Replies

I am ambivalent about Sarah (though I was a huge fan before she didn’t run, and am open to supporting her in the future if her opponents are typical for the establishment), so take this for what it is worth. And it goes for all of the pro-Sarah crew you roll with.

Every so often, a candidate shows up on here. I’ll use Sarah as an example, but it could be Hunter, it could be Romney, it could be McCain, Thompson, any candidate.

People show up spewing a lot of phony crap about them, and it clearly has an agenda. Think Romney attacking Sarah. People rightly call them on the BS, but then these supporters begin to see any attack as the same as the BS. Pretty soon, if anybody utters any criticism about the candidate, groups of supporters show up to browbeat them into silence with personal attacks, attributions of malevolent motives, and ridicule.

This creates a new dynamic, among the masses who observe, but don’t interact. One day, they see somebody post something which is mildly critical, but in a way which could be plausible, only to then be jumped on my a coordinated group, which procedes to name call, ridicule, and insult, until the mild critic gets tired of the fight and leaves. When this happens, it makes the place feel unwelcoming of free discussion.

The supporters, due to their zeal to defend their candidate against every slight, no matter how minor, end up looking as if they are trying to create a zero-tolerance environment, with no debate. That is generally something that people who value freedom will reflexively rebel against.

I have seen myself grow more irritated with candidates, due to the actions of their zealous supporters on here, than I have been irritated with the actual candidate, and I am sure you will have seen this in yourself as well.

Sometimes, the best thing for your caiddate is to let the debate rage, and let each person’s argument rest on the merits of their case, rather than taking things personal, ascribing personal motives to their arguments, or worse, trying to ridicule them or out-group them.

As an example, if somebody insults Sarah’s leadership, post her accomplishments, but don’t then start name calling, or ascribing motives to the opponent. Don’t insist they leave the thread, or say they aren’t Conseratives, or feel you need the last word. Answer fact with fact, and let the readers decide, especially if their last answer doesn’t address your facts.

LA might have been a Sarah voter one day, if she was paired off against bigger establishment politicians. I have voted for both McCain and Romney, though I loathed both But brow-beat LA enough, and he will crawl over broken glass to vote against her for a Romney, just to screw you and your gang. I know, because I supported McCain in 08 at the end of the primary (and I hated McCain), just because it was him vs Romney. I knew little enough about Romney at that point that I might have supported him to screw McCain, had all Romney’s supporters here not been so obnoxious with Thompson and Hunter.

In ‘12, I opposed Romney duringthe primary for a lot of reasons, but the underhanded crap with Sarah, and his supporters here were a large part.

So consider sometimes, you are better off letting a small, generic criticism be, and just ignoring it, or leaving a small unemotional, fact based post that can’t be attacked. A lot of the lurkers on here are introverts, who will tend to have a strong irritation with any coordinated attempt to gang up on someone for what they say, rather than simply showing where they are wrong.

Food for thought.