But this thread isn’t a rant against Bernie, it’s a question about a political tactic. For example, there are media companies that will hire people to go online and praise your restaurant and trash your competitors.
I pointed out that I thought it was interesting that I saw some of the vicious anti-Hillary comments, complete with hashtags in the comments section of the New Yorker and Foreign affairs, which is pretty far from the norm there.
The comments I’ve seen on The Economist, NY Times, WaPO, etc., are so vitriolic and anti-Hillary that I wonder if they are actually right-wing paid trolls.
They normalize the idea that "I’m never voting for that war-monger-hawk!!!1!"and make it seem viable and a vote of conscience, they show that ersatz-Sanders supporters will only support him (or vote Green), and they get Hillary folks angry so that real Sanders supporters think that Hillary supporters are officious jerks. Sowing dissent within the Dem party, if you will.
So it’s not a rant against Sanders - it’s merely an accusation of him using an offensive and sneaky political tactic. Why so touchy, Bernheads?
I don’t know what Revolution Messaging actually does, but I highly doubt the Sanders campaign has to pay people to post obnoxious comments. All it takes is one DailyKos or Reddit poster to point out the latest (so-called) hit piece against Sanders, and the Bernheads* come out in force. I haven’t gone looking, but I’m sure there’s plenty of pro-Sanders/anti-Hillary diatribes out there ready to be cut and pasted.
*Not All Bernheads
If Hillary Clinton was making a video game, paying people to speak positively of her product without disclosing the fact that they are being paid for the endorsement would be rightly considered dodgy behaviour. Why would you want to hold someone trying to become the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military on the planet to a lower standard of ethics than someone who makes toys?
Silly behavior, no matter who is doing it. If you aren’t paid and you’re getting into flame wars in comments sections, you’re doing more harm than good. If you are getting paid, well, I guess you’re getting paid. So there’s that.
Apples and oranges. “Countering negative statements” about either a product or a candidate is not the same thing as shilling for the product or candidate (your “speak positively of her product without disclosing the fact that they are being paid for the endorsement”).
For example, there is a fundamental difference between these two posts:
versus
If a post contains verifiable facts that counter false accusations, then it doesn’t much matter what the poster’s motivations may have been (pay or otherwise). Non-specific praise, of course, should be taken with a grain of salt, whether about games or politicians; a paid source is always a possibility.
Sherrerd said it too. There’s a difference between countering falsehoods and shilling. Whether you want to believe that there are falsehoods about Clinton probably dictates how you feel about her countering the claims.
There’s another way to look at it too. By claiming Clinton is being unethical or should not try to fight back, you’re basically saying she doesn’t have the right to go online and post like you and I have. She can go online or hire people to go online and say anything she pleases. It sounds like what she’s doing is going after people in comments sections and message boards. She is free to say almost anything she wants in there
And you classify that as a “professional troll company” why?
Without weighing in on the does he or doesn’t he debate, I will note that if you unsubscribe from r/politics, then blissful quiet reigns.
OK, I’ll weigh in a little. I think the generation that most strongly supports Bernie is also the generation that grew up trash talking on video games and social media. It seems to foster a very black and white, no shades of grey, scorched Earth mindset in which winning is everything. They’re also of the age where they get very passionate about stuff. So there might be some astroturfing going on, but I think the majority of the anti-Hillary sentiment is just positive reinforcement from within the Bernie bubble – “all the other Bernie supporters say Hillary is a horrible person, so I’ll repost this clickbait article that supports that view and get some karma”.
Because only Trolls would work for Bernie Sanders, The Prince of Darkness.
I wonder how many Bros are kicking themselves reading this, saying “I coulda got paid?”
Lets get one thing clear. A troll is specifically someone that takes an extreme view that they don’t believe in, in order to get a reaction. If a young Bernie supporter believes in what they are saying, then no matter how obnoxious they are, they are not a troll.
If you want to see Trolling in this election cycle then go see reddit’s forum The Donald (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/). While no doubt there are some genuine Donald supporters on there, a lot of them are just doing it “for the lolz”, because they love pushing controversial posts up onto the front page of reddit and seeing the “SJW” (Social Justice Warriors) react.
Look, all the candidates have trolls.
The difference is that Bernie has real ones, imported from Norway.
Vote for Bernie. Or the trolls will know you didn’t, and they ain’t gonna like it.
Very odd, Pro-Sanders groups on social media are claiming that pro-Hillary groups orchestrated an online takedown of Pro-Sanders Facebook groups. I’m calling BS on this. This sounds like the tactic that extreme social justice warriors will engage in, and I suspect pro-Sanders people engaged in an attack on their own Facebook pages.
Ah, so that’s how Scandinavian-style socialism works!
Yeah, one Clinton supporter admitted reporting lots of posts on Bernie FB pages. Big deal.
Yes, it’s much less odd if it was self sabotage despite a certain “Bros for Hillary” member being specifically identified.:rolleyes: Get a fucking grip dude. Hillary is getting the nomination. Relax.
Wait, so now Democrats are using ‘social justice warrior’ as an insult too?
Only if you think dalej42 is a democrat.