?q=americanfreepress.net&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl#q=rense.com+site:democraticunderground.com

[Skittles]

101. do you see me supporting that stuff?

and by the way, worship is not the same as SUPPORT

[geek tragedy]

104. Really, you think using insulting hyperbole like "worship"

doesn't help make DU suck? Yes, some people are overly partisan in their defense of Obama, just as some will be for any Democrat who runs for President, or who wins. So what? That's what partisanship is.


You didn't support that stuff, but you and a lot of other people seem to be in denial as to just how many crazies were around here back in the day.

[Skittles]

105. what exactly do you call supporting someone NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO

what exactly do you call that?

done here; waste of time

[geek tragedy]

108. "loyalists" or even "apologists"

even "blind partisans"

[In_The_Wind]

44. Indeed

[geek tragedy]

45. The good old days when Holocaust denial sites were quoted as reliable sources

and Alex Jones was considered a hero for talking shit about Bush?

There's been a lot of addition by subtraction.

[Skittles]

89. they were very much exceptions

you did not see an entire group supporting such garbage

[geek tragedy]

98. No, it was common in multiple forums, especially I/P, the 9/11 Dungeon

but also General Discussion.

Try doing a site search for:

rense.com
ihr.org
americanfreepress.net
whatreallyhappened.com
serendipity.li
thetruthseeker.co.uk

Note: I think we can all agree that having Holocaust denial websites being cited as mainstream is 10,000 times worse than having overenthusiastic supporters of a Democratic president here.

If you want the real culprit to the rightwingers' gateway to DU, there's a forum whose letters when rearranged spells "BARK"

Certain subjects function as disease vectors for the extreme rightwing and anti-semitism here. And supporting Barack Obama ain't one of them.

[Skittles]

99. you must go looking for them

I never saw multiple holocaust denial threads

[geek tragedy]

102. no, they wouldn't deny the holocaust, just pimp conspiracy theories

that were published by Neo-Nazis.

It's how that crowd tries to infest legit websites, by mainstreaming themselves.

Do a site search for rense if you don't believe me

[Skittles]

103. so we are agreed that we detest people who pimp garbage

[geek tragedy]

106. Everyone here pimps bullshit and trash to a certain extent

it's a political discussion board.

but some things are way, way over the top, and as a category zealous Obama supporters are FAR better than people who get their news from David Irving and Willis Carto and Alex Jones.

[Javaman]

71. +100

I don't post half of the things I want to, due to the "get my candies in a wad" squad.

I just don't bother.

I find those people and their faux outrage, exhausting.

they have done plenty to quell discourse on DU.

and who are "they", we all have an idea.

[Skittles]

94. we know who they are

it's gonna be fun holding their words against them when we have a different president - yes indeed

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. Strange that supporting Democrats on a site ...

named DemocraticUnderground should be a "put a pin in it for later use" point!

[lunasun]

128. Odd promised action indeed

[Marr]

72. +1

[GreenPartyVoter]

129. Agreed. It doesn't feel the same, and hasn't for quit a while.

[Cha]

15. Hey Soylent.. YouBetterBelieveIt.. thanks for your take on good ol DU..

good days and bad.. but obviously the good's heavier.. I'll give it that.

Been here since 2002.. and when I left for two years in 2010... I slipped away and then came back under the radar.

[Hekate]

23. Hmmmm

I resemble that remark, Cha

[Cha]

31. I hear ya,

resembling, Hekate.

[C Moon]

16. DU is a part of my life now! I love it, love it, love it!

[seabeyond]

18. welcome. and enjoy. nt

[The Straight Story]

17. I think that it has changed in one way, at least

More traffic/page views/replies over internal conflicts than external politics.

Good threads that years ago would have been k&r'd, commented on, etc, can drop like a rock - post something about DU though and it will get a lot of attention. For the lack of a central, external, enemy we have tended to focus more inward on each other.

[1StrongBlackMan]

112. +1 ...

post something about DU though and it will get a lot of attention. For the lack of a central, external, enemy we have tended to focus more inward on each other.

Amen ... But the problem is, there is a central and external enemy ... the REPUBLICAN PARTY ... Yet, there seems to be a preoccupation with focusing on being critical of Democrats.

I know this may seem trite, but the worst that Democrats have done (even if one counts what some point to as Democrats WANTING TO/WILL DO) is far, far, far better than what republicans have done and explicitly state they will do.

[snot]

20. It has changed.

Many fewer substantively helpful posts in the areas I care about; or if they're still being made, they're a lot harder to find, even though I subscribe to a number of Topics/Groups.

It used to be the Greatest Page was packed with more important news/insight than I could handle. Now, I have to hunt for it, and often come away disappointed.

The one change that I do think was for the better was to get rid of the unrec function, which I'm convinced was used by trolls to bury many important OP's.

[NanceGreggs]

21. I beg to differ ...

I beg to differ.

To say that DU – or any other website of its type – has not changed since 2001 (when DU was launched) would be ludicrous.

Of course DU has changed. Everything changes over time. If DU was stagnant water, it would have dried up and disappeared long ago. People come, people go; and with each changeover of personnel, the dynamics change and take on new direction, new perspectives, new purpose. The question is really whether it has changed for the better or the worse.

During the Bush fiasco, DU was a community held together by its disdain for a common enemy – Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the gang – and that commonality was key. There was also the fact that the outrages from BushCo were daily occurrences – each opined on, spit upon, satirized, photoshopped, and often laughed at for the sheer sense of insanity of it all. It’s what drew people together here; it’s what made us feel like family.

DU’s first real turning point was the 2008 primaries. Suddenly posters who had been ad idem on everything during the BushBaby’s years were at each other’s throats over their own – Kucinich, Edwards, Hillary, Obama, et al. For the first time since becoming part of the DU family, brothers and sister were no longer screaming from the bleachers, but standing on the mound, up at bat.

In the end, everybody kissed and made up, and celebrated the election of one Barack Hussein Obama (D) to the highest office in the land.

But then things changed yet again, and site rules changed along with the times and the tenor of conversation. In the olden days (she said as she adjusted the light of the gas lamp, along with her bustle), the Mods ruled, and the rules were clear. Certain things were allowed to be said – and no amount of alerts would change things. Certain things were not allowed, and no amount of cries of “censorship” would change things.

Now there is the jury system, and what is allowed or prohibited fluctuates from jury to jury. Some think this is a great system; others think it deplorable. But despite your personal opinion of the jury system, one cannot seriously argue that it hasn’t impacted DU in a major way. Again, to say that DU hasn’t changed other than what you refer to as like... some rules here and there is naïve at best. DU would have to have been DOA for such a change not have had serious consequences.

Things that were once strictly verboten here are now considered acceptable. Things that were once acceptable are now considered verboten. Again, to say that DU has not been changed by “like – some rules here and there” flies in the face of logic. Certain changes in the TOS opened the site to certain participants denied access before; certain changes in the TOS caused certain former members to leave. That change is not a rocket-science analysis – it is a matter of human nature, and common sense. And DU has changed as a result.

Again, the question is not whether DU has changed (of course it has). The REAL question is whether that change has been for the better, or the worse. And that is a truly subjective question, and will be answered by each according to their own perceptions.

But to say that DU has not changed is to ignore the facts, along with the concept that change is inevitable – especially on a political message board, where the politics of the day are always a moving target, subject to change without notice.

P.S. Although we may disagree on many things, I think the term self-eulogize is brilliant!

[defacto7]

24. Great comment...

Things do change, people change, politics changes... it's the way of everything. But I think the question is whether after the changes one still belongs here or if they want to evolve with DU. But honestly, I think if someone doesn't feel they belong, it's ridiculous to keep posting or stay here. Move on and find a better place.

[NanceGreggs]

30. Many of us have moved on.

And many have chosen to stay - to evolve with DU, as you say, or to hang on in hopes of reverting things back to the way they were. THAT is the real battle being fought here.

In the end, it all comes down to who embraces the obvious changes, and who rails against them. But to say that DU hasn't changed is simply nonsensical.

[Hekate]

28. All good points. Personally, for me it's been the change from a village to a major city

The population was about 15,000 when I joined in September of 2002. It's now 14 times bigger. I used to know a lot more of the residents -- that is, a much higher percentage of the residents. I used to share personal information -- now I delete about 90% of what I start to write about my personal life. There's a lot going on all the time, though.

Nice to see you, Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

32. Actually ...

... DU is not fourteen times bigger. The number of registered members is all-inclusive since the site started. That number is not reflective of how many current participants there are.

But there is no denying that DU has changed - whether that change is a positive or a negative is in the eye of the DU beholder.

[Hekate]

33. Well, there are likely a certain percentage of socks, lurkers, and zombies...

Plus those who only post in the outlying regions. But seriously Nance, the population has grown a LOT.

[Number23]

34. Hey Nance

So good to see you.

You know my views on whether DU's change has been positive or negative. I just read yet another series of articles on Obama's support among liberals. How his support among liberals is as strong as it's ever been. And then... I come here where denial ain't just a river in Egypt and the perpetually petulant love to claim that the reason they despise every single action taken by the man is because they are liberals. I mean to call this behavior INCONSISTENT is an understatement to its core.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Oh, yes, my friend ...

... we both recognize that DU has changed - and we both have consistent views on whether that change has been positive or negative.

One of the major changes has been how reflective of the Party DU once was, as opposed to what an outlier it has become in terms of gauging the Party's position as a whole.

There are too many Egyptian River Dwellers here for my taste - but apparently, the mileage on some barges varies greatly.

(Always good to see you, too!)

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. Yep, to the two of you! ...

It seems that, just as with conservatives, tea-partiers, racists, misogynists, and all other extremists, one's personal opinion/world-view represents the position of the larger population. And no amount of polling or evidence to the contrary will change that opinion.

[a kennedy]

47. agree with this statement.....

If DU was stagnant water, it would have dried up and disappeared long ago. it's like that skiter bite, you can't keep you hands off it and when you do keep scratching it, it bleeds and then the scab heals and returns to normal skin. It's like you can leave DU but you can never LEAVE DU. Thanks NanceGreggs, loved this post.

[geek tragedy]

51. +1 nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

64. SWEETY SWEETY PIE PIE!!!!

:::::::WHAP:::::: (Sound of Nance hitting it out of the park)


:::BANG::: (Sound of Nance hitting the nail squarly on the head)

So good to see you post, Ms. Greggs.

Honored to know you elsewhere


.

[ProfessorGAC]

69. Sorry. I Think You're Overstating This A Bit

Most of what you say makes perfect sense, but i don't think it's as substantive as you make it out to be.

The differences are far more subtle and i don't honestly believe the changes caused by the shift of mods to the jury system are that profound. You say i can't seriously argue is hasn't changed DU. But, you're slanting it negatively.

Perhaps some would agree the change is profound but prefer it this way. Hence they would be agreeing with your statement but disagreeing with the sentiment. Count me on one of those.

I read folks here in criticizing the jury system talking about cliques. They clearly haven't been here long enough. The old mod system was a enriched feeding ground for cliques. I see that a bit(!) better now.

There are changes, to be sure. I like your stagnant water analogy. Quite apt. But, i think the differences are small and more importantly, minor.
GAC

[NanceGreggs]

117. I don't think it's a "minor" change ...

... when you go from allowing "constructive criticism" of Dems to a post calling the Democratic president a "piece of shit used car salesman" topping the Greatest Page, and appearing on the Home Page - right along with the "Impeach Obama" ads.

The Mods enforced rules that were clearly set out. Juries follow no rules except their own, which change from one jury to the next, depending on the make-op of each jury.

There is a HUGE difference between what used to be alerted on and removed and what is now allowed to stand. And offensive posts are rarely "removed" anyway - just hidden, meaning it merely requires a mouse-click to read it in its entirety.

Many people left after the Dem/Obama bashing became permissible - many people signed-up for the purpose of joining in the bashing. That alone changed the tenor of the site dramatically. If bashing LGBTers was suddenly permitted, a lot of people would leave - and a lot of gay-bashers would sign-up. That's just common sense - and to say that wouldn't drastically change the site would be ridiculous.

[ProfessorGAC]

125. And I Do Think It's Minor

So, we are at an impasse.

[hfojvt]

86. I was with you until paragraph 4

or 5, which starts

"DU’s first real turning point was the 2008 primaries. Suddenly posters who had been ad idem on everything during the BushBaby’s years were at each other’s throats over their own – Kucinich, Edwards, Hillary, Obama, et al."

Oh, older timers could tell you about flame wars/purges involving the 2004 primaries, beginning in late 2003.

Then there was the 2006 elections. Once Dems took control of the house, the Pelosi bashing really revved up. I remember because I complained about it in my journal, and even sported a Pelosi icon for a few months to show support.

And this "In the end, everybody kissed and made up, and celebrated the election of one Barack Hussein Obama (D) to the highest office in the land."

was only true for about three days. The Obama bashing started pretty quick and pretty heavy.

There was even a period when it seemed to me like we were being invaded and I mentioned it once or twice. We had a whole slew of registered users with 4 years duration and less than 500 posts who suddenly felt moved to start "I am so disgusted by Obama" threads.

Threads with the same list of complaints and which got knr'ed to the sky.

Of course things change though. We once had a meta forum, and now we do not, and so on.

[NanceGreggs]

107. I wasn't here

during '04, and neither was the OP. So I was only talking about the years we 'shared' here.

Oh, absolutely agreed about the kiss-and-makeup only lasting a matter of days.

What caused the biggest change here, IMHO, was the rule change from allowing "constructive criticism" of Dems to allowing any and all "criticism". The result was exactly the same as it would have been had FreeRepublic announced they were allowing "any and all criticism" of Dubya two years into his pResidancy, i.e. lots of libs would have signed-up there posing as "disappointed GOPers" just so they could bash Bush endlessly.

That was the end of my days as a DUer. The welcome mat was laid out for the RW trolls - as long as they maintained their "I'm just a disgruntled Democrat" cover story.

I'm sure that if I could go back in time and post a DU poll before Obama's inauguration asking: "Do you foresee a day when a post calling any Democrat, no less a Democratic president, a piece of shit used car salesman will wind up at the top of the Greatest Page?", the answer would have been a resounding NO FUCKIN' WAY!

DU used to be, as the TOS once stated, a "sanctuary" from the endless Dem-bashing in the MSM. It has now become the go-to place for the worst of that bashing.

[redqueen]

111. This. nt

[hfojvt]

116. I don't remember any rule change

what year was that supposed to have been?

I remember a lot of bashing of dems, some of which I even participated in. I remember way back when I was a n00b somebody jumped on me for bashing "the big Dawg".

I also remember from way back, jumping in to correct people who were bashing the Democratic Party for "voting to invade Iraq" or "voting for the Bush tax cuts".

Before Obama's inauguration, there was plenty of bashing of Nancy Pelosi - the Democratic Speaker of the House, although she probably was not called a POS used car salesman. Even I got tired of it as evinced by this post in August 2007 http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/51

And there was plenty of bashing of Obama and "Obamabots" during the primaries.

And there may have been some bashing of Hillary too.

But I am pleading the 5th on that.

[NanceGreggs]

120. I don't remember the exact timing ...

... but after the DU "survey" the Admins conducted (2010?) the TOS was changed from allowing "constructive criticism of Dems" to allowing "any and all criticism".

I thought the "constructive criticism" rule was a good one. It meant one had to present their criticism based on specific statements, actions or policies they disagreed with. After the rule change, simply posting things like "Obama is fucking liar" became acceptable, without any context or reference to a specific action. IOW, name-calling now passes for "criticism".

BTW, just read the post you linked to - really enjoyed re-reading it!

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. IOWs ...

Democrats/liberal are doing what we always do ... seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

We seem to relish opposing whomever happens to be on top.

We, you and I, disagree on a lot of things ... This, we do not.

[hfojvt]

124. usually we fight with each other too much

to even get on top.

A history of the 19th century labor movement really showed me that.

Ruskin wrote in the 1830s that we should "find something good to do and get busy doing it, you can't argue in a side by side push".

[MADem]

135. +++++++1! nt

[cui bono]

25. Of course it has changed. DU used to get outraged at govt transgressions

now that it's a Dem president doing the same things, or worse, it's all okay and people actually defend it. At least they defend him - no matter what he does - even if they aren't actually defending the policy since they refuse to have policy discussions.

Used to be there was room to have a good debate about issues but now as soon as there is a criticism of anything Obama there is a loud and rude group who come in and post content free retorts coupled with smileys. Once upon a time DUers cared about the constitution, now it's just a quaint piece of paper. Because Obama.

Yes DU has changed. It has moved much further right, just like the Dem Party and its leader.

[Skittles]

37. CORRECT

I do think it is ODS though

[truebrit71]

41. Bingo!

But the OP is an epic rant though... very well done. .

[geek tragedy]

46. Amazing lack of self-awareness. You explicitly claim Obama is as bad or worse than Bush, then wonder

why you get pushback on a Democratic website.

Here's a shockeroo for you: maybe your theory that Obama is worse than Bush on abuses of power is not correct.

Just like your support of Ron Paul's call for Obama's impeachment puts you on the wrong side of what constitutes a liberal or a Democrat.

[Bobbie Jo]

61. Absolutely right. nt

[cui bono]

79. You are agreeing with a flat out lie.

Or do you have proof that I support Ron Paul's call for Obama's impeachment? If so, please show it.

[redqueen]

68. Yep

Nor really that complicated.

[cui bono]

80. You are agreeing with a flat out lie.

Or do you have proof that I support Ron Paul's call for Obama's impeachment? If so, please show it.

[cui bono]

77. Where did I support Ron Paul's call for impeachment? Prove it or apologize.

Also, you completely misrepresented my post. And perfectly illustrated my point while doing so.

[geek tragedy]

95. In response to Ron Paul saying Obama/could be impeached:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2048784

your comments:

Yes, it is unfortunate that people wanting to uphold our constitution have to have this particular

Edited on Mon Oct-03-11 11:51 PM by cui bono
gripe with a Democratic president.

But I think your use of the term "cheering" is quite misguided. No one is happy about this. I'm pretty sure we're all sickened. Those of us who understand how wrong this presidential action is anyway. We are sickened no matter what party does it.

The other really unfortunate thing is that there are people who actually defend Obama's actions.

...

You should watch this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#44738223

And also think about how you would respond if Bush had done this and Kucinich had said what Paul said.

...

[cui bono]

96. Where did I support impeachment exactly? n/t

[geek tragedy]

109. when someone posts a thread about impeachment

and you post multiple times to support the argument of the person advocating impeachment, and to rebut those opposing impeachment, you're not being subtle

[cui bono]

114. I did not support impeachment. I make no bones that I disagree with a lot of what Obama does.

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact that I agree with Paul's complaint does not mean I think Obama should be impeached. You are the one not being subtle when you try to twist my words to mean what you want them to mean.

Look at the posts on the board when Bush did things to a lesser degree than Obama and you'll see plenty of outrage. Why shouldn't it be the same when Obama does it?

I'm guided by principles, not by party loyalty no matter what. I leave that dangerous behavior to others.

[geek tragedy]

121. And you go Godwin as a parting shot. Nice. nt

[cui bono]

126. Again, mischaracterizing, but I will edit that out because I can see how it could be taken. n/t

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[Marr]

84. Making a baseless accusation like that refusing to back it up should result in a ban. /nt

[SomethingFishy]

118. Can you please post a link to where Cui Bono agreed that Obama should be impeached?

And said Obama is as bad or worse than Bush... If you are going to say something that incendiary about someone you better have the facts to back it up.

You jumped on another poster above for "hyperbole". Now show that it's not you using the hyperbole and show everyone where Cui Bono specifically said Obama is as bad or worse than Bush and should be impeached.

And I don't mean something that you think he/she meant, I mean where they actually said it.

Edit... Nevermind, I see your post above. HYPERBOLE.

[Javaman]

73. +100 nt

[Raksha]

87. I have to agree with you here, and it's one of the things I dislike the most about the "new" DU.

I mean the unconditional defense of Obama no matter what, even when his actions are the same as Bush or worse.

[defacto7]

26. It's interesting that

just about every time there is a "bye cruel DU" post, there is an incident connected to it, a ban or a nasty put down, a difference of opinion that can't be crossed without fainting.

They don't seem to come out of nowhere, there's some recent activity that precipitates it.

[CTyankee]

49. what amazes me is when I see how personally some people take criticism online...

websites like DU are anonymous. I don't expect to have really personal interactions online in places like DU. Arguments on all sides are discussed. That's a great thing about DU. I learn a lot and have experienced some great "conversations" here on politics. But we have to separate our levels of interactions from those that are related very personally and DU. I just can't get too worked up about someone disagreeing with me here...

[JohnnyRingo]

35. K and effin R.

Thanx for posting

[Blue_Adept]

40. #takebackoursite

[Scuba]

42. +1

[el_bryanto]

50. Yep.

pretty much spot on, in my opinion. I'll say another constant is people complaining that the board is becoming too conservative - I've never not heard that complaint on a regular basis.

Bryant

[IronLionZion]

52. Perception is our reality

A DU experience is really what we make of it. The same exact thing can be interpreted completely differently by different people based on our own internal biases and assumptions or even our mood at the time.

Anytime anyone gets too emotionally invested in an online discussion board, its time to take a break and go do something else. There's lots of fun things to do in the real world. Election years always need people canvassing door to door and registering voters.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. It changed. Meta is now in GD.

GD has an SOP that is to the hosts as the Constitution was to GW Bush.

[Rex]

54. Yep, might as well not even have hosts...seems like they don't have much of a job.

Not since skinner told hosts to leave just about every thread alone.

[Romulox]

59. Not just meta--GD is also littered with OT "vanity" posts better suited for a personal blog.

Certain posters have abused this laxity to promote material that couldn't/didn't drive people to their personal blogs in the first place. Wonder why?

[Rex]

55. Righteous rant! Been a long time since I've seen one of those.

OMC was garbage, but I bet he is still here posting under another name. If only all of us could be as polite and courteous as H2O Man.

[wyldwolf]

56. One way it quickly changed from the beginning...

When I first arrived (under a different username back in the extreme early days), the mere mention of taking the fight to Republicans in the same way they were doing to us for years elicited scorn from DUers. 'We're above that' was the common sentiment.

When I came back in mid-2002, THAT sentiment had been, thankfully, replaced.

[JNelson6563]

57. I think it is more combative than it used to be

and it seems to increase a notch or so after every primary.

Julie

[redqueen]

58. Pfff. What utter nonsense. Of course it has. nt

[Romulox]

60. This site is *CONSIDERABLY* more Rightwing than before. Vigorous defense of spying, drone killing,

corporate welfare...all mainstream positions at DU, now.

[LWolf]

62. I disagree.

Not with your two examples, lol. Those are spot on.

The evolution I see, while predictable and understandable, is disheartening.

When I got here in '02, I was a political moderate. There were all kinds of people to the left of me, and it was, frankly, refreshing. That's why I stayed. A new and enjoyable experience for someone who has spent her entire adult life in red zones.

The shift happened in '08. First, the wheels came off the bus in the primaries, when the vast majority of so-called "liberals" lined up on gender/race lines. As a group of people who supposedly supports equality and social justice for BOTH, that was revealing. It was a mud wrestling match of epic proportions, and nobody came out clean. As someone who supports both gender and race equality, but neither neo-liberal Obama nor neo-liberal HRC, I was appalled. The shine was off the apple.

I also immediately, because I wasn't all excited about the new Democratic president, suddenly the enemy, taking a constant barrage of hits from the loyal party drones. It was at this point, with the election of a Democrat, that the site shifted from "underground" opposition to fiercely supporting the mainstream, no matter WHAT he did, or WHAT position he took on issues. The disconnect was staggering for me.

The shift from DU2 to DU3 recognized that evolution; language changed. DU was no longer a "left-wing" message board; that term was replaced in "About DU's" self-identification. The site attracted more people because of the "Democratic" part of the name than the "underground." Opposition to bad policy turned into excuses.

Of course, eventually, those excuses no longer held water, and many stopped hopefully waiting for change and began to again oppose bad policy, although it's a hell of a lot more difficult to do so when it's a Democrat at the helm. By then, membership had grown. Many of the "left-wing" posters had grown discouraged and moved on; more had been purged, and the site had gained a core group determined that party and personality would drown out issue.

There are still plenty of great posters here. The joint is crawling with people. There is still a contingent from the left, although it's smaller and posts from under the bus. It's not the same place it was. I know better. The unity found in opposing the Bush selection is fractured between those who stand on issues and those whose goal in life is to support and promote party and personality. I'm not going anywhere, this is not a GBCW post, and I am not "utterly full of shit."

[Samantha]

63. I think it has changed in two obvious ways

We have a host of disruptors that come in and post outrageous words and thoughts. We do not do a good enough job at beating them back. Then we hear on cable news that even liberal websites are starting to turn on (fill in the blank).

I have been here since 2001, and the thing I miss the most are the thoughtful, original essays people took the time to write, post and defend or explain. One could actually learn a lot from this site at that time. Many of the people who used to do that are now MIA (although we still do have a few) and I would love to see them return and pick up where they left off. Not going to happen though....

Sam

[Bobbie Jo]

65. Oh it's changed considerably

It has become infinitely more hateful and viscous since the introduction of the jury system. I'm sure many can remember a time when the sniping, insults and personal attacks weren't tolerated - for the most part.

There were a number of DU'ers who were TS'ed for behavior that now seems pretty commonplace. DU'ers in control of "community standards," has resulted in a personality-based system, with cliques in control of both tone and content. All one has to do is spend some time in the 'host's forum' to see it in action.

SOP, TOS, and CS standards have become relatively nonexistent, or at least subject to loose interpretation. IOW....anything goes if you have enough "followers" who are in control of making the call.

Yeah, this place has changed, alright.

[Raksha]

88. You nailed it! At first I was neutral on the jury system,

but now I have come to actively dislike it. You are right that it has resulted in a "personality-based system with cliques in control of both tone and content." That's a very good way of putting it.

[mike_c]

66. OMC OMG....

eom

[cui bono]

83. THANK GAWD IT PASSED!!!!

[Romulox]

67. Also, your memory is selective. OMC got TONS of support here for his "Thank GAWD it passed!" schtick

OMC was a mainstream poster, until he was a banned troll. I wonder which of our "ex" freepers and "sensible centrists" will be the next outed?

[FSogol]

97. So was Better Believe It. Yet people still mimic his daily "crap on the Democratic party" postings.

[Marr]

74. I disagree. The party establishment has a more organized presence here now.

They have a little PR operation here that makes way, way more noise than its numbers should allow, and it has changed the site considerably.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. i disagree. the party is in power now, and what we see is a desire not to criticize our own.

[Marr]

81. Yes, I'm sure some are simply sincere, 'my-party-right-or-wrong' types.

I doubt that all of them are on the clock, but I have no doubt that some are. This isn't paranoid fantasy-- maintaining a presence in online communities is considered a pretty fundamental aspect of PR these days, and we're talking about groups that sell nothing but policy and ideas.

[cui bono]

82. Which is bad for democracy. Party over country is no way to get good policy enacted.

Especially when the party gets more and more corporate and centrist at best.

Without criticism the party will never return to one that really fights for the working people and stands up for their civil rights.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

113. i didn't say it was a good thing, just that i dont see this as an organized movement

but more like an issue of supporting our team.

[Skittles]

90. we know who they are

they act like we're as stupid as their members

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. Are you, now; or have you ever been ...

a member of the BOG?

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Just a question ...

when you speak of the "party establishment", doesn't that suggest that it represents the core of said party's values? And the dissenting voices, while still a part of the party, represents a/the minority position?

This takes me to the gop intramural wars, we are seeing ... the is/are the "establishment" republicans trying to beat back the far more extreme, and far less in numbers, tea partiers.

[Marr]

132. No, and frankly, I'm amazed that you can ask that question.

People discuss the political maneuvering of the party's career politicians here every day. An enormous amount effort goes into building political cover for unpopular decisions, and they do everything from manufacture legislative helplessness to simply moving the range of the debate rightward by ceding points that have not been lost.

This is what liberals on this sight have been pulling their hair out over for several years now. The party establishment is not representing the will of the voters-- they're selling corporate policy.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. yup. plenty of assholes and plenty of nice people

and plenty of people somewhere in between. true for 2004 and true for 2014

[Coventina]

78. I've been here (off and on) since 2002 and you are spot on.

I've taken breaks - sometimes years at a time, because of the ass-hattery around here at times.

Sometimes, the ass-hattery was my own.

We all bring our issues, and when I joined my mother was terminally ill, a long-term relationship had just ended, and my finances were in ruins (that hasn't changed much, haha!)

I was outraged about the theft of the 2000 election, and I vented ALL my frustrations, personal and political.

I cringe over some of the stuff I remember posting.

I was angry, I was frightened, and I thought (as a liberal) that everyone would feel the same way as I did about all issues.

So, I fought - a lot.

I've grown up a lot since then. I don't take stuff personally anymore.

I laugh at the silliness here, rather than getting angry.

I can appreciate the good without blowing up about the bad.

When I see people losing their shit for no apparent reason, I remember that it probably has nothing to do, really, with me, but what is going on their lives.

Peace, everyone!

[upaloopa]

85. It has changed. Your OP is a good example of what it has become

To get as good as DU use to be you have to put many people on ignore.
This board was a place where people brought information to share. Now it is a pissing contest 24/7.

[Bonobo]

134. Absolutely correct. nt

[G_j]

93. disagree

DU is a sum of it's parts, and it ain't the same, IMHO.

[H2O Man]

127. Thank you.

I really appreciate that you think of me that way.

[Armstead]

130. The more things change....

the more they stay the same.

I've been a Duer since, well the early days, can;t remember how long.

I tend to phase in and out. Sometimes I get involved and sometimes I go for months at a time without checking in.
Whenever I return, I find with initial bemusement that DU till rolls along as ever. Many of the names are different, (and many are the same), the specific issues are often different (but underneath the same).....

I do miss the stronger sense of community that used to exist here in the "good old days"...But perhaps the newer members who don't know many of the older members think of now as the "good old days."

[bonzotex]

131. Agreed k/r...

One reason I love DU is because people like you say what I want to, but better and faster. It was that way 10 years ago too.

[Bonobo]

133. It changed. Now deal with it. nt