Skip to main content

View Diary: Open Letter to Sockpuppets And Trolls (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seriously? (48+ / 0-)
    Not even a year or two ago if anybody used the word "propaganda" to describe what people were being subjected to when it came to the mainstream media, the argument was almost universally scoffed at by most people.
    I recommend going back about eight or nine years on this very blog and reading scores of diaries addressing the fact that we are saturated with propaganda from the mainstream media. Here's just one from 2004, by me:
    While delights like Sean Hannity is a moron dot com and similar sites provide a welcome takedown of some of the mainstays of rightwing talk television, focusing on media personalities and their latest lying complicity with the Powers That Be distracts us from dealing with the politico-structural arrangements that are the foundation of today’s ever more rightwing Big Media. When Ben Bagdikian first pointed out in The Media Monopoly in 1983 that cartels were a threat to independent journalism, he caught a lot of flak from people who should have known better. Since then, all that he predicted and more has come to pass. His book, now called The New Media Monopoly, is in its 7th edition.

    In the 1930s, Antonio Gramsci – a communist, but don’t let that stop you from considering his analysis – argued in his dense, some would say, turgid Prison Notebooks that the power of those who control a society is founded not merely on the force of the state but on beliefs and ideas having broad appeal. Ideology becomes most powerful when it is accepted as common sense, that is, when it is not seen as an ideology. Out of this comes hegemony. Ideas are seemingly contested, but because so much of the debate is coded in the language of the hidden ideology, the rulers gain hegemony. People consent to being ruled even if deeper analysis shows it is not in their best interests. Intellectuals – including elite media – contribute to this hegemony, both wittingly and unwittingly. What’s needed to defeat it, Gramsci argues, are counter-hegemonic cultural institutions, including media. [...]

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:17:54 AM PST

    •  I love your reposted quote, MB, and (11+ / 0-)

      my reading of Ray's statement of the sea change of the last two years is that society at large is much more aware and willing to articulate that the MSM is a propaganda machine. The discussions on DKos were ahead of that curve, and hopefully contributed to that shift in consciousness.

    •  Ooo! Oooo! Oooo! Let's not forget.... (8+ / 0-)

      ... JEFF GANNON!

      Haven't gotten around to reading this yet, because I can't bear the thought of supporting in any way someone who supported Dumbya: What Happened

      Pretty cool the things you can get for free on Youtube:


      "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

      by Dood Abides on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:16:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Well, that's just, like, your OPINION, man." (7+ / 0-)

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 06:35:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Suspicious comment, MB. Are you disruptifying? (11+ / 0-)

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:30:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  MB, so you're saying that that message was (0+ / 0-)

      as receptive now as it was in 2004?  If you are, then I disagree with you.  During the 20 years-plus I've been following this subject/issue, I've never seen the level of awareness of it as high as today.

      Now, putting that issue, which could be called a "side-issue," do you have anything to say about the central theme of this diary?

      •  "message was as receptive" (0+ / 0-)

        receptive message ?

        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

        by indycam on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:17:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This diary is, if I am not mistaken... (15+ / 0-)

        ...directed to the participants at Daily Kos. The portion of your diary that I responded to, one that is key to your whole, posits the view that nobody here gets it, unless "universally scoffed at" means something different than what I have always taken the word "universally" to mean. I think you're profoundly mistaken to make that assumption.

        As for trolls and sockpuppets, we've been battling them for the entire existence of this web site, not presuming they don't exist. From Jeff Gannon to the ex-generals and colonels who learned in Pentagon seminars how to be "experts" on television regarding U.S. war policy to the candidate campaign workers who failed to identify themselves, we've done what we could to point them out and, when we caught them here, root them out.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:20:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  MB, here's a challenge: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lostinamerica, ZhenRen, maggid

          First, let me clarify one more time something that I thought would be clear as water when I wrote this diary.  This diary is not directed to "all" participants at Daily Kos.  This diary is directed at actual sockpuppets and trolls; the real ones.

          That is a huge difference.  If I were to direct this diary to "all" participants of Daily Kos, then that would be an insult.

          Again, here's the title: Open Letter to Sockpuppets And Trolls.

          It's not: Open Letter to Participants at Daily Kos.

          Second, in the diary I lay out the case for identifying the behavior of possible sockpuppets, trolls, and hacks, but I also add a caveat pointing out tat dickish behavior doesn't always mean sockpuppetry, but an ongoing pattern of it may.

          Thirdly, I provide some reference material from other writers who have tackled this issue, and I point out that “The 15 Rules of Web Disruption" is a good source of information on it.

          I'm totally convinced that you are experienced and savvy enough to understand the subject, as it relate to constant barrages of ad hominems, logical fallacies (used to annoy participants and hijack diaries), etc.  In fact, my understanding is that you have the battle scars to know as much (metaphorically speaking).

          Finally, here's the challenge... Sometimes I reference the fab-six.  As other commenters here pointed out, one would have to be blind not to see that there is a tiny group of people who can't help it but to land in my diaries (sometimes) the minute I press "publish" and engage in disruptive behavior (as described in the '15 rules').

          Now, let's say that for some reason you don't agree that this tiny group of people I call the fab-six are engaging in disrupting behavior and are just innocently landing in my diaries (over, and over, and over, and over) to disagree with my premises.

          No, mind you, a user here pointed out kos' "guess in someone's house rule."  Here's how it starts:

          Walking into someone's diary is like walking into someone's home. You are a guest. Act accordingly. That doesn't mean you can't disagree. It just means you have to be civil and courteous and limit your arguments to substance.
          So far so good, right? Here's the challenge: The tiny group of users (fab-six) who keep coming to my diaries engaging in what I've described as violation of site guidelines (BTW, an observation many other users have begun to made as well) sometimes posting dozens of posts each, have probably clicked on them at a ratio that could be said is 99 to 1, when compared to the number of times I visited their diaries.

          In fact, as far as I can remember I haven't visited their diaries at all, never mind posting dozens of messages in several of their diaries.

          Again, as someone else pointed out, if this tiny group of people find me so disagreeable, so wrong, why do they not only keep clicking through, but many times make mention of the fact that I keep hitting the rec list (over and over), and they even criticize people for recommending my diaries?

          Again, you're a smart guy... Would you not say that it is kind of strange for someone to keep clicking on diaries of writers they don't like?  As for me, I find it truly astonishing, dumbfounding, actually.  For the life of me I can't imagine why would I ever click on any of the diaries published by the people I consider to be the "fab-six."

          And that's easy... You know why?  Because there are so many great writers here.  I never fail to read your diaries, or MOT, or OPOL, or LaFeminista, or Words in Action, or countless other truly great diarists here.

          Why do this tiny group of people keep coming back for more?  The more they do it, the more obvious it becomes to others; to the point that I don't even have to engage them anymore.

          Do you have a theory as to the 99 to 1 (or 100 to 0) ratio when it comes to the fab-six visiting my diaries vs. me visiting theirs?

          Oh, if you don't know who the fab-six are, just browse my last 25 or 30 diaries... You're going to notice a pattern; it jumps at you like a shark.

          •  Are these people who you think disrupt your (3+ / 0-)

            ... diaries "sockpuppets" or "trolls?"

            Really, you've been beating this dead horse for months and months.  

            You shouldn't be so afraid to be direct, Ray. Speak clearly. Maybe then people wouldn't be so confused about what you're trying to communicate with your diaries.

            "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

            by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 09:14:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yep I had a propaganda question addressed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      to Sam Donaldson during a short internet Q & A thing he had long ago wherein I asked about the appearance of propaganda in the media leading up to the Iraq War. His guest was Bernie Goldberg. Donaldson entertained my perception of propaganda. Bernie about had a breakdown.

    •  true (0+ / 0-)

      and using the propaganda tag, one would find a plethora of diaries going back years.

      I think the media propagates propaganda unknowingly. Its a product of lazy journalism. They're no longer able or willing to invest the time to get to the bedrock of real stories.

    •  Good grief (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No kidding.

      I've been reading about propaganda since I was in college and working on Marxist Theory. It's not an unknown concept in the least. Every single semester, I teach several groups of freshmen about propaganda: it's part of our actual curriculum for introductory writing and research.

      If it's mainstream in large state-funded colleges as part of a GE for ALL students, it's hardly a giant revelation to anyone.

      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

      by mahakali overdrive on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 11:55:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site