He discusses way to avoid the bullies, also known as trolls. Block and ignore is the best method. I even unfollow people who RT shit from the idiots into my TL. That’s good advice, but…

Then he chastises people for standing up to the fuckers. I don’t necessarily agree with that. I don’t think constantly sending them mentions or engaging them is a good tactic, but mockery? Yes. Evidence of that is how the biggest bully flipped out on us “Obsessives” (though one of us is a Pot Stirrer, not truly an Obsessive).

Bullies, I’ve noticed, tend especially to go after people on Twitter who have tried to support others whom they have seen being bullied, by calling out the bullying. Whatever the reason, there is no justification to bully or abuse anyone for anything that is said on Twitter, not even if the intention is to dish out more of the same to a bully or abuser.

I don’t know if that’s really an effective way to get them to back off, but it is a way to refocus their energy off people who really can’t stand up for themselves. I mean, do I really care that some anonymous nobody put my name in a list on his website? No, not really. I think it’s freaking hilarious. It doesn’t hurt me in any way that I can think of. People like me, who don’t give a flying monkey’s ass about what idiots on Twitter write about her, are better targets than those who are genuinely upset. I fight back in a way that drives them mad– with laughter and derision.

Another thing he mentions is that he doesn’t associate with people who don’t use their real names and pictures. That’s not fair. The internet has been a place where anonymous and pseudonymous people have come together to discuss, openly, many different things that wouldn’t be safe for them to discuss were they to use their real name. For example: paganism. In small towns, people still view that as equal to satanism and kids get hurt. Another example is radical politics. People using their real names have been fired from their jobs for posting their real opinions online. Pseudonyms help protect them from real world consequences.

Occasionally, when something attracts my attention, I pause to check those who are following me by looking at their followers, or the tone and nature of their tweeting, and if I do not like what I find, I do not hesitate to block them, even through they have never addressed me. In addition, I follow only people and organizations when (1) they have revealed their true identity; or (2) I know their true identity notwithstanding their use of a pseudonymous nom de Twitter.

Who’s to say if someone is using their “real name” and picture anyway? I could say my real name is Jennifer Smith, but that doesn’t make it so. It sounds like a real name, but it’s not my real name. But, according to Mr. Dean, using that name gives me more validity. I can still behave in an abhorrent manner with that name, because it’s not my real name.

There are people online who know my real name but still call my JJ or Jinx or Jinxi. Why? Because that’s how I’m known. That’s my identity. I don’t use any other name online. I’ve been using it for a long time; it’s how people recognize me. Does that make my opinion less valid? Of course not. I’m also not a bully (though in this piece I could be considered a bully for calling out idiocy).

Consider people who attack others on a regular basis on Twitter. Some of them use what appears to be a real name. One of them is, apparently, an attorney and uses her real name. Another believes herself to be a journalist, though her #TwitterGravitas only allows her to enable her BFF by calling him the poor victim and everyone else evil mean poo-poo heads. Does that make the daily attacks in which they engage less vicious? Of course not. The whole argument against pseudonyms remains as ridiculous even when Mr. Dean puts it forward.

Most of the people with whom I’ve become friends with don’t use their real names in public online situations. There are many very valid reasons for this. If I chose to ignore them based strictly on their reluctance to out themselves, I would not have come to know these remarkable people. My own life has benefited by not assuming everyone who uses a pseudonym is doing so for nefarious reasons. Eventually I came out to these folks and they to me, but it took some time. Learning to trust them is not something I’ve ever regretted.

The folks on Twitter are not assholes because they’re anonymous. They’re assholes because they’re insulated and have found a group that will cheer on their attacks. They’ve successfully intimidated other people against speaking out against them. These other people like to say “I don’t want to get involved” but I don’t necessarily believe that. Mr. Dean is correct when he says that people who speak against the group are targets– even if they were once part of the group.
For people who do not like confrontation, this tactic is very scary. A target is identified and if the conflict goes on long enough, the group is warned “I will unfollow you if you follow this person”. The instigators are declared the victims and if their supporters are true friends, they’ll stop associating with the “bullies”¹. I’ve both seen this happen and been subject to it. A lot of people will say “Pshaw, who the fuck are you to tell me who to follow?” but the implication is there. Their “true friends” will get the hint and avoid all contact with the accused bully– if they are seen supporting the target then they could become the target.

I’ll go so far as to say they are “emboldened” not by those that mock them or give them negative attention. They enjoy the power they have over the people who are stuck in the middle. The ones that will silently, and not so silently, side with them through unfollows and blocks. They enjoy watching people flock to their defense and hold others to a standard to which they themselves are not held. That is the attention they crave. They are the victim in every scenario, they are protected and they are cherished. They enjoy that and feed on it. They create the crises from which they must be saved². And they do get saved by their ultra-aggressive group of Wannabes. It’s not the anonymity that drives them. They may not behave this way when face to face with someone, but they’re not the slightest bit ashamed of putting their real name– and reputation– to their behavior.

Their favorite targets are those that have a professional online reputation to maintain. I find that interesting. And every time one of those professionals blocks them they whine that person is a coward and afraid of “debate”. Meh. Maybe they’ll pick, pick, pick until the professional target strikes back. At that point they’ll whine that s/he is “unprofessional”. The behavior is so recognized that when it’s over-exaggerated in a mock conversation, people not in on the game can see what it’s about. So, why do their targets not block them on sight? Who cares if they whine about cowards? They don’t want a debate, they want to frustrate someone to the point that they will say something that can be used against them over and over. That tidbit will then be repeatedly fed to their core group of supporters, who will attack on their behalf. It’s a cycle they love to keep going and people who take them seriously actually make it worse on themselves. By engaging them, you’re feeding them. The old adage “Don’t feed the trolls” seems suitable in this instance³.

Except when the behavior is so over-the-top ridiculous that it begs to be mocked. I’m all about that.

P.S.

Check out Gizmodo’s funny take on this issue.

Originally posted the first portion of this on G+

1. Either their targets or the people who actually speak out against them.
2. See here for Serial Bully
3. None of this is to say bullying is a joke. There are real online bullies, those that hunt for and find personal information and create havoc in someone’s offline life. Those that stalk and prey on the weak don’t shy from the intertubz. This post doesn’t address that.

The bill now gives the President the immediate power to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement, instead of the Defense Secretary, and gives the President discretion in implementing these new provisions.

“We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto,” the White House statement said. [emphasis added]

On December 31, 2011, a day when most Americans weren’t paying attention, he signed it into law.

There are plenty of places where you can read what is wrong with this law. My biggest issue is that it takes Bush Era policies and expands them. No longer are we just hunting al Qaeda, but any terrorist organization that may have had contact with them. At one point, there was a defined end to this mythical war, but this new law removes that.Prior to this, the end of the “War on Terror” was defined as the point at which the leaders of this organization– “the people who knocked these buildings down”– were caught or killed. And that would be it. We would be done saving the world. Except the definition of “terrorist” has expanded. Or rather, it’s been made purposely vague.

Of course, there’s the part of this bill where our military can detain citizens of other countries until “the end of hostilities”. What hostilities? How will they end? Again, we’re dealing with nebulous non-definitions. Many are minimizing the impact of the bill by saying that Americans can/can’t be detained. It’s not just about Americans. It’s about human beings, even if they aren’t citizens of this country. Anyone the government identifies as a terrorist or someone who has provided support to a terrorist organization can be made to sit for however long our President deems appropriate without even getting a chance to defend themselves against the accusation that they are conspiring against us. And they can’t get representation so that this can come before our own Supreme Court, because our government doesn’t have to disclose that we even have them! But it’s not bad because, well, Obama signed it. And, well, he’s a Democrat.

I’m not writing this post about this abhorrent law though. I made my case against these kinds of abuses when Bush was doing them¹. Just because a Democrat signed this law does not make it acceptable. All it means is that a fucking Democrat signed a law that strips people of basic human rights. I’m writing this post because of the goddamned nuPUMAs who are twisting themselves silly trying to excuse this nonsense.

This isn’t about “debunking” anything, though the nuPUMAs are busy trying every manner of misdirection to “debunk”² our outrage that this shit was signed. This is about pointing out absolute hypocrisy, lies and apologia. Of course, this is to be expected from either side of the political divide, but it especially sickens me when people who claim they are progressive do this shit. Here is the basic logic:

1) Democrats are good.
2) Our guy is a Democrat.
3) Our guy embraces Neocon policy.
4) We embrace Neocon policy because our guy is good.

According to his most ardent supporters, Obama had no choice but to sign the bill. Here are some of the reason why he supposedly had no choice.

He has to work with that Congress. They forced him to sign that.

See this argument may have worked the first few times he “compromised” against the interests of his base, but it’s weak sauce at this point. Why? Because Obama has shown that he can absolutely get what he wants when he wants it if he wants it bad enough. Even with this Congress. Yes, there are a lot of whiny ass titty baby teatards playing silly games. But when it comes right down to it, Obama can get the important policy through the wall of obstinacy.

Example: The fight for extension of unemployment benefits. Eric Cantor and John Boehner were fools to try to push through their shit, but they’d done it before so probably expected to win that fight. But our leader took control of that situation. He didn’t want that mess with the XL pipeline in the UI bill. He told his people that it was a no-go. The Senate did what they were supposed to do, but the House, like petulant children, stomped, sputtered and refused to budge. The President got out in front of the American people and reminded them that it was the GOP that was holding unemployment hostage; it was the GOP that was trying to ruin Christmas for millions of struggling Americans; that it was the GOP that was working in a way that would cause millions of people to become homeless. He went on television and made speeches and did his job.

The GOP stood down. Obama won the message war and that two-month extension was passed without the XL pipeline bullshit stuck to it. He wanted that XL pipeline out of that bill. They let it go. Because he was strong.

To say that he was “forced” to sign this bill is to also say he is a weak leader. That doesn’t work when you look at the single incident which I just mentioned. He’s done it before, with the debt ceiling, with ending DADT. He has the power and the strength to use that power.

So, no, Congress didn’t force him to sign this bill against his own wishes. He made sure that the bill he signed was good enough for him. If he didn’t get what he wanted the veto pen would have been dusted off and finally used.

But they passed it with a veto-proof majority!

Apparently. But we don’t know how that really would’ve played out had he not announced he was going to sign prior to the vote. He gave political cover to Democrats³ who don’t want to go home to ads claiming they didn’t support the War on Terror. They were safe to vote with the next election in mind, because he told them he was signing anyway. Politicians make deals with each other. All the time. They give and take so they can vote yea or nay on whatever issue. That’s a fact. So, we really won’t know what might have happened had this to gone back to Congress after a veto. He didn’t do it.

On the other side of that excuse, so what if he did? So, they override his veto and it gets passed anyway. It wouldn’t be Obama’s law at that point. It actually would be the fault of Congress. And he, along with other Dems, could’ve used that against any GOP member who voted in favor. Scary voice says: “John Boehner wants to end habeas corpus for American people. He voted to remove your civil liberties and voted to gut the Constitution.” Cut to Teabaggers behind bars, Grannies for Peace behind a fence, Lactivists and their nursing infants sitting inside a fenced box.

I believe that if he’d have held his ground and pushed, as he did with the unemployment extension and the debt ceiling, there would have been no veto-proof majority. In the end, the Dems would have fought tooth and nail to get their people to fall in line. It was an important bill and they would have needed to stand behind him during an election year. I refuse to believe that President Obama is so weak and powerless that he couldn’t have safely vetoed that bill. I’ve decided that he’s strong enough that when it matters, he gets his people in line. I’ve seen him do it and I think he’d have done it here.

He got what he wanted in the bill and he supported it. So he signed it. The signing statement was for our benefit, to ease our outrage. Not because portions of the bill were so terrible that he felt uncomfortable they were included.

But the GOP would have called him “weak” on terror and use that against him in the election!

That’s just fucking tomfoolery. The GOP is probably at this very second doing up ads showing Americans behind fences, dressed in orange and a sign overhead that says “Guantanamo”. The scary voice will warn Americans who are already afraid that the scary black mooslim president is going to throw them in jail. The people in “Obama’s prisons” will be holding bibles in one hand and little crying blonde children in the other hand. The voice will insinuate that Obama will lock away anyone who speaks against him– roll scene with teapartiers locked in Gitmo. BAM!

There is nothing this president will do or has ever done that will not be used against him to scare the fuck out of white, christian voters. This just gave them a bit of a larger demographic– those who do not trust government and who are afraid of what happens when the president gets too much power like that. You may laugh and call them kooks. But they’re also voters. They may not be afraid of scurry mooslims, but those people are scared to death that our country will become some goddamned totalitarian/fascist/nazi strong hold. They will see those fucking ads.

The really bad ones have already lost their minds and have run from Obama when news of the signing came out. But there are the others that will see those ads. I can see them now, al Awalaki will become a martyr to them because he was a citizen that our President assassinated without benefit of trial. “Who else will he assassinate?”, the scary voice whispers.

So, he was afraid of looking “weak” in a GOP ad. Which one of those ads would Democrats prefer to see at this point?

But the military families would have gone without FOOD.

Besides the fact that military paychecks would not have stopped, that’s just overall bullshit. He shamed the GOP with the unemployment extension, and those people were going to lose their money right before Christmas. Yet, he was willing to risk that their benefits. That was ok for the unemployed to potentially lose their holiday, get their utilities disconnected or lose their homes. Democratic leadership was going to keep Congress in D.C. until the UE extension passed. President Obama went on the offensive and asked Americans to call their congresscritter and demand they pass the extension. And then the GOP caved.

He threatened to veto the bill already. He was already playing hardball. He got what he wanted and if that hadn’t happened then hypothetically military families were going to suffer⁴. So, no, he wasn’t forced to sign the NDAA in order to ensure military families received their money. That’s a bullshit excuse.

But the signing statement!

You can read the entire signing statement here. I’m putting a portion of it here.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

The biggest problem with the signing statement is very clear: President Obama will not be the president forever and ever amen. He is, as of now, restricted to two terms by the highest law of the land. Because I am not an idiot, I realize that this law in the hands of someone, I dunno, like George W. Bush is going to be very, very bad for our Constitution. Especially if we get some nutter who decides that “belligerent acts” against the U.S. include pitching a tent in Zucotti Park without a permit. Those protesters can be deemed hostile, become “terrorists” and are then potentially thrown into a cell somewhere until the “end of hostilities”–which probably will never come because we’ll be fighting the War on Terror until god knows when. It’s no longer just about al Qaeda. It’s about anyone “hostile” to the United States and our “interests”⁵. Let another GWB get a hold of that and see what happens.

And we’re supposed to believe that the NDAA is too broad for President Obama with regards to detentions and fighting this “war”. However, the words “restricting” and “minimally acceptable” and “flexibility” stand out to me. There are too many restrictions in this law. The restrictions inhibit their ability to get information and keep us safe⁶. That is alarming to me. This is a Bush policy. It is codified into law and now he’s signed it.

We can blame Congress until the cows come home. But I said it on Twitter and I’ll say it here– when he signed it, it became his. Just like the laws Bush signed– they became his, not the Congress that gave them to him. There’s this amazing tool that Presidents have to prevent abhorrent bills from becoming laws: the veto pen.

It was current law/status quo/nothing changed. It was like this since Bush, so what’s so bad about it now?

Because Bush was a wonderful President, right? Nothing at all wrong with his policies. No one expected those policies to change drastically. I mean, Progressives who voted for the end to Bush military policy regard the War on Terror certainly have no reason to complain. Nothing changed! Why, that right there is why it’s good enough.

That weak sauce is worth nothing but total mockery. It’s a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Instead of being pissed at our guy for signing this piece of shit, we’re just going to pretend it was never that bad to begin with. It’s the “Our Guy is the good guy so everything he does is SUPER” argument. Similar to “My kid is the good kid so if she regularly steals from the store that’s SUPER.”

Why do we care about terrorists? They’re not Americans and want to kill us.

Ah, it’s always refreshing when that freaking worm turns. Here we have Nutter talking points spewed by so-called progressives. Isn’t that so cute? As they sit on Twitter, attacking any progressive who doesn’t agree with them, they sometimes laugh at Teatards for being hypocrites and misinformed, but have no problem spouting talking points straight from Rove circa 2005. I’ll consider, for a split second, that they aren’t hypocrites themselves. That must mean they really did support these policies under Bush and are, therefore, fake fucking liberals/ratfuckers.

Since this thing has been signed, I have seen many self-described progressives poo-pooing the rest of us as deranged and hair-on-fire, while they twist themselves silly trying to excuse Bush so they can’t be decried as hypocrites and/or liars. They will claim that our President is so weak that he can get nothing done because of Congress⁷, but that he is a strong leader for having to compromise. Or some such shit.

So, while I was working on this long-ass post⁸, another interesting thing happened. More Bush apologia from one of the biggest opportunists on Twitter:

Bush’s complex issues were distorted by Glenn Greenwald.

This was probably made because he has a huge flame-war going on with Greenwald. I get that. People are generally stupid when they’re trying to smash someone else’s argument. Greenwald’s argument is the civil liberties violations that the NDAA contains are bad; they were bad when Bush did it and they’re bad now that Obama is doing it. So, the argument used against that is Bush’s issues were “distorted” for all those years. We’re so eager to make the furtherance of Bush policy palatable that we’ll go ahead and make the entire Bush era ok. I can’t even properly mock that because it’s so fucking ridiculous that it mocks itself.

nuPUMAs, fauxgressives, PragHags, what-the-fuck-ever you want to call it these excuses are made in a way that’s dishonest and laughable. Well, I guess I can’t say “dishonest” because I’m wondering if those pushing these arguments the hardest were actually progressives to begin with. So let’s call them “revealing” instead. I’m having a really hard time believing, at this point, that they ever had a problem with Bush’s War on Terra. If that’s true, then they aren’t being dishonest, are they? They aren’t being inconsistent in their beliefs, either. I will maintain that their arguments are inconsistent and dishonest, though. If they can’t make that round peg fit into the square hole, they sure will force that motherfucker in there.

I supported Obama⁹ through most of the insurance fight. I was not crying in my beer wishing for my pony. I was glad that he signed Lily Ledbetter and that he increased Pell grants. I was glad when GLBT servicemen and women were allowed to serve openly. We were all happy that the occupation of Iraq ended¹⁰. I’m happy he didn’t cave on the XL pipeline (yet). He did some recess appointments today that were good. This post isn’t about all of those other things. And anyone who knows my history, knows that I did support him when I decided against Clinton. I knew I would have some disappointments¹¹ from what he said and to whom he said them. He was very good at talking out of both sides of his mouth. I knew there would be no change, rainbows or lollipops. I did not, however, believe that he would continue with the idiocy Bush/Cheney began with this War on Terra. If there was a single issue that glued the Progressive blogosphere together throughout GWB’s entire tenure, it was our hatred of that “war”. By signing the NDAA, Obama told that portion of his base that he didn’t hear a fucking thing we said about the war.

For the people who have been screaming, writing, and hair-on-fire against this war since Bush started it, that really does matter. There’s nothing inconsistent with that. There most certainly was no distortion of Bush policies. The people who supported Bush and have no problem with the continuance of those policies, who also support Obama, well, I guess they’ll find any reason to support their guy– even if it means making up bullshit excuses.

Reviewed by Tricia

1. The same Bush that progressives were screaming be brought to trial for war crimes.
2. “Debunk” usually means there is a myth being exposed as false. The NDAA is not a myth. It’s a fact and it’s a law. There’s no “debunking” that bullshit.
3. Possibly even Republicans.
4. Not really because they would’ve continued to get their pay, but we’ll play along for now.
5. Considering who decide those interests at this point, that bit is terrifying by itself.
6. Where have we all heard that before?
7. And couldn’t get anything done with the previous Congress, mind you, though they do credit him solely for passing the Affordable Care Act.
8. Considering how unfocused I am anymore, it’s a surprise I’ve made it this far.
9. I hate having to put this disclaimer, damn it all. My history stands in my archives.
10. Not the War on Terror, though. Just the occupation of Iraq.
11. Like when he came to my school and promised to rein in NAFTA and fill our manufacturing plants with solar panels and other new innovation. Then he went to Brownsville, TX and told them he would keep NAFTA because they were doing well on the border. Pandering bullshit.