Doodad is a neocon

[sunny]

I don't know what, if anything, should be done about it, but he is a neocon, no question. Don't we get enough of this shit in the corporate media?

From the ob od thread:

streeb wrote:
Quote:
And when I say enemy, perhaps I should say enemies.


Who are the enemies?


Well, obviously the extremist Islamists; but, also, the traditional ones committed to the downfall of capitalism, "democracy", American power, etc. This was a political statement more than anything and the possibilities for alliances are endless.

So people opposed to capitalism, "democracy", American power are the enemy. How is this any different from the things Bill Kristol, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, et al say in our faces every day? (I can excuse "extremist Islamists"-at least he didn't say "all" Islamists)

And how is he NOT saying that nearly everyone on this board is an enemy?

[Jeff]

Thanks for singling that out, sunny, I hadn't been reading that discussion. I've just posted a reply on the thread.

For now, I think we should draw him out as much as we can to know where he's coming from. (Or at least, to know where he wants to be thought of as coming from.)

There's not a board rule which specifically forbids neoconservativism - I hadn't anticipated the need! - but it's an ideology of hate, lies and death and I don't want it evangelized here. So let's keep a close watch on Doodad.

[sunny]

There's not a board rule which specifically forbids neoconservativism - I hadn't anticipated the need! - but it's an ideology of hate, lies and death and I don't want it evangelized here. So let's keep a close watch on Doodad.

You are damned straight-hate, lies, and death.

I felt kind of bad in recent weeks for calling him out, but now that I know what he really is, I don't feel bad at all. Who knew a neocon would come here! WHY would a neocon come here, that is the question.

I don't suggest banning until he inevitably crosses the line explicitly into racism. But I DO think that being vigilant about calling out his neocon talking points is in order.

[chiggerbit]

Didn't he say he was from DKos? How did he make his way here?

[sunny]

Didn't he say he was from DKos? How did he make his way here?

He says that but he keeps posting links from the likes of LGF and a lot of other right wing sites and authors. Not just as examples, but approvingly.

[chiggerbit]

Well, I don't totally trust DKos, either. But, yes, that attitude doesn't reflect the usual poster there.

[chiggerbit]

And I'm dying to ask Doodad how he found his way to RI, but it really isn't my business, I guess. Curiosity killed the cat. I sure would like to know if Duncan ever posted here at RI, too. Also that Kate Coe, especially her. And it would be interesting to know Eve's IP from the blog, for comparison to message board IP's. Like I said, I don't accept yet that the timing of the board wonkiness is coincidental. Which reminds me, I'm going to go log Doodad's IP. I thought maybe he was going to back off in the Zionism thread, but he's still at it, but he's sure not alone.

Whether the purpose is intentional disruption or just for the enjoyment of having a pissing match, too much of it isn't good for the board, as it puts off the more serious posters and potential posters. I know from other conspiracy sites, which this one is a bit, that they do tend to naturally deteriorate, but I don't want to see this forum helped along that path. A few weeds won't kill a garden and may even be beneficial, but if it's choked with them it kills it. The RI garden needs some tending.

[chiggerbit]

Look at it, on more than one thread at a time--it's like it's a battle between the LaRouchians and the neo-cons.

[chiggerbit]

Doodad keeps pushing it. IF he doesn't stop his attempts at disruption, he needs to be ......sanctioned.

[Jeff]

It was good that we both jumped on him in the Zogby thread, he backtracked immediately. Better, though, would be if we didn't need to.

I'm thinking of introducing a "suspension" penalty, like a time out, as a half measure between warning and banning. Deactivate an account for a specified period.

[sunny]

I'm thinking of introducing a "suspension" penalty, like a time out, as a half measure between warning and banning. Deactivate an account for a specified period.

Great idea. Sorry I missed all the excitement.

[chiggerbit]

I was wondering if there were any in-between measures. The thing is that I, and maybe the rest of you, don't read every single thread--we shouldn't have to for just policing purposes. And I know that I'm not totally innocent of this myself, but the slanging matches have just gotten totally out of hand, and they ruin threads started by people who aren't even in on the insult exchanges.

I don't blame people for not wanting to tattle to bring our attention to certain offenses. But I think if we hang tough on this for a period of time, make some examples if we need to, we can get back to civil discourse. Well, it's better already, but how long will that last? I would have preferred to make warnings privately, but I think the rest of the board NEEDS to see that we are doing something about it, so that they themselves better understand where the lines have been drawn. That's why I've been a bit public about my deletions. I think doing this publicly may encourage some of the more timid members to post more. I truly believe that disagreement can be very healthy for the board--too much agreement leads to inbreeding and boredom, as far as I'm concerned--but the slanging matches are purely disruptive.