Bricker the troll

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11603419&postcount=682

There’s a point at which your attempts to imagine wrongdoing by Acorn, and refusal to admit that you understand the difference between voter fraud and flagging phony registrations that they legally still had to submit, crossed the line into trolling. You crossed it last fall, but nearly a year later you are still stirring the same shit. I expect this from idiots like Clothahump, but I hoped you were better than that. You are not, and I am very disappointed in you.

The charge of “troll” is useless and false, IMO.

On the other hand, I’d like to see Bricker contrast ACORN’s situation with Glen Beck’s situation, and the uncomfortable rumors that persist about his rape and murder of a girl during the 1990s. To paraphrase Bricker, “it’s beyond cavil that Glen Beck’s publicity problem exists. Beck has to do something to manage his response, and in my opinion, taking your approach of denying that a real problem exists and doing nothing at all except for repeating the denial will not be a productive response.”

In other words, Bricker, stipulate for a second that ACORN really has done nothing wrong, that the facts don’t support a publicity problem. Stipulate that they’re already undertaking the highest level of due diligence that they can without crippling their organization. Stipulate that this level of due diligence leads to a crime rate among employees that compares favorably to the rate of many Fortune 500 companies.

What would you propose be their response then?

“We are not angry, just very, very disappointed.”

Seconded, sort of, with a suggestion that the charge of troll be amended. There are a few real honest-to-Og trolls here, lumping Bricker amongst them is putting the Geico gecko up with Godzilla.

I don’t see trolling, either-- just trying to make a mountain out of molehill.

As far as I know, no one disputes that Acorn had to submit the registrations that got. The complaints about Acorn are that an unusually large number of the registrations they submitted were fraudulent, and that Acorn’s voter registration policies were such as to encourage fraudulent registration.

But mountains at least bear some resemblance to molehills. What Bricker is doing here is trying to make a cuisinart out of a molehill.

I’m not sure that it’s trolling either, but it is far from honest debate.

Are there other organizations that register the number of people that ACORN does? If they are the largest (I’m not claiming they are. I don’t know), then you’d expect them to have the most fraudulent registrations.

Has anyone seen any such stats? I’d be very interested.

Please guys, I beg of you, let’s not overuse the term “troll” any more than we already do. You all know what it means. It’s a very very very specific set of behavior that we can all recognize. Doing something shitty or saying a lie or disagreeing with your line of thinking is not trollish behavior. Bricker isn’t a troll, and the quote you’ve cited don’t reveal him to be one.

Disingenuous maybe, but not a troll.

It resembles concern trolling.

“Unusually large”? Do you mean in comparison with all the other organizations out there specializing in contacting and registering poor people? And who might they be, pray? Its a tough racket, and who’s going to finance it? Sure as hell not the Bush admin, they loved ACORN about like gonorrhea.

Now, you come up with a workable scheme to contact and register settled and comfortable voters, who are likely to lean Pubbie… Well, lets just say that you will likely find some civic minded people who will donate generously, given their deep and abiding love for, ah, democracy.

And what “registration policies” do you mean? How can there be “policies” in something so tautly regulated? Even if I laugh in your face while I sign “Micky Mouse” to my registration form (“Ha, ha, fuck you, you radical dipshit…”), you still have to turn it in! You are not authorized to decide even the most blatant case of bullshit.

Which is, of course, how it must be. Maybe ACORN isn’t doing a great job of bringing the poor into the civic arena, but I don’t see anybody else even trying!

The right hates, hates hates ACORN! If they can use voter fraud to bring them down, they will. If they can use health code violations, they will. The Mann Act, white slavery charges? Hugh Betcha.

And, you know, I warned you guys about this, way back when we were arguing about relaxing our membership guidelines to include attorneys. I was firmly against it, you will remember. And I got accused of juriphobia. amongst other unseemly suggestions. And I got voted down, well, OK.

Now see whats happened! By my rough reckoning, we have as many as a dozen lawyers on the Boards! (Which doesn’t include Spavined Gelding, who has the Orville Redenbacher exemption). With entirely predictable results.

Told you so!

Bricker is not a troll, and on the subject of ACORN as it has been discussed in that thread, he’s closer to being fair and accurate than my fellow travelers are. I’m continually amazed at how effective a good pair of blinders are.

Then ACORN should make goddamn sure that they are above even the appearance of impropriety shouldn’t they? That’s what I’d do if I knew I was a target.

Everyone we disagree with is a troll now?

Just making sure I’m keeping up.

Nah. The problem is that Bricker is, on the one hand, simply choosing to ignore the fact that ACORN is required to submit all registrations, and is then, on the other hand, throwing up ACORN’s publicity problems as justification for his position.

I agree ACORN has publicity problems right now. Some stem from recent revelations about certain ACORN employees caught advising on illegal activities such as prostitution, child trafficking, etc. Other publicity problems stem from the issue of voter registration.

But the voter registration thing is a red herring. While it might have contributed to the publicity problem ACORN is having, the reason for this is NOT that ACORN was engaged in systematic voter fraud, but that conservative mudslinging on the issue has been so pervasive that some of the mud has stuck.

Arguing that ACORN should address the voting thing because of its publicity problem is simply buying into the argument that the voter registration thing was ever a genuine reason to slam ACORN. It wasn’t.

Well, this has been a problem ever since “troll” was removed from the list of banned words. It has turned into just another insult, devoid of its actual meaning. The board would be a better place if we replaced “cunt” with “troll” on the banned insults list, IMO.

Perhaps “troll” is now just a euphemism for cunt?

I mean, both are naturally hairy, stinky, and you must answer their “riddles” in order to cross.

There has been more than one ACORN employee convicted of voter registration fraud. This is not a matter of simply submitting bullshit registrations that people give them, but of altering or creating the registrations. There are institutional problems in ACORN - something wrong with the way it’s managed and directed - so much so that it is sponsoring an independent investigation of itself.

I’ll be sorry if ACORN goes away; their purpose is good, and I support it. But if they can’t change to the point where lax supervision and horrible mismanagement is no longer creating the ability for so many rotten apples to take advantage, then they should go away. In that case, I believe another, and hopefully a better, organization will rise to fill the vacuum. It’s not like it’s ACORN or nothing, despite the pessimistic view of some.

This is a very dishonest accusation.

Earlier in that thread, I posted as follows:

I was then challenged on that point by Lightnin’:

So I’m asked to create a hypothetical. Note that I am not claiming this is happening. I’m responding to the question about the possible hamrs that could result from a lax process of verifying voter registration information. It was in this context that I said:

In high dudgeon, you then complain that I’m imagining wrongdoing, completely ignoring the fact that I’m responding to a request for an example to provide some imagined wrongdoing.

If that were so, then I’d say their problem lies in how ineffectively they’re communicating the truth that “…they’re already undertaking the highest level of due diligence that they can without crippling their organization.”

And my recommendation for their response would be more transparant and clear communication of these highly effective due diligence procedures.

Now that I have answered your hypothetical… do you in fact wish to contend that they are already undertaking the highest level of due diligence that they can without crippling their organization?